Let's see if QuakeWorld players have good reaction times
Take the test at http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php and then select the option closest to your results.
Dont post replies here about your results tho' because noone will believe them

i think there's a rule on 100m sprint that if you start 100< you get disqualified because faster is not humanly possible
read it long ago so not to sure about it

That's correct, ruskie. Anything less than 100ms after the start and it's considered a false start.

I'm just an old man when it comes to reaction games and I was never particularly fast even in my teens, but even I managed a a single 150ms click and 4 others around the 170 mark putting me at an average of 166ms. I expect to see some of the faster guys here beat 150 average after a few warmup attempts.

It's pretty startling to me that the "average reaction time" is 215ms. Surely it's due to terrible lcd monitors and maybe 125hz mouse polling rates?

Got 190.3, but I got an 12ms TFT and a sleepless night with 2 of my cousins sleeping at my place.

Whine! Yes whine! I will do this again tomorrow without the i'm tired excuse and if I do not improve I'm sure I will find another excuse!

Ehm.. "http://noluckypredictionresults.eu" & I did not edit it. Ohnoes!!.. I'm no human .
But the average I got was 197 (not with the 27ms wtfhaxunhumanlick of course).

Come on dont post those lucky prediction results

lol i hit null vote instead of submit -.-"

Maybe my LCD is just really crappy, the fact that I just woke up, or a million other reasons (excuses!) but I'm getting an average of 250ms :[ It was around 175ms when I had a CRT 2 years ago. I took the test while in my relaxed, leaned back position too, after I go for a run I'll take it again I'll bet it's under 200ms

Your poll values are stupid, of course if I get 160,0ms I choose the one that is actually higher in the list (ie. the "better" value). However, there's your result:

Yea they could have been better i guess. But i dont think there will be a lot of results like 160, 170, 180..

173,3

nice thread dmt

couldnt get any faster 8( but hey its 2am and im baked

2 seconds probably

I think it should display the number of false starts. Obviously there is still the chance that out of your 5 attempts, 1 or 2 are lucky shots.

True. You could always get 1ms by trying it a million times, therefore posting results is pointless (considering bragging at least).

I can't get much better than 250ms.

gg old man reflexes at 28

Interesting comparison:

At home on my 22" TFT (Belinea 2225S1W) monitor I typically get around 190-215ms.
At work on my 22" CRT (Compaq P1210), it's around 170-195ms usually.
So on the face of it I'm getting around an extra 20ms delay due to the TFT input lag/response time.

If I can be bothered I might hook my my old 17" CRT at home to make it a fair comparison (i.e. rule out the windows install, other hardware etc)

240.2 should play some more QW again I guess!

When i bought my samsung 226bw in 2007. I did the some tests. (comparing nvidia scaling vs no scaling)
http://www.quakeworld.nu/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2533
tft--60hz: avg 216.9ms (no scaling)

Anyways after a disastrous eql season where Adde almost was better than me, i attached my 19" 154hz CRT (iiyama 900-something) and did the tests again in spring 2008 (both monitors attached to PC)
crt-150hz: avg 194.3ms


Last week
When I did the test in this topic with mx518 @ 1000hz (seems to cap at 700hz in mouserate.exe tho) and the same old 154hz CRT my results was in the range 150-180ms. I seriously doubt that my reaction time improved.
But maybe the tests are different or having unplugged the tft improved things. (obviously there are driver versions, vista SPs and other minor SW changes since then)

I've got an average of 195.4 ms in the first (and last) series with a TFT monitor (does it really matter?) :p

You all are kinda old/slow guys, seriously

First 5 tryes:
177 @ LCD

Yeah? But your first try (you're on second in the screenshot) was 226. Above average - oops!

owned i was joking, but really fun moment when i did a random click just in the moment the screen turned green =)

I tried this at home and got about 200ms.

Work is dual 20something LCDs, windows and a dodgy MS mouse, home is a laptop screen, mx500 and linux. Both nvidia cards, laptop one much newer though. 50ms difference!?

Maybe if I plugged my laptop into a CRT i'd get even lower.

10 tries, around 150~ish

Out of curiosity I tested how the average score varies after some hardcore clicking. At first it was about 160-170 and occasional 180's, and after about 10 clicks, the 180's and bigger were seen more often than before. After about 20 clicks most scores were more than 180 with the occasional 170 or something. After 40 I couldn't keep it under 200. I didn't write the results down as I did this, so I may remember some of these wrong. How about you people test your average time changin after dozens of clicks? With five clicks, it's too easy to just restart if you get 2 or so bad results

OK, I didn't sleep last night because I was duelling all night and now I am at my work. Very old TFT screen and a crappy mouse: I get a horrible 235ms after the first 5 tries. I will try again at home with my own screen and mouse... after I have slept some hours

Yeah it can differ alot depending on your hardware. Tried this as well today after lunch break @ work and got around 200-215 ms avarage after 3x5 tries. At home im usually between 170-185. Doubt its very important concerning QW skills to have a good reaction since knowing were your enemy is and predict his actions and also know where to aim on the map itself is much more useful and removes the need for lightning reflexes. But sure, perhaps some advantage in some situations.