Originally by: Tsanse Kinske]]>
Question: If I log in and out 29 times in a row and I still lose my ship can I petition?
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.
I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
Originally by: DarkElf
1 multi spec on a none ecm ship against a ship with 1 ECCM will do hardly anything.
Originally by: Gyro DuAquin1
the problem with ur coin example is that jamers do not effect etach other, you end up with 1 coin one change. And ofc more jamers more change to jam someone, cause the more coins u flip more coins will show head.
Originally by: Gyro DuAquin1
the problem with ur coin example is that jamers do not effect etach other, you end up with 1 coin one change. And ofc more jamers more change to jam someone, cause the more coins u flip more coins will show head.
Originally by: Trem Sinval
That's because you have no grasp of stastical reasoning.
Let's illustrate, shall we?
SHIP WITH 4 JAMMERS
Jammer 1: No jam.
Jammer 2: No jam.
Jammer 3: No jam.
Jammer 4: Jam.
The odds in this contest are that every fourth time you "ping" the ship for a jam, you'll make it. The fact that you are fitting 4 jammers means that you are, from a PURELY STATISTICAL STANDPOINT, always going to make a jam, whether it's with the very first jammer you run or the last.
Consider the above situation one "beat". This is one global opportunity for you to make a jam.
YOUR NUMBERS, on the other hand, are for a single module making 4 tries in separate beats. This is where the analogy of the lotteries comes in. 4 jammers means 4 tickets in a single lottery (the lottery necessarily having 4 possible outcomes, 3 of which do not result in a jam). YOUR NUMBERS, on the other hand, are for a SINGLE TICKET in 4 SEPARATE LOTTERIES.Quote:
There's an endless ammount of tickets. You never ever have a 100% chance to jam someone
Oh, well hello. I guess you just caught up to all the other people in the thread? Have a fun time not reading posts?Quote:
If you buy 4 tickets with 25% chance of winning a number of times x - then your total ammount tickets with wins will extrapolate to x
Well, I thought this one was obvious (see the above about not reading posts).
As X approaches INFINITY (that is, you buy an INFINITE amount of tickets over an INFINITE amount of time), your chances approach 100%. Not that they will ever actually reach 100%; not that 100% is a reasonable number to expect. That it will APPROACH 100%.
I have a present for you:
dalman
- Trem
Originally by: murder one
Engage in a 1v1 with a Megathron with 1 racial jammer. Vindicator has 24 sensor strength. Then proceed to be jammed 4 times *in a row*. Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.
I lost a Vindicator because I had enough bad luck that I was jammed four times consecutively. No other reason. TBH I could give a *SNIP* bad word-Hutchabout the ISK etc. It's just the principle of the matter. And the sad part is, it won't be any different in Kali.
Originally by: dalman
Ehm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The correct numbers are in my post above.
Quote:
There's an endless ammount of tickets. You never ever have a 100% chance to jam someone
Quote:
If you buy 4 tickets with 25% chance of winning a number of times x - then your total ammount tickets with wins will extrapolate to x
Quote:
There's an endless ammount of tickets. You never ever have a 100% chance to jam someone
Quote:
If you buy 4 tickets with 25% chance of winning a number of times x - then your total ammount tickets with wins will extrapolate to x
Originally by: dalman
If he buys 4 tickets from different lotteries each with a 25% chance to win.
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
Let me ask a seperate question... whats the "odds" of rolling a 20 on a 20 sided die? On the same die, whats the "odds" of rolling a 1. Now, whats the odds of rolling a 20 and a 1 in a row?
The reason I ask, is because there are only 2 answers to this question. I'm curious which one you give.
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
Let me ask a seperate question... whats the "odds" of rolling a 20 on a 20 sided die? On the same die, whats the "odds" of rolling a 1. Now, whats the odds of rolling a 20 and a 1 in a row?
The reason I ask, is because there are only 2 answers to this question. I'm curious which one you give.
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
Um, yes it is.
If I have a 1 in 4 chance of hitting, and four chances to try it. Then I have a 100% chance of hitting.
But here is where those numbers break apart. Just because I have a 100% chance to hit, doesn't mean that I will actually hit.
Probabilities are like that.
Originally by: murder oneMurder one, I love your exploits dearly, but at this point I'd reccommend that you just give up on EVE.. Not because you suck or anything like that.. Far from it.. From everything I've seen, you rule.. However, it seems that God hates you and has doomed you to always get pwned by jammers.. I'm sorry, but from everything you've posted it just seems that way.. You always get beaten by ECM.. Always..
There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Originally by: Mangold
You cant look at it that way. Compare it to throwing snowballs at someone. If the first snowball has a 25% of hitting and the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th one has the same probability how big is the chance that one of them hits the target? It's not 100%.
Originally by: Locke DieDrakeOriginally by: MangoldOriginally by: Trem Sinval
Edited by: Trem Sinval on 15/11/2006 22:22:56Originally by: Mangold
Erm, your calculations are not correct. Running 4 jammers on a single target (with your numbers) will give a 68% chance of jamming every time. That is the same as a 32% chance of failure.
4 jammers vs. 1 ship:
Each jammer having a 1 in 4 chance to hit the jam, statistically speaking at least one of your jammers should keep the target jammed all the time (the extrapolated probability being (1/4)*4, or 100%). If you can take 4 stabs at a contest in which every fourth person wins, you'll always win.
No. This is where you are wrong. The other calculations may be correct (haven't looked at them tbh and I don't belive there is anything wrong with them).
You cant look at it that way. Compare it to throwing snowballs at someone. If the first snowball has a 25% of hitting and the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th one has the same probability how big is the chance that one of them hits the target? It's not 100%.
Um, yes it is.
If I have a 1 in 4 chance of hitting, and four chances to try it. Then I have a 100% chance of hitting.
But here is where those numbers break apart. Just because I have a 100% chance to hit, doesn't mean that I will actually hit.
Probabilities are like that.
Originally by: MangoldOriginally by: Trem Sinval
Edited by: Trem Sinval on 15/11/2006 22:22:56Originally by: Mangold
Erm, your calculations are not correct. Running 4 jammers on a single target (with your numbers) will give a 68% chance of jamming every time. That is the same as a 32% chance of failure.
4 jammers vs. 1 ship:
Each jammer having a 1 in 4 chance to hit the jam, statistically speaking at least one of your jammers should keep the target jammed all the time (the extrapolated probability being (1/4)*4, or 100%). If you can take 4 stabs at a contest in which every fourth person wins, you'll always win.
No. This is where you are wrong. The other calculations may be correct (haven't looked at them tbh and I don't belive there is anything wrong with them).
You cant look at it that way. Compare it to throwing snowballs at someone. If the first snowball has a 25% of hitting and the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th one has the same probability how big is the chance that one of them hits the target? It's not 100%.
Originally by: Mangold
Erm, your calculations are not correct. Running 4 jammers on a single target (with your numbers) will give a 68% chance of jamming every time. That is the same as a 32% chance of failure.
Originally by: AsfALT
There is this great story about 2 battleships fighting in ww2 when one of them was sunk due to one single porjectile that landed it's magazine bay.
HMM IT MUST BE IMPOSIBLE THAT A VERY GOOD SHIP CAN BE LOST TO A STATISTICAL ANOMALY!!! (irony)
Statistical anomalyes do happen. Such is life...
Originally by: Mangold
Erm, your calculations are not correct. Running 4 jammers on a single target (with your numbers) will give a 68% chance of jamming every time. That is the same as a 32% chance of failure.
Quote:
Fitting a ECCM (60% added sensor strength) will change that to 49% chance of successful jam i e 51% chance of failure.
Originally by: Andrea JaruwalskiOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.
I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.
Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.
Originally by: AsfALTThe whining doesn't make it 'no skill just luck', ecm does.
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:34:05
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:32:53
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:29:51
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:29:05Originally by: CrumplecornOriginally by: AsfALTYeah, but this is a game. Taking the given example, how impressed would you be if, every once in a while, your ship was one-shotted by someone else's because the game decided a 'statisical anomaly' occurred?
...
And, since the above basically boiled down to very bad luck, are you saying it is a good thing that combat in Eve is more about luck than your setup or your skill when ECM is involved?
Eve combat is not "more about luck", but luck has to have a factor. In any system that emplyes randomness there will always be this type of situations. I compleatly agree with luck.
EDIT: There would be no problem if ships could be criticaly hit in such a way. As this is a game, fights occure more often then in rl given the nr of ppl involved, it is only normal that such improbable events appear more often then in RL.
Just because some ppl are unlucky and then very vocal about that dosen't make the whole game a "no skill just luck" game.
Originally by: CrumplecornOriginally by: AsfALTYeah, but this is a game. Taking the given example, how impressed would you be if, every once in a while, your ship was one-shotted by someone else's because the game decided a 'statisical anomaly' occurred?
...
And, since the above basically boiled down to very bad luck, are you saying it is a good thing that combat in Eve is more about luck than your setup or your skill when ECM is involved?
Originally by: CrumplecornOriginally by: AsfALTYeah, but this is a game. Taking the given example, how impressed would you be if, every once in a while, your ship was one-shotted by someone else's because the game decided a 'statisical anomaly' occurred?
...
And, since the above basically boiled down to very bad luck, are you saying it is a good thing that combat in Eve is more about luck than your setup or your skill when ECM is involved?
Originally by: RheinkraftOriginally by: AsfALT
...
The Hood Vs The Bismarck if my memory serves me right, The Bismarck destroyed the british flagship The Hood in 2 voleys :D
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea JaruwalskiOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.
I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.
Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.
Why does everyone keep bringing up ECCM? It doesn't work. It never has. ECM is always more effective than ECCM. Why bring it up?
Quote:]]>
Mail from: Houvire Takaerne
2006.06.06 19:25
Our research has been fruity. If you're interested, I believe I have found what might be a banana in the corner of my office draw.
Originally by: James Snowscoran
Well you could argue that the lowslot eccm modules are kinda underpowered. But then, signal amplifiers are also kinda underpowered compared to sensor boosters . I can't help but feel only very limited amounts of sympathy over your being jammed only 50% of the time against 2 blackbirds...that means they'd need 4 blackbirds to jam you 75% of the time, and whenever you escape a single jam cycle in the mega, at least one of the blackbirds really should go down the drain from blaster and drone pounding.
Originally by: RobimusThis has absolutely nothing to do with:
You know, you guys all cry about using ecm. Why? because you all die from it. Lets say eve was real combat. Would you just stand their like we did 100 years ago and see who's line of guns hits harder? We eventualy figured out that war was about more than that and adopted tactics. Everyones is different. If you fight like we did 100's of years ago you are gonna die.
I have played this game a long time an combat in the game is evolving just like it has in RL. Everyone is going to have to adapt or this whining is never gonna stop.
Originally by: Risien DrogonneOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Risien DrogonneOriginally by: murder one
#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?
Hmm, I see you're a product of the "everything is opinion" generation of public schooling. The fact that ECCM improves your sensors by 96% and thus makes you less vulnerable to jamming is not open to debate, nor is it an opinion.
I didn't dispute that it improves your sensor strength by 96%. What I said was is that it wasn't effective enough, despite that healty increase.
Yes, I'm well aware of your belief that 1 simple ECCM module should make you immune to jamming from a million ECM modules all trying to jam you at once. Good luck with that. What other counters work that way?
Originally by: Miss Overlord
i digress this fool will run his course
Originally by: murder one
I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
Originally by: murder one
Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.
Originally by: Wrangler]]>
I lock, therefor I am.
Originally by: Andrea JaruwalskiOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.
I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.
Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Risien DrogonneOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Risien Drogonne
If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.
I've tried to use ECCM before. I have no faith in it.
See, that lie exposes itself. If you HAD bothered to try it, you'd know it works.
Talking to you is like talking to a brick. Didn't I **JUST SAY*** that I've tried ECCM and have no faith in it because it doesn't work?
I built a Mega with 72 sensor strength once becuase these guys I was going to kill were all ECM wh@res. 1x best named mid slot active ECCM, and if I recall, 3x best named low slot ECCM. I was jammed for at LEAST 50% of the fight. Not by scorps, but by two T1 blackbirds. So no, ECCM doesn't work.
I sacrificed FOUR slots to ECCM and was still rendered useless. ECCM doesn't work, it never has.
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Miss Overlord
i digress this fool will run his course
WTF, do I have to go get witnesses? You ppl have your heads so far up your asses that you think that it's just not possible?
Originally by: Miss Overlord
i digress this fool will run his course
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Risien DrogonneOriginally by: murder one
#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?
Hmm, I see you're a product of the "everything is opinion" generation of public schooling. The fact that ECCM improves your sensors by 96% and thus makes you less vulnerable to jamming is not open to debate, nor is it an opinion.
I didn't dispute that it improves your sensor strength by 96%. What I said was is that it wasn't effective enough, despite that healty increase.
Originally by: Risien DrogonneOriginally by: murder one
#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?
Hmm, I see you're a product of the "everything is opinion" generation of public schooling. The fact that ECCM improves your sensors by 96% and thus makes you less vulnerable to jamming is not open to debate, nor is it an opinion.
Originally by: murder one
#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?
Originally by: murder one
No, I didn't. How do you come to this conclusion?
And to set you straight, not only have I tested ECCM both with RMR and Kali, but I've tried using ECCM in combat on numerous occasions, without success.
So again, I ask, how did you come upon this falsity that you now think you need to slander me and call me a liar?
Originally by: murder one
I lied about what?
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Risien DrogonneOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Risien Drogonne
If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.
I've tried to use ECCM before. I have no faith in it.
See, that lie exposes itself. If you HAD bothered to try it, you'd know it works.
Talking to you is like talking to a brick. Didn't I **JUST SAY*** that I've tried ECCM and have no faith in it because it doesn't work?
Originally by: Risien DrogonneOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Risien Drogonne
If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.
I've tried to use ECCM before. I have no faith in it.
See, that lie exposes itself. If you HAD bothered to try it, you'd know it works.
Originally by: Risien Drogonne
If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
Whine on that one?
Can't be asked to relog my other char for the forums.
Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
Whine on that one?
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea JaruwalskiOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.
I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.
Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.
Why does everyone keep bringing up ECCM? It doesn't work. It never has. ECM is always more effective than ECCM. Why bring it up?
Originally by: murder one
luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
Originally by: Andrea JaruwalskiOriginally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.
I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.
Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.
Originally by: Admiral Pieg
gawd you whine alot dont you..
Originally by: Admiral Pieg
gawd you whine alot dont you..
Originally by: murder oneOriginally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.
I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?
Chance isn't good game design.
Originally by: murder one
Engage in a 1v1 with a Megathron with 1 racial jammer. Vindicator has 24 sensor strength. Then proceed to be jammed 4 times *in a row*. Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.
Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski
All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.