| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
flakes
   |
Posted - 2006.02.18 10:55:00 -
[1]
Does frequency modulation really say what it does?As i understand the discription it will make my ship less vulnareble for ECM etcI trained it up to lvl4 at this moment but i can't see in my shipinfo that it really sets my ship resistance for ECM any higher.HOw or where can i see if it really is doing what it says?
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2006.02.18 11:00:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Skill Description
Advanced understanding of signal waves. 10% bonus to falloff for ECM, Remote Sensor Dampeners, Tracking Disruptors and Target Painters per skill level.
I don't really see how you got that it would help with ECM resistance. The skill does what it says it does. It increases Falloff of EW modules.
Originally by: Bl4zer
But, cmon, this is the Eve forums, we don't let facts get in the way of pointless speculation.
|
flakes
|
Posted - 2006.02.18 13:29:00 -
[3]
MMmmk lemme refrase then.In that case i don't understand the english word "falloff"...could someone clarify that then?
|
Jin Entres
|
Posted - 2006.02.18 13:34:00 -
[4]
Originally by: flakes
MMmmk lemme refrase then.In that case i don't understand the english word "falloff"...could someone clarify that then?
ECM modules have an optimal range upto which they work to their full capacity (although chance based as they are), and a falloff range at which they still have a chance of working but not as probably as within optimal range. So if your optimal range is 50 km and falloff 20 km your effective operating range would be 70 km. This also applies to turrets. IIRC at twice the falloff range (ie. at 90 km in this case) you will have 0% of landing a successful hit.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.18 15:04:00 -
[5]
Does Falloff with ECM affect "chance" or effectiveness? I've never had a real chance to test this.
I.e. if you put a sensor damp on a sniper 150km away, will you damp him for only like 15%, or will have a 25% chance to damp him fully but otherwise no damp at all?
--
Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
<3 Tachikomas -Eldo
But I'm the cutest of them all, and I'm not even a blue robot - Wrangler
I have seen you. You cannot deny it anymore - Vanamonde
You used to be one of the twenty three, now you are a part of me - Cortes
Immy > You All - Imaran
Tachikomas > All ~kieron
POKEMON -eris
Jacques was 'ere
Capsicum still is | Jorauk was, but got hungry and left
Everytime you turn down a duel, 1 unit of chicken appears on market -zhuge liang
Limited to 4 posts per day - Cortes |
flakes
|
Posted - 2006.02.18 15:28:00 -
[6]
Thh jin cleared it all up for me.Now i understand what falloff means and understand the skill.
|
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2006.02.20 13:46:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Does Falloff with ECM affect "chance" or effectiveness? I've never had a real chance to test this.
I.e. if you put a sensor damp on a sniper 150km away, will you damp him for only like 15%, or will have a 25% chance to damp him fully but otherwise no damp at all?
The first case
Say your dampener usually reduces your target's range by 30%.
It will do this at all ranges up to your optimal.
At optimal + falloff, it will be at half effectiveness, so your enemy will have 85% of his normal targeting range.
At optimal + 2x falloff, the dampener will have no effect.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
Insio Nores
|
Posted - 2006.02.22 23:05:00 -
[8]
Glad the actual question's been answered.
That said, in the OP's defense, "falloff" is kind of an odd bit of English usage. In this particular instance the concept seems to have been appropriated from the way guns work, where (as you know, Bob) it indicates a range beyond the gun's optimal range where a hit is still possible.
Not sure where it originally came from. A quick search doesn't find any use of it as a term from the real world of guns. It may well be strictly a gaming term as it crops up in a lot of sites talking about first person shooters etc.
Anyway, just the lecturer in my family background coming out. 
-- Nores
|
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 15:26:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Hoshi on 23/02/2006 15:28:12
Some ECM testing of falloff.
Setup: For this test I used a rook with a caldari t2 jammer for a total strength of 12. The target was an ibis with a sensor strength of 4. This means that within optimal range I have a 100% jamming chance.
Theory: Now at optimal + falloff if falloff effect efficiency this should still give me a 100% jamming rate (50% of 12 = 6 which is still more than 4). If falloff effect hit chance like it does for turrets I should have a 50% jamming chance.
Test: Running the jamming for 10 cycles I had 5 successful and 5 failed attempts for a 50% jamming chance.
Conclusion: Falloff on ecm modules do not effect efficiency, instead they give a hit chance for the module that work the same as for turrets ( 0.5^((range above optimal/falloff)^2) )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Elegant
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 22:37:00 -
[10]
I could have sworn jamming strength was equal to the chance of jamming. ie 5 strength jamming = 50% 8 = 80% chance. Enemy's sensor strength is just directly subtracted.
If that's the case then you were at falloff range jamming chance would look like this... 12 x 0.5 - 4 = 20% chance of jamming, which given the limited number of trials you did could still be accurate.
I'm not sure though...
|
|
|
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.02.24 04:29:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Hoshi on 24/02/2006 04:31:02
Jamming works as jamming strenght/sensor strenght.
jamming 6 vs sensor 12 = 6/12 = 50% chance. But jamming 12 vs sensor 4 = 12/4 = 300% chance that always jammed.
Also your way would never work, as most ships have higher sensor strenght than the best jamming strenght you can get (with max skills in best jamming ship 13.5 is the best possible jamming strenght, all battleships have over 20 sensor strength).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
ARGH69
|
Posted - 2006.02.24 16:33:00 -
[12]
Edited by: ARGH69 on 24/02/2006 16:35:00
i am more confused after reading this thread. right now one of my jamming modules has an optimal range of 55km and a falloff range of 20km. i think that means that the module will work best at 55km from target, so i would need to set my orbit to 55km. at 20km or under, the module would start to lose it's effectiveness.
or do i have that incorrect? maybe it means that 55km is the best range to orbit your target for the module to be the most effective, and if you sway more than 20km (further away or close) from that 55km orbit the module will start to lose it's effectiveness? so this woul give me an effective range between 35km to 75km and i assume this will still be at optimal range...or does it still lose some of it's potency if you are not within exactly 55km?
|
Emperor D'Hoffryn
|
Posted - 2006.02.24 20:24:00 -
[13]
standard noobie confusion over falloff
optimal = 55km. for a mod with no tracking (ecm) this means the module is operating at peak effectivness anywhere from 0km out to 55km. falloff = 20km. this means that from 55k out to 75km, effectivness drops from 100% down to 50%. 75km out to 95km, it drops from 50% to 0%. Guns work the same way, with thier chance to hit dropping with falloff, but guns also have tracking to worry about, which is what makes guns seem worthless at extreme close ranges.
|
ARGH69
|
Posted - 2006.02.24 22:51:00 -
[14]
ok, another quick question. i have loaded 2 multi-spectrum ecm jammers that have a jamming strength of 4.6 in each field. is this a good idea, or is one multi-spectrum enough and i should outfit the other slot with a more precise jammer for a specific type of radar since they are much stronger in their respective fields?
i guess i am asking if one multi-spectrum jammer can't lock on the target, will the other multiply the effects or help initiate the lock?
|
ARGH69
|
Posted - 2006.02.24 23:53:00 -
[15]
ok i am going off topic here so i will start a new one.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |