• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

VSBATTLE WIKI REVISION: PERCEPTION BLITZING

Status
Not open for further replies.
DarkGrath said:
We would stick to .2 seconds.

Our typical measurements of reaction time involve studies where someone will, say, be asked to press a button the moment they notice a change in an object (for example, being shown a red screen and being asked to press a button when it turns green). While this may sound very similar to what we've talked about previously, the processing needed to just instigate ourselves to press a button when we see an object change is substantially more complex and slower than merely our ability to subjectively perceive a change in the object.

While I'd like to do some specific personal research to verify this, what I recall from past research is that the average reaction time on these kinds of tests sits somewhere around 230ms. I'm quite confident from memory alone that it's no higher than 300ms, and no lower than 150ms, if that's of any value. Our standards for typical reaction times already reflect this quite well.
Click to expand...
I agree. I thought about it and yeah I can't prove otherwise.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I mostly skimmed through the thread and mostly open-minded. I know FTE feats are Subsonic at bare minimum; and vaguely recall studies saying 200 mph or 89 m/s was the speed required to cast afterimages. And there is something regarding the 1/70th second method which sounds good. Using some facts to calculate baselines for FTE look fine, but using FTE for multiplier stacking is what I might be iffy on.
Click to expand...

What do you think about @DarkGrath's proposal
 
DarkGrath said:
Out of curiosity, why have I been requested? I'm willing to help, of course, but I don't see how I'm relevant to the topic.

That aside:


Having looked through the thread and the sourced information thoroughly, I would be comfortable with this standard. That being said, I don't believe we can afford to brush off the results of the Davis et al. article mentioned earlier in the thread. Despite the previous articles implying a 50-90Hz (20-11.1ms) threshold, this particular article suggests that visual flickers can be observed at as much as 500Hz (2ms). As mentioned earlier, this is in part due to saccades - saccades are a natural aspect of our vision, and even occur to some extent while we are visually fixated on a subject, so we would expect to see them influence our perception in a natural environment. Furthermore, the article sheds light regarding the variables that influence this perception:

"We presented users with a modulated light source, and asked them to determine the level of ambient illumination under which flicker was just noticeable. We performed experiments both with spatially uniform light resembling most prior studies on the critical flicker fusion rate, as well as with a spatially varying image as would be common on display devices such as TVs and computer screens... In our experiments, uniform modulated light was produced by a DLP projector and consists of a solid “bright” frame followed by a solid “black” frame. The high spatial frequency image is first “bright on the left half of the frame and black on the right”, and then inverted. We observed the effect described in this paper whenever we displayed an image containing an edge and its inverse in rapid succession. The effect was even stronger with more complex content that contained more edges, such as that in natural images. We chose a simple image with a single edge to allow our experimental condition to be as repeatable as possible... When the modulated light source is spatially uniform, we obtain a contrast sensitivity curve that matches that reported in most textbooks and articles. Sensitivity drops to zero near 65 Hz. However, when the modulated light source contains a spatial high frequency edge, all viewers saw flicker artifacts over 200 Hz and several viewers reported visibility of flicker artifacts at over 800 Hz. For the median viewer, flicker artifacts disappear only over 500 Hz, many times the commonly reported flicker fusion rate."

To broadly summarise, then, flicker becomes more noticeable at higher frequencies when the shapes depicted are more complex and contain more edges, capping out at around 800Hz for a simple image with a single edge, and with a median of 500Hz. The problem that this article identifies with previous research on the topic is that we only find the 50-90Hz rate described by many previous articles when we use a spatially uniform source without a defined edge, such as a pulsating light fixture, and that the frequency at which we can detect flickers is significantly higher for the kinds of more complex, defined shapes we would observe in a natural environment.

While I would like to focus primarily on the objective evidence here, and not simply an unverifiable anecdote, I would also like to mention in passing that most people (including me) who have seen displays with variable refresh rates (i.e.: monitors that can go between 60-120Hz) can see the difference in image changes - there are some monitors that go upwards of 300Hz, and while the jumps are known to have diminishing returns, the differences produced are still noticeable.

If we're going to use this standard as a baseline for calculating feats in the future, we need to acknowledge the evidence that our ability to perceive differences in visual stimuli are much higher in natural circumstances than they are when observing spatially uniform stimuli. As a hypothetical example: if Person A was looking at Person B, and Person B travelled fast enough to vanish/appear somewhere else via speed alone, then the fact that Person B is a more complex shape with a defined edge (try picking someone up with that line) would suggest Person A's ability to detect changes in Person B's position should be far better attuned than it would be for a spatially uniform pulsating light. For that feat, I would suggest then that a 500Hz baseline is more congruent with the evidence.
Click to expand...
Looks legit
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
Not sure.
Click to expand...
I would normally be quite comfortable considering this passed - it has support by me, LephyrTheRevanchist, and DarkDragonMedeus, along with a lack of counterarguments and no further active discussion. However, since it is a pretty notable standard revision for the site, and it's particularly a standard revision related to calculation standards, I would prefer if at least one more administrator and one calc group member approved of this revision.
 
DarkGrath said:
I would normally be quite comfortable considering this passed - it has support by me, LephyrTheRevanchist, and DarkDragonMedeus, along with a lack of counterarguments and no further active discussion. However, since it is a pretty notable standard revision for the site, and it's particularly a standard revision related to calculation standards, I would prefer if at least one more administrator and one calc group member approved of this revision.
Click to expand...
Honestly, this should have the backing of more calc group members indeed.
 
DarkGrath said:
Out of curiosity, why have I been requested? I'm willing to help, of course, but I don't see how I'm relevant to the topic.

That aside:


Having looked through the thread and the sourced information thoroughly, I would be comfortable with this standard. That being said, I don't believe we can afford to brush off the results of the Davis et al. article mentioned earlier in the thread. Despite the previous articles implying a 50-90Hz (20-11.1ms) threshold, this particular article suggests that visual flickers can be observed at as much as 500Hz (2ms). As mentioned earlier, this is in part due to saccades - saccades are a natural aspect of our vision, and even occur to some extent while we are visually fixated on a subject, so we would expect to see them influence our perception in a natural environment. Furthermore, the article sheds light regarding the variables that influence this perception:

"We presented users with a modulated light source, and asked them to determine the level of ambient illumination under which flicker was just noticeable. We performed experiments both with spatially uniform light resembling most prior studies on the critical flicker fusion rate, as well as with a spatially varying image as would be common on display devices such as TVs and computer screens... In our experiments, uniform modulated light was produced by a DLP projector and consists of a solid “bright” frame followed by a solid “black” frame. The high spatial frequency image is first “bright on the left half of the frame and black on the right”, and then inverted. We observed the effect described in this paper whenever we displayed an image containing an edge and its inverse in rapid succession. The effect was even stronger with more complex content that contained more edges, such as that in natural images. We chose a simple image with a single edge to allow our experimental condition to be as repeatable as possible... When the modulated light source is spatially uniform, we obtain a contrast sensitivity curve that matches that reported in most textbooks and articles. Sensitivity drops to zero near 65 Hz. However, when the modulated light source contains a spatial high frequency edge, all viewers saw flicker artifacts over 200 Hz and several viewers reported visibility of flicker artifacts at over 800 Hz. For the median viewer, flicker artifacts disappear only over 500 Hz, many times the commonly reported flicker fusion rate."

To broadly summarise, then, flicker becomes more noticeable at higher frequencies when the shapes depicted are more complex and contain more edges, capping out at around 800Hz for a simple image with a single edge, and with a median of 500Hz. The problem that this article identifies with previous research on the topic is that we only find the 50-90Hz rate described by many previous articles when we use a spatially uniform source without a defined edge, such as a pulsating light fixture, and that the frequency at which we can detect flickers is significantly higher for the kinds of more complex, defined shapes we would observe in a natural environment.

While I would like to focus primarily on the objective evidence here, and not simply an unverifiable anecdote, I would also like to mention in passing that most people (including me) who have seen displays with variable refresh rates (i.e.: monitors that can go between 60-120Hz) can see the difference in image changes - there are some monitors that go upwards of 300Hz, and while the jumps are known to have diminishing returns, the differences produced are still noticeable.

If we're going to use this standard as a baseline for calculating feats in the future, we need to acknowledge the evidence that our ability to perceive differences in visual stimuli are much higher in natural circumstances than they are when observing spatially uniform stimuli. As a hypothetical example: if Person A was looking at Person B, and Person B travelled fast enough to vanish/appear somewhere else via speed alone, then the fact that Person B is a more complex shape with a defined edge (try picking someone up with that line) would suggest Person A's ability to detect changes in Person B's position should be far better attuned than it would be for a spatially uniform pulsating light. For that feat, I would suggest then that a 500Hz baseline is more congruent with the evidence.
Click to expand...
Yeah with this I think I can really get behind this and agree to the proposal
 
I'm not super invested in this, but I will say that on top of all the baggage DontTalk has already brought up, this would be little over a x2 increase to calcs that qualify for full on blitzes and thus use a .029 timeframe, which would be applicable in basically any scenario where it's impossible for someone to react rather than exactly when conditions don't mess with visibility

So it's risking throwing in another factor to muddy the accuracy of calcs for an overall kinda minor increase, and I don't see that much of a point to pushing it as much as it's been pushed
 
But all of the baggage which were brought up had all been addressed thoroughly. There are guidelines put in place in the OP that reflect most of his concerns anyway. DT just doesn’t seem interested in this thread anymore and that’s unfortunate. But we have to move on I guess.

Also I don’t really care if it’s a minor increase, I aim towards accuracy. But thanks for your input tho.
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
Bumpppp
Click to expand...
Arnold your a legend

However I do believe if this is accepted to be used for calcs there should be one more requirement added

Since this would effect alot of "Blitzing" calculations I believe this should only apply to instances in which there is confirmation in some way that the person or persons blitzed couldn't see the attacker at all

Such as spoken confirmation from the attacker or the attacked
Or thoughts of the same manner from the attacker or the attacked
Or the attacked not responding in any way to the blitz and not noticing they disappeared

This is just to make sure every instance of a blitz doesn't result in outrageous values for peak human to low superhuman characters
 
Shmeatywerbenmanjenson said:
However I do believe if this is accepted to be used for calcs there should be one more requirement added

Since this would effect alot of "Blitzing" calculations I believe this should only apply to instances in which there is confirmation in some way that the person or persons blitzed couldn't see the attacker at all

Such as spoken confirmation from the attacker or the attacked
Or thoughts of the same manner from the attacker or the attacked
Or the attacked not responding in any way to the blitz and not noticing they disappeared
Click to expand...

I do agree with this, however, I believe it's already accounted for within the constraints of what has been discussed on the thread.

Arnoldstone18 said:
Feats that qualify include:

  • An observer focusing on an object and said object suddenly vanishing via sheer speed alone.
  • An observer focusing on an object, and said object suddenly leaving an afterimage and appearing elsewhere via their speed alone.

Other FTE Feats that don't qualify

  • An observer trying to follow the object with their eyes but can't keep up (This will be dealth with in the next thread after this one)
Click to expand...

As with any other standard, we wouldn't use this without evidence - in other words, we wouldn't use this standard unless there was evidence that, from the observer's perspective, the object completely vanished and appeared elsewhere via speed alone. Were it to be vague, we'd almost certainly look to a different standard.
 
Shmeatywerbenmanjenson said:
Arnold your a legend

However I do believe if this is accepted to be used for calcs there should be one more requirement added

Since this would effect alot of "Blitzing" calculations I believe this should only apply to instances in which there is confirmation in some way that the person or persons blitzed couldn't see the attacker at all

Such as spoken confirmation from the attacker or the attacked
Or thoughts of the same manner from the attacker or the attacked
Or the attacked not responding in any way to the blitz and not noticing they disappeared

This is just to make sure every instance of a blitz doesn't result in outrageous values for peak human to low superhuman characters
Click to expand...

Yep, precisely.
 
DarkGrath said:
As with any other standard, we wouldn't use this without evidence - in other words, we wouldn't use this standard unless there was evidence that, from the observer's perspective, the object completely vanished and appeared elsewhere via speed alone. Were it to be vague, we'd almost certainly look to a different standard.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Infact I should get working on updating the guidelines.
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
Honestly, I think everyone doesn’t even want to participate in the first place.

Let me see if I’ve exhausted the staff list when I requested them to be called. Then I’ll call the rest.
Click to expand...
As mentioned before, I would like one other admin on board with this.

However, there is already one admin on board, as well as several other staff members, calc group members, and general users in a very clear consensus with no particular counter-arguments being pushed. If you can't get any more input within a day, then considering how long you've already been trying to get input, I'd be happy just considering this passed and applying it. A separate CRT can always be made in the future if someone has an issue with it.
 
FINALLY!!
IMG_8519.jpg


I’ll be applying the changes to this page.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Reactions and Perceptions

In fiction, movement over long distances and movement over short distances - which can be dubbed "combat distances" - tend to be remarkably different for different characters, resulting in serious discrepancies when considering their overall speed. On this wiki, we therefore differentiate...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Will let you guys know when I’m done to check it out, and if it’s all good, this can be closed.
 
What do you guys think?

vsbattles.fandom.com

Reactions and Perceptions

In fiction, movement over long distances and movement over short distances - which can be dubbed "combat distances" - tend to be remarkably different for different characters, resulting in serious discrepancies when considering their overall speed. On this wiki, we therefore differentiate...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
The perception time stat was very much on purpose named different from reactions, so that one can differentiate between reactions that have a speed component and reaction time (i.e. perception time) which doesn't. The renaming doesn't make sense... was that even part of the proposal that was agreed with?

Also not sure why you have me as neutral, when I clearly disagreed.
That aside, I will get back to this sooner or later. (can't today) I always have tons of stuff on the wiki begging for attention.
Honestly, Flashlight seemed to disagree as well so what's with the vote counting... Jasonsith's post also didn't seem like an agreement, although one can say that "it should depend" isn't a clear disagreement either.
A major standard revision like renaming a stat and such really needs more approval at that, I believe.

Edit: I have reversed the edit for now. Usually, I would have left it as is until I picked up the debate again and swayed the vote. If it had just been the section of perception I would have done so here, too.
The problem is the renaming of the perception stat. Renaming stats isn't that simple and leaves profiles in an inconsistent state. All profiles which currently list a perception stat (e.g.) would end up having a stat with no definition and, if renaming is done, a project is needed to update those. However, as said, renaming a stat needs major admin approval.
If you wish to apply the non-stat renaming parts which were explicitly agreed with again, before I pick this up, then I suppose that's technically alright. (even if I'm personally not in agreement for reasons I will get to)
 
Last edited:
Bro, where the hell have you been throughout all the discussions. You gave me no feedback whatsoever when I repeatedly requested for you input on what is being talked about, and now you are only appearing when the discussions are over and everyone is ready to move on.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get input from staff members on this topic? Do you expect me to drop a topic that I consider contstructive to this site as a whole simply because YOU were done with the conversation?

DontTalkDT said:
The perception time stat was very much on purpose named different from reactions, so that one can differentiate between reactions that have a speed component and reaction time (i.e. perception time) which doesn't.
Click to expand...

That is okay. We could easily change that.

DontTalkDT said:
The renaming doesn't make sense... was that even part of the proposal that was agreed with?
Click to expand...

Yes, I proposed guidlines to accommodate YOUR CONCERNS, then you just left.

Arnoldstone18 said:
Guidelines​
  • The observer's eyes must meet specific visual criteria. They should be able to focus clearly on the object before any observation. Note that the flicker fusion threshold is dependent on the Field of View (FOV), with the optimal FOV being the center of view.
  • The flicker fusion threshold is influenced by the brightness intensity of the surroundings. Observations of feats in extremely dim or overly bright environments are not suitable for this method.
  • These guidelines are applicable only to observers with human eyes. For animals, specific studies detail the flicker fusion thresholds for various species. However, the range of studied animals is limited, and findings might not apply universally.
  • The object under observation should be unique. Duplicates can distort frequency, creating illusions of speed.
  • Small or distant objects are challenging to monitor consistently. They are not recommended for reliable speed calculations.
  • Techniques that induce afterimages or illusions are not acceptable. There should be concrete evidence that any perceived speed or disappearance of the object is due to its actual speed. If there's any ambiguity, an alternative standard should be considered.
  • Any character with a perception speed differing from human standards is excluded, as this can result in skewed speed values.
Click to expand...


DontTalkDT said:
Honestly, Flashlight seemed to disagree as well so what's with the vote counting... Jasonsith's post also didn't seem like an agreement, although one can say that "it should depend" isn't a clear disagreement either.
Click to expand...

I accidentally missed her vote when i updated the OP a few days ago. Half of Flashlight's disagreement was based on entirely flawed logic to the point that I honestly thought that she made a mistake. I also called her multiple times to clarify her vote. What the hell is it with you guys and just not engaging in discussion? YALL LITERALLY START THE DISCUSSION.

Similar case with Jason, he did not even state whether he agreed or disagreed. He just wanted to make sure we knew what type of speed blitzing we were referring to since there are other forms of speed blitzing

DontTalkDT said:
A major standard revision like renaming a stat and such really needs more approval at that, I believe.
Click to expand...

I have requested that this be Staff Discussion and I was told that I can't do that. I thought this thread was okay for that.

You have no idea how many staff members I went through to get to respond. If people do not want to invest in this thread in the first place then those who give me the time of day would be counted.





Now do not go anywhere. Let us get this thread over with. I have updated the OP in its entirety. Please take a look at it.
 
DontTalkDT said:
If you wish to apply the non-stat renaming parts which were explicitly agreed with again, before I pick this up, then I suppose that's technically alright. (even if I'm personally not in agreement for reasons I will get to)
Click to expand...

That is fine.
I will apply changes without changing stat names and all.

I will simply add a note to here, under

“Moving faster than the eye can see” if that’s fine by you technically speaking.​

I’m also looking forward to your response
 
DontTalkDT said:
If you wish to apply the non-stat renaming parts which were explicitly agreed with again
Click to expand...
What do you think of this:

​

Moving faster than the eye can see​



Understanding the speed of objects that move faster than the eye can see involves the intricate workings of human vision. Our eyes don't function like cameras; instead, they receive light, which bounces off objects, and this light is then converted into electrical signals. These signals are sent to the retina at the back of our eyes, specifically to the Fovea for color perception. The retina processes the incoming light, turning it into electrical impulses that travel to the visual cortex in the brain. This is where the first neurons, V1 neurons, react to light and edges, forming the basis for perception.

When considering characters moving than the eye's detectable range, objects that become invisible, create afterimages, or persist in our vision usually indicate speeds of at least Supersonic.

It's essential to note that these speed assessments should be made under typical viewing conditions. Factors like poor eyesight, camouflage, distance, or extreme lighting conditions could alter how we perceive speed and might affect the accuracy of assigning a "faster than eye" rating to a feat.
Click to expand...
 
DontTalkDT said:
If you wish to apply the non-stat renaming parts which were explicitly agreed with again, before I pick this up, then I suppose that's technically alright. (even if I'm personally not in agreement for reasons I will get to)
Click to expand...
I have been informed by Arnoldstone that the non-stat renaming parts have been applied. As this was the crux of the thread, I will be closing this.

If you have further contentions regarding these changes in the future, I request that you make a new thread to address them at a later date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Skhoaa810
  • Locked
Reaction and Perception
Replies
17
Views
1K
Skhoaa810
Skhoaa810
Flashlight237
MFTL+: Is It Too Broad?
Replies
4
Views
259
Psychomaster35
Psychomaster35
DontTalkDT
Regarding the 2ms perception thing
2
Replies
77
Views
8K
Arnoldstone18
Arnoldstone18
Shadowslash125
Pinpointing The Reaction Speed Of These Scans and Feats
Replies
7
Views
776
Zain0068
Zain0068
Flashlight237
In Regards to Acceleration and Calculations
Replies
0
Views
503
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Back
Top