Cheating everywhere, GMs???

[azxten]

Originally Posted by Prismaticshop [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Time to get your priorities straight

also : seek help

These are the kinds of comments I'm referring to. All the trolls come out to attack people who actually try to make P99 better.

Same thing happened to me when I brought up Enchanter being broken and eventually focused on channeling being wildly unclassic as a partial cause that is easily proven.

For those of us who are bored of the stale P99 meta it becomes more enjoyable to analyze the game and try to improve things than to actually play. I had fun doing my analysis and I'm sure the OP did too.

[Flyrr]

Your own research contradicts itself. 2 months dude?

[MaCtastic]

Great write-up. Not surprised, however, we all know how this ends.

[Toxigen]

holy fucking shit

time for OP to quit p99

[falkun]

Originally Posted by zeroz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMzY5NHuEzc

Stats for nerds: A little bit more on the statistics, the standard deviation of reaction time is 35ms for humans. This is defined as the window where 68% of all data points reside. So if you are 70ms faster than the median reaction time that is known as a '2 sigma event' meaning you're in the top 32% of reaction time. So some important numbers.
-5 Sigma Event: Odds are 1 in 3.5 million, or a 175ms reaction time advantage
-6 Sigma Event: Odds are 1 in 500 million, or a 210ms reaction time advantage

Emphasis mine.
1) You realize sigma is defined around a bell curve, correct? If you look at https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime, they show you the curve...its not a bell curve.
2) That 68% is for BOTH sides, yet if you are faster, you are obviously on the left side (shorter reaction time) of the bell curve. At one sigma, by your definition (again, see point 1 on why that is not accurate), if you are faster than 1 sigma then you are faster than 84% of "humans" (your defined population set).
3) From the website: "In addition to measuring your reaction time, this test is affected by the latency of your computer and monitor. Using a fast computer and low latency / high framerate monitor will improve your score." What have you done to control for monitor/computer latency in your test? I was consistently getting 250's for myself when I tested it. There's a good chance that I am slow, there is also a large chance that my monitor's latency is compounding my problem up into the 250's.

You spout off a lot of inaccurate information when trying to convey your point. This is "evidence" for people who already want these "facts" reinforced.

[falkun]

Also, I'll leave this tidbit for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/

Which response time do you think the race line is using?

[Allishia]

Poor ogre, its not her fault head looks like a melon =P

[karadin]

I'd love to know why the author of the video was so quite to dismiss the Givincer rubber banding as server/client sync issues but refuses to do the same for Stunningly. He's 100ms+ behind Kickenit after this update:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[karadin]

Originally Posted by karadin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd love to know why the author of the video was so quite to dismiss the Givincer rubber banding as server/client sync issues but refuses to do the same for Stunningly. He's 100ms+ behind Kickenit after this update:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And a frame later we see Kickenit get an update and is pushed forward, so both characters got the benefit of an update and Stunningly is a full 150ms+ behind:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[karadin]

Originally Posted by zeroz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMzY5NHuEzc

This is a video I made to expose the use of 3rd party software to race (clear TOS violation). The easiest way to see it is in the obvious discrepancy in reaction times. To show that I had to make a video where you can actually count frames, do the math, and sync up several races in a row to show a pattern. Then take that data and do a statistical analysis to demonstrate its actually NOT humanly possible. Keep in mind, I only chose races that were easy to demonstrate this point. There were plenty of races that I left out simply because I had to "cut off" this project at some point, so there's enough out there for a Part 2 to this (possibly even a part 3).

Why Make This Public? Frustration, I spent 2 months making this video petition only to have it sit on the desk of the GMs for 3 months now. Also its a warning to anyone thinking of playing Project1999 to know what you're getting in to, if you are looking for a new TLP server.

------------------------------------------------

Stats for nerds: A little bit more on the statistics, the standard deviation of reaction time is 35ms for humans. This is defined as the window where 68% of all data points reside. So if you are 70ms faster than the median reaction time that is known as a '2 sigma event' meaning you're in the top 32% of reaction time. So some important numbers.
-5 Sigma Event: Odds are 1 in 3.5 million, or a 175ms reaction time advantage
-6 Sigma Event: Odds are 1 in 500 million, or a 210ms reaction time advantage
In the video we used the second fastest racer as opposed to the median racer due to simplicity. If we calculated based on the median reaction time for that race, the odds would be far worse. If anyone here has a better grasp of statistics, please do not hesitate to correct me. But I feel that will only show the odds being FAR less likely than I found in my conservative estimates.

Original Fraps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yIyMFZLX8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-71gfBu7aU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfr9V9-IfMI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paKSGTQndwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkzqlv-5WFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0B5XcA_fQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g1P5Om6FRc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_5jbm2zqcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0svBOWFW1fo&t=45s

Sources:
https://ibmathsresources.com/2015/03...-fast-are-you/
https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
https://www.basvanhooren.com/is-it-p...-sprint-start/

In the defense of the GMs, it is possible that TOS violations are above their pay grade and only the server admins, who rarely interact with the server, are able to handle this (hopefully they see this!). However it took me 2 months to research and make that video and it sat on the desk of the GMs for 3 months without a single reply, all while my guild slowly dies and the offending guild continually brags about beating us week after week.

In addition to my last 2 posts, you mention 150ms as some sort of magical threshhold whereby swimmers are not allowed to react or else they will be DQ'd. I can't find anything supporting that. What I did find was the following:

Current IAAF systems use a threshold method for determination of RT, with it varying for sex, age and ability of sprinters, (Lipps, Galecki and Ashton-Miller, 2011) estimated the threshold had to be reduced by 22% for female athletes to equal male RTs at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Pain and Hibbs(2007) examined RTs using instrumented blocks and a custom algorithm to detect the initial change in force following the start signal and found that athletes could attain valid RT of <100 ms.

Obviously the above is running, but that was simply due to a lack in anything substantial for swimming. Maybe you can help us out and source some of your research here.