I often check my opponents turn times and so have developed a pretty good sense of what they are now even without looking.   For that reason, I think there must be a problem with Camel's turn time.  It's currently listed as "7 minutes 18.298161687905s".   

I'm almost certain that it is at least 7 minutes 18.29816168"8" or higher.    Has anyone else noticed the turn timer calculations are off a bit?    Kind of makes you question the integrity of the entire site.

http://www.wargear.net/players/info/camel

(I'm trying to increase my global ranking, so I pick a map and then will start close to 700 realtime two-player games at a time on that map, so I need to time my turns down to the nano-second).

I think Gimli noticed the turn times being off about 6 years ago.  Not sure if that was ever addressed, but I wouldn't question the integrity of the site.  

I often do question the integrity of the random number generator for dice, however.  I think, plugged in the algorithm somewhere, is "if Thingol, ....".  But that's probably just my paranoia. 

A short turn time need not be unrealistic.

The average reduces significantly if you have played a sizable number of live games. Looking at camel's profile, in his last 75 games (3 pages: I have display set at 25 games a page), he has only 3 games that are *not* live ones. Assuming that that is representative of all his games, an average of 7 minutes is not too low when most of your games have a maximum 10 minute turn timer.

I can't tell if my dry sense of humor is being picked up or not.  :-)  I just found it funny that the turn time was being expressed down to an accuracy of 1/trillionth of a second.    Obviously, that is perhaps one, maybe two, more decimal points of accuracy than is needed.    I have no issues with the integrity of the site.   (although I'm presuming that the representation of Camel's turn time is some kind of glitch... perhaps somehow a mismatch in data types?).

Lol. Nice one. Tom probably forgot to truncate the decimal digits of that float.

Mostly Harmless wrote:

I can't tell if my dry sense of humor is being picked up or not.  :-)  I just found it funny that the turn time was being expressed down to an accuracy of 1/trillionth of a second.    Obviously, that is perhaps one, maybe two, more decimal points of accuracy than is needed.    I have no issues with the integrity of the site.   (although I'm presuming that the representation of Camel's turn time is some kind of glitch... perhaps somehow a mismatch in data types?).

 

I've seen this effect on other forums as well. Totally ridiculous level of precision for low numbers where bigger ones are more common. My 2 hours 4 minutes is not interesting to look at, but go below 10 minutes and there is suddenly extra room to add digits. Everyone who plays almost exclusively real time games will have it. Or everyone I have seen, that is, can't guarantee there are no exceptions.

Not sure how I became the focus of turn time all of a sudden, but my average turn time is accurate.  I play lots of real-time games.  I'm in all of 8 non-real-time games, and take perhaps an average of 10 turns per week in those games, whereas I play about 50 - 100 real-time games per week.  If my few non-real-time games were excluded, my average would be closer to 2 minutes.

Expressing average turn time down to the nanosecond might be excessive and meaningless, but it's not a glitch.

Other frequent real-time players also have averages in the minutes range, some even less than me:

http://www.wargear.net/players/info/Saittam

http://www.wargear.net/players/info/jgreenwood

http://www.wargear.net/players/info/Paul%20Paterson

http://www.wargear.net/players/info/bombsaway201

http://www.wargear.net/players/info/crazyivan2010

Mostly Harmless wrote:

I can't tell if my dry sense of humor is being picked up or not.  :-)  I just found it funny that the turn time was being expressed down to an accuracy of 1/trillionth of a second.    Obviously, that is perhaps one, maybe two, more decimal points of accuracy than is needed.    I have no issues with the integrity of the site.   (although I'm presuming that the representation of Camel's turn time is some kind of glitch... perhaps somehow a mismatch in data types?).

I was about 75% sure you were joking.

I was about 80% sure that he was 90% joking. That's almost the same, right?

M57 wrote:

I was about 80% sure that he was 90% joking. That's almost the same, right?

The math works out!

Ozyman wrote:

M57 wrote:

I was about 80% sure that he was 90% joking. That's almost the same, right?

The math works out!

Only because he says 'almost'.  72% vs 75%.    

Thingol wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

M57 wrote:

I was about 80% sure that he was 90% joking. That's almost the same, right?

The math works out!

Only because he says 'almost'.  72% vs 75%.    

I did the math before I posted.  I had to qualify with 'almost' because the numbers would have been too awkward to get it exact.  Now that I think about it, I should have said, "I'm more than 80% sure.."