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.
|
|
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] |