Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BonFire Circle
Brutor Clan
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 15:12:37 -
[1] - Quote
Could someone please provide a link to the formula for ecm effectiveness after optimal range? Eve-U just basically gives two values and doesn't specify if it's linear. |
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
694
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:23:19 -
[2] - Quote
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Turret_damage#Combined_effects_of_hit_chance_and_damage_distribution
falloff of ECM module is applied linearly diminuishing your chance to jam every time
single module Chance to Jam = ( Your ECM Strength / Target's Sensor Strength ) * 100% multiple modules Chance to Jam = (1 -(1 - Your ECM Strength / Target's Sensor Strength ) ^ The number of jammers of this strength)*100%
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/ECM
TL;DR apply the same falloff that guns have for dps and apply it on sensor strenght of the ECM module. then calculate the chance you get to jam with the new sensor strenght
pretty sure someone will come along and correct me |
Buggs LeRoach
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 22:50:36 -
[3] - Quote
Soel Reit wrote:http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Turret_damage#Combined_effects_of_hit_chance_and_damage_distribution falloff of ECM module is applied linearly diminuishing your sensor strengh and thus the chance to jam every time single module Chance to Jam = ( Your ECM Strength / Target's Sensor Strength ) * 100% multiple modules Chance to Jam = (1 -(1 - Your ECM Strength / Target's Sensor Strength ) ^ The number of jammers of this strength)*100% http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/ECM TL;DR apply the same falloff that guns have for dps and apply it on sensor strenght of the ECM module. then calculate the chance you get to jam with the new sensor strenght pretty sure someone will come along and correct me
ya , you're wrong . it's like you didn't even read the page you linked ..
|
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
697
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 22:58:20 -
[4] - Quote
i read it
but i just wait someone like you that is able to read better than me so you can explain i love my ez life |
BonFire Circle
Brutor Clan
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 23:29:27 -
[5] - Quote
So is this curve the answer? |
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
697
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 23:30:47 -
[6] - Quote
maybe better wait for the guru
Zhilia Mann |
Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
1263
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 03:49:26 -
[7] - Quote
ECM Guru Checking In....
due to the all-or-nothing RNG-Jesus nature of ECM, stay inside your optimal wherever possible.
damps and TD/GD do not have the same kinds of penalties for falloff as ECM.
Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze
This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
|
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
2715
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 06:50:50 -
[8] - Quote
I assume it is linear, if you really want to test it get something with 8 mids and start counting successes/failures not sure if the log provides ecm entries, if it does at least you can automate the counting part. Someone used the log server output ages ago to calculate if eccm worked vs gurista npcs not sure if that would still work.
I'm also guessing that you could get the rates by using a target painter at various ranges and seeing what the sig bloom is.
with guns there is a curve to the damage/range as hit quality is effected as well as hit chance. so optimal + falloff is a 50% chance to hit, but ends up being something like 38% dps.
selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2971
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 15:12:16 -
[9] - Quote
It's standard falloff mechanics with a binary hit/miss equal to the gunnery formula's hit chance reduction due to falloff.
In math terms, optimal always hits[1], and falloff has a chance of hitting[2] of:
0.5^({\frac{max(0,range-optimal)}{falloff})^2
Or if you want that to not look like **** plug this in:
0.5^{\left(\frac{\textup{max}(0,\textup{range}-\textup{optimal})}{\textup{falloff}} \right )^2}
Here:
https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php
You can see some sample curves generated here. If you really want I'll do one specific to ECM but obviously there isn't one yet.
So now to [1] and [2], which is ECM-specific.
"Hit" in this case actually means "gets a chance to roll against sensor strength". I actually don't know if this is the right order or not, but basically there are two checks:
1. Does RNG think you rolled high enough to hit a falloff calculation? 2. Does RNG think you rolled high enough to land a jam against the target?
If both pass, congrats, you get to jam someone. If either fails, the cycle fails. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2971
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 15:29:33 -
[10] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:I assume it is linear, if you really want to test it get something with 8 mids and start counting successes/failures not sure if the log provides ecm entries, if it does at least you can automate the counting part. Someone used the log server output ages ago to calculate if eccm worked vs gurista npcs not sure if that would still work.
I'm also guessing that you could get the rates by using a target painter at various ranges and seeing what the sig bloom is.
with guns there is a curve to the damage/range as hit quality is effected as well as hit chance. so optimal + falloff is a 50% chance to hit, but ends up being something like 38% dps.
Easiest way to test specifically for linearity would be to hit something (with ECM, painter, whatever) outside of optimal + 2*falloff. A linear model would suggest that this would never hit. Exponential decay says it does. (Hint: it does.) |
|
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
703
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 18:17:04 -
[11] - Quote
guru has spokes! all hails to the guru |
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
2717
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 20:57:36 -
[12] - Quote
doh, your right, and I should have known that from the RR changes https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6190014
at least I think you are mostly right, I'm not sure they do a chance to hit roll anymore as it seems they just factor that into your strength instead. My testing of a navy griffin orbiting a minmatar rookie ship hasn't resulted in a missed jam yet. I'm a bit under 30% falloff which gives me more than enough strength to overwhelm the rookie ships weak 6.96 sensor strength. If chance to hit was still in play I'd have missed at least a few.
selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2974
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 21:28:06 -
[13] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:doh, your right, and I should have known that from the RR changes https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6190014 at least I think you are mostly right, I'm not sure they do a chance to hit roll anymore as it seems they just factor that into your strength instead. My testing of a navy griffin orbiting a minmatar rookie ship hasn't resulted in a missed jam yet. I'm a bit under 30% falloff which gives me more than enough strength to overwhelm the rookie ships weak 6.96 sensor strength. If chance to hit was still in play I'd have missed at least a few. Edit: of course the log doesn't show missed jams... I still think I'm right, every time I looked I had jams with 5/5 ecm, but I was afk and not watching for a lot of them. And now I'm trying out at ~15km right now where I should have a ~30% chance to jam but hard to really say anything without collecting data and I'm too lazy to write it down right now.
Eh, ****. I guess I have to spend some time on Sisi. If they've gone and made it a strength decline instead of separate rolls I guess I'll have to modify the discussion. Still, good to know it's due for a test. |
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
703
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 21:29:49 -
[14] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:doh, your right, and I should have known that from the RR changes https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6190014 at least I think you are mostly right, I'm not sure they do a chance to hit roll anymore as it seems they just factor that into your strength instead. My testing of a navy griffin orbiting a minmatar rookie ship hasn't resulted in a missed jam yet. I'm a bit under 30% falloff which gives me more than enough strength to overwhelm the rookie ships weak 6.96 sensor strength. If chance to hit was still in play I'd have missed at least a few. Edit: of course the log doesn't show missed jams... I still think I'm right, every time I looked I had jams with 5/5 ecm, but I was afk and not watching for a lot of them. And now I'm trying out at ~15km right now where I should have a ~30% chance to jam but hard to really say anything without collecting data and I'm too lazy to write it down right now. Eh, ****. I guess I have to spend some time on Sisi. If they've gone and made it a strength decline instead of separate rolls I guess I'll have to modify the discussion. Still, good to know it's due for a test.
this is what i substained without tests. it's the most logical thing all considered!
but never trust CCP on logical things |
Buggs LeRoach
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 15:03:45 -
[15] - Quote
i always understood , in falloff , there was a 50/50 roll to see if the jam was attempted . if success , then you'd roll for a jam same as within optimal . here's a link and a table , that shows there is a separate roll , and it scales with distance into falloff .
https://eveinfo.net/wiki/inde~125.htm
Optimal Range and Falloff
Due to the recent ECM nerf, falloff now has a much greater impact than before. Below optimal the jamming probability works as shown above. At optimal+falloff that probability is reduced to half, while at optimal+falloff*2 the probability drops to approximately 0. Between these two values it scales in a non-linear fashion. For reference, consult the following table, where the first value is %distance into falloff and the second value is the chance to hit.
5% 0.998105%0.466 10%0.993110%0.432 15%0.985115%0.400 20%0.973120%0.369 25%0.958125%0.339 30%0.940130%0.310 35%0.919135%0.283 40%0.895140%0.257 45%0.869145%0.233 50%0.841150%0.210 55%0.811155%0.189 60%0.779160%0.170 65%0.746165%0.152 70%0.712170%0.135 75%0.677175%0.120 80%0.642180%0.106 85%0.606185%0.093 90%0.570190%0.082 95%0.535195%0.072 100%0.500200%0.063
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3052
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 02:49:24 -
[16] - Quote
Simple answer: it uses the same falloff chance as turrets. If it's a hit, it checks jam strength vs. sensor strength like normal. If it's a miss, it's always a fail.
Meaning my blackbird can jam you at 200km more often than you might think it can.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
2732
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 07:07:09 -
[17] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Simple answer: it uses the same falloff chance as turrets. If it's a hit, it checks jam strength vs. sensor strength like normal. If it's a miss, it's always a fail.
Meaning my blackbird can jam you at 200km more often than you might think it can. that is how it used to work, however I think with effectiveness falloff it just lowers the jam strength at longer ranges as previously discussed.
selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3052
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 07:53:33 -
[18] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:that is how it used to work, however I think with effectiveness falloff it just lowers the jam strength at longer ranges as previously discussed. I seem to remember hearing some discussion about changing it to lower jam strength instead of using the old chance-based falloff, but it's definitely not linear. The former was something I had suggested a while back, but I don't know if it ever got implemented.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |