Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alice Teal
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 02:15:00 -
[1]
Pretty much the subject line. I see countless posts claiming the opposite, however when I conduct the simple experiment of warping my Deimos to a Dire Guristas Killer spawn with and without one ECCM, I find my lock "up time" dramatically increases. With two ECCMs I rarely ever get jammed.
So what gives with all the hurf-blurfers saying "LOL ECCM doesn't work against rats?"
|
Destroperuk
Auctoritas Fleet Auctoritas Empire
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 02:25:00 -
[2]
Insignificant sample size. Come back after you've written down your statistics after fighting ~1000 Guristas missions with and without ECCM.
|
XXSketchxx
Gallente Remote Soviet Industries Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 02:25:00 -
[3]
I noticed a significant decrease in "amount of times jammed" as well when I do missions in my unprobable tengu.
Might just be imagining things. Might be true. I'd like to believe its working _____________________________________________
-Sketch, Certified Pharmacist
Need a Boost?
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 03:06:00 -
[4]
I very rarely get jammed in my Golem when fighting Guristas, and have noticed no difference in jam amounts when using a Raven, CNR, Golem, Abaddon, Maelstrom, etc. Also, CCP (through Grayscale and some other high and might actual developer that wrote the specific code in question) says that sensor strength doesn't affect the chances of rats jamming you - either a rat decides it's going to jam you or it doesn't.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 03:18:00 -
[5]
Personally, I'd keep an open mind rather than dismissing this claim outright to a statistical blip. Yes, dev said the chance is random regardless of your ships sensor str, but they've been wrong before.
I'd been whoring L3s (>100s of mission) for standings in Caldari space and a Tengu (with Dissolution Sequencer sub) seems to be less susceptible to Guristas ECM when compared to a Drake. In fact, with the Tengu, I was left wondering why the Guristas didn't ECM more often.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 03:26:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sturmwolke Personally, I'd keep an open mind rather than dismissing this claim outright to a statistical blip. Yes, dev said the chance is random regardless of your ships sensor str, but they've been wrong before.
I'd been whoring L3s (>100s of mission) for standings in Caldari space and a Tengu (with Dissolution Sequencer sub) seems to be less susceptible to Guristas ECM when compared to a Drake. In fact, with the Tengu, I was left wondering why the Guristas didn't ECM more often.
I put this up to damage and intelligent target picking - because my Golem also doesn't get jammed all that often (with a 6 sensor strength, or what have you). I mean, it's frustrating when it happens, but it's quite rare. I guess the right answer is for us all to go get a Guristas mission and permatank it... and see how many times we get jammed over 8 hours or so. We might want to do this several times if there isn't a very clear answer.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 03:42:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Liang Nuren I put this up to damage and intelligent target picking
That's one possibility, nevertheless for my case, I cba to waste time to shoot elite frigs/cruisers and the known jamming Guristas cruisers. One notable experience was blizting L3 Guristas Blockade (several times), only killing the trigger BCs. The same stuff with a Drake will almost always end up with higher frequency of successful jam cycles. The difference is significant, from my perspective.
In fact, if someone's willing to experiment, aggro everything in the L3 Guristas Blockade and kill off all the BCs except for the last mision completion trigger. Afterwards, tank the whole room with different ships/mods and observe the jam frequency for a few hrs. |
Herpes Sweatrash
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 04:07:00 -
[8]
you would be surpised how many special people in NC who have been ratting their balls off for years in Gurista space think the ECCM actually works vs rats and the fit it on their ratter ships.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 04:31:00 -
[9]
I've found it to be completely random. Going for 10 missions in a row without seeing more than a jam or two per, or getting jammed by seemingly everything all day long. Same ship, always. This is why, whenever someone makes a thread like this I just go
The devs said it's a set chance independent of sensor str. No hurf blurf about it. If you want to prove it wrong, do a very significant amount of missions and, you know, prove it wrong. I'd think we'd have heard a lot of whining from marauder pilots if that were the case.
edit: and just to remind you, there is still no divider between posts and sigs.
|
Haramir Haleths
Caldari Nutella Bande
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 07:58:00 -
[10]
ECCM does'nt work with NPC. Have made Pirates Path. In the last Escaltion Site they jammed my unprobeable Tengu with 2 ECCM Projector on it, a lot. SS was very high.
|
|
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 10:54:00 -
[11]
Ok, I think the CCP dev(s) either lied to us or NPC ECM was stealth updated in the recent updates.
Preface There have been anecdotes and personal experiences from players that says ECCM (i.e higher sensor str) helps against NPC jamming. On the opposite end, many have said that is completely untrue based on the dev's post, dismissing it as a placebo effect or statistical random blip.
The biggest problem to overcome was how to gather a meaningful jam success/failure statistic in a steady state environment, without compromising accuracy or killing yourself with the tedium. This is where CCP's LogServer comes in.
Method 1) Create a steady state enviroment : Guristas The Assault 2nd Pocket - 1 Dire Pithum Annihilator, 1 Dire Pithum Nullfier 2) Run LogServer.exe and start EVE 3) Enter a perma-tank ship to be tested and aggro the 2 Elite Cruisers 4) To minimize the log dump, suppress all channels and all flags except the Info flag. 4) Run afk for about 1 hr. End logging. 5) Collect the log files, filter only for "svc - godma" and export all messages to Excel. 6) Piece together the whole session in Excel. 7) Keywords to look for :
EW START TIME - start of ECM attempt EW SKIP - failed jamming EW START - succesful jamming
8) Utilize Excel's Find All to get the numbers.
Results
Retribution (Sensor Strength 11.0) EW START TIME207 EW SKIP37 EW START170 Jam Success82.13%
Drake (Sensor Strength 19.0) EW START TIME207 EW SKIP101 EW START106 Jam Success51.21%
CNR (Sensor Strength 27.5) EW START TIME207 EW SKIP146 EW START61 Jam Success29.47%
Drake (Sensor Strength 57.5) EW START TIME207 EW SKIP174 EW START33 Jam Success15.94%
Conclusion & Notes * The interval between attempts is roughly 20sec and I'm still figuring out some minor inconsistencies in the interval that often shows up when two successful jam overlaps. * I've also done a short confirmation that each ECM START corresponds to an ewar icon showing up in the overview which result in a targeting loss. * Each result above comes from an approx 1 hr slice of log, starting from the first ECM attempt till the 207th.
I think the numbers paint a different story from what CCP dev(s) had stated about NPC ECM.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 17:52:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Sturmwolke
Nicework
Nicework there Sturmwolke :).
Yeah I have to agree with you and the OP fitting a mid slot ECCM reduces your chance of getting jammed by rats by half at least.
At least thats what my non scientific experiance tells me. I think the confusion comes in because some peops expect to be totally invulnerable , which will never happen either that or there fitting the wrong flavor of ECCM.
Another weird thing on the subject of ECM , do you know if you jam a rat it stops repping itself !!! weird!! stupid rats.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 23:36:00 -
[13]
Another interesting ECM factoid: most rats (k-space and w-space) will run directly away from you when you jam them.
[Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES] |
Liang Nuren
The Aduro Protocol Talon Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 05:50:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/03/2010 05:50:42
Originally by: Sturmwolke
Retribution (Sensor Strength 11.0) EW START TIME207 EW SKIP37 EW START170 Jam Success82.13% ... * The interval between attempts is roughly 20sec
Based on the data you provide, the expected jamming strength of those cruisers is 9 (9.0, 9.7, 8.1, 9.1). Based on this, I would expect my Golem to be jammed about 65% (9 / 14) of the time in Guristas missions... and this isn't the case.
I'll see if I can snag a Recon 1/3 tonight and see how often I get jammed.
-Liang
Ed: Also, I would say that there's fairly strong evidence for sensor strength mattering. Glad you did the grunt work and tested it out. ::prepares a meal of crow:: -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 06:28:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Based on the data you provide, the expected jamming strength of those cruisers is 9 (9.0, 9.7, 8.1, 9.1). Based on this, I would expect my Golem to be jammed about 65% (9 / 14) of the time in Guristas missions... and this isn't the case.
There's a whole host of interesting log data actually. I didn't want to clutter up the prev post with too much information. The cruiser's jamming strength is compared for each attempt. Funny at first, I thought it could be faux pas data because of the dev's statement, but after the results came in, it's hard not to believe it wasn't applied.
Exmple slice for the Retribution for the Dire Pithum Nullifier :
EW START TIME -231 20231 20000.0 GetAttributeValue WAIT 2100135012 240 GetAttributeValue 2100135012 scanMagnetometricStrengthBonus 11.0 GetAttributeValue WAIT 2000184795 210 GetAttributeValue 2000184795 scanMagnetometricStrength 0.0 GetAttributeValue WAIT 2100135012 241 GetAttributeValue 2100135012 scanRadarStrengthBonus 10.0 GetAttributeValue WAIT 2000184795 208 GetAttributeValue 2000184795 scanRadarStrength 12.0 GetAttributeValue WAIT 2100135012 238 GetAttributeValue 2100135012 scanGravimetricStrengthBonus 9.5 GetAttributeValue WAIT 2000184795 211 GetAttributeValue 2000184795 scanGravimetricStrength 0.0 GetAttributeValue WAIT 2100135012 239 GetAttributeValue 2100135012 scanLadarStrengthBonus 10.5 GetAttributeValue WAIT 2000184795 209 GetAttributeValue 2000184795 scanLadarStrength 0.0 StartEffect.CheckAttackDefenseStrengths.1b (2100135012, 2000184795) (10.0, 12.0) 0.833333333333 True CheckApplyModifiers.CheckAttackDefenseStrengths.electronicAttributes True 474883544 EW START 2100135012 1871 2000184795 129121632312974865 (20231, 20000.0) 3 (28029, 4694, 7677)
Checkout the red bold. |
Liang Nuren
The Aduro Protocol Talon Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 06:59:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/03/2010 06:59:50
Originally by: Sturmwolke
StartEffect.CheckAttackDefenseStrengths.1b (2100135012, 2000184795) (10.0, 12.0) 0.833333333333 True CheckApplyModifiers.CheckAttackDefenseStrengths.electronicAttributes True 474883544 EW START 2100135012 1871 2000184795 129121632312974865 (20231, 20000.0) 3 (28029, 4694, 7677)
That right there is pretty damning. It's also interesting that the jam strength is: - Vs Amarr: 10 - Vs Gallente: 11 - Vs Minmatar: 10.5 - Vs Caldari: 9.5
Yes, because the ships with the highest sensor strengths really need more bonuses.
The site you linked said that the ship should only jam 37.5% of the time on a 20 second cycle. I'd expect to be jammed (in a Golem) .65*.375 = 24% of the time with one of those guys on the field. I'm not sure that's accurate, but as I said - I make a point to take out ECM ships quickly.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Axemaster
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 07:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Destroperuk Insignificant sample size. Come back after you've written down your statistics after fighting ~1000 Guristas missions with and without ECCM.
Just so you guys know, statistical error can be calculated like this:
1/sqrt(sample size) = percentage error
This is in many cases an oversimplification, but it should serve the purpose well.
Example: You fight for 20 jam cycles of time, and get jammed 6 times. Your chance of being jammed is 30%, with a statistical error of +/- 22.4%.
In order to be reasonably sure about the jamming probability, you should allow a sample size of at least 100 jam cycles, for an error of 10%.
Enjoy your maths.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 07:32:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Wet Ferret I've found it to be completely random. Going for 10 missions in a row without seeing more than a jam or two per, or getting jammed by seemingly everything all day long. Same ship, always. This is why, whenever someone makes a thread like this I just go
The devs said it's a set chance independent of sensor str. No hurf blurf about it. If you want to prove it wrong, do a very significant amount of missions and, you know, prove it wrong. I'd think we'd have heard a lot of whining from marauder pilots if that were the case.
This.
I think the Dev are right for a very simple reason, it is consistent on how the other NPC capabilities work.
Rats don't use capacitor for shield boosting/armor repairing, they have a set chance of doing that.
Similarly they don't have a ECM strength and they don't start a "battle" between the ECM strength of the NPC ship and the sensor strength of your ship , they simply have a set chance of attempting it and a set chance of success.
The drake/golem with the drake getting blinded more than the golem is an example of how sensor strength don't mean anything: Drake base sensor strength: 19, Golem: 14, so you should be blinded way more often in the golem than the drake.
|
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 07:41:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Sturmwolke on 05/03/2010 07:44:22 Yeah, I'm still wondering where that 37.5% figure fits in, or it could be just old redundant data. I guess about the only thing that could throw off the current analysis if somehow only some of the success cycles are applied.
"Attribute maxLockedTargets of module .... " indicates your ship's target count (turns 0 after a jam success).
Its occurance decreases from sensor str 12.0 to 57.9, so there is definitely a clear correlation sensor strength is included in the calculation for jam success/failure. The evidence is too strong.
Nevertheless, I'd look forward to peer opinions once you have your data sets. This sort of data analysis stuff is not my forte tbh, I'm just doing it out of curiosity and with that I am more interested in the general trending (for POC) rather than the nitty-gritty details.
edit: grammar |
Liang Nuren
The Aduro Protocol Talon Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 08:28:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Axemaster
1/sqrt(sample size) = percentage error
The sample size was large enough to display a clear result. Statistical Error = +/-7%
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
|
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 14:09:00 -
[21]
I wonder how long it has been that way. Are we seeing the gradual introduction of Sleeper mechanics to NPC rats, or is it just more proof that developers lie[1]?
[1] "Developers lie." Spoken by the head of QA at a software company I worked for.
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
xChevalierx
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 18:07:00 -
[22]
Its random but because of quantum mechanics its working because you guys think its working? Maybe... or the Dev's are just lying, idk
|
Mulligan Basti
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 19:04:00 -
[23]
Its a common belief that EW, or in this case counter-EW doesn't work on rats.
My experience is that most does, but that it is irrelevant in most cases. Since rats tend to outnumber us greatly but their figting abilities are low, dps and tank is the best option in most cases.
Ive experienced a few rats that were close to impossible to kill without neuts, but adding neuts made it trivial. Or using tracking disruptor made it possible to speed tank a rat that would otherwise do too much damage.
These cases usually applied to single named NPCs.
The only type of EW that I haven't been able to test, is the use of warp scrambling/disrupting. NPCs tend to only warp out if they are scripted for it, and in that case they are probably designed to be immune. Turning off MWD for rats might be possible on a test case but probably completely irrelevant.
I do agree that data samples are hard to get, but in many cases it is possible to get good enough results to assume that it probably works. But theres obviously a lot of pitfalls.
|
Alice Rubidinous
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 20:18:00 -
[24]
Awesome work stormwolf. It isn't a pointless question either, for those implying it may be. Guristas plexes requiring logis can us this info to their advantage.
|
Diefer
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 13:51:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Diefer on 06/03/2010 13:55:49 Very nice test setup Sturmwolke. However, the testing is still not conclusive. Yes, it does show that different ships have different chance of being jammed, but this it not necessarily tied with sensor strength. (It could be just a hard coded ship specific value.)
I would like to see also tests on one ship with different loadouts (i.e. base without ECCM, with ECCM, with sensor strength implant set etc.) for definite conclusions.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 14:02:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Diefer Edited by: Diefer on 06/03/2010 13:55:49 Very nice test setup Sturmwolke. However, the testing is still not conclusive. Yes, it does show that different ships have different chance of being jammed, but this it not necessarily tied with sensor strength. (It could be just a hard coded ship specific value.)
I would like to see also tests on one ship with different loadouts (i.e. base without ECCM, with ECCM, with sensor strength implant set etc.) for definite conclusions.
This
|
Lugalzagezi666
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 14:50:00 -
[27]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Originally by: Diefer Edited by: Diefer on 06/03/2010 13:55:49 Very nice test setup Sturmwolke. However, the testing is still not conclusive. Yes, it does show that different ships have different chance of being jammed, but this it not necessarily tied with sensor strength. (It could be just a hard coded ship specific value.)
I would like to see also tests on one ship with different loadouts (i.e. base without ECCM, with ECCM, with sensor strength implant set etc.) for definite conclusions.
This
Hm, it shouldnt be so hard. Get in 'ship', take gurista mission, kill everything except jamming rat. Observe for one hour and count number of jams. Repeat with same ships with x eccms, observe for one hour, count jams.
|
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 15:32:00 -
[28]
Edited by: stoicfaux on 06/03/2010 15:34:50
Originally by: Diefer Edited by: Diefer on 06/03/2010 13:55:49 Very nice test setup Sturmwolke. However, the testing is still not conclusive. Yes, it does show that different ships have different chance of being jammed, but this it not necessarily tied with sensor strength. (It could be just a hard coded ship specific value.)
I would like to see also tests on one ship with different loadouts (i.e. base without ECCM, with ECCM, with sensor strength implant set etc.) for definite conclusions.
Uhm, he did show that in post #11 with the Drake:
Drake (Sensor Strength 19.0) EW START TIME207 EW SKIP101 EW START106 Jam Success51.21%
Drake (Sensor Strength 57.5) EW START TIME207 EW SKIP174 EW START33 Jam Success15.94%
Roughly speaking, tripling the sensor strength reduced the jamming chance to a third.
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 18:49:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Sturmwolke Yeah, I'm still wondering where that 37.5% figure fits in, or it could be just old redundant data. I guess about the only thing that could throw off the current analysis if somehow only some of the success cycles are applied.
"Attribute maxLockedTargets of module .... " indicates your ship's target count (turns 0 after a jam success).
There's some funny stuff going on here with multiple jamming sources. Notes :
* When jamming period ends with an EW STOP and a new succesful jam cycle begins, ship that was previosly jammed gains ability to target and the successful jam cancels itself - all happening within a few milliseconds. * Ship gains ability to target a few milliseconds before an official EW STOP. * Holy batman time travel! Ship loses lock several milliseconds BEFORE a succesful jam.
One should be able to build a playback program that simulates the encounter. All the pertaining values from time stamp, shields, armor, unique ship ID and etc are there. *hint* *hint* |
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 06:54:00 -
[30]
Interesting numbers. They have then propably done something to the rats after the comment about ECCM not affecting them. It might be ofc also that that EVE 'random' number generator get's confused if you fit ECCM. If I remeber correct tho they did somethign to npc e-war when motherships and titans started complaining about NPC's jamming and scramming them regardless of their ewar immunity.
It would be rather nice to have eve combat log analyzer II. The old one is well many years old and one could analyze encounters better with combination of log files and EVE-API.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |