| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Crunchmeister
Gallente
Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
United Front Alliance
   |
Posted - 2011.04.12 14:40:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Crunchmeister on 12/04/2011 14:41:08
First off, I'm not sure this is the correct part of the forum for this, but it seems to fit as it's related to ECM modules, so here goes...
ECM is one of these "mystery" modules in Eve. We know what they do, and know they're chance based, but gauging their effectiveness is difficult when using more than a single module on a target. A single ECM jammer is easy to calculate if you know the target's sensor strength and your own ECM strength, but when it goes beyond using a single jammer, the math is more complex.
I figured someone had to have built a tool to do this, as there are tools for just about everything else in Eve, but was unable to find one anywhere. As the old saying goes, "necessity is the mother of all invention", so o I decided this was needed and built my own. Since it seems to work so well and there aren't any others that I know of out there, I figured I would share it with the Eve community at large.
From the research I've done, it seems that the accepted formula for ECM chance is:
C = (1-(1-J/S))^n *100
where:
C = jam chance
J = jammer strength
S = target ship sensor strength
n = number of jammers used
This is the formula this tool uses to calculate ECM chance. In testing, I used a Kitsune and ran 50 jam cycles on a target ship for 4 separate data sets using 1, 2, 3 and 4 jammers. Statistically the percentages seem accurate within a 5% variance of the numbers this tool generates, so I think this gives a damn good representation of how effective your ECM efforts will be against any particular ship, whether or not this formula is 100% correct.
All ships* worth jammping have been included. Ship sensor strength data was collected from Eve Wiki and haven't looked them up in-game for accuracy. I've made the assumption that the numbers provided by Eve Wiki were correct. I can't guarantee 100% accuracy due to either errors with my source or errors in data entry. If you spot any errors, then please let me know and I'll be more than happy to update the tool.
Note this is the initial release of the tool, and for the moment, it just does the calculation based on the enemy ship's sensor strength alone. Once I get a bit of time, I'll also be adding the functionality of ECCM and backup sensor arrays, including all meta variations.
ECM Chance Calculator v1.0
Feel free to comment or make suggestions on how I can improve this. I'll take any feedback or criticism under consideration. But please, if you have criticism, at least make your comments constructive and offer constructive suggestions rather than the usual "FAIL" or "THIS SUCKS" that people tend to throw out.
* Note that I did NOT add T3 ships, as their sensor strengths can vary significantly depending on subsystems, and I'm really unsure as to how I could add this into the app effectively and keep it simple. I'm toying with some ideas and concepts that may happen eventually, but for the moment they're excluded.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 14:47:00 -
[2]
The ship selection option isn't very useful, because it doesn't include the option to apply local or projected ECCM. Guardians NEVER fly without at least one ECCM module, for example.
|
Crunchmeister
Gallente
Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 14:57:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Aamrr
The ship selection option isn't very useful, because it doesn't include the option to apply local or projected ECCM. Guardians NEVER fly without at least one ECCM module, for example.
I totally agree. Logi ships almost never fly without some form of ECCM, and that's the way it should be.
As stated, ECCM will be added in a future update. I got this initial release together for a V 1.0 in the time I had, and it's useful for what it does. In no way is it a be-all end-all tool as it stands. Right now, it's a handy reference tool for the base sensor strengths of all ships assuming no ECCM. But it definitely has some shortcomings that need to be worked on. I'll get there, and hopefully I can get some good suggestions on how to improve it.
Thanks for the comment though. I'll be keeping close watch on this thread to see what people suggest and what I can incorporate to make this tool as useful as possible.
|
Gunner Cid
The Carebear Stare
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 15:53:00 -
[4]
Nice Work, very clean and simple to use.
Agreed with the ECCM option, maybe just a toggle that doubles sensor strength of target ship.
Again though, good job with this
|
Crunchmeister
Gallente
Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 16:20:00 -
[5]
For the time being, it's easy to just manually double the sensor strength to give roughly the effect of a T2 ECCM. The tool is quite functional in that sense. It just doesn't have it automatically added yet.
More than likely, I'll add 3 drop-downs or radio button groups to add local and remote ECCM effects to final value. I'll probably use both for testing purposes and see which looks cleanest and is most functional.
|
Leeluvv
The Black Ops
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 17:14:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Leeluvv on 12/04/2011 17:15:03
The tool is wrong.
Jammer Strength 12
Ship Stregnth 10
1 jammer: 120% chance to jam.
2 jammers: 96% chance to jam
3 jammers: 100.8% chance to jam
4 jammers: 99.84% to jam
etc
10 jammers: 100% chance to jam
WTF!
1. I always worry about any tool that gives a chance of success as being greater than 100%. This means that you have made an error somewhere.
2. I hope your tool uses the chance of being jammed as (1 - 'the chance of all mods to not jam') and not some long winded method of counting up all the different ways n jammers could jam a ship.
Originally by: Doctor Mabuse
A wife is just a T2 GF. They're more expensive and their resists are higher
|
Crunchmeister
Gallente
Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 17:36:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Crunchmeister on 12/04/2011 17:41:19
Edited by: Crunchmeister on 12/04/2011 17:40:10
Edited by: Crunchmeister on 12/04/2011 17:38:28
Edited by: Crunchmeister on 12/04/2011 17:37:57
1. For a single jammer, the formula using the C = (1-(1-J/S))^n *100 becomes C=J/S * 100. I still need to add that to "fix" that part. But it just means you'll permajam a frig. This was tested on a frigate, and had a positive jam for all 50 cycles. Yes, it reads more than 100%, but that means it's a guaranteed chance of jamming. I could technically limit the chance calculation to a maximum of 100%, but in the end, it still means the same thing - positive permajam. What the weakness is in the forumla is that it seems to have trouble with the jam strength being higher than the sensor strength.
2. Read the initial post in detail. It's all explained there and your question is answered. It's not my formula. I'm just using what seems to be universally accepted as the correct formula. I just made an easy, useful interface that uses the said formula to calculate a chance. In testing with a frig, cruiser, and BC, over 50 jam cycles (4 tests with each ship with 1-4 jammers), the true jam success rates were all within 5% variance from what the forumla spits out. The only exception was the frigate, since it was the only ship that had a lower sensor strength than the jam strength. It was permajammed, not losing jam once in 50 cycles. I only ran the 50 cycle test once with the frig. If 1 jammer could permajam, it was usless to test with more. So to me, that indicates that the formula is correct.
Thanks for the input though. It's stuff like this that will allow me to tweak this and make this thing work better. It's not a 100% solution and still a work in progress right now.
Originally by: Leeluvv
Edited by: Leeluvv on 12/04/2011 17:15:03
The tool is wrong.
Jammer Strength 12
Ship Stregnth 10
1 jammer: 120% chance to jam.
2 jammers: 96% chance to jam
3 jammers: 100.8% chance to jam
4 jammers: 99.84% to jam
etc
10 jammers: 100% chance to jam
WTF!
1. I always worry about any tool that gives a chance of success as being greater than 100%. This means that you have made an error somewhere.
2. I hope your tool uses the chance of being jammed as (1 - 'the chance of all mods to not jam') and not some long winded method of counting up all the different ways n jammers could jam a ship.
|
Kyo Haku
Minmatar
Gradient
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 20:53:00 -
[8]
(Ship sensor strength)/(Jammer strength)=jam chance per cycle
It's not a mystery and a twelve year old could figure it out on their own.
--
"Far be it from me to stand in judgment. I prefer to sit." -Stephen Colbert |
fr0gout
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 02:24:00 -
[9]
Keep up the good work and don't give in to the trolls, and the 14 year old kool aid kids who don't want the community and CCP to see how broken and ******ed their IWIN button is.
|
Batelle
do you
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 10:53:00 -
[10]
if you can't figure out how multiple jammers work without asking the community for lessons on probability and doing "research" into the "accepted formula," you shouldn't be trying to make a tool in the first place.
I say that because you have the wrong formula. Its 1-((1-J/S)^n) that gives you the probability of getting at least one successful jam per cycle. Anyone who's ever even thought about using ECM has figured this out already, and most dedicated ECM ships aren't going to be blowing all their jammers on one ship. Anyway, they'll have mixed jammer types unless they are completely fail pilots, at which point this rather simple fomula breaks down without adding a bit of nuance.
anyway this tool could be nice for doing a quick calculation of ECM drone chance to jam, and it might help some noobs that don't know not to fit multispecs, and also don't know highschool probability.
PS I didn't read your entire post or even look at the tool.
---------------------------------------------
EC-P8R... You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. |
|
|
Crunchmeister
Gallente
Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 13:26:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Batelle
I say that because you have the wrong formula. Its 1-((1-J/S)^n) ...
...PS I didn't read your entire post or even look at the tool.
On if only you actually read before ranting, you'd realize what kind of a tard this post makes you look like. lol
|
Batelle
do you
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 17:27:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Crunchmeister
Edited by: Crunchmeister on 13/04/2011 14:02:32
That is the formula I used.
then look closer, because its not what you posted.
---------------------------------------------
EC-P8R... You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. |
Crunchmeister
Gallente
Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 18:31:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Batelle
Originally by: Crunchmeister
Edited by: Crunchmeister on 13/04/2011 14:02:32
That is the formula I used.
then look closer, because its not what you posted.
In my original post, I misplaced one of the brackets, which I fixed now. As we know, that can make all the difference in the world when it comes to the final math.
I'm now double-checking the formula used in the app itself to ensure it's correct, and comparing it to manual calculations to be sure it's entered correctly.
Thanks for pointing that out though. You were correct.
|
Crunchmeister
Gallente
Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 19:10:00 -
[14]
Unless I'm really missing something, then I believe my original javascript formula in the tool was correct. I recoded it in a simplified manner to make sure, and this is what I come up with. C= 1-((1-J/S)^n) translates to C = 1-(Math.pow((1-J/S),n)) in Javascript. It seems correct to me, and by all means, if this is incorrect, please let me know and I'll fix it up. I want this tool to be as accurate as possible.
It seems to work great in every case except when the jam strength is greater than the sensor strength, especially with multiple jammers used. I've run through the calculations manually and come up with the same numbers that Leeluvv pointed out. In every case where J<S, the results are < 100%. However, if J>S, the numbers get wonky, especially where n>1.
1 jammer (in the case of a jam strength of 12 and sensor strength of 10) comes out to 120%, even with the simple C=J/S calculation. This makes sense, since 12/10 = 1.2. Where this is confusing me is using multiple jammers (not that one would in such a case) where the J>S and n>1. Mathematically I understand why this happens from doing a step by step manual calculation. I just don't understand how this can be correct in terms of the jam probability in-game if this is in fact the forumla CCP have in place. This is one condition where it confuses me. This would mean that having more than 1 ECM module trained on a frigate with a sensor strength lower than your jam strength would essentially lower the chance of a successful jam, and that really makes no sense at all.
So as it stands, that's one condition I'm not overly confident about. However, having actually done "real world" sampling of the other cases, I'm confident the numbers being returned are accurate.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |