I have a quad-core, 16gb RAM, 460 graphics card and Huge/Large maps do take an average less than 10 seconds per turn with animations off. It ranges from 10-20 seconds late game to near 0 early game.
Most of my games take 15-25 hours to play, including keeping detailed notes. So no, the wait does not bother me and I can be patient between turns.
TheMeInTeam, why have this always been a huge issue with you?? Considering all of the processing that needs to take place, I think it is truly remarkable that they have optimized this to the extent that they have.
You've got to be kidding me. The vast majority of this turn time is animations (not just combat), apparently...and the calcs/RNG functions used aren't exactly something that should be massively straining a modern machine.
Not everyone spends 25 hours per game. Some people can play a game in < 2-3 hours. For those people, the turn waits comprise fully half of their time playing.
i had a little look at this big long whinging post by that highly unoccupied kid and decided to skip it...and the next one. geees, get a life buddy its a poll i made for me to see whether its out of the ordinary for me to wait as i do. if you dont like that i really dont care matey
I pointed out why the poll isn't even functional. The quoted post doesn't care to address that or even acknowledge my points, so I have nothing more to say here. If the poll design itself doesn't factor how the respondents interpret the poll, why should anyone care about the poll?
Also it would have helped had you defined a turn period for your poll instead of the ambiguous 'end game'. But it's always fun to see TMIT beat a dead horse with such vigor
. There is some dead horse beating, but also some beating on some incredibly biased and misleading design. This is the kind of thing that, if used in a business environment, would irresponsibly damage an organization tremendously. CFC generally has high standards on the information it puts forth. By pointing out that this poll is in fact worthless in its current form my intention is to prevent some misinformation.
That, and I like debate, even when the best I've seen is some claim about a "whinging" post, whatever that means
.
Ah, my eyes skipped over the word 'huge' in the initial question.
Probably because it wasn't in the thread title or poll itself. Respondents are literally presented with the poll before the instructions.
Buddy I dont know why people would assume I was talking about the start of the game since right there in the OP it says "mid to late game". I thus did define the start period and never used the term endgame, ambiguous though it may be.
Buddy, the OP says one thing, thread title another, poll itself yet another (and the poll locks people out of options and is generally incomprehensible from an analytical standpoint).
I think folks understood it just fine given their responses.
Nope.
What is with the negativity regarding peoples powers of deduction?
Because the poll flies in the face of any competent training in poll design? Because people admitted they didn't believe the OP was intended to mean late games? Because the THREAD TITLE is all people see before the poll is presented to them and they are given an opportunity to vote?
It's not an insult to anybody's intelligence that they'd choose the wrong result in this poll unintentionally. All they'd have to do is vote on it based on the thread title and it's already messed up...and that's BEFORE we get into the imprecision of the actual instructions that come later that still don't define anything concretely.
Moderator Action: Don't troll around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
its pretty simple afterall, a couple of sentences with a simple ass poll.
Actually I've thoroughly demonstrated why this "simple" poll design provides no useful information at best, and misinformation at worst.
i would go further and suggest that a long, winding complaint by a wannabe scholar is far more ambiguous, pointless and just irrelevant.
Uncalled for. Attacks on the credibility of posters are irrelevant. I made sure never to attack your credibility as a person or your ability. I'm in no position to judge that and never will be. I have, however, presented plenty of supporting evidence that this poll is useless. The poster's point is what is relevant. What point is the quoted statement making? I'm interested.
For all this nonsense about the difficulty level and me saving my game and sending it to another to time its turn. what the heck! i wanted a general idea of turn times on big games. thats all, this isnt rocket science.
And yet, for all intents and purposes this poll completely crashed and burned for its stated intended purpose. Once again:
1. Overlapping ranges
2. Conflicting and ambiguous instructions
3. Presenting the poll before the instructions that were intended
4. Inability to pick a LARGE amount of potentially relevant responses
5. Variant ranges
6. Variant choice types.
It's correct to say that it isn't rocket science. Poll design isn't hard. That doesn't change the fact that this poll is a complete failure for its intended purpose. With errors like the above, a poll
can not possibly be viable. The reasons why are crystal clear. There have already been examples of what I'm saying in the thread!
