These are small, those are far away...

[bigbywolfe]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I read your whole post and even agree with your point. That doesn't change the fact that the statement "the moon is no more obvious than a star" is blatantly false and doesn't support your point. 1 moon and 1 star the moon is more obvious. a million moons and a million stars, each moon is still more obvious than each star.

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

We may never agree on this' date=' but I remain convinced that area if a factor in how long it takes to spot something, but it has less impact than a lot of other factors. To work out if I am right, we need to think of situations where we are controlling all the factors except area, and see how our ability to perceive changes: we can not really do that though, because you always wind up changing something else too, at least in all the examples I can think of.[/quote']

 

Easy enough - take a variety of objects and distribute them over a larger or smaller area. Do they become harder to see or distinguish in a larger area? No, they don't. There's your answer.

 

I understand that you feel area should somehow make a difference - because it just seems like it should (for me the indicator was the comment about double the distance means 4x the area, which while true, is irrelevant: you're not looking at the area). But there are lots of things that just seem like they should be true - and which nonetheless are not.

 

cheers, Mark

[Mister E]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

"11- PER"?

 

I was looking at the modifiers for sight the other day as Christopher had directed me to to them as part of a discussion we were engaged in. Anyway, here's the thing. The sight modifier for a 'Miniscule' person (i.e. one who is about 1/16 human height, 4 or 5 inches tall) is -8.

 

That got me thinking: no wonder I can never find my keys or wallet: with my 11- PER, I only have one chance in 216 of seeing them, even at 'touch' range.

 

That does not seem right somehow.

 

I'm thinking that the size modifiers are a bit off, and should be -1 per halving of size to be more realistic.

 

Now range modifiers for senses are the same as as 'To Hit' modifiers for range and that is a problem too.

 

If you double the distance to a target it becomes, effectively, half the size, but increased range also multiplies small aiming errors, so the range modifiers at -2 per doubling of range are about right BUT the difference between a 'To Hit' modifier and a Sight Perception modifier is that the former JUST deals with increased distance, whereas the latter (if you are just looking FOR something not AT something) actually deals with an increased search area (or even volume in certain environments), so I am thinking that the range modifiers for sight perception should be greater than -2 per doubling, perhaps -3.

 

I know this adds a layer of complication, but it also adds quite a lot of realism and might make an interesting optional rule.

 

Thoughts?

 

SUMMARY:

Size PER modifiers change at plus or minus one per doubling or halving of height

Range modifiers to hit change at -2 per doubling of distance past 8m

Range modifiers for Sight searches change at -3 per doubling of distance past 8m

 

I've been doing -1 per halving of size (and range increment) for a while now.

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Easy enough - take a variety of objects and distribute them over a larger or smaller area. Do they become harder to see or distinguish in a larger area? No, they don't. There's your answer.

 

I understand that you feel area should somehow make a difference - because it just seems like it should (for me the indicator was the comment about double the distance means 4x the area, which while true, is irrelevant: you're not looking at the area). But there are lots of things that just seem like they should be true - and which nonetheless are not.

 

cheers, Mark

 

That is not the same thing though: you are changing the density of confusing objects. It isn't just a feeling, you're comparing different things.

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Easy enough - take a variety of objects and distribute them over a larger or smaller area. Do they become harder to see or distinguish in a larger area? No, they don't. There's your answer.

 

I understand that you feel area should somehow make a difference - because it just seems like it should (for me the indicator was the comment about double the distance means 4x the area, which while true, is irrelevant: you're not looking at the area). But there are lots of things that just seem like they should be true - and which nonetheless are not.

 

cheers, Mark

 

OK, thought experiment.

 

1. You have a metre square sheet of white paper 3 metres away, on which are 99 black 1cm squares and 1 dark brown square, of similar shade, close enough that it is not instantly obvious.

 

2. Same number and type of object but this time you are in a circular room of 3m radius, with the squares distributed across a 1m tall band tbat runs round the entire room.

 

Is there going to be any difference, on average, in how long it takes to pick out the (non-obvious) brown square?

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

OK, if that one feels like I'm cheating, same scenario but the second one is not on a circular wall, it is on a square of paper 4.34m* per side, 3 metres away from you. Objects remain the same size and again randomly distributed: which will take longer, on average to spot the brown square?

 

*same area as the circular room one but differently distributed.

[Mister E]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

OK, thought experiment.

 

1. You have a metre square sheet of white paper 3 metres away, on which are 99 black 1cm squares and 1 dark brown square, of similar shade, close enough that it is not instantly obvious.

 

All the squares can be seen within a normal person's field of vision at the same time. One glance & you're done.

 

2. Same number and type of object but this time you are in a circular room of 3m radius, with the squares distributed across a 1m tall band that runs round the entire room.

 

Is there going to be any difference, on average, in how long it takes to pick out the (non-obvious) brown square?

 

Unless you have 360 degree vision it is going to take longer to scan the band of squares within the circular room.

 

 

[contrary]: I don't really believe in squares. I mean, they just don't exist. A square is an ideality. =P

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

OK, thought experiment.

 

1. You have a metre square sheet of white paper 3 metres away, on which are 99 black 1cm squares and 1 dark brown square, of similar shade, close enough that it is not instantly obvious.

 

2. Same number and type of object but this time you are in a circular room of 3m radius, with the squares distributed across a 1m tall band tbat runs round the entire room.

 

Is there going to be any difference, on average, in how long it takes to pick out the (non-obvious) brown square?

 

In real life, probably it will take longer - in game terms it's likely to be one phase either way - 6 seconds is a long time.

 

But as you noted, you are cheating - that example is not about area, but arc of perception, which I noted in my first post on this thread, was an important factor. If the person in question had 360 degree vision, it'd take about the same time, thus again proving conclusively, that area per se is really irrelevant.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

OK, if that one feels like I'm cheating, same scenario but the second one is not on a circular wall, it is on a square of paper 4.34m* per side, 3 metres away from you. Objects remain the same size and again randomly distributed: which will take longer, on average to spot the brown square?

 

*same area as the circular room one but differently distributed.

 

OK, I think this a better example. In this example, you'll need to move your eyes more, but that's a relatively minor thing (the whole sheet of paper will be within your scanning field). The difference is so small that (assuming you can distinguish the brown square when they are mashed together) that it should take almost no more time, again arguing that area, in and of itself is largely irrelevant. However, if you filled that large space up with more black squares, then it would take longer. Again, number, not area, is the defining feature here.

It's interesting. The more examples you put up - and this was good one -the weaker your case appears to become.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Tosh. What you are missing is this humans compare things, and they are rubbish at it. Have you ever actually tried to compare stuff? You're rubbish at it. OK, if you have been trained to spot something specific, then you will certainly get better at it if you practice a lot and you use a bigger screen, but that is not the point. That is not what we are talking about. There is a world of difference between seeing 400 scans of a liver and getting good at spotting a tumour and being put into an unfamiliar situation and being asked to spot something equally unfamiliar.

 

The way I was cheating in the 'bigger area you can still see in your field of vision*' thing is because what people actually do is look at what is nearby and compare, and that is true whatever you are doing.

 

Look at this: http://www.ukpuzzle.com/puzzles.htm

 

What you are after is number 47. Look at the yellow square on the dark side and the brown square on the light side.

 

Hmm? Hmm?

 

You can't help it. You look at things and compare, which is why, if they are further apart, which is kind of like saying "if the same things are spread over a bigger area" then you find it harder to compare.

 

The problem with this argument is that we are not arguing the same corner. You are convinced that simply making it bigger makes it easier to see. I absolutely agree. That is not what we are talking about though, is it? Well, it is not what I am talking about. Think about the scenario I gave: 100 objects of similar shade but different colour close together or far apart (which is actually what I described: different area): you are going to take longer to compare things that are further apart. Your example of medical scans missed the point. Blowing up scans increases the area, sure, but what it also does is makes the individual objects in the scan bigger. That is not what increasing the area you are looking at actually does. Think it through.

 

I absolutely get that increasing the number of objects might make spotting something more difficult. Might.

 

What you absolutely do not get is that your example does not appear to apply.

 

I probably should not post anything when I have drunk this much. It makes me think I am smarter than I am. It also makes me less likely to identify anything, anything at all, no matter how obvious. The point stands though.

 

 

 

 

*you can't, you really can't, you just think you can. You should know better.

[Clonus]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

OK, thought experiment.

 

1. You have a metre square sheet of white paper 3 metres away, on which are 99 black 1cm squares and 1 dark brown square, of similar shade, close enough that it is not instantly obvious.

 

2. Same number and type of object but this time you are in a circular room of 3m radius, with the squares distributed across a 1m tall band tbat runs round the entire room.

 

Is there going to be any difference, on average, in how long it takes to pick out the (non-obvious) brown square?

 

No. I won't be able to make out the difference at that range either way. Not that I'm sure how this bears on the obviousness of the moon.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Tosh. What you are missing is this humans compare things' date=' and they are rubbish at it. Have you ever actually tried to compare stuff? You're rubbish at it. OK, if you have been trained to spot something specific, then you will certainly get better at it if you practice a lot and you use a bigger screen, but that is not the point. That is not what we are talking about. There is a world of difference between seeing 400 scans of a liver and getting good at spotting a tumour and being put into an unfamiliar situation and being asked to spot something equally unfamiliar.The way I was cheating in the 'bigger area you can still see in your field of vision*' thing is because what people actually do is look at what is nearby and compare, and that is true whatever you are doing.Look at this: http://www.ukpuzzle.com/puzzles.htmWhat you are after is number 47. Look at the yellow square on the dark side and the brown square on the light side.Hmm? Hmm?You can't help it. You look at things and compare, which is why, if they are further apart, which is kind of like saying "if the same things are spread over a bigger area" then you find it harder to compare.The problem with this argument is that we are not arguing the same corner. You are convinced that simply making it bigger makes it easier to see. I absolutely agree. That is not what we are talking about though, is it? Well, it is not what I am talking about. Think about the scenario I gave: 100 objects of similar shade but different colour close together or far apart (which is actually what I described: different area): you are going to take longer to compare things that are further apart. Your example of medical scans missed the point. Blowing up scans increases the area, sure, but what it also does is makes the individual objects in the scan bigger. That is not what increasing the area you are looking at actually does. Think it through.I absolutely get that increasing the number of objects might make spotting something more difficult. Might.What you absolutely do not get is that your example does not appear to apply.I probably should not post anything when I have drunk this much. It makes me think I am smarter than I am. It also makes me less likely to identify anything, anything at all, no matter how obvious. The point stands though.*you can't, you really can't, you just think you can. You should know better.[/quote']He's not saying that blowing something up is the same as increasing the area. You basically said that with your original "Where's Wally" example and he refuted it with the medical example. Now people keep acting like he is saying they are the same, which was never his point as far as I can tell.

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Tosh. What you are missing is this humans compare things, and they are rubbish at it. Have you ever actually tried to compare stuff? You're rubbish at it. OK, if you have been trained to spot something specific, then you will certainly get better at it if you practice a lot and you use a bigger screen, but that is not the point. That is not what we are talking about. There is a world of difference between seeing 400 scans of a liver and getting good at spotting a tumour and being put into an unfamiliar situation and being asked to spot something equally unfamiliar.

 

The way I was cheating in the 'bigger area you can still see in your field of vision*' thing is because what people actually do is look at what is nearby and compare, and that is true whatever you are doing.

 

Look at this: http://www.ukpuzzle.com/puzzles.htm

 

What you are after is number 47. Look at the yellow square on the dark side and the brown square on the light side.

 

Hmm? Hmm?

 

You can't help it. You look at things and compare, which is why, if they are further apart, which is kind of like saying "if the same things are spread over a bigger area" then you find it harder to compare.

 

The problem with this argument is that we are not arguing the same corner. You are convinced that simply making it bigger makes it easier to see.

 

No, as I continue to repeat, that is NOT what I am saying. The "blowing things up" was simply one example - among many - to point out that area to be scanned - per se - is irrelevant. A larger picture has greater area: this cannot be denied. But also, a blow-up - as we also agree makes it easier, not harder. So area, by itself, is not a contributing factor. What matters is how easy it is to identify your target ... not the area you need to scan.

 

I absolutely agree. That is not what we are talking about though' date=' is it? Well, it is not what I am talking about. Think about the scenario I gave: 100 objects of similar shade but different colour close together or far apart (which is actually what I described: different area): you are going to take longer to compare things that are further apart. Your example of medical scans missed the point. Blowing up scans increases the area, sure, but what it also does is makes the individual objects in the scan bigger. That is not what increasing the area you are looking at actually does. Think it through.[/quote']

 

But I have thought it through. See my note above. Making it harder to identify your target certainly makes it harder to identify, I think we can agree on that. The actual area, however, appears in all your examples, so far, to be irrelevant - all of them so far simply demonstrate that. I agree that comparing things that are very similar is harder if they are further apart - but that's also not a feature of area: it'd be just as hard if they were strung out in a line 3 metres long (total area 0.1 m) as if they were scattered over a 1 m square (area 1.0 M) - perhaps harder. If increasing the area 10-fold makes no appreciable difference to difficulty, then it's a pretty safe bet to assume that area itself has no real importance.

 

cheers, Mark