| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darth Mogura
   |
Posted - 2005.08.16 05:39:00 -
[1]
Before the Cold War patch, my CEO and I performed extensive testing on ECM modules and Sensor Backup Arrays. Through these tests, we determined that in order to jam a ship's sensors, the ECM had to overcome their total sensor strength. In other words, it would take a few cruisers or several frigates to disable the targeting systems of a single battleship. Is this how everybody else remembers it too? As I will explain, this system was clearly superior to the latest developments.
Post-Cold War, my CEO and I performed the same tests and to our surprise it is no longer necessary to overcome the ship's entire sensor strength. Now it seems that the ship's sensor strength need only be lowered below its unadjusted value in order for it to be jammed. This is, in our estimation, a particularly disturbing development. It means that the initial ship sensor strength value no longer has any significance, only its the amount of adjusted strength matters. Consider this:
An average dreadnaught has a sensor strength of 41 or so. Average cruisers have sensor strengths of about 14. It is equally feasible for a cruiser to jam either class of ship if it is unprotected (no ECCM or Backup Array) with a single White Noise Generator I. This is because the White Noise Generator I negates 2.2 sensor strength from all categories but RADAR, which it negates by 6.2 (if I remember correctly). Since this will reduce any unprotected ship's sensor strength below its unadjusted value, the ship will be jammed. The initial value is inconsequential, it doesn't matter at all!
Further, even ships with ECCM or Sensor Backup Arrays are at a severe disadvantage, because on average their strengths are 1/3 that of their ECM counterparts. In a series of tests using three of the shoddiest of ECM's, I was able to repeatedly jam my CEO's battleship (which was fully laden with Backup Arrays in all its low-slots) with only slightly more delay than if it were fully unprotected.
Proponents of the ECM status-quo would argue that support ships can easily make up for this disparity. While it is true that their sensor boosting capability is significantly greater than a standard sensor backup array, support ships are equally susceptible to the ECM attack, which would obviously prevent them from fulfilling their purpose.
In summary, somewhere along the line it seems that CCP decided to neglect the value of the progressively increasing unadjusted sensor strengths of better ships, allowing anybody who can power an ECM to totally disable those ships in combat. Unadjusted sensor strength is currently a meaningless value that serves only as a "starting point" for further calculations. As it stands, the unadjusted sensor strength of any ship in Eve might as well be "1". The current system dramatically favors the ECM in PVP, to such a degree that if each member of a given fleet employs an ECM they can totally overcome any and all countermeasures that an equally numbered fleet of larger, better ships may employ. In short, the ECM is king of the galaxy.
My advice? Go out and buy a White Noise Generator I today! 
Do what must be done... |
Golgrath
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 06:01:00 -
[2]
errr?
target jamming is now probability based. look the sticky thread for more info.
|
Hoozin
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 06:51:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Hoozin on 16/08/2005 06:51:11
Read This
The change to Electronic Warfare actually happened some months prior to the Cold War Patch.
There has been discussion that there is a bug in the system related to the first jam - but other than that the ECM system is not an exploit of the old system, it's just a new system.
EDIT: One day I'll preview before posting.
---------------------------------
Carebears are cooler than you.
Haiku embroidered panties - On sale now at your local sharky outlet. |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 07:40:00 -
[4]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 16/08/2005 07:44:57
You're a BIT slow on the uptake bud, its been this way for months.
Chance to successfully jam is essentially jam strength / target sensor strength.
Thus, using a Racial jammer with 7 jam strength against a BS with 21 sensor strength will only work 33% of the time. For calculating the chance of successful jam using multiple ECM modules, use the formula (1 - ( (1-x1/y) * (1-x2/y) * ... * (1-xn/y)) where n is the number of ECM modules, x1 through xn is the jam strength of each respective ECM module, and y is the target's sensor strength.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 08:19:00 -
[5]
The only thing I'm somewhat confused about is multiple sensor types. How do they work, with things like ECCM-omni's?
|
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 08:28:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Vishnej
The only thing I'm somewhat confused about is multiple sensor types. How do they work, with things like ECCM-omni's?
..they don't.
ECCM is too weak to pose as a worthwile counter for ECM atm
-------------------
Quote:
Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 08:39:00 -
[7]
If you fit enough backup array II's, you can make yourself VERY difficult to jam. Yes, that scorpion will still jam you on occasion, but his jamming will break frequently and sometimes even for over a minute; on the other hand the blackbird, which does not have a bonus to ECM effectiveness, will only occasionally have you jammed and will likely not be able to keep you jammed even with multiple jammers (this assumes you're putting tech 2 backup arrays on a tier 2 battleship - smaller ships don't have enough base sensor strength to bother with backup arrays).
-Wrayeth
|
Loka
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 08:48:00 -
[8]
ECCM in lows/meds = waste of slot. Better fit a gank and wait for the failed cycle. Then beat the **** out of the ECM ship.
ECM 4tw
Dead or Alive
 |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 09:13:00 -
[9]
afaik, the chances of each jammer succeeding are calculated individually
jamming a 20 strength BS with 4 strength 4 multispec jammers:
chance of one failing = 16/20 = 4/5
chance of all failing = 4/5 ^ 4 = 256/625 = 41%
1 - 41% = 59% chance of success
that is using 16 strength jamming on a strength 20 BS - slighlty more than half chance
add another jammer:
256/625 * 4/5 = 1024/3125 = 33%
1-33% = 67% chance of success
that is 2/3 chance, jamming a strength 20 BS with strength 20 jamming (5 unskilled multipec 1s)
that is how it SHOULD work - i have heard many reports of this being broken - ent tested myself yet
|
W0lverine
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 10:03:00 -
[10]
|
Rendill
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 10:44:00 -
[11]
The odds never increase. You just get another roll of the dice. 25% will always be 25%, regardless of how many times you roll it.
CEO |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 10:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Rendill
The odds never increase. You just get another roll of the dice. 25% will always be 25%, regardless of how many times you roll it.
huh?
|
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 10:49:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Rendill
The odds never increase. You just get another roll of the dice. 25% will always be 25%, regardless of how many times you roll it.
Wiskey Tango Foxtrot?
-------------------
Quote:
Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
|
James Lyrus
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 10:55:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Rendill
The odds never increase. You just get another roll of the dice. 25% will always be 25%, regardless of how many times you roll it.
1 jammer with a 25% probability of success.
4 jammers each with a probabilty of success.
With four jammers, you get 4 'rolls' which gives you 1 - ( 1 - 0.25 ) ^ 4 ) = 0.68 = 68% chance of success.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 12:36:00 -
[15]
I think this guy means that AFTER the EW patch but BEFORE the cold-war patch he did the first testing, then after the cold-war patch he did the same again.
-----------------------------------------
wts all new "burberry" warp core stab II's |
slapp
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:25:00 -
[16]
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Rendill
The odds never increase. You just get another roll of the dice. 25% will always be 25%, regardless of how many times you roll it.
1 jammer with a 25% probability of success.
4 jammers each with a probabilty of success.
With four jammers, you get 4 'rolls' which gives you 1 - ( 1 - 0.25 ) ^ 4 ) = 0.68 = 68% chance of success.
nope.
with 1 jammer, you will have 25% (more, less, who cares) probability of success each 20 seconds
with 4 jammers, you will have 25% (more, less, who cares) probability of success each 5 seconds.
they do not stack.
__________________________________________________
CAREBEAR, n.
A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in CCP affairs has always been dominant and controling. |
Solomon Majere
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:38:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Solomon Majere on 16/08/2005 13:38:20
To use a simple analogy:
Imagine I ask you to roll a 6 with a dice. Your chance is 1/6, yes?
Now imagine I'd give you 3 dice, and asked you to roll a 6. The chance that one of the 3 dice rolls a 6 is bigger than the chance aboev, 1/6, right?
Now aply this same logic to jammers and you'll understand what they're saying...
Oh, and about the 5 second thing you said. I don't need to start all my jammers with a 5 second delay. I could start them all at once, nothing stopping me. It would just be stupid...
|
slapp
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:46:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Solomon Majere
Oh, and about the 5 second thing you said. I don't need to start all my jammers with a 5 second delay. I could start them all at once, nothing stopping me. It would just be stupid...
you misunderstood what i had said
__________________________________________________
CAREBEAR, n.
A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in CCP affairs has always been dominant and controling. |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 14:03:00 -
[19]
LISTEN PEOPLE!
basic maths lesson:
the chance of rolling a six on a die is 1/6.
the chance of rolling at least one six over several dice is more than 1/6.
the way of working this out is to calculate the chance of every single one NOT being a six.
so with 3 dice:
chance of each not being a 6 is 5/6
so the chance of ALL not being a 6 is 125/216
thus the chance of rolling one 6 is 1-(125/216)= 91/216
with 1 dice:
chance of rollling 6 is 1/6
1/6=36/216
91/216 > 36/216 (so u got a much better chance of rolling at least one six with 3 dice than with one)
right. got that?
now imagine you are trying to jam a strength 24 ship, with 1 strength 4 jammer, then trying again with 3 strength 4 jammers.
the maths comes out exactly the same (if u use the lowest forms of all the fractions at the beginning)
remember only ONE of the jammers must suceed for a sucessful jam. in other words, for the jam to fail, ALL jammers must fail - this means that although the jammers don't stack strengths, more jammers does increase probability of jamming
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 14:10:00 -
[20]
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Rendill
The odds never increase. You just get another roll of the dice. 25% will always be 25%, regardless of how many times you roll it.
1 jammer with a 25% probability of success.
4 jammers each with 25% a probabilty of success.
With four jammers, you get 4 'rolls' which gives you 1 - ( (1 - 0.25 ) ^ 4 ) = 0.68 = 68% chance of success.
i corrected a coupla typoes in this quote - how picky am i :P
he is right
here is the maths more simply:
chance of each failing is 3/4 (1-0.25=0.75=3/4) (i do these in fractions cos i can do it in my head that way)
thus, for ALL to fail, it must be (3/4)*(3/4)*(3/4)*(3/4)
this comes out as 81/256
therefore if NOT ALL fail (eg. at least one successful jam) = 1-(81/256) = 175/256
here is the bit i use the calculator for:
175/256=0.68
thus the chance of at least one jam is 68%, mkay?
|
Jacob Majestic
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 15:31:00 -
[21]
Seems like a lot of people in this thread need to take a basic probability class 
Of course, those calculations simulate the event that you f1-f4 jammers vs. a battleship. In most cases, you probably f1, see if it works, then f2, and so on.
|
Sun Ra
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 15:43:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Loka
ECCM in lows/meds = waste of slot. Better fit a gank and wait for the failed cycle. Then beat the **** out of the ECM ship.
ECM 4tw
Its not a waste if u only needed one or 2 to prevent jamming but now u need 8 + they mite get that lucky dice roll and jam u anyways, now thats the real waste
We're coming for you |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |