So I said there is a difference of about 200ms. But humans cannot typically react faster than 200-300 ms. Even young people. Because it takes ~ 200ms for a signal to be sent. So I’m suspicious of this result.
I used to do research on reaction time. We throw out any number under 150 because it’s considered not humanly possible and it’s an error measurement.
Keep mine. It really does depend on tests. A lot of the online tests start with a negative offset to account for ping. So a 160 you would typically add anywhere from 30 to 60 on average. The better online tests will actually run a short ping test in jitter test to set the offset more accurately. Most though don’t and just use a fixed value. The annoying part is it’s usually in the fine print somewhere that you have to manually f****** re-add it. They don’t tell you that it has a offset. So that way the numbers look lower. It’s stupid but it’s the trend.
My rule of thumb is most of the time the devs just slap a 50 in there surround number and it kind of covers most bases. So a 160 would be a 210. Which for a test where you can do it repeatedly and be hyper fixated on knowing what you’re doing. You can get pretty damn close to 200, not reliably but that’s going to be like you’re 1% best result which is what people f****** posting.
Like for example, my best results in these sort of tests accounting for offsetter between 190 and 210. But that’s like one in 50 tries. Where my normals closer to like like 230.
And usually I have like a 10 millisecond variance on my average tries.
So I said there is a difference of about 200ms. But humans cannot typically react faster than 200-300 ms. Even young people. Because it takes ~ 200ms for a signal to be sent. So I’m suspicious of this result.
I used to do research on reaction time. We throw out any number under 150 because it’s considered not humanly possible and it’s an error measurement.
I rarely saw 200.
Usually people hovered around 300 to 400.
Also I was doing research on 18-20 year olds
Keep mine. It really does depend on tests. A lot of the online tests start with a negative offset to account for ping. So a 160 you would typically add anywhere from 30 to 60 on average. The better online tests will actually run a short ping test in jitter test to set the offset more accurately. Most though don’t and just use a fixed value. The annoying part is it’s usually in the fine print somewhere that you have to manually f****** re-add it. They don’t tell you that it has a offset. So that way the numbers look lower. It’s stupid but it’s the trend.
My rule of thumb is most of the time the devs just slap a 50 in there surround number and it kind of covers most bases. So a 160 would be a 210. Which for a test where you can do it repeatedly and be hyper fixated on knowing what you’re doing. You can get pretty damn close to 200, not reliably but that’s going to be like you’re 1% best result which is what people f****** posting.
Like for example, my best results in these sort of tests accounting for offsetter between 190 and 210. But that’s like one in 50 tries. Where my normals closer to like like 230.
And usually I have like a 10 millisecond variance on my average tries.