EVE Search - ECCM works against Guristas.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Missions & Complexes

ECCM works against Guristas.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mulligan Basti	Posted - 2010.03.07 10:11:00 - [31] Theres no guarantee that all NPCs work the same way. I find it very likely that some may have a set chance, or even a guarantee to jam as part of a scripted event. Other NPCs may jam according to normal calculations. We don't know all the numbers but can only guess. The server may not even use the normal signal strength of the ship, but assume a fixed strength for each ship size, thus making Marauders more resistant to jamming than they should be. Simplifying things like this in PvE is quite normal in many games in order to balance the encounters or reduce server load.
Sturmwolke	Posted - 2010.03.07 11:20:00 - [32] Edited by: Sturmwolke on 07/03/2010 11:20:33 Fair assessment, that's where we need data from other folks who's willing to spend some time to record and analyze their logs. Probably what's still up in the air are : 1) if the same trend can be seen in other L3/L4 Guristas missions 2) if the same trend can be seen with Guristas ratting edit: typo
stoicfaux	Posted - 2010.03.07 23:19:00 - [33] Edited by: stoicfaux on 07/03/2010 23:19:22 Here's what I got for The Assault for a Golem against: Dire Pithum Annihilator Dire Pithum Nullifier 2x Pith Eliminator 4x Pith Exterminator. Data collection times were at least an hour. On a side note, the Exterminator and Eliminator orbit at a range greater than their ECM optimal range. (28.8km orbit, ECM range of 15km, ECM falloff of 7.5km.) Results Golem (Sensor Strength 14) EW START TIME364 EW SKIP163 EW START201 Jam Success55.22% Golem w/ECCM II (Sensor Strength 27.4 (eft) 27 fitting screen)) EW START TIME375 EW SKIP253 EW START122 Jam Success32.53% A 90% increase in sensor strength resulted in a 41% reduction in jamming. ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Deus Ex'Machina The-Machine	Posted - 2010.03.08 00:00:00 - [34] Originally by: stoicfaux A 90% increase in sensor strength resulted in a 41% reduction in jamming. translation a 90% increase in sensor strength resulted in a 70% increase in sensor tolerance to jamming - Arkanon: EXPLAIN YOURSELF, EVILDOER! Sharkbait: Dude.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2010.03.08 00:07:00 - [35] I've been lied to but I think it would still mostly be a waste of a slot to fit one.
stoicfaux	Posted - 2010.03.08 00:10:00 - [36] FYI: It looks like you only need to grab one line from the log output: StartEffect.CheckAttackDefenseStrengths And then look at the trailing True/False to determine if the ECM was successful. The ECM strength (5.5) and your sensor strength (27.439999..) are also listed. 2010.03.07 20:52:15:759StartEffect.CheckAttackDefenseStrengths.1b (2100185173, 1802385055) (5.5, 27.439999999999998) 0.200437317784 True 2010.03.07 20:52:15:759589970296 EW START 2100185173 1871 1802385055 129124687198975559 (19805, 20000.0) 1 (18561, 13625, 11007) 2010.03.07 20:52:15:760StartEffect.CheckAttackDefenseStrengths.1b (2100185174, 1802385055) (5.5, 27.439999999999998) 0.200437317784 False 2010.03.07 20:52:15:760590663576 EW SKIP 2100185174 1871 1802385055 129124687199038213 (19811, 20000.0) 1 (20673, 13627, 11007) ----- "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 - 2010.03.08 00:28:00 - [37] Originally by: stoicfaux results Awesome stoicfaux. Golem w/ECCM II mirrors the plain CNR almost exactly. I find the ECM range info from those links you provided is inaccurate, at least for the Dire Pithum Annihilator & Nullifier. Chruker's site seems to be pretty accurate. Don't have any logs for those battleship but it's very easy to find out the ECM range info from the logs. Look for : - e, <your NPC Guristas ship ID>, <your ship ID> .....attributes:{936: <NPC ECM range>, 238: <ECM Grav>, 239: <ECM Ladar>, 240: <ECM Mag>, 241: <ECM Radar>, 953: <NPC ECM falloff>} example log line for a Dire Pithum Annihilator : - e, 2100135011, 2026593008, None, [], 1871, 129121255165793932L, 20000.0, 2, (27035, 199, 7266)]},attributes:{936: 45000.0, 238: 9.0, 239: 10.0, 240: 10.5, 241: 9.5, 953: 20000.0},time:129121255166100893L> 0
Liang Nuren The Aduro Protocol Talon Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.08 00:41:00 - [38] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton I've been lied to but I think it would still mostly be a waste of a slot to fit one. Yeah, I don't plan to change my fittings when fighting Guristas. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
stoicfaux	Posted - 2010.03.08 00:42:00 - [39] Originally by: Sturmwolke Lost Targeting (Experienced by Player)11 times Those frigates were the only ones left alive at the end of the mission. It tallies (more or less) with the observed effect by player where targeting was lost a total 11 times (log shows Attribute maxLockedTargets - 8.0 to 0.0 = 13), quite a bit of the time was also spent being permajammed for 2-3 cycles from multiple frigs. Fitting an autotargeter during the test runs could be amusing... ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.08 19:30:00 - [40] hey hey a small question is there anything that is specificaly determining the true/false factor ? the numbers are pretty for sure but i cant tell what the deciding factor for true or false. it seems like alot of data just to determine a simple true or false action. the number preceeding True/False is identical in both instances (determined by the maths) but i dont see anything else being calculated. does this number go into a specific calulation to then determine jam success.

stoicfaux	Posted - 2010.03.08 20:56:00 - [41] Originally by: Mikal Drey hey hey a small question is there anything that is specificaly determining the true/false factor ? the numbers are pretty for sure but i cant tell what the deciding factor for true or false. it seems like alot of data just to determine a simple true or false action. the number preceeding True/False is identical in both instances (determined by the maths) but i dont see anything else being calculated. does this number go into a specific calulation to then determine jam success. Try this link: Target Jamming Basically it's jamming strength divided by your sensor strength. In post #36 with the true/false from the log, it would be 5.5 / 27.439999999999998 or 20% chance of success. ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.08 21:37:00 - [42] Ja i get the maths of it and the mechanics. i can see what the log is generating but i dont understand why line 1 is 20% TRUE and then line 2 is 20% False. it feels arbitary. the % chance to jam is calculated (shown with the log) but i cant figure out how that % is then translated into a true/false. the evidence suports a smaller % jam vs higher sensor strength) but doesnt show an actual calculation of the % being applied. maths and all this server stuffÖ is way beyond me. is it correct to assume the % is automagically applied to the number of jam attempts given that all numbers remain constant ? ergo the 207 attempts over an hr giving 20% jam = 41 successful jams (approx) ? NPC ECM also doesnt seem to have streaks and that you almost perfectly always get jammed the correct % over a given period of time yet player ECM can notoriously be almost 100% successful :/ any server shenannigans going on there maybe ? maybe NPC ECM is always multispecs and single ECM and player ECM has overlapping ECM (multiple jammers on single target)on one of the initial logs posted it lister scanGraviometric etc. . . Multispecs suck ty in advance
stoicfaux	Posted - 2010.03.08 22:35:00 - [43] Originally by: Mikal Drey Ja i get the maths of it and the mechanics. i can see what the log is generating but i dont understand why line 1 is 20% TRUE and then line 2 is 20% False. it feels arbitary. You're over-thinking this. The server looked at the 5.5 ECM strength, compared it to my sensor strength of 27.44, and rolled some dice. If the dice indicated that I was jammed, the logserver then printed 'True'. If the jamming attempt was unsuccessful, the logserver printed 'False'. ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Berenices Herculina Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2010.03.08 22:57:00 - [44] I get jammed really rarely in Golem. Why? Because I shoot the jamming NPC's first. Btw, CCP's dev has stated already that ECCM doesn't have absolutely no effect against NPC ECM. That might change only if Sleeper AI will be given to other NPC's. But sure if you are like sheeps who kept giving Maddof some $$$, just keep wasting your midslots for ECCM mods...
Druadan YARRRDIES Inc.	Posted - 2010.03.08 23:01:00 - [45] Originally by: Berenices Herculina I get jammed really rarely in Golem. Why? Because I shoot the jamming NPC's first. Btw, CCP's dev has stated already that ECCM doesn't have absolutely no effect against NPC ECM. That might change only if Sleeper AI will be given to other NPC's. But sure if you are like sheeps who kept giving Maddof some $$$, just keep wasting your midslots for ECCM mods... RTFT -Druadan CEO YARRRDIES Inc.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.03.09 00:24:00 - [46] Originally by: Berenices Herculina Btw, CCP's dev has stated already that ECCM doesn't have absolutely no effect Double negative. Also, don't you think its you who is the sheep, since you are blindly following rather old dev statements, while people in this thread are extracting rather interesting results from their logs? _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
stoicfaux	Posted - 2010.03.10 15:22:00 - [47] Originally by: Sturmwolke 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. Yeah, I noticed a significant number of those sub-second EW START/STOP cycles. Enough that I'm worried that counting EW START/SKIP isn't a valid method of measuring jamming rate. Instead I picked out the maxLockedTargets entries and tracked the time between them to determine the actual time spent jammed. Sample log entry showing 10 seconds of being unjammed: 273872010.03.07 22:01:39:604Attribute maxLockedTargets of module 1802385055 changed from 0.0 to 10.0 value I had was 0.0 277712010.03.07 22:02:49:816Attribute maxLockedTargets of module 1802385055 changed from 10.0 to 0.0 value I had was 10.0 So unless The Log is a Lie, the results still show that sensor strength plays a part in NPC jamming. Times are in seconds, and my apologies for being too lazy to format the numbers better. Golem with 14.0 Sensor Strength * jammed time = 1948.74999999953 46.5327018337172% * unjammed time = 2239.1650000005 * total time = 4187.91500000004 (~70 minutes) Spent 46.5% of the time jammed. Golem with Backup Sensor II - 20.7 Sensor Strength * jammed time = 1658.12600000005 37.9694179350424% * unjammed time = 2708.87800000003 * total time = 4367.00400000007 (~72 minutes) Spent 38.0% of the time jammed. Golem with ECCM II - 27.4 Sensor Strength * jammed time = 1307.41600000067 30.8835604336372% * unjammed time = 2925.95599999931 * total time = 4233.37199999997 (~70 minutes) Spent 30.9% of the time jammed. Quote: * 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. Probably just caused by the order that things are logged in. ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Alex Verrel	Posted - 2010.03.23 23:46:00 - [48] Edited by: Alex Verrel on 23/03/2010 23:51:28 Just so newer people don't think it's something that was added recently. a 2008/03/10 post on ECCM Note that the testing method is almost the same (Assault, perma-tank, only HACs left). With roughly the same results. It's just that I didn't have the log analyzer at the time. Originally by: Carniflex Interesting numbers. They have then propably done something to the rats after the comment about ECCM not affecting them. Hi, you might find the link above interesting, there's your comment there as well ;)
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2010.03.24 00:03:00 - [49] This is the kind of stuff I love to see. Sturm, you're my hero. I was going to come in on the anecdotal side...there's a long chain mission where one step involves raiding a Caldari deadspace area and destroying a station. I was having a *** of a time in my Vargur, as I spent the time being permajammed when I first attempted it. I loaded myself with ECCM and went back for a second attempt, and was only jammed a handful of times. (Mainly because I could blow apart the ECM ships once I wasn't permanently locked down.) Nothing compared to the facts, however. As for CCP lying...remember Hanlon's Razor: Originally by:** Hanlon Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Xaldor Syntek United Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.03.24 02:52:00 - [50] They should remove ecm from rats, it is just an extremely annoying and unnecessary hassle, ecm is fairly easy to counter when you don't have to worry about pve level damage coming in. I fly drone boats so it doesn't bother me but I wouldn't fly anything else because of how annoying ecm is to counter in pve.

Orion GUardian Caldari	Posted - 2010.03.24 11:43:00 - [51] The problem is: Fitting ECCM really hinders shield tanks. If PvP like fittings would be more valid in PvE (which would mean fewer NPCs, higher bounties but more EW etc) the ECCM fit might just be a solution. The problem is: High Sensor strength form ECCm gives you no benefits above being less vulnerable to jaming. If you counterfit agains webs, tracking disruptors or Sensor dampeners you at least have a kind of merit from having the mod in place even without being EWed. ECCM on the other hand doesn't give you anything at all in PvE
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2010.03.24 15:24:00 - [52] Originally by: Orion GUardian The problem is: Fitting ECCM really hinders shield tanks. I don't really see how. If you read my above example, the Vargur is a shield tanked ship. ECCM is a mid-slot item, but Sensor Backup Arrays are lowslot...I used one of each. (Dropped an AB and a Tracking Enhancer to fit them.) Know your missions, and know in which ones you have the highest likelihood of getting jammed, and fit accordingly.
Kritinana Minmatar The New Mexican Connection	Posted - 2010.03.30 20:11:00 - [53] Hah, having just come back from an extended break, I'm ammused people are still arguing about this. Any way, ever since the day I started fitting dual remote eccm's on my logi pilot (which was a long time ago btw), I have not once ever been jammed at all in a mission. I've been told it's all in my head, I've been told I was full of **, but never jammed** doesn't leave much room for placebo....so I haven't much cared what anyone had to say about it.
Tessen Stellar Tide	Posted - 2010.04.25 15:34:00 - [54] Edited by: Tessen on 25/04/2010 15:34:42 error Ideas for a complete Bounty Hunter profession sytem.
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2010.04.26 00:15:00 - [55] Originally by: Sturmwolke Edited by: Sturmwolke on 05/03/2010 06:29:16 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 12.0) 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. Edit : Wrong typo on Retribution sensor str corrected. Nice work, certainly paints a picture that sensor strength and therefor ECCM is effective vs jamming from Dire Pithum Annihilator and Nullfier(likely everything else too). --
Lothros Andastar Gallente	Posted - 2010.07.06 12:33:00 - [56] Even Money on the Devs Stealth Nerfing it back to ECCM not working next patch! :D
Backho	Posted - 2010.07.07 08:10:00 - [57] To me, the only mission featuring INSANE HEAVY jams is The Assault, which could be avoided by fitting Sig amps and blitzing the missions in 7-8 minutes. Almost all gurista with heavy jams are blitzable one way or the other. gurista spies, the assault, and GE are on the list of that. Intercept the sabotour has only 3 "crazy" jammers, but they die in one hit, and will get at most one cycle. So imo. i dont see any reason to replace Sig AMP with an ECCM.
Sturmwolke	Posted - 2010.07.07 10:58:00 - [58] Signal Amp does not increase your ship's sensor str, as such you can't use it to avoid jams. Ships with low sensor str (aka Marauders) will feel the Guristas jamming effects more frequently than any faction ships like the CNR (which has higher than normal sensor str) or any T3 with Dissolution Sequencer subs. If you're in one of the latter ship classes, successful jams are a minor annoyance as they don't happen very often. With extra mitigation where you shoot the jammers asap, yes you can get away without fitting ECCMs. However, it does take some practise to memorize the specific jamming Guristas NPC names for newcomers.
Noferatu	Posted - 2010.07.08 10:29:00 - [59] Originally by: stoicfaux FYI: It looks like you only need to grab one line from the log output: StartEffect.CheckAttackDefenseStrengths And then.. <snip> Maybe I'm just being noobish but.. Surely the bolded subroutine name above just says it all? I for one am convinced. Great work from you guys.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.