| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
NIkis
   |
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:32:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Nahia Senne
Originally by: NIkis
And may i ask who would fit ecm then, when burst doing the same, and with area of effect ? (enough range to counter most warp jammers too)
What i see is whiners losing because they cant use their ships properly.
May i point out that having the same effect on a target does not equate to both modules having AOE effect? ^^
may i also point out that ECM burst got higher scramble strength than multispectrals ? its like having a multi with racial strength 
|
Isabella Inari
Caldari
Pirates of hORK
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:33:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Isabella Inari on 05/09/2006 13:35:19
Originally by: Audrea
I believe you made a common calculation mistake:
What you did is multiply 2/3 by 2/3.
But this (IIRC) represents the case of throwing cubes, and the chance to get 6/6 is 1/6 mutiplied by 1/6 which emans 1/36 (AND case)
This is not the case with jammers.
With jammers each jammer gives a chance of its own (OR case), which means we sum the chances of each jammer and dont multiply them. See post #31.
Hence the chances are:
2/3+2/3=4/3= 133% chance for a jam.
I might be wrong.. been over year since I studied basic combinatorics...
But next year I should have the deep course, so will see 
Unfortunately you are incorrect  .
In this case it is not addition but multiplication. Each roll is independant of the previous.
I'm hot and you know it. |
Isabella Inari
Caldari
Pirates of hORK
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:35:00 -
[33]
Originally by: NIkis
Originally by: Nahia Senne
Originally by: NIkis
And may i ask who would fit ecm then, when burst doing the same, and with area of effect ? (enough range to counter most warp jammers too)
What i see is whiners losing because they cant use their ships properly.
May i point out that having the same effect on a target does not equate to both modules having AOE effect? ^^
may i also point out that ECM burst got higher scramble strength than multispectrals ? its like having a multi with racial strength
Yes, but bursts only break lock, rending it ineffective against fast locking ships and drones. ECM jammers inhibit for 20seconds.
I'm hot and you know it. |
NIkis
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:41:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Isabella Inari
Originally by: NIkis
Originally by: Nahia Senne
Originally by: NIkis
And may i ask who would fit ecm then, when burst doing the same, and with area of effect ? (enough range to counter most warp jammers too)
What i see is whiners losing because they cant use their ships properly.
May i point out that having the same effect on a target does not equate to both modules having AOE effect? ^^
may i also point out that ECM burst got higher scramble strength than multispectrals ? its like having a multi with racial strength
Yes, but bursts only break lock, rending it ineffective against fast locking ships and drones. ECM jammers inhibit for 20seconds.
your proposal was to make ECM have the burst effect .. which you just dismantled yourself. Thanks :)
|
Garia666
Amarr
adeptus gattacus
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:44:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Amarraion
I know its old news but why is it taking CCP solong to fix sumfin which is very ****ED up, i mean is ECM that complexed that its req MONTHS upon MONTHS to fix it!
\
If you would be making loads of easy isk of this bug it would have been changed a long time ago.
Think about it
|
Sheilea
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:44:00 -
[36]
To clarify the maths part (As far as I can recall from my maths A level course):
(If we assume that the probability to jam = 1/3 is correct)
(For example, we have a coin with two sides, the probability of getting the one side is 1/3 , the probability of getting the other side is 2/3, we throw it 8 times)
It's a Bernouilli probability system, therefore this formula takes effect:
P (X = k) = (n over k) * p^k * (1 - p)^(n-k)
((n over k) symbolizes the amount of possibilities to get a certain result, similar to the amount of paths you could chose on a tree diagram to get to a certain probability)
p is a jammer's probability of jamming succesfully -> p = 1/3
n is the ammount of throws of our coin-> n = 8
k is the amount of jammers succesfully jamming the target - > 0<=k<=8
Probability for zero jammers getting through:
P(0) = (8 over 0) * (1/3)^0 * (2/3)^8 = 0.039 = 3.9 %
Therefore, the probability of at least one jammer getting through is:
1 - P(0) = 0.961 = 96.1 %
As you can see, our HAC most likely got a big problem, ECCM or not.
If there are any mistakes, please fell free to correct me.
|
Bendax Wildwing
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:45:00 -
[37]
(Just wanted to point out that Sheila is an alt of this character)
|
Nahia Senne
Fortunis Novum
Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:46:00 -
[38]
Originally by: NIkis
Originally by: Isabella Inari
Originally by: NIkis
Originally by: Nahia Senne
Originally by: NIkis
And may i ask who would fit ecm then, when burst doing the same, and with area of effect ? (enough range to counter most warp jammers too)
What i see is whiners losing because they cant use their ships properly.
May i point out that having the same effect on a target does not equate to both modules having AOE effect? ^^
may i also point out that ECM burst got higher scramble strength than multispectrals ? its like having a multi with racial strength
Yes, but bursts only break lock, rending it ineffective against fast locking ships and drones. ECM jammers inhibit for 20seconds.
your proposal was to make ECM have the burst effect .. which you just dismantled yourself. Thanks :)
common sense dictates that racial jammers and multispectrals will not have the same strenght ^^
ps. you flamed the wrong person, pay attention 
|
NIkis
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:50:00 -
[39]
Edited by: NIkis on 05/09/2006 13:50:31
nah i never flame
its called constructive criticism
and i dont like long quote lists.. hence the wrong person part
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Chimaera Pact
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:53:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Chewan Mesa
Stop ranting, fit ECCMs, dont be a sad panda anymore.
This is no argument. What makes ECM so "special" that you have to fit ECCM to "balance" it when this is not required with the other EW system?
The very fact that most setups on the non-caldari EW cruisers include ECM - basically non-ECM EW + shipbonus for it < ECM without shipbonus - is a pretty good sign that we have a "slight" balance problem here.
|
NIkis
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 14:03:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Chewan Mesa
Stop ranting, fit ECCMs, dont be a sad panda anymore.
This is no argument. What makes ECM so "special" that you have to fit ECCM to "balance" it when this is not required with the other EW system?
The very fact that most setups on the non-caldari EW cruisers include ECM - basically non-ECM EW + shipbonus for it < ECM without shipbonus - is a pretty good sign that we have a "slight" balance problem here.
Sec :) other EW systemS:
You have to fit sensor boosters, to counter sensor dampers.
Warp jammers -> WCS
Webbers -> ? (you basically have to use one yourself if you're being webbed by a ship your own size, yet I dont see anyone complaining about it)
Also most people fit tracking boosting mods by default, not thinking of it as a counter to possible tracking disruption
And i really doubt that a fleet including caldari EW ships will need EW on non-specialized ships. In solo setups sure, a ECM module can give you an edge IF it works, but can also be a big disappointment.. I fought with my ECM-less caracal another caracal who used ECM and still got him to hull, but one example dont speak much.
|
Chewan Mesa
Beagle Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 14:10:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Chewan Mesa on 05/09/2006 14:12:05
Originally by: NIkis
You assume your opponent using multiple ECMs and yet you pretend to be able to counter that with a single ECCM module ? am i the only one seeing the faulty logic in this ?
Also your HAC might have a low sensor strength but that is because its a type of cruiser geared towards dealing a punch .. why not run the comparison against a recon cruiser ?
And probability laws dont work simple like 8*1/3. There is always a chance that all 8 attempts will fail.
I think the presence of a random element is very welcome in a game (as opposed to fixed spawns and fixed times and whatever else getting abused by campers and such), even though I rarely use ECM.
To sum it up.. stop ranting, fit ECCMs if you fear ECM so much. Or use a different ship. Or jam the jammer. Or whatever other course of action there may be.
IMO there's nothing 'to fix' about ECM.. it's allright as it is.
Edit: if the scorp using all 8 mids for jamming you, what stops you from warping away ? 
Very true. ECM is not overpowered, and ECCM works.
PS: Nikis can I call you in when I see the next Nerf-ECM thread please? 
|
Derrys
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 14:30:00 -
[43]
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 |
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Chimaera Pact
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 14:32:00 -
[44]
Originally by: NIkis
Sec :) other EW systemS:
You have to fit sensor boosters, to counter sensor dampers.
Warp jammers -> WCS
Webbers -> ? (you basically have to use one yourself if you're being webbed by a ship your own size, yet I dont see anyone complaining about it)
Also most people fit tracking boosting mods by default, not thinking of it as a counter to possible tracking disruption
And i really doubt that a fleet including caldari EW ships will need EW on non-specialized ships. In solo setups sure, a ECM module can give you an edge IF it works, but can also be a big disappointment.. I fought with my ECM-less caracal another caracal who used ECM and still got him to hull, but one example dont speak much.
You are missing or ignoring the point.
I did not say there are no counters to other EW systems. Referring specifically to sensor damperners, tracking disruptors and *cough* target painters here, btw, since those are the EW systems the other races get their basic (t1 cruiser) boni for.
ECM is seen as too strong, but damperners or tracking disruptors are not. Why? 2 reasons. Firstly, people often fit their anti-modules as part of the general setup because, unlike eccm, it also gives boni which help the ship when it is not under the influence of EW. Secondly, unlike ECM these EW systems are not universally useable. Damperners won't help much against an closerange, tracking disruptors do squat against an missle or droneship.
Vs other EW system ECM has no real limitations and a smaller chance to encounter it's anti-module in general setups.
Which is the reason you see it used in ships which have boni for other EW systems. Let me repeat (in bold) the central point here:
non-ECM EW + shipbonus for it < ECM without shipbonus
For example, an arbitrator will be better off using 2* multispecs instead 2 * tracking disruptors. This is like an armageddon being more effective with blasters instead of pulse lasers.
|
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 14:47:00 -
[45]
Why not make them just disable lock, and then use dampeners along with them so that they relock you much slower?
Being permajammed really isn't fun.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 15:15:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 05/09/2006 15:15:59
Originally by: Amarraion
I know its old news but why is it taking CCP solong to fix sumfin which is very ****ED up, i mean is ECM that complexed that its req MONTHS upon MONTHS to fix it!
And you omitted your briliant solution they should implement only by mistake ...
Oh wait, you have NONE of your own ...
Well I tell you something. I am a heavy ECM user (scorpion specialist). Also I participated in the long EW thread (no longer stickied) from the start. Not counting many others. We tried realy hard with numbers, different scenarios, even overhauling all the EW mechanics (new skills, modules etc.).
The problem is more complex than is visible at first sight. And the solution is even more complex.
So SH.. UP if you have nothing relevant to add to the solution.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls.... 
|
Audrea
Widowmakers
Novus Ordos Seclorum
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 15:44:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Sheilea
To clarify the maths part (As far as I can recall from my maths A level course):
(If we assume that the probability to jam = 1/3 is correct)
(For example, we have a coin with two sides, the probability of getting the one side is 1/3 , the probability of getting the other side is 2/3, we throw it 8 times)
It's a Bernouilli probability system, therefore this formula takes effect:
P (X = k) = (n over k) * p^k * (1 - p)^(n-k)
((n over k) symbolizes the amount of possibilities to get a certain result, similar to the amount of paths you could chose on a tree diagram to get to a certain probability)
p is a jammer's probability of jamming succesfully -> p = 1/3
n is the ammount of throws of our coin-> n = 8
k is the amount of jammers succesfully jamming the target - > 0<=k<=8
Probability for zero jammers getting through:
P(0) = (8 over 0) * (1/3)^0 * (2/3)^8 = 0.039 = 3.9 %
Therefore, the probability of at least one jammer getting through is:
1 - P(0) = 0.961 = 96.1 %
As you can see, our HAC most likely got a big problem, ECCM or not.
If there are any mistakes, please fell free to correct me.
Thanks for correcting me, and reinforcing my point about the jamming chance being too high :)
And yes numbers are correct. they arent that diffrent - I checked the diffrence between ECCM T1 and T2 - only that the former is 50% boost to strength and the latter is 60%.
for Thorax/Deimos it would mean diffrence of 1 sensor strength point.. I believe it doesnt change the chance of being jammed significally.
Curious though - does the ECCM module stack? or has no stacking penalty?
Also, why does Deimos have same strength as thorax? doesnt make sense, its heavier, less agile, and its Tech 2 :)
by all accounts, should have better sensory equipement as well...
------------------
Tired of fleet combat lag? -Post HERE
All posts are my personal opinions.  |
Grimpak
Gallente
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 15:57:00 -
[48]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Originally by: Amarraion
I know its old news but why is it taking CCP solong to fix sumfin which is very ****ED up, i mean is ECM that complexed that its req MONTHS upon MONTHS to fix it!
Unless you've got a perfect solution that nobody will argue with, don't criticize CCP for not doing something. Yes, ECM IS that complex. It's something which is a necessary part of game play (defensive combat), but is also almost impossible to balance perfectly.
CCP is aware that ECM has problems, and that boosting ECCM hasn't solved all of it. But unless you have something to contribute, don't criticize CCP for not "fixing it".
Try studying game design and perhaps you'll understand.
this is what forums sometimes look like to me:
CCP FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX! I DON'T CARE FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX ! FIX NOW FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX! I DON'T HAVE IDEAS FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX FIX!
Originally by: Derrys
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)
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.
-------
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
What, in EVE, is a Tyrant?
Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
|
Chewan Mesa
Beagle Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 15:58:00 -
[49]
I dont know what ECCMs you have, but mine give a bonus of about 96%.
And no, they do not have a stacking penatly afaik.
|
Tyler Lowe
Minmatar
DROW Org
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:00:00 -
[50]
Multi's should be shifted to a highslot fitting.
ECCM needs a reason to be fitted in the adsence of any ECM. All other counter EW mods have a benefit, ECCM needs one too. No amount of boosting ECCM makes it as worthwhile to fit as other counter EW modules if it's dead weight 99% of the time.
ECM needs to break locks for a shorter duration, 5 seconds maybe. The need to re-lock is a severe enough penalty and is already balanced pretty well (large ships are harder to jam but take longer to re-aquire targets).
There's my best shot at it. Now, watch as a dozen or more people point out all the reasons my solution won't work.
Give CCP a break. ECM isn't easy to balance. It's one of those things that almost has to be too good in order to be good enough.
J.A.F.O.
|
Chewan Mesa
Beagle Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:02:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Tyler Lowe
Multi's should be shifted to a highslot fitting.
ECCM needs a reason to be fitted in the adsence of any ECM. All other counter EW mods have a benefit, ECCM needs one too. No amount of boosting ECCM makes it as worthwhile to fit as other counter EW modules if it's dead weight 99% of the time.
ECM needs to break locks for a shorter duration, 5 seconds maybe. The need to re-lock is a severe enough penalty and is already balanced pretty well (large ships are harder to jam but take longer to re-aquire targets).
There's my best shot at it. Now, watch as a dozen or more people point out all the reasons my solution won't work.
Give CCP a break. ECM isn't easy to balance. It's one of those things that almost has to be too good in order to be good enough.
I'm sorry to disappoint, but as a Rook/Falcon Pilot I wouldnt mind having the ECM-Multispec removed.
As well giving it only a 5sec cycle, or only a relock-penatly will encourage using the Sensor-Dampening ships a lot more, as them working as a team will have a nice effect.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Audrea
Originally by: Sheilea
To clarify the maths part (As far as I can recall from my maths A level course):
(If we assume that the probability to jam = 1/3 is correct)
(For example, we have a coin with two sides, the probability of getting the one side is 1/3 , the probability of getting the other side is 2/3, we throw it 8 times)
It's a Bernouilli probability system, therefore this formula takes effect:
P (X = k) = (n over k) * p^k * (1 - p)^(n-k)
((n over k) symbolizes the amount of possibilities to get a certain result, similar to the amount of paths you could chose on a tree diagram to get to a certain probability)
p is a jammer's probability of jamming succesfully -> p = 1/3
n is the ammount of throws of our coin-> n = 8
k is the amount of jammers succesfully jamming the target - > 0<=k<=8
Probability for zero jammers getting through:
P(0) = (8 over 0) * (1/3)^0 * (2/3)^8 = 0.039 = 3.9 %
Therefore, the probability of at least one jammer getting through is:
1 - P(0) = 0.961 = 96.1 %
As you can see, our HAC most likely got a big problem, ECCM or not.
If there are any mistakes, please fell free to correct me.
Thanks for correcting me, and reinforcing my point about the jamming chance being too high :)
And yes numbers are correct. they arent that diffrent - I checked the diffrence between ECCM T1 and T2 - only that the former is 50% boost to strength and the latter is 60%.
for Thorax/Deimos it would mean diffrence of 1 sensor strength point.. I believe it doesnt change the chance of being jammed significally.
Curious though - does the ECCM module stack? or has no stacking penalty?
Also, why does Deimos have same strength as thorax? doesnt make sense, its heavier, less agile, and its Tech 2 :)
by all accounts, should have better sensory equipement as well...
do you expect a single shield booster or armor repairer to hold against 8 guns ?
then why do you expect 1 eccm module to be the effective defense against 8 ECM modules ?
the other ewar modules (td, damp, tp) work on different mechanics, so no comparison is possible here. don't try to base your arguments on that comparison. all they have in common is the module class name (electronic warfare) nothing more.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Derrys
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:23:00 -
[53]
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 |
Grimpak
Gallente
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:26:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Derrys
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.
didn't meant by adding. I putted the "2x" there to explain that there are 2 chances of 20% of each jammer to jam.
at least I tried to put that way, but don't blame the numbers. I'm not that good with math
-------
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
What, in EVE, is a Tyrant?
Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
|
Derrys
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:28:00 -
[55]
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 |
Grimpak
Gallente
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:37:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Derrys
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.)
ah. that explains it. thank you
-------
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
What, in EVE, is a Tyrant?
Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
|
Derrys
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:53:00 -
[57]
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 |
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Chimaera Pact
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 16:55:00 -
[58]
Both. It is basically 64% chance that of 2 jammers both do not hit.
|
Altai Saker
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 17:08:00 -
[59]
They need to split sensor boosters up make eccm effect lock speed and sensor strength and sensor boosters effect lock range and sensor strength...
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 17:15:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Derrys
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.
more on that topic, you onle need one jammer to hit, so the math is based on that scenario. if both hit, there is no benefit as the target can only get jammed once.
the ECMing ship is interested in 1 jammer hiting, while the ECMed ship is interested in all jammers failing.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |