Originally by: Haffrage

---

You haven't read this, have you?

---

WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Engage in a 1v1 with a Megathron with 1 racial jammer. Vindicator has 24 sensor strength. Then proceed to be jammed 4 times *in a row*. Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

Originally by: murder one

---

luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

Originally by: Cmdr Sy

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Engage in a 1v1 with a Megathron with 1 racial jammer. Vindicator has 24 sensor strength. Then proceed to be jammed 4 times *in a row*. Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.

---

You would rather go into a 1v1, with a spreadsheet showing that based on tank and dps, it is impossible for you to lose against any single opponent?

I think ECM is unbalanced in terms of the disproportionate effect of receiving a single jam cycle over the course of a fight. A Thorax with a single multispec against a Thorax without a multispec, will win virtually every time. That's broken.

That someone had a couple of percent chance against a vastly superior ship which in normal circumstances cannot lose - that's worth keeping in game. A couple of percent sounds about right. Most people die if they get jammed once in three cycles.

---

Originally by: Admiral Pieg

---

gawd you whine alot dont you..

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.

Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.

---

Originally by: Kerc Kasha

---

Originally by: Admiral Pieg

---

gawd you whine alot dont you..

---

You're telling me, every post I see from him he's whining about something. He just can't help himself.

Man even with ECM how the hell did you lose a vindicator to a single megathron?

---

Originally by: Kerc Kasha

---

Originally by: Admiral Pieg

---

gawd you whine alot dont you..

---

You're telling me, every post I see from him he's whining about something. He just can't help himself.

Man even with ECM how the hell did you lose a vindicator to a single megathron?

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.

Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.

---

Why does everyone keep bringing up ECCM? It doesn't work. It never has. ECM is always more effective than ECCM. Why bring it up?

---

WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

Originally by: Jin Steele

---

Originally by: murder one

---

luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

sorry, but if chance isnt good game design, then i suggest you go play WoW. thats not an insult, but look at the facts. in EvE, chance allows 2 3 month old players to kill a 6 month or even 1 year old player. In WoW, there is no chance, so 2 lvl 30 characters cant kill a level 60 character. although it sucks, that 2% chance is what makes eve awesome.

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.

Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.

---

Why does everyone keep bringing up ECCM? It doesn't work. It never has. ECM is always more effective than ECCM. Why bring it up?

---

Let's see, you're 7 months old, flying a vindicator. ECCM in a 1vs1? Because most 1vs1, people know your ship and will simply fit a racial jammer. Oh wow, you got owned by that same ol tactic. ECM is always more effective than ECCM? Oh yea, you're right. Being able to jam someone before they jam you sure is a good tactic, it worked good for you it seems.

All in all, You probably would have gotten owned without being jammed anyways.

---

WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Whine on that one?

---

Can't be asked to relog my other char for the forums.

---

WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Whine on that one?

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Whine on that one?

---

Can't be asked to relog my other char for the forums.

---

Evemail me your killmail then.

---

WTS PILGRIM + CURSE + T2 DRONES PACKS

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Why does everyone keep bringing up ECCM? It doesn't work. It never has. ECM is always more effective than ECCM. Why bring it up?

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.

---

I've tried to use ECCM before. I have no faith in it.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.

---

I've tried to use ECCM before. I have no faith in it.

---

See, that lie exposes itself. If you HAD bothered to try it, you'd know it works.

---

Talking to you is like talking to a brick. Didn't I **JUST SAY*** that I've tried ECCM and have no faith in it because it doesn't work?

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.

---

I've tried to use ECCM before. I have no faith in it.

---

See, that lie exposes itself. If you HAD bothered to try it, you'd know it works.

---

Talking to you is like talking to a brick. Didn't I **JUST SAY*** that I've tried ECCM and have no faith in it because it doesn't work?

---

You lied.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

I lied about what?

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

I lied about what?

---

About ever really testing ECCM.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

No, I didn't. How do you come to this conclusion?

And to set you straight, not only have I tested ECCM both with RMR and Kali, but I've tried using ECCM in combat on numerous occasions, without success.

So again, I ask, how did you come upon this falsity that you now think you need to slander me and call me a liar?

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

No, I didn't. How do you come to this conclusion?

And to set you straight, not only have I tested ECCM both with RMR and Kali, but I've tried using ECCM in combat on numerous occasions, without success.

So again, I ask, how did you come upon this falsity that you now think you need to slander me and call me a liar?

---

Because you said it doesn't work. It does.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?

---

Hmm, I see you're a product of the "everything is opinion" generation of public schooling. The fact that ECCM improves your sensors by 96% and thus makes you less vulnerable to jamming is not open to debate, nor is it an opinion.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?

---

Hmm, I see you're a product of the "everything is opinion" generation of public schooling. The fact that ECCM improves your sensors by 96% and thus makes you less vulnerable to jamming is not open to debate, nor is it an opinion.

---

I didn't dispute that it improves your sensor strength by 96%. What I said was is that it wasn't effective enough, despite that healty increase.

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?

---

Hmm, I see you're a product of the "everything is opinion" generation of public schooling. The fact that ECCM improves your sensors by 96% and thus makes you less vulnerable to jamming is not open to debate, nor is it an opinion.

---

I didn't dispute that it improves your sensor strength by 96%. What I said was is that it wasn't effective enough, despite that healty increase.

---

Yes, I'm well aware of your belief that 1 simple ECCM module should make you immune to jamming from a million ECM modules all trying to jam you at once. Good luck with that. What other counters work that way?

---

Originally by: Miss Overlord

---

i digress this fool will run his course

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Chance isn't good game design.

---

Originally by: Scall McLean

---

Just because you have a bazillion points in your ECCM doesn't mean ECM isn't going to be able to jam you.

Want 100% protection for your ship? Keep it sitting in that pretty hangar of yours, or join a NPC Corp and stick to low-population High-Sec systems.

It's the same principal with protecting your computer from viruses. Want 100% protection for your computer, unplug it from the internet and don't get '2nd hand' stuff for it.



So, your Opinion that ECCM /doesn't/ work is indeed your opinion. However, your opinion is flawed as is your view on how the game should run. The Dev's stated that they wanted as much realism as possible.

Also, I do have another question for you, how do you know he only had 1 Racial Jammer? If he's setup for 'specialist' ganking, perhaps he had more than one ECM installed and completely decimated your '24 points' of sensor strength?

It really does sound like your crying over the loss of your ship and ISK and you're looking for something to blame apart from your own 'opinions'

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Miss Overlord

---

i digress this fool will run his course

---

WTF, do I have to go get witnesses? You ppl have your heads so far up your asses that you think that it's just not possible?

---

Originally by: GBoS

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Miss Overlord

---

i digress this fool will run his course

---

WTF, do I have to go get witnesses? You ppl have your heads so far up your asses that you think that it's just not possible?

---

Isn't insulting people against the EULA?

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

The fact that ECCM improves your sensors by 96% and thus makes you less vulnerable to jamming is not open to debate, nor is it an opinion.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

If you had bothered to fit just a single ECCM, it's unlikely this would have happened.

---

I've tried to use ECCM before. I have no faith in it.

---

See, that lie exposes itself. If you HAD bothered to try it, you'd know it works.

---

Talking to you is like talking to a brick. Didn't I **JUST SAY*** that I've tried ECCM and have no faith in it because it doesn't work?

I built a Mega with 72 sensor strength once becuase these guys I was going to kill were all ECM wh@res. 1x best named mid slot active ECCM, and if I recall, 3x best named low slot ECCM. I was jammed for at LEAST 50% of the fight. Not by scorps, but by two T1 blackbirds. So no, ECCM doesn't work.

I sacrificed FOUR slots to ECCM and was still rendered useless. ECCM doesn't work, it never has.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.

Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.

---

Why does everyone keep bringing up ECCM? It doesn't work. It never has. ECM is always more effective than ECCM. Why bring it up?

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.

---

Originally by: Wrangler

---

I lock, therefor I am.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

Frankly, murder one, it doesnt surprise me in the least that you have tested ECCM and used it in combat extensively and it's never helped you. Why? Because I have and do, as do my corpmates, and we find it works great. The reason why it never helps you is cosmic balance , or "Kharma". You are the flipside, the other end of the seesaw, the counterweight, to all of us having a happy gaming experience.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Miss Overlord

---

i digress this fool will run his course

---

WTF, do I have to go get witnesses? You ppl have your heads so far up your asses that you think that it's just not possible?

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Risien Drogonne

---

Originally by: murder one

---

#1, that's my opinion. It's not a lie. #2 "it does" is your opinion. That is also not a lie. I think that your opinion is wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar do you?

---

Hmm, I see you're a product of the "everything is opinion" generation of public schooling. The fact that ECCM improves your sensors by 96% and thus makes you less vulnerable to jamming is not open to debate, nor is it an opinion.

---

I didn't dispute that it improves your sensor strength by 96%. What I said was is that it wasn't effective enough, despite that healty increase.

---

Yes, I'm well aware of your belief that 1 simple ECCM module should make you immune to jamming from a million ECM modules all trying to jam you at once. Good luck with that. What other counters work that way?

---

I tried FOUR ECCM modules at once, for a total sensor strength of something like 72. And I STILL GOT JAMMED. What are you on? Pay attention! And yeah, I DID expect to not get jammed since I used FOUR modules to avoid it. WTF? That's not good enough for you?

---

Originally by: Robimus

---

Edited by: Robimus on 14/11/2006 02:31:56
You guys want to hear something funy. Murder One, also known as Bellum Eternus, once killed me when I was in a Geddon . He in a vexor and one other person in a raven killed me, and guess how they did it? Yep Murder one the very person here who is crying about ecm used ecm against me.

What did I do? I came back in a Blasterthron fitted with ECM and Killed his Vindicator

Yep it was me who did it and yep it was great. Every -10 pirate cries like a little kid when a real PVP'er brings a real fight to them and they die.

Oh and your statistics are wrong. Training up jamming skills makes a huge difference. Mine are maxed.

The sad part of the story is that a npc rat in the belt actualy got the killmail and not me. I asked him for his death mail and like the coward that he is, he would not give it to me.

I still have it fraps'd and it will be one of the highlights to my video, ECM and all.

Oh and I have enjoyed selling off all the faction loot. So far I have made over 600mil. isk.

GF,
Rob

---

Originally by: Robimus

---

You know, you guys all cry about using ecm. Why? because you all die from it. Lets say eve was real combat. Would you just stand their like we did 100 years ago and see who's line of guns hits harder? We eventualy figured out that war was about more than that and adopted tactics. Everyones is different. If you fight like we did 100's of years ago you are gonna die.

I have played this game a long time an combat in the game is evolving just like it has in RL. Everyone is going to have to adapt or this whining is never gonna stop.

---

Originally by: Robimus

---

You know, you guys all cry about using ecm. Why? because you all die from it. Lets say eve was real combat. Would you just stand their like we did 100 years ago and see who's line of guns hits harder? We eventualy figured out that war was about more than that and adopted tactics. Everyones is different. If you fight like we did 100's of years ago you are gonna die.

I have played this game a long time an combat in the game is evolving just like it has in RL. Everyone is going to have to adapt or this whining is never gonna stop.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Am I the only one that thinks this isn't an appealing future for PVP?

---

Originally by: Robimus

---

Edited by: Robimus on 14/11/2006 04:17:18
Edited by: Robimus on 14/11/2006 04:16:54
Aw, your still upset about our encounter? How about that deathmail, are you gonna forward it to me?

I know better that to fight a vindicator with a Megat. If I had a Vindicator or navy thron I would have fought it out like a slugfest, and would have won. You can cry about ecm all you want, but all its gonna do is ruin the game for you.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Engage in a 1v1 with a Megathron with 1 racial jammer. Vindicator has 24 sensor strength. Then proceed to be jammed 4 times *in a row*. Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%

---

Originally by: James Snowscoran

---

Well you could argue that the lowslot eccm modules are kinda underpowered. But then, signal amplifiers are also kinda underpowered compared to sensor boosters . I can't help but feel only very limited amounts of sympathy over your being jammed only 50% of the time against 2 blackbirds...that means they'd need 4 blackbirds to jam you 75% of the time, and whenever you escape a single jam cycle in the mega, at least one of the blackbirds really should go down the drain from blaster and drone pounding.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.

Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.

---

Why does everyone keep bringing up ECCM? It doesn't work. It never has. ECM is always more effective than ECCM. Why bring it up?

---

Quote:

---

Mail from: Houvire Takaerne

2006.06.06 19:25
Our research has been fruity. If you're interested, I believe I have found what might be a banana in the corner of my office draw.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Shortened
something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened..

---

Originally by: Trem Sinval

---

The numbers, Mr. Sulu!

Crappiest racial jammer: 6.

Vindi sensors: 24.

Chance to jam (any cycle): 6/24, 1/4, 25%

Chance to jam 4 consecutive times: (1/4)^4 = 0.39% chance

-----

- Trem

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

There is this great story about 2 battleships fighting in ww2 when one of them was sunk due to one single porjectile that landed it's magazine bay.

HMM IT MUST BE IMPOSIBLE THAT A VERY GOOD SHIP CAN BE LOST TO A STATISTICAL ANOMALY!!! (irony)

Statistical anomalyes do happen. Such is life...

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

There is this great story about 2 battleships fighting in ww2 when one of them was sunk due to one single porjectile that landed it's magazine bay.

HMM IT MUST BE IMPOSIBLE THAT A VERY GOOD SHIP CAN BE LOST TO A STATISTICAL ANOMALY!!! (irony)

Statistical anomalyes do happen. Such is life...

---

Originally by: Rheinkraft

---

:D

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

...

---

Yeah, but this is a game. Taking the given example, how impressed would you be if, every once in a while, your ship was one-shotted by someone else's because the game decided a 'statisical anomaly' occurred?

And, since the above basically boiled down to very bad luck, are you saying it is a good thing that combat in Eve is more about luck than your setup or your skill when ECM is involved?

---

Originally by: Rheinkraft

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

...

---

The Hood Vs The Bismarck if my memory serves me right, The Bismarck destroyed the british flagship The Hood in 2 voleys :D

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:34:05
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:32:53
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:29:51
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:29:05

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

...

---

Yeah, but this is a game. Taking the given example, how impressed would you be if, every once in a while, your ship was one-shotted by someone else's because the game decided a 'statisical anomaly' occurred?

And, since the above basically boiled down to very bad luck, are you saying it is a good thing that combat in Eve is more about luck than your setup or your skill when ECM is involved?

---

Eve combat is not "more about luck", but luck has to have a factor. In any system that emplyes randomness there will always be this type of situations. I compleatly agree with luck.

EDIT: There would be no problem if ships could be criticaly hit in such a way. As this is a game, fights occure more often then in rl given the nr of ppl involved, it is only normal that such improbable events appear more often then in RL.

Just because some ppl are unlucky and then very vocal about that dosen't make the whole game a "no skill just luck" game.

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:34:05
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:32:53
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:29:51
Edited by: AsfALT on 15/11/2006 14:29:05

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

...

---

Yeah, but this is a game. Taking the given example, how impressed would you be if, every once in a while, your ship was one-shotted by someone else's because the game decided a 'statisical anomaly' occurred?

And, since the above basically boiled down to very bad luck, are you saying it is a good thing that combat in Eve is more about luck than your setup or your skill when ECM is involved?

---

Eve combat is not "more about luck", but luck has to have a factor. In any system that emplyes randomness there will always be this type of situations. I compleatly agree with luck.

EDIT: There would be no problem if ships could be criticaly hit in such a way. As this is a game, fights occure more often then in rl given the nr of ppl involved, it is only normal that such improbable events appear more often then in RL.

Just because some ppl are unlucky and then very vocal about that dosen't make the whole game a "no skill just luck" game.

---

The whining doesn't make it 'no skill just luck', ecm does.
In a normal fight a better setup and/or better pilot will win. Fight that same fight over and over and it'll come out basically the same each time, excepting the occasional ****up and client crash.
With ECM it'll play differently every time due to some random number generator. And if you only do the fight once (as is typically the case) you will randomly get one of these possible outcomes including, as in cases like this, the lesser ship winning. Thus luck>skill/setup when ECM is used.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.

Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.

---

Why does everyone keep bringing up ECCM? It doesn't work. It never has. ECM is always more effective than ECCM. Why bring it up?

---

Originally by: Yoshimako

---

im a firm beliver in leaving ECM strength as it is now. I do not however like a random ship being able to fit just one into its setup to be able to counter pretty much anything. (with a bit of luck admittedly)

ECM should only be usable by ECM ships.

---

Originally by: Robimus

---

By the way guys. To clerify on the fight. It was not 4 consecutive jams. it was only 2. I missed the first cycle, and got 2 after that, he was killed about 5 seconds into the second succesful cycle.

Murder one/Bellum. If your gonna flame and cry about your loss, atleast give accurate info about the fight.

So are you gonna forward me that Death mail?

Rob

---

Originally by: Mangold

---

Erm, your calculations are not correct. Running 4 jammers on a single target (with your numbers) will give a 68% chance of jamming every time. That is the same as a 32% chance of failure.

---

Quote:

---

Fitting a ECCM (60% added sensor strength) will change that to 49% chance of successful jam i e 51% chance of failure.

---

Originally by: Robimus

---

It was not 4 consecutive jams. it was only 2. I missed the first cycle, and got 2 after that

---

Originally by: Rheinkraft

---

Originally by: AsfALT

---

There is this great story about 2 battleships fighting in ww2 when one of them was sunk due to one single porjectile that landed it's magazine bay.

HMM IT MUST BE IMPOSIBLE THAT A VERY GOOD SHIP CAN BE LOST TO A STATISTICAL ANOMALY!!! (irony)

Statistical anomalyes do happen. Such is life...

---

The Hood Vs The Bismarck if my memory serves me right, The Bismarck destroyed the british flagship The Hood in 2 voleys :D

---

Originally by: Trem Sinval

---

Edited by: Trem Sinval on 15/11/2006 22:22:56

Originally by: Mangold

---

Erm, your calculations are not correct. Running 4 jammers on a single target (with your numbers) will give a 68% chance of jamming every time. That is the same as a 32% chance of failure.

---

4 jammers vs. 1 ship:

Each jammer having a 1 in 4 chance to hit the jam, statistically speaking at least one of your jammers should keep the target jammed all the time (the extrapolated probability being (1/4)*4, or 100%). If you can take 4 stabs at a contest in which every fourth person wins, you'll always win.

---

Originally by: Mangold

---

Originally by: Trem Sinval

---

Edited by: Trem Sinval on 15/11/2006 22:22:56

Originally by: Mangold

---

Erm, your calculations are not correct. Running 4 jammers on a single target (with your numbers) will give a 68% chance of jamming every time. That is the same as a 32% chance of failure.

---

4 jammers vs. 1 ship:

Each jammer having a 1 in 4 chance to hit the jam, statistically speaking at least one of your jammers should keep the target jammed all the time (the extrapolated probability being (1/4)*4, or 100%). If you can take 4 stabs at a contest in which every fourth person wins, you'll always win.

---

No. This is where you are wrong. The other calculations may be correct (haven't looked at them tbh and I don't belive there is anything wrong with them).

You cant look at it that way. Compare it to throwing snowballs at someone. If the first snowball has a 25% of hitting and the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th one has the same probability how big is the chance that one of them hits the target? It's not 100%.

---

Originally by: Bishop 5

---

ECM is naff.

20 seconds you can't do *anything* offensive (unless you got drones \o/)

5 seconds, fair play. 10 seconds... hmm.. 20 seconds? wtf.

would be better if it just reduced the max no. of targets to 1 or something like that

---

Originally by: Locke DieDrake

---

Originally by: Mangold

---

Originally by: Trem Sinval

---

Edited by: Trem Sinval on 15/11/2006 22:22:56

Originally by: Mangold

---

Erm, your calculations are not correct. Running 4 jammers on a single target (with your numbers) will give a 68% chance of jamming every time. That is the same as a 32% chance of failure.

---

4 jammers vs. 1 ship:

Each jammer having a 1 in 4 chance to hit the jam, statistically speaking at least one of your jammers should keep the target jammed all the time (the extrapolated probability being (1/4)*4, or 100%). If you can take 4 stabs at a contest in which every fourth person wins, you'll always win.

---

No. This is where you are wrong. The other calculations may be correct (haven't looked at them tbh and I don't belive there is anything wrong with them).

You cant look at it that way. Compare it to throwing snowballs at someone. If the first snowball has a 25% of hitting and the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th one has the same probability how big is the chance that one of them hits the target? It's not 100%.

---

Um, yes it is.


If I have a 1 in 4 chance of hitting, and four chances to try it. Then I have a 100% chance of hitting.

But here is where those numbers break apart. Just because I have a 100% chance to hit, doesn't mean that I will actually hit.

Probabilities are like that.

---

Originally by: Locke DieDrake

---

Edited by: Locke DieDrake on 15/11/2006 23:22:16

Originally by: Mangold

---

You cant look at it that way. Compare it to throwing snowballs at someone. If the first snowball has a 25% of hitting and the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th one has the same probability how big is the chance that one of them hits the target? It's not 100%.

---

Um, yes it is.


If I have a 1 in 4 chance of hitting, and four chances to try it. Then I have a 100% chance of hitting.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

---

Originally by: Mangold

---

Originally by: Locke DieDrake

---

Um, yes it is.


If I have a 1 in 4 chance of hitting, and four chances to try it. Then I have a 100% chance of hitting.

But here is where those numbers break apart. Just because I have a 100% chance to hit, doesn't mean that I will actually hit.

Probabilities are like that.

---

Probabilities are difficult. Let me try to explain my point with jamming.

If you look at the lottery with 4 tickets as an example you are not allowed to buy all 4. You can buy one ticket for one lottery (with 25% chance of winning) and another ticket at another lottery (with another 25% chance of winning the OTHER lottery). Keep buying tickets in 4 different lotteries and you wont have a 100% chance of winning one of them.

---

Originally by: Locke DieDrake

---

Let me ask a seperate question... whats the "odds" of rolling a 20 on a 20 sided die? On the same die, whats the "odds" of rolling a 1. Now, whats the odds of rolling a 20 and a 1 in a row?

The reason I ask, is because there are only 2 answers to this question. I'm curious which one you give.

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Engage in a 1v1 with a Megathron with 1 racial jammer. Vindicator has 24 sensor strength. Then proceed to be jammed 4 times *in a row*. Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.

I lost a Vindicator because I had enough bad luck that I was jammed four times consecutively. No other reason. TBH I could give a *SNIP* bad word-Hutchabout the ISK etc. It's just the principle of the matter. And the sad part is, it won't be any different in Kali.

---

Originally by: SamtheDog

---

God you are not terribly bright. I got jammed...blah blah blah. Here's a small tidbit of advice for thou who lost his uber ship because he wasn't aware. USE BACKUP ARRAYS. OMG! 50% bonus to sensor strength... (problem solved).

There's nothing wrong with what happened...it was your ignorance of the game modules (which there are thousands of) that did you in. Stop whining & learn from your mistakes & move on!



Sam

---

Originally by: dalman

---

If he buys 4 tickets from different lotteries each with a 25% chance to win.

---

Originally by: dalman

---

Edited by: dalman on 15/11/2006 23:54:38
Locke, stop posting :/

He has:
0.75^4 = 31.6% chance of winning none.
0.75^3*0.25*4= 42.2% chance of winning one.
0.75^2*0.25^2*6= 21.1% chance of winning two.
0.75*0.25^3*4 = 4.7% chance of winning three.
0.25^4 = 0.4% chance of winning four.

If he buys 4 tickets from different lotteries each with a 25% chance to win.

Originally by: Locke DieDrake

---

Let me ask a seperate question... whats the "odds" of rolling a 20 on a 20 sided die? On the same die, whats the "odds" of rolling a 1. Now, whats the odds of rolling a 20 and a 1 in a row?

The reason I ask, is because there are only 2 answers to this question. I'm curious which one you give.

---

The odds for rolling a 20 is 1/20 = 5%. The odds for rolling a 1 is 1/20 = 5%.
The odds of rolling first a 20 and then a 1 is (1/20) * (1/20) = 0.25%

---

Originally by: Trem Sinval

---

Originally by: dalman

---

If he buys 4 tickets from different lotteries each with a 25% chance to win.

---

... Which is the analogue to a single jammer jamming a ship 4 times.

Using 4 jammers gives you 4 tickets to the same lottery (the ship you're trying to jam).

See the difference? 4 tickets to a 4 ticket lottery guarantees a win every time. Of course, Locke has already added the "reality" modifier, that one needs an infinite period of time to extrapolate to 100% winning, and that one's chances are somewhat more random (and lower still!) than those empirically calculated here.

- Trem

---

Originally by: dalman

---

Ehm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The correct numbers are in my post above.

---

Quote:

---

There's an endless ammount of tickets. You never ever have a 100% chance to jam someone

---

Quote:

---

If you buy 4 tickets with 25% chance of winning a number of times x - then your total ammount tickets with wins will extrapolate to x

---

Originally by: Trem Sinval

---

Originally by: dalman

---

Ehm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The correct numbers are in my post above.

---

That's because you have no grasp of stastical reasoning.

Let's illustrate, shall we?

SHIP WITH 4 JAMMERS

Jammer 1: No jam.
Jammer 2: No jam.
Jammer 3: No jam.
Jammer 4: Jam.

The odds in this contest are that every fourth time you "ping" the ship for a jam, you'll make it. The fact that you are fitting 4 jammers means that you are, from a PURELY STATISTICAL STANDPOINT, always going to make a jam, whether it's with the very first jammer you run or the last.

Consider the above situation one "beat". This is one global opportunity for you to make a jam.

YOUR NUMBERS, on the other hand, are for a single module making 4 tries in separate beats. This is where the analogy of the lotteries comes in. 4 jammers means 4 tickets in a single lottery (the lottery necessarily having 4 possible outcomes, 3 of which do not result in a jam). YOUR NUMBERS, on the other hand, are for a SINGLE TICKET in 4 SEPARATE LOTTERIES.

Quote:

---

There's an endless ammount of tickets. You never ever have a 100% chance to jam someone

---

Oh, well hello. I guess you just caught up to all the other people in the thread? Have a fun time not reading posts?

Quote:

---

If you buy 4 tickets with 25% chance of winning a number of times x - then your total ammount tickets with wins will extrapolate to x

---

Well, I thought this one was obvious (see the above about not reading posts).

As X approaches INFINITY (that is, you buy an INFINITE amount of tickets over an INFINITE amount of time), your chances approach 100%. Not that they will ever actually reach 100%; not that 100% is a reasonable number to expect. That it will APPROACH 100%.

I have a present for you:

dalman

- Trem

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Engage in a 1v1 with a Megathron with 1 racial jammer. Vindicator has 24 sensor strength. Then proceed to be jammed 4 times *in a row*. Statistical chance of actually being jammed 4 times in a row given the sensor strengh and known jammer strength: 1.9%.

I lost a Vindicator because I had enough bad luck that I was jammed four times consecutively. No other reason. TBH I could give a *SNIP* bad word-Hutchabout the ISK etc. It's just the principle of the matter. And the sad part is, it won't be any different in Kali.

---

Originally by: Trem Sinval

---

That's because you have no grasp of stastical reasoning.

Let's illustrate, shall we?

SHIP WITH 4 JAMMERS

Jammer 1: No jam.
Jammer 2: No jam.
Jammer 3: No jam.
Jammer 4: Jam.

The odds in this contest are that every fourth time you "ping" the ship for a jam, you'll make it. The fact that you are fitting 4 jammers means that you are, from a PURELY STATISTICAL STANDPOINT, always going to make a jam, whether it's with the very first jammer you run or the last.

Consider the above situation one "beat". This is one global opportunity for you to make a jam.

YOUR NUMBERS, on the other hand, are for a single module making 4 tries in separate beats. This is where the analogy of the lotteries comes in. 4 jammers means 4 tickets in a single lottery (the lottery necessarily having 4 possible outcomes, 3 of which do not result in a jam). YOUR NUMBERS, on the other hand, are for a SINGLE TICKET in 4 SEPARATE LOTTERIES.

Quote:

---

There's an endless ammount of tickets. You never ever have a 100% chance to jam someone

---

Oh, well hello. I guess you just caught up to all the other people in the thread? Have a fun time not reading posts?

Quote:

---

If you buy 4 tickets with 25% chance of winning a number of times x - then your total ammount tickets with wins will extrapolate to x

---

Well, I thought this one was obvious (see the above about not reading posts).

As X approaches INFINITY (that is, you buy an INFINITE amount of tickets over an INFINITE amount of time), your chances approach 100%. Not that they will ever actually reach 100%; not that 100% is a reasonable number to expect. That it will APPROACH 100%.

I have a present for you:

dalman

- Trem

---

Originally by: Gyro DuAquin1

---

the problem with ur coin example is that jamers do not effect etach other, you end up with 1 coin one change. And ofc more jamers more change to jam someone, cause the more coins u flip more coins will show head.

---

Originally by: Lesferath

---

Edited by: Lesferath on 16/11/2006 08:59:16

Originally by: Gyro DuAquin1

---

the problem with ur coin example is that jamers do not effect etach other, you end up with 1 coin one change. And ofc more jamers more change to jam someone, cause the more coins u flip more coins will show head.

---

And how exactly do coins effect each other?
And of course your right - more coins - better chance, never said anything against it.

---

Originally by: dalman

---

You obviously doesn't understand statistics at all.

"4 jammers means 4 tickets in a single lottery (the lottery necessarily having 4 possible outcomes, 3 of which do not result in a jam). "
This part is what cause your failure.
Because it is not correct.

A failed jam doesn't reduce the strength of a ship. A raven has a strength of 22, no matter.
If your first 3 jammers fail, the ship still has a 22 strength and you only have a 25% chance of jamming the target.

Even if you have 8 jammers fitted, there's still a 0.75^8=10% chance that none of them will jam the target.

The chance does NOT approach 100% as we approach infinity. It approach the distribution I've explained already. The average number of jams does though. Which is very different.

---

Originally by: DarkElf

---

1 multi spec on a none ecm ship against a ship with 1 ECCM will do hardly anything.

---

Originally by: dalman

---

Originally by: DarkElf

---

1 multi spec on a none ecm ship against a ship with 1 ECCM will do hardly anything.

---

Don't you see what you're typing yourself?

If your target has one ECM fitted and you one ECCM fitted, you've both used up one medslot and he still have a chance to jam you while your module has no other benefit except reducing that risk.

Then you have basicly 'wasted your slot'.
What you have done is to gimp your setup for sure but in return you've lessened the chance for abnomalities.
This action (fitting one ECCM instead of ECM) is then only a viable thing to do if you're sure you're vastly superior to your opponent.

A vindicator in question, is a much better ship with an ECM rather than ECCM fitted. By fitting an ECCM, you reduce the risk for abnormal things to happen, but instead you get a setup that's hardly better than a normal T1 ship.

As such, the only viable situation to use ECCM is when the opponent(s) has much more med-slots available.

The nerf to ECM on "non-ECM ships" in Kali is much welcome and will of course have an effect on the reasoning about if ECCM is useful.

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

Originally by: murder one

---

Originally by: Andrea Jaruwalski

---

All of EVE needed to know that. Seems Vindicator losses need alot of stories on this forum now, maybe farjung needs to give his fanboys a bit of training other than cleaning his pants of the drools when they watch his movies.

---

I'm no fanboi. I'm just irked that a ship like a Vindicator can be lost to something that amounts to a statistical anomaly. There was less than a 2% chance of success on the other guy's part, yet it happened. It's just bad luck is all, isn't it?

Chance isn't good game design.

---

I don't know, maybe if you were so good at calculating your chances of getting jammed, you'd have noticed it didn't matter and fitted ECCM.

Also, If you were any decent at keeping your own killboards updated, i could probably pick on your setup.

---

Originally by: dalman

---

This part is what cause your failure.
Because it is not correct.

---

Originally by: Trem Sinval

---

Conclusions
-----------

A ship fitting a single ECCM module will experience, on average, two-thirds as many jams as a non-fitted ship.

In the described example, an ECCM module would have halved the chance of the jams occuring.

In the first example, fitting a jammer gives the player a 25% chance to completely negate primary ship systems, while an ECCM would give the player 33% more time out of jam, or 33% more effective time (than a ship without).

As it is clear that making consecutive jams with a single jammer fitted becomes increasingly difficult, and ECCM module effects do not experience the degradation of effectiveness (statistical effectiveness, luck notwithstanding), it is obvious that ECCM modules are more effective in combat, especially when taken with the knowledge that jammers require large sums of energy to operate, while ECCM does not.

Having said that, however, jammers, while having a statistically lower chance of serving their purpose than an ECCM, have a much larger effect, the majority of a ship's damage coming from it's primary weapons and targetted modules. However, whether it is philosophically better to use one or the other is uncertain. This discourse is only designed to prove the efficacy of using an ECCM module in situations where jamming is likely.

- Trem

---

Originally by: Robimus

---

LOL, I suck. heh

He felt that hiding behind a faction ship, with faction mods was enough to take anyone in a standard ship. I proved that to be wrong.

With my maxed Galente BS, maxed blaster spec, and all maxed secondary gunnery, plus 3 mag field stabs - my dps was easly high enough to melt through his tank.

Yeah I killed him in 3 jam cycles. he also had a gank fitting with a poor tank. all he fights are 2 month old nubs that dont require him to have a tank so he just guns them down before they can hurt him.

Dont flame me for doing the same thing to him that he as done to 100's of other noobs.

Oh and anytime you feel that I suck, look me up and I will put you in your place as well.

Rob

---

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Question: If I log in and out 29 times in a row and I still lose my ship can I petition?

---