The simulations are Bernouilli trials by their nature. The bolean property is the hit or miss. We're evaluating run sequences of Bernoilli trials. It's not that it's applied it's that it's the language used to describe trials within statistics that have bolean properties. I apologize for being misleading with the jargon.Quote:
Wikipedia tells me Bernouilli trials deals with booleans, I have no clue how you want to apply them here.
I agree that the non-integer values of health do have benefit, and I see why 4.9 is considered to 5 for example. I have no argument with that, and is what I believe and see as well. It's that the nature of the simulation doesn't capture the quantitative value of fractional quantities. 5 is better than 4.9, but in the model we're considering it the same. The simulation works well for telling you what hit sequences to expect and how avoidance changes this. And so far as mentioned, however, appears to be difficult to applying a sensible 'survivability value.'
Such difficulties are that we've established as a testing scenario 5 hits are very bad. Yet according to the model we will see those with almost certainty. But I'm guessing that these encounters aren't causing wipes 98% of the time because of this. There are CDs etc that affect these situations. So what is the quantitative value that can be attached to the results?
By changing the avoidance by 2% the conclusion was that the change in the hit sequences was 'small.' In the scientific world small/large are terms that when used will most certainly be followed with the questions "How small?" and "Small compared to what?". And this simulation can't answer that. 100 Stamina trinket on a EHP based tank (progression content) I can also say is relatively small (not saying unimportant), but it doesn't tell you anything. It's tempting to say it's smaller than 2% dodge (which I would guess 100 Sta>2% because there are a lot of good reasons why that should be the case, which you and Martie have repeatedly pointed out), but we can't show that with this. And comparing the value of 100Sta in your other model (which appears to so far have a sound basis), to 2% in a completely different model (which is shown not to be sound) is extremely dangerous and problematic in a scientific line of thinking,
To be clear, I'm not being critical of the idea or truth of EHP, I'm being critical of just this model. And ultimately so far comes to our best option and your entire conclusion "Tanking is strategy." Building stamina so far has been the winning strategy. Can we say for certain if Blackheart is better than Eitrigg's Oath? No, but EHP so far has shown to be better than avoidance stacking so Blackheart is likely our better bet, and qualitiative reason hasn't shown that it is worse.