Perception speed versus reaction speed

[GrathOfLux]

(Also, I think most cases don't have them, like, literally being invisible; many of them just have a character shocked at a sudden appearance, an actual statement ruling out them being a blur is uncommon)

I'll reiterate this:

It's not a standard that should be handled carelessly - it should be clearly delineated when something should qualify for a perception speed blitz over reaction speed blitzing, and I don't think that would always be an easy task - but I certainly think both the evidence and basic experience of the world can affirm that there's no good reason to conflate the two if that is how we still treat it.

When this standard should apply is its own question, and not an easy one. But that's not a reason to throw out the standard entirely. You say it would be uncommon to have a situation like the one you describe, but what about that uncommon instance when it does happen? This is a better-evidenced approach, by any angle you can look it at from, then reducing all such feats down to generic reaction speed blitzing.

 

[Agnaa]

The thing is that while it's not perfect, I don't see why conflating perception speed with reaction speed is a better approach. It honestly kinda downplays perception blitzes because there's a stark difference between the two

I'll reiterate this:

When this standard should apply is its own question, and not an easy one. But that's not a reason to throw out the standard entirely. You say it would be uncommon to have a situation like the one you describe, but what about that uncommon instance when it does happen? This is a better-evidenced approach, by any angle you can look it at from, then reducing all such feats down to generic reaction speed blitzing.

Is it a better evidenced approach? Could you share the research you brought up in the last thread?

Kinda, but also not really. There are also multiple examples of characters being like "I didn't even see a thing!" or something like that. Here's one off the top of my head.

Yeah, I know of some too, but I think those probably comprise ~15% of blitzing feats.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah, I know of some too, but I think those probably comprise ~15% of blitzing feats.

Oh, I agree. But I think it is important to accurately note those instead of lumping them in with reaction blitzes. As Grath has said, we've gotta be careful to make the difference super clear so we don't have 5 million attempts at making everything ever a perception blitz, but that's the case with most things (handling them to make sure they don't get wanked into oblivion, I mean).

 

[TheRustyOne]

Perception speed is just not quantifiable for our systems, to my knowledge at least. Perception speed is just an unknown amount higher than reactions right now.

There are many variables than just speed at play here. Distance, size of object, lighting of the area, colors of the area, focusing or not, acceleration, repetition, and many more. Reaction speed is far easier to quantify than perception speed. While reaction speed isn't simple, don't get me wrong, it's not the mess that is perception speed.

The reasoning of being able to follow a motor cycle at top speed is absurd. That doesn't mean anything. If a motor cycle was 3 meters in front of you and accelerated to top speed instantly, you'd be unable to even react or track where it went. Heck, when it comes to acceleration, the same is true with human speed as well.

If someone is 2 meters away from you and instantly accelerates to 12.42 m/s towards you. You'd be unable to do anything, maybe your eyes start to close on reflex/instinct. That's why blitzes from so close give such low values. Because at that distance, your acceleration is just as important as your top speed.

Honestly, I feel like acceleration is something we don't consider enough on this wiki.

It's also impossible for real perceptions blitzes to occur in reality, and you cannot accurately measure perception time by asking someone. There's a reason why the pilots in a certain study were able to notice something that flashed by in 1/220 of a second. First off, it's impossible for you to have such perception because the time it takes for the signal to travel from your eyes to your brain is greater than that. By the time they recognized the image, it was already gone. That's not a real perception timeframe.

The issue I believe is that there are too many variables. And when dealing with timeframes this low, the slightest change can cause massive differences in results.

The 13 millisecond study is about how people respond, it's not about things disappearing from our line of sight. Also, 13 milliseconds is about the time it takes for the signal from your eyes to reach your brain. Which makes sense why normal people would struggle with anything that happens faster than that.

What's being noticed in certain situations also depends on what you're looking for. Waiting for a certain flash or effect in a game can be far easier than waiting for some kind of movement from an opponent. How alert you are is a factor as well. If someone is casual, they're reactions and perception time would be far slower.

 

[Vzearr]

There are many variables than just speed at play here. Distance, size of object, lighting of the area, colors of the area, focusing or not, acceleration, repetition, and many more. Reaction speed is far easier to quantify than perception speed. While reaction speed isn't simple, don't get me wrong, it's not the mess that is perception speed.

Actually, reaction speed is far harder to quantify than perception speed, our current standards for reaction speed have people fully focusing, focus doesn't affect perception speed, or at least, not as much as you say it does.

The reasoning of being able to follow a motor cycle at top speed is absurd. That doesn't mean anything. If a motor cycle was 3 meters in front of you and accelerated to top speed instantly, you'd be unable to even react or track where it went. Heck, when it comes to acceleration, the same is true with human speed as well.

This just isn't true, acceleration doesn't affect perception.

If someone is 2 meters away from you and instantly accelerates to 12.42 m/s towards you. You'd be unable to do anything, maybe your eyes start to close on reflex/instinct. That's why blitzes from so close give such low values. Because at that distance, your acceleration is just as important as your top speed.

This is regarding reactions, not perception.

It's also impossible for real perceptions blitzes to occur in reality

That isn't true.

and you cannot accurately measure perception time by asking someone. There's a reason why the pilots in a certain study were able to notice something that flashed by in 1/220 of a second. First off, it's impossible for you to have such perception because the time it takes for the signal to travel from your eyes to your brain is greater than that. By the time they recognized the image, it was already gone. That's not a real perception timeframe.

You're misinterpreting the difference between reaction speed and perception speed.

How alert you are is a factor as well. If someone is casual, they're reactions and perception time would be far slower.

Why exactly are you using this to debunk perception speed and not reaction speed, by your logic, we shouldn't allow for reaction speed to be quantified as well.

The issue I believe is that there are too many variables. And when dealing with timeframes this low, the slightest change can cause massive differences in results.

Focus doesn't affect it as much as you think, you're overreacting here.