# Reaction time game



## Erik (Mar 3, 2008)

How fast is your reaction time?
My pb at this game is currently 0.1518 sec (will be updated  )
http://games.flabber.nl/schaap.reactie/


----------



## Rama (Mar 3, 2008)

Rocketing Rabbit 0.1864


----------



## Pedro (Mar 3, 2008)

average: 0.1972
0.242
0.201
0.178
0.173
0.192

EDIT:
average: 0.1636
0.129
0.188
0.123
0.189
0.189

average: 0.1606
0.119
0.190
0.126
0.180
0.188

what does it take to be a Turbo-charged cheetah?


----------



## joey (Mar 3, 2008)

I got a 0.063 single!


----------



## MAHTI-ANSSI (Mar 3, 2008)

0.2008 average


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 3, 2008)

That is such a dumb game. Try this: http://www.onzin.com/games/grid16.html


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 3, 2008)

I think I win 







I like the time for sheep 2


----------



## MistArts (Mar 3, 2008)

0.064 second is my best


----------



## Dene (Mar 3, 2008)

I'm not that fast, around 0.2. I have to admit though, those are the fastest sheep I've ever seen, and I should know... As for your game Mr. van Galen, I had no idea what to do on some of them, so it didn't make it easy


----------



## Hadley4000 (Mar 4, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> I think I win
> 
> 
> 
> ...










Number 4. I don't understand it.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 4, 2008)

I think I'll stick to blindsolving  My best averages are around 0.22 second. My average average is more like 0.24 second.

Fastest single so far is 0.181 second.

Is it true that reaction time is considered part of the measure of "Intelligence"? (for my sake I hope not!)  I have also heard that having fast reaction time when you are older is an indicator that you are likely to have a longer life expectancy. I think it was something about when you are older and have fast reaction time you are less likely to develop things like Alzheimer's, and therefore your life expectancy is likely to be higher because of this.

Chris


----------



## Dene (Mar 4, 2008)

Definitely not a measure of intelligence. All IQ tests are based on things done with the brain. Imagine some huge fat guy, who couldn't move his finger? He could still be the smartest person on the earth.


----------



## abbracadiabra (Mar 4, 2008)

I sucked at both games. I couldn't figure out how to play Arnaud's game, and I couldn't manage to hit the sheep in Erik's game.


----------



## Dene (Mar 4, 2008)

You're meant to click on the tranquilizer dart. Is that what you were doing wrong?
Surely you could get them before they reached the end of the screen?


----------



## Karthik (Mar 4, 2008)

Erik's Game: 
4th Attempt: 0.062, 0.174, 0.115, 0.058, 0.126 = *0.107*
Rocketing Rabbit.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 4, 2008)

For http://www.onzin.com/games/grid16.html figuring out what you are supposed to do is part of the game. For most games it is about avoiding collisions, for others it is about making them. At the end you get a score for various skills. First try I got about 60-55-55, second try I got about 80-75-70

For the sheep it depends on the "mouse" I use. Laptop-Mousepad: 0.30, Laptop-Mousebutton: 0.25, USB-Mouse: 0.15


----------



## Inusagi (Mar 5, 2008)

0,123 is my best.

Average: 0,1646


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Mar 5, 2008)

0.181
0.180
0.180
0.181
0.193
Very consistent 



karthikputhraya said:


> Erik's Game:
> 4th Attempt: 0.062, 0.174, 0.115, 0.058, 0.126 = *0.107*
> Rocketing Rabbit.


Cheated?


As for Arnaud's game:


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 6, 2008)

0.1778 fastest average using a laptop mouse button instead of a wireless mouse. I still average average around 0.20-0.24

Chris


----------



## pjk (Mar 6, 2008)

My best was 0.130 seconds.


----------



## Karthik (Mar 6, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> karthikputhraya said:
> 
> 
> > Erik's Game:
> ...


Why do you think so?


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Mar 6, 2008)

Your times are so far apart, 0.174 is believable, and maybe 0.115 and 0.126 too, but nobody has reflexes under a second...
0.058, 0.062? Those are like impossible...

Did you just click randomly?


----------



## Karthik (Mar 6, 2008)

Didn't you get 0.00?And how do you expect one to cheat in this game?


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 6, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> nobody has reflexes under a second...




I just wanted to point out that all of these times are under 1 second. I'm pretty sure you meant to say nobody has reflexes under 1/10 of 1 second, but again be careful about how you word it. Otherwise it comes across strange to others.

Sorry, but this type of thing and also people who refer to *hundredths* of a second but call them *milliseconds* which are two very different magnitudes are things I wish people would watch out for more.

Chris


----------



## KConny (Mar 6, 2008)

#2: 0.187
#3 0.187
#4 0.185

Hehe, consistent.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Mar 6, 2008)

karthikputhraya said:


> Didn't you get 0.00?And how do you expect one to cheat in this game?



I didn't get 0.00 :x By cheating, I just mean clicking at a random time, without going by reflex...




cmhardw said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > nobody has reflexes under a second...
> ...



That's exactly what I meant to say, oops X_X


----------



## tim (Mar 7, 2008)

0.237
0.000
0.180
0.180
0.240

avg: 0.1674

very lucky .

my "real" average:
0.302
0.180
0.181
0.181
0.180
=> avg: 0.2048


----------



## Karthik (Mar 7, 2008)

I got 0.00 a couple of times.That doesn't reflect anything about your reflexes.May be some bug in the game.Not sure.If you can get 0.00, I assume 0.062 and 0.058 are not impossible.
And BTW I didn't "cheat"


----------



## sam (Mar 7, 2008)

Best on arnaud's game was :
80% reflexes
87% prioritizing
78% timing

I think i can do better...maybe ill try it later.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Mar 7, 2008)

karthikputhraya said:


> I assume 0.062 and 0.058 are not impossible.



Getting under 0.11 is highly unlikely...and getting half of that is basically inhuman. :/


----------



## Karthik (Mar 7, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> karthikputhraya said:
> 
> 
> > I assume 0.062 and 0.058 are not impossible.
> ...


Obviously I am referring to this particular game.This game doesn't show you your actual reaction time.So on a relative scale, if 0.00 is possible, anything above that must be possible.


----------



## Joël (Mar 7, 2008)

Rocketing rabbit... But it took a little practice.

0.185 0.124 0.187 0.186 0.191 = 0.1746 average.


Edit 1: 

I think I also win when it comes to lowest Standart Deviation:

0.186 0.188 0.189 0.188 0.186 = 0.1874
_Standard deviation = 0.001341641_ 

Edit 2:

New average record:

0.196 0.119 0.192 0.124 0.118 = 0.1498 average.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Mar 8, 2008)

karthikputhraya said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > karthikputhraya said:
> ...


It shows you your actual reaction time if you click when you actually see the sheep move...not when you randomly click.


----------



## Leviticus (Mar 8, 2008)

0.187
0.190
0.124
0.125
0.127

Average: 0.1506

It is possible to get under 0.100 "with" reacting, i got a 0.062  and 3 0.000 judging it


----------



## ExoCorsair (Mar 8, 2008)

On Grid16:

2nd time:
Prioritizing: 91%
Reflexes: 88%
Timing: 88%
Best Multi: 6.0


----------



## Johannes91 (Mar 8, 2008)

Joël said:


> I think I also win when it comes to lowest Standart Deviation:
> 
> 0.186 0.188 0.189 0.188 0.186 = 0.1874
> _Standard deviation = 0.001341641_


3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 => 3.0

\o/


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Mar 8, 2008)

Leviticus said:


> It is possible to get under 0.100 "with" reacting, i got a 0.062  and 3 0.000 judging it



Then the game is glitched, nobody has *real* reaction times that fast...


----------

