Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbrown
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Not gonna lie, it's kinda funny hearing you ask me for longer parses when my first post in this thread was asking you for longer parses and you defending 400-hit parses. But yes, in case I wasn't clear enough I don't think my results had enough hits on either side to be conclusive. Suggestive but not conclusive, which is why I'm going to restart the experiment with a better design and a third option.
But there's no need for the parses to be exactly the same length. 1800 hits vs 1700 hits is just as legitimate as 1700 hits vs 1700 hits. You just have to normalize the total damage into damage/hit and then it's comparable.
|
400 hit parses are fine if you use them in the correct context. This isn't a black and white issue with only one answer.
I use smaller parses across a large range initially to check possible patterns, and then I hone in on areas of interest with larger parses.
This is because going from 0 AC to 300 AC should be a large enough difference to where noise is less likely to affect the outcome, as a simple example. My initial post had a difference of 123 AC at level 5. That is a very large gap.
Clearly you use smaller parses as well, so please do not pretend that you believe smaller parses have no merit. Since you complained about smaller parses, one would think you would lead by example and supply larger parses.
And yes, you need the same number of hits for each set. That is the only accurate way to compare total damage taken, and how many hits are on the lower half of the damage values vs. the upper half. There's no reason to use different hit amounts. If you have one set with 1800 and one set with 1700, just take 100 off of the 1800 test.