Jump to content
SaltMaster 5000

Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Transmogrifier said:

punkUser: 2000+ data points using an automated system that was designed and verified to isolate the error in the dice themselves
internet: I gave my dice a bath

Now I'm curious if @punkUser would mythbust the salt water bath "test" using the same dice they tested with their more advanced method. They have a fairly solid base of information to compare to now. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

Now I'm curious if @punkUser would mythbust the salt water bath "test" using the same dice they tested with their more advanced method. They have a fairly solid base of information to compare to now. :D 

I considered it TBH, but the problem is that most of the community "tests" have been deviously constructed to be immune to any sort of empirical testing for some reason ;) The salt water bath test ends up being nothing more than "I feel like it spins/rolls/whatevers this way more often than it should" which is hardly any more robust than just rolling your dice 10 times and feeling like they weren't random too.

Certainly if someone gave me dice they had determined to be biased in some direction by [any other test] I could tell them if they were correct. But honestly given the somewhat pathetic level of rigor in the [any other test]'s that I've seen to date I'm not even sure it's worth the effort ;)

Show me an actual serious, repeatable test with provably repeatable blinded results and we can talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, punkUser said:

I considered it TBH, but the problem is that most of the community "tests" have been deviously constructed to be immune to any sort of empirical testing for some reason ;) The salt water bath test ends up being nothing more than "I feel like it spins/rolls/whatevers this way more often than it should" which is hardly any more robust than just rolling your dice 10 times and feeling like they weren't random too.

Certainly if someone gave me dice they had determined to be biased in some direction by [any other test] I could tell them if they were correct. But honestly given the somewhat pathetic level of rigor in the [any other test]'s that I've seen to date I'm not even sure it's worth the effort ;)

Show me an actual serious, repeatable test with provably repeatable blinded results and we can talk.

The salt test is a mechanical one and checks mechanical balance, its not statistical in nature (though a few check are still good to filter measurement noise). Its used as a quality test for poly medical devices (joint inserts), its definitely sufficient to test dice. 

Now, how does it correlate to actual results? Idk. Dice rolls are heavily influenced by both mass distribution and contact mechanics and salt test does nothing for contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, prauxim said:

The salt test is a mechanical one and checks mechanical balance, its not statistical in nature (though a few check are still good to filter measurement noise). Its used as a quality test for poly medical devices (joint inserts), its definitely sufficient to test dice.

So perhaps you can enlighten me but what's the methodology for actually evaluating the "results" of it? All I've ever seen is people poke their dice a bit and claim they feel like it's flipping towards one side more often... hardly convincing of anything IMO.

21 minutes ago, prauxim said:

Now, how does it correlate to actual results? Idk. Dice rolls are heavily influenced by both mass distribution and contact mechanics and salt test does nothing for contact.

Right even if there was a firm methodology of how you do the test, no one seems to have made a connection to rolling dice. Indeed the results here highly suggest the geometry of the dice is the primary determining factor at the level of bias we're observing vs. chasing density/center of gravity based measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, punkUser said:

So perhaps you can enlighten me but what's the methodology for actually evaluating the "results" of it? All I've ever seen is people poke their dice a bit and claim they feel like it's flipping towards one side more often... hardly convincing of anything IMO.

I set a die at multiple orientations into hyper-saturated salt. It needs flip to the same edge/face consistently, if it doesn't give the result consistently then it's below the noise threshold and shouldn't be considered failing the test.
 

16 minutes ago, punkUser said:

Right even if there was a firm methodology of how you do the test, no one seems to have made a connection to rolling dice. Indeed the results here highly suggest the geometry of the dice is the primary determining factor at the level of bias we're observing vs. chasing density/center of gravity based measurements.

Correct, but consider this, if your device has a significantly different contact behavior than a die being tossed from a hand onto a mat, then you are exposed to a similar issue (test not perfectly representing reality).  I do of course think yours is much, much better, but also think the salt test is better than you are giving it credit for.

Edited by prauxim
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, prauxim said:

I set a die at multiple orientations and into hyper-saturated salt. It needs flip to the same edge/face consistently, if it doesn't give the result consistently then it's below the noise threshold and shouldn't be considered failing the test.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but how do you ensure that you are "setting" it consistently, and at what "orientations"? How do you define "consistently"? It needs to be a lot more robust and repeatable to be considered a serious scientific test in this case, right?

1 minute ago, prauxim said:

Correct, but consider this, if your device has a significantly different contact behavior than a die being tossed from a hand onto a mat, then you are exposed to a similar issue (test not perfectly representing reality).  I do of course think yours is much, much better, but also think the salt test is better than you are giving it credit for.

There's variation in how different people roll that is impossible to account for globally of course, but assuming people are getting enough of a random initial roll and "tumble" and not actively trying to manipulate it, I think the methodology supports that it is a reasonably  representative test of dice. Poor rolling technique could easily bias it *more*, but certainly not *less*.

In addition to the lack of rigor on the salt test it is based on theory that I just don't think the data supports: that the primary source of bias is density/center-of-gravity based. If that were true some sort of rigorous center of gravity test might be more plausible, but that basic assumption doesn't even appear to be true from the data, which I admit was not what I expected when I set out on this work months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, punkUser said:

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but how do you ensure that you are "setting" it consistently, and at what "orientations"? How do you define "consistently"? It needs to be a lot more robust and repeatable to be considered a serious scientific test in this case, right?

Its a pass/fail test of a mechanical property to eliminate clearly imbalanced dice, not intended a robust analysis of stochastic performance like you performed.

If you put something on a balance with a 100g weight and the weight slams down, is that alone not enough to assign it to a "probably not 100g" pile?

I did multiple orientations just to be sure I didn't place it buoyant side up on the first attempt. I started the die on 3 different results/facings and then confirmed it didn't rotate when placed on the buoyant side.

5 hours ago, punkUser said:

How do you define "consistently"?

Same as the dictionary "in every case or on every occasion"

5 hours ago, punkUser said:

There's variation in how different people roll that is impossible to account for globally of course, but assuming people are getting enough of a random initial roll and "tumble" and not actively trying to manipulate it, I think the methodology supports that it is a reasonably  representative test of dice. Poor rolling technique could easily bias it *more*, but certainly not *less*.

Hard to say honestly, would be interesting to know, I'd recon both the linear and rotational velocity, and the resulting levels of slide/roll/bounce varies quite a bit even within the bounds of what we'd consider "normal rolling". Seems pretty plausible that certain styles would be more influenced by weight balance and others by geometry.

Edited by prauxim
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@punkUser In case you haven't seen yet:

https://www.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/c25x03/really_informative_post_on_dice_from_the_ffg/eriezz5/

"TL;DR: If your takeaway is "sharing dice is good," that's ok. If your takeaway is "someone proved X-wing dice aren't fair," you need to read on."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

@punkUser In case you haven't seen yet:

https://www.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/c25x03/really_informative_post_on_dice_from_the_ffg/eriezz5/

"TL;DR: If your takeaway is "sharing dice is good," that's ok. If your takeaway is "someone proved X-wing dice aren't fair," you need to read on."

Signed up to reddit finally to reply :) Generally agreed with the post (as I think does the article), but appreciate him saying it a different way and a bit more concisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RStan said:

You've unknowingly doomed yourself. 

Lol. You referring to the Xwing sub or Reddit as a whole?

The Xwing sub is casual city and the Reddit format isn't conducive for meaningful discussion, so much random crap gets upvoted to the top answer

As a whole though, Reddit is like crack and potentially life-ruining

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Low Init Torp Ships with Passive Sensors Hype.

I will joust you, bro, for you only have a single modifier without jumping through some extreme hoops, I can still just dive into range 1, and because you're low init and have no defensive token I can still kill you before you shoot.

Seriously, though, while Passive Sensors does look pretty reasonable, everyone should be sure not to expect the second coming of Long-Range Scanners here. Because it's really quite a lot worse.

Edited by DR4CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, gennataos said:

We talking about Cova Nell?  Don't assume gender!

I'd suppose Finn.  Add a blank every time?  That's great for Heroic!

29 minutes ago, player3010587 said:

So heroic is stapled to Resistance Sunny Bounder. Should he take perceptive copilot or stay lean?

I'd probably go lean.  But do we know that Finn will have a Talent slot?  Sometimes Quickbuilds will include Talents that pilots can't normally take.  104th ARC, and some of the Obsidian TIEs, for example.

Edited by theBitterFig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...