Droid Engineer Archive
Thread: EMM and EGP Experimentation?
I also have to disagree with you, assuming that you feel higher quality subcomponents yeilds noticeable benefits (you seem to be playing the devils advocate without a difinitive stance, hence my assumption). I don't think the quality of the subcomponents matter at all. They've definately never improved any of my droids.
Though, what's all this baseline, analytical comparitive talk? All you need to do, to see if the subcomponents make a difference, is build two exactly identical droids, with one using poor subcomponents, and the other with high quality, experimented components. If their's no difference in damage, speed, accuracy, speed of movement, range of targeting, HAM, ect, then they obviously don't do jack.
Simple.
Handsnake wrote
That was me.
I one star all your trolling posts, especially those that seem to be for attention-getting purposes only. Have ever since your troll post in the pit droid thread where you burbled garbage about your personal, hideously wrong definition of "depreciation". (Keep your day job and stop pretending to be an accountant. It makes us real accountants cranky, and makes you even more irritating than usual).
Furthermore, as the above poster pointed out, it is impossible to prove a negative, as you well should have known from paying attention in even a 100 level logic class. The burden is on you to show a probable trend by using 99% experimented set of EMM's and EGP's in Arakyds and compare them to 10 or 18% unexperimented subcomps in other runs of arakyds.
You should do a minimum of 10 tests for each and note if there is a significant/any difference in the following:
1. Charges
2. Failure Rate (eaten by space slugs, meteorite hit, etc)
3. Speed
IF you notice and record actual changes in this series of test, then you have a possible reason to question experimentation. Until that point, you are simply posting trolls, and are contributing nothing but rants to the discussions. Remember - the burden is on you to show that experimentation DOES make a difference from non-experimented items.
Furthermore, the GUI code has nothing to do with experimentation. :rolleyes: Quit bandying random terms that you do not fully understand. It's irritating and it's not at all helpful, since you are pretending expertise. Also, work on your people skills buddy.
Repub
-BS CSE '86 NAU
-BS Accountancy '98 NAU
Pallida wrote:
Ah yes.. the inevitable claim of "statistical analysis"... and what is the baseline that was used for comparison? There had to be a baseline in order to prove one thing over another.Any first-yearscience major should confirm this. So.... what was used? Did the testers manufacture their own baseline? hmmm????
All you need is relative values where the differences are quantifiable. Such as identically created components using identical resources with the only difference being a controlled experimentation level.
Simple, entry level data analysis. Any high school math student should know how to do it. I've seen several tests done to these types of standards and none of them have shown any kind of statistically relevant difference. Translation: all differences were well within the margin of error for the test in question.
Kollos wrote:
Pallida wrote:
Ah yes.. the inevitable claim of "statistical analysis"... and what is the baseline that was used for comparison? There had to be a baseline in order to prove one thing over another.Any first-yearscience major should confirm this. So.... what was used? Did the testers manufacture their own baseline? hmmm????
All you need is relative values where the differences are quantifiable. Such as identically created components using identical resources with the only difference being a controlled experimentation level.
Simple, entry level data analysis. Any high school math student should know how to do it. I've seen several tests done to these types of standards and none of them have shown any kind of statistically relevant difference. Translation: all differences were well within the margin of error for the test in question.
Would you 'please' stop being so cocky?
Now. What we're saying is, if there is no identifiable change in two exactly identical droids, where one has advanced components (experimented, with high quality resources), and one has pitiful components, then they obviously didn't affect anything. If there's no changed number on the final droid, then what 'else' could have possibly been altered?
Nothing.
And, if by some funky chance the subcomponents quality 'did', on some level or miniscule number, change the droid, the alteration is too unidentifiably small (i.e., won't effect gameplay 'at all') to be worth anyone's time.
They use those droids, they should know if some are good or bad.
Pallida wrote:
hmm... and where, since this started with EMM and EGPMs... are the values on these items, and their effects on Droids, "quantifiable?"
Please enlighten me, for I seem to have missed that portion of the Droid Engineer's Handbook.
Auladan wrote:
[quote]Please enlighten me, for I seem to have missed that portion of the Droid Engineer's Handbook.[/quote]
Would you 'please' stop being so cocky?
Now. What we're saying is, if there is no identifiable change in two exactly identical droids, where one has advanced components (experimented, with high quality resources), and one has pitiful components, then they obviously didn't affect anything. If there's no changed number on the final droid, then what 'else' could have possibly been altered?
Nothing.
And, if by some funky chance the subcomponents quality 'did', on some level or miniscule number, change the droid, the alteration is too unidentifiably small (i.e., won't effect gameplay 'at all') to be worth anyone's time.
Pallida wrote:
All I am trying to make evident is this.... "We don't know if there is in fact a difference that we cannot properly quantify". Given this, we should NOT, in good conscience, tell a newbie to never use good resources and to never experiment on subcomponents. We just... don.t... know.
There are a number of theorems in physics and mathematics for which we have no proof, yet they are still generally accepted as fact.
Evidence exists to support my claim that they make no difference at all. Do you have any evidence that my claim is actually false, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?
Kollos wrote:
Pallida wrote:All I am trying to make evident is this.... "We don't know if there is in fact a difference that we cannot properly quantify". Given this, we should NOT, in good conscience, tell a newbie to never use good resources and to never experiment on subcomponents. We just... don.t... know.There are a number of theorems in physics and mathematics for which we have no proof, yet they are still generally accepted as fact.
Evidence exists to support my claim that they make no difference at all. Do you have any evidence that my claim is actually false, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?
Like 1+1=2 and other dumb stuff ?
Gavvot wrote:
Like 1+1=2 and other dumb stuff ?
Handsnake wrote:
Okay, Pallida
Arakyd droids
1. Charges (ARE THERE DIFFERENT NUMBERS ? ) You can tell if the number changes. This is a valid test
2. Failure Rate (NOTE FAILURES ON 10 MARKS) You can record this by using 1 and 0 for a value of FAILURE. This is a valid test.
3. Speed (HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE?) Use a stopwatch. Record the time using Excel for crying out loud. As before, a valid test.
Glad to see you got a good db job right out of high school, kiddo.
Message Edited by Pallida on 04-20-2004 05:07 PM