EVE Search - ECM "Why is it taking ccp solong to fix it?"

All Channels

Ships and Modules

ECM "Why is it taking ccp solong to fix it?"

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Derrys Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.05 14:30:00 - [1] Originally by: Audrea Lets say I am in a HAC, with sensor strength of 15. assuming I fit ECCM, it would be 22 or 23. That was before the ECCM boost. Now a T2 ECCM module will boost 96%, bringing your total sensor strength to 29.4. Thus, the odds of being jammed by multispecs are: 1 Jammer: 20% (38% without ECCM) 2 Jammers: 35% (62% without ECCM) 3 Jammers: 48% (77% without ECCM) 4 Jammers: 58% (86% without ECCM) 5 Jammers: 66% (91% without ECCM) 6 Jammers: 73% (95% without ECCM) 7 Jammers: 78% (97% without ECCM) 8 Jammers: 83% (98% without ECCM) That's a pretty dramatic difference, considering it was just one mid-slot module. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that your one module has forced the ECM pilot to devote more than twice as many jammers to you to achieve the same effect. People seem to want a magic one-button defense against ECM. But it's supposed to be a "one-module-for-one-module" system, isn't it? One WCS counteracts one warp disruptor. One sensor booster counteracts one sensor damper. And, in this case, one ECCM module should counteract one jammer. If you always fit as many ECCM modules as your enemy has jammers, I guarantee you'd almost never be jammed. -- Admiral Derrys Otireya Commander, Fleet Operations, Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Fleet Admiral, Kimotoro Directive
Derrys Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.05 16:23:00 - [2] Edited by: Derrys on 05/09/2006 16:25:12 Originally by: Grimpak well I thought it was more like: 1 Jammer: 2 Jammers: 2x 20% (2x 38% without ECCM) 3 Jammers: 3x 20% (3x 38% without ECCM) 4 Jammers: 4x 20% (4x 38% without ECCM) 5 Jammers: 5x 20% (5x 38% without ECCM) 6 Jammers: 6x 20% (6x 38% without ECCM) etc etc cuz I remember CCP saying that each jammer acted independently and they didn't stack. They do act independently, but that's not the way the math works. What you're interested in is the probability of at least one jammer succeeding. You compute this by calculating the probability of all jammers failing and subtracting from 1. If jammer has a 20% chance of success, that means it has an 80% chance of failure. So suppose you have two jammers. If the first one fails, then the second also has an 80% chance of failure. So the odds of both jammers failing is (0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64). That means that the two jammers together have a 36% chance of success, not the 40% you got by adding. -- Admiral Derrys Otireya Commander, Fleet Operations, Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Fleet Admiral, Kimotoro Directive
Derrys Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.05 16:28:00 - [3] Edited by: Derrys on 05/09/2006 16:29:46 Originally by: Grimpak didn't meant by adding. I putted the "2x" there to explain that there are 2 chances of 20% of each jammer to jam. Yeah, but the numbers I listed already take those two chances into account. Two chances of 20% each yields a total chance of 36%. (My post said 35% because of rounding -- it wasn't exactly 20% in the example given.) -- Admiral Derrys Otireya Commander, Fleet Operations, Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Fleet Admiral, Kimotoro Directive
Derrys Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.05 16:53:00 - [4] Originally by: Grimpak but that raises a question: is it 36% of both jammers jam the ship or 36% of only one of the jammers hit? 36% chance that at least one jammer will work. Another way of looking at it is that there's a 64% chance of both jammers failing. -- Admiral Derrys Otireya Commander, Fleet Operations, Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Fleet Admiral, Kimotoro Directive
Derrys Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.05 18:15:00 - [5] Edited by: Derrys on 05/09/2006 18:15:49 Originally by: Cohkka You're missing the point...No one would fit ECCMs on their soloships, since you'll be screwed against non ECM using ships. And I think you're missing the point. What you're saying here is that ECM is this huge game-breaking deal, but you can't be bothered to fit any modules to defend against it. How does that make any sense? If ECM is some unstoppable "ohmigod-we-have-to-nerf-it" thing, then why do you refuse to devote even one single slot to defend against it? How bad can ECM possibly be if it's not even worth it to you to do that? Quote: A single multispec can decide a whole fight, you think that's fun? I don't... I think it's fun when an overconfident guy in a Scorpion goes down because I'm fitting enough ECCM to make his life very difficult... -- Admiral Derrys Otireya Commander, Fleet Operations, Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Fleet Admiral, Kimotoro Directive
Derrys Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.05 19:49:00 - [6] Originally by: Aramendel ECM + no ship bonus > other EW + ship bonus. More effective, more universally useable. What makes this "ok" or "balanced"? Well, mainly the fact that it's only so effective because nobody bothers to defend against it. I do agree that giving ECCM some other intrinsic value would help. I'll also agree that the other EW -- particularly tracking disruptors -- needs a boost. But if you made tracking disruptors affect missile speed and drone tracking too, they'd be in line with ECM. -- Admiral Derrys Otireya Commander, Fleet Operations, Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Fleet Admiral, Kimotoro Directive

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.