I used to love their un-inked precision d10s. But I recently went looking for more, and it seems impossible to find them in any large quantity at a reasonable price anymore.
Is GameScience dead? Is there anywhere else to get decent, un-inked dice now?
gamesciencedice.com
gamesciencedice.com
Same price as any Chessex set.
>Is Gamescience dead?
It was.
>unreasonable prices
You're looking at old stock that was bought up by 3rd party resellers then relisted at 2-4x the original price. Happened when Gamescience "died" the first time.
It never "died", it just switched owners, then switched back to the original guy.
Production is slowly coming back for different colors.
What this guy said.
The new production line is pretty good too.
Thanks, Gents. I had no idea. Glad to hear they're making a comeback.
What is GameScience, and why are their dice sought after? There are few reasons I can assume, but I'll just let one of you redpill me on dice here.
Because when the consumers of your product are on the spectrum, making up some mathematical figures to cater your product to autistics ends up getting them a following.
Gamescience's entire business rides on the fact that the people buying their dice are either autistic or suffer from OCD and a 0.0002% chance of a die not being true random is enough to make them toss and turn in their sleep for days on end.
Even the shittiest factory second Chessex or Wiz die from their cheap bundles with air bubbles or other mold imperfections won't suffer a big enough bias over enough rolls in their lifetime to ever take into account needing a set of dice that is *allegedly* free from the defects of other manufacturers. Keep in mind, we're talking about a cheap Chessex d20 (which; a d20 is the only die that can possibly have any "major" roll skewing) that while suspended in a saline solution and teeters towards a certain face(s) that in 10,000 rolls will maybe produce that biased face(s) 0.2% more often than the other numbers.
Basically they are "mid production" compared to what you can usually get.
Companies will cast the plastic then coat the whole thing in paint, then they will rock tumble them to get the paint off everywhere except in the dots/numbers/designs.
This however also grinds down the edges slightly, which changes how they roll.
I've never fully bought into GameScience's talk about how much difference this makes but the nice crisp edges their products have do look cool.
The real reason is A E S T H E T I C s.
I used to think they were pretty unnecessary, until I realized I could use them to make my own custom World of Darkness dice.
Here's an example of some dice I inked for my players where only the 8, 9, and 10 (the numbers that count as successes in WoD) are visible at a glance. I think they're pretty sweet.
>not noticible
wew lad
bear in mind the guy who performed this experiment didn't file down the flashing on the 7 face of the d20, literally 5 minutes of sanding with an emery board and the probabilities even out.
The most immediate difference if you don't care about the improved randomness is that they have clean, sharp edges (Really sharp, actually. D8s could probably draw blood if you jammed them into someone) and actually feel different to the touch because they haven't been rock polished.
>that GS 14
And people pay for this garbage
Did you use white paint? I used white crayons on mine and they don't look near as good.
I ordered a set and returned them because their finish quality was fucking shameful. Rather than a smooth and glossy plastic surface, each face had swirls and ripples of dullness. Faces had huge sunken pits where the plastic cooled too quickly and instead of raised bumps where they were attached to the sprue, I had dice with jagged chips missing.
Did you order them before they shut down and reopened? Because I've heard that qa wasn't great then, but haven't heard anything about it recently.
It's because there's a bump on the 7 where the die was cut from the sprue. If you sand it down properly, the 14 matches the other numbers.
Because the dice look pretty.
This always bothered me. If I'm paying a premium for "precision" dice, the least they could do is file down the bit of sprue at the factory.
Well, the reason why most dice are rock tumbled is that filing such small shapes pretty much has to be done by hand and that's time consuming and literally ruins the die if overdone.
i dont wanna hype up gamescience because holy shit is it overrated but i feel that defeats the point of the expiriment
also i have plenty of chesex dice i never noticed anything on the 7 did he only use one die in his testing or something
This was a couple months ago. Maybe I just got old stock, but it turned me off completely. Their customer service guy was cool, though. Really chill.
Paint, yeah. A fine-tipped paint pen is actually the perfect size to fill in the numbers on GS dice.
These turned out a touch sloppy since they were my first batch, and I wasn't quite as patient with the paint as I should've been. But it's hardly even noticeable unless you look really close. And my players love them regardless.
The fact that this guy rolled one fucking die each and called it "research" boggles my mind. Like, if you know anything at all about statistics, you don't need to roll one die ten thousand times. It doesn't tell you shit and rolling it more times won't make it more scientific.
I wish somebody with an actual grasp of how to do this shit would do this. Hell, maybe I'll do it myself. Can you get GS in Europe by now?
Seconded.
Chessex gem dice look like shit. Dull and lifeless,
>Like, if you know anything at all about statistics, you don't need to roll one die ten thousand times
Well, then, how should you test the accuracy of a die?
If you want to test the accuracy of a single die, 1000 times is overdoing it. 500 times is more than enough. And comparing a single Chessex and a single GameScience doesn't tell you shit. You'd need to compare at least thirty to fourty and even that won't tell you much. To get any real results, you'd need to test a batch of dice from several different production runs.
How the fuck am I supposed to read that at a glance?
Ooh, they're inked now?! Sign me up!
You could make a pretty simple machine that grips the die on the proper face, and sheers the sprue face consistently. I think it would be a good investment for the company to develop.
Get glasses?
This. How can this be called "gamescience" if they can't even do statistics for shit.
Gamscience didn't do this study. Some blogger did it.
This, I just got two more sets of game science today. I don't buy that "more random" bs. I just like the look
Ink with opaque paint pens
My collection of Gamescience dice. Just got the amethyst and sapphire today and inked them myself.
I didn't fall for the "more random" meme that that old fart pushes. I just think they look so glorious.
Can i get them to make none traditional sided dice? I want one of a different archemedian solid.
At a glance the range of GS dice is fucking huge, 50% bigger than the chessex. That's not really good.
>claim to make the best dice
>the d4s display the result at the base instead of near the point for rapid target acquisition
trash
Can you crayon in the numbers like the good ol days?
>At a glance the range of GS dice is fucking huge, 50% bigger than the chessex. That's not really good.
What?
Maximum value-minimum value
It's been mentioned several times the graph in question used a GS die that had the sprue bit still sticking off the 7, which is why 14 is never hit. READ NIGGA READ
They even brought back my favorite set! Blue opal!
I'm glad they're back in production because I love their dice. That said, the number inking looks worse now. Purely aesthetic mind you, but still a gripe.
You do the inking yourself. Unless you want to pay extra to have someone else do 5 minutes of work for you.
yes, but they don't stay for long
Yeah, that's what I mean. The paid inking job looks shoddy AF.
Like I said though, it's just a minor aesthetic gripe.
Totally going to pick myself up the tanzanite set (even though I play digital games, just in case my local scene picks up again).
>14
Not random enough.
>"randomness test"
>no confidence level, alpha, p-value
>literally just raw data
This is the statistics equivalent of putting a dead cow on a plate and calling it a hamburger.
Except the sample sizes are for one die for each group, so it's probably more like just the cow's tail.
I've always wanted a Gamescience set, because I love those sharp edges.
I don't actually game in person anymore, but I'd buy a set anyway if I could find a really awesome green color. Not generic transparent, though.
Literally rolled 1 d20 from each company 1000 times.
He got the raw data for those 2 specific dice, which is not an indicator of overall quality from either manufacturer.
Is he a real colonel, or did he just have shitty parents?
Retired Air Force E-6, actually.
His title of Colonel is from his volunteer service in the Alabama State Defense Force, which is both inactive and not federally recognized. Outside of Alabama he has no right to that title.
>"Colonel" of an inactive volunteer State Militia
>Was an actual fucking Tech Sergeant in the goddamn Air Force
>>"Colonel" of an inactive volunteer State Militia
Hey, if it's good enough for "General" Andrew Jackson it's good enough for this guy.
Andrew Jackson went on to be President of the United States of America. Probably the second worst president in history, behind William Henry Harrison, but still.
This guy went on to invent to 3 sided die.
> Everything in that post
> NOT HATING HOOVER
> NOT HATING JOHNSON
> ANDREW JACKSON IS SECOND WORST
> HATING OLD TIPPACANOE
For what purpose?
President Harrison accomplished literal dick all in office, other than dying of pneumonia.
Also,
>Hating Hoover
Hoover did literally nothing wrong.
I'm with you on LBJ though.
Hey man, being the second worst president is still more of an accomplishment than being the asshole who invented the d3, the d24, and the golfball d100.
The guy doing the test didnt shave off the sprue blemish on the 7 side, which is why 14 wasnt eolled as often. Shave it down and everything is fine.