| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spitfury
   |
Posted - 2008.03.10 17:55:00 -
[1]
I'm currently training up to use a Golum (on the long slog to BS lvl5), with the Golums low sensor strength do any Golum pilots find that in missions against the Guristas you get jammed over and over again, if so do you advise sensors backup arrays in one of the low slots? or are there any other tricks/tactics to get round this?
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 18:24:00 -
[2]
NPC ECM has a fixed chance of success.
Unlike PvP ECM, the success of NPC ECM has nothing to do with your ships sensor strength.
There is nothing you need or can do to get around their success rate.
|
Alex Verrel
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:28:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Alex Verrel on 10/03/2008 19:35:17
 Originally by: Ki Tarra
There is nothing you need or can do to get around their success rate.
This is just wrong. Additional ECCM modules prevent NPC jamming very effectively. I went from perma-jam to no jam at all on a Golem after adding two Grav ECCMs in mids.
I have tested both for more than an hour with very consistent results, so I am pretty sure ECCM works on NPCs.
Also, do not waste your lows on ECCM, Golem does not have many low slots to begin with. There are ECCM modules that go into mids. Use those instead if you find yourself being jammed too often. They do help.
|
Carniflex
Caldari
Fallout Research
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:42:00 -
[4]
NPC jams ignore sensor str number. This has been stated by dev in one of the original threads about Golem and it's sensors.
|
Alex Verrel
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Carniflex
NPC jams ignore sensor str number. This has been stated by dev in one of the original threads about Golem and it's sensors.
I have heard that too, but I've tested ECCM myself and got amazing results. Just try it yourself and you will see that ECCM modules work on NPCs.
I did it this way: got 4 gurista HACs on me, then counted jams per 5 minute intervals with and without ECCM.
1) The results for each interval were very close
2) Each subsequent ECCM module more then halved the number of jams per 5 minute interval.
|
Lord Morkoth
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 20:30:00 -
[6]
dont mix up lord of the rings online with eve
i think guristas would tear gollum a new one
Signature
Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:00:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Alex Verrel
Test details
Your test is not effective.
1 - You do not adjust properly for simulatious jams. You need to run your test against 1 jamming ship for the test to be properly controlled.
2 - Your sample size is too small. 20 minutes only gives you 60 jamming attempts. You need more than that to establish statistical significance.
|
Alex Verrel
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 22:00:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Alex Verrel on 10/03/2008 22:05:47
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Your test is not effective.
If you really are as good in theory of probability as you pretend to be, do yourself a favour and calculate the probability of getting the results I got, based on the assumption that 2*ECCM and no ECCM actually make no difference.
It should not be that hard, really (last time I've studied theory of probability was in university ~6 years ago, so I am not 100% sure).
And the in-between results for 1 module correlate very well with the rest of the results.
I may have gathered not enough data, but I have spent as much time as I could afford to spend on it. I work in a different field in mathematics and have no desire to dig up my old books on probability and statistics just to be able to come up with some fancy figures between 0.0 and 1.0.
You are welcome to plan and conduct a better thought out experiment and try to prove me wrong.
The result of the test I've done is of practical kind and is as simple (albeit narrow) as this: under 4 gurista HACs you get permajam for 15 minutes straight (with some small gaps) with no modules, almost no jam for 20 minutes with 2 ECCM.
|
Jmanis Catharg
Caldari
Stickler inc
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 22:40:00 -
[9]
I've run plenty of mish without ECCM, and never been ECM'ed by ECM rats in lots of cases. So my experience blows your tests out of the water really. But remember you're testing a chance-based system in a game reknown for 'unusual streakage'.
If your test results are conclusive, explain my results.
My point being not to discredit your results, but to simply say you cant test chance based stuff that easily.
|
Newbear
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 01:44:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Newbear on 11/03/2008 01:44:40
Golem! not Golum! Thats like saying you play UvU online! I read somewhere its 1 volly for bcs when it used to be 2 vollies. So speed and ammo savings there. Jamming from npcs is chance based and is not affected by modules or the type of ship you fly.
Click here for my High Security POS Service
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:14:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Alex Verrel
Also look at what you propose.
I know that testing NPC ECM effectiveness by sampling is not practical.
What I propose is looking at the actual game mechanics of NPC jamming, and contrasting it with PvP jamming.
With PvP jamming your chance of success is calculated by dividing the jammers Sensor strength by your ship's Sensor strength. ECCM works by increasing your Sensor strength.
If ECCM is going to affect NPC ECM, NPC's would require a jamming Sensor strength. If you look at the item database you will find that they do not have such an attribute. Instead they have an attribute that is independant of your Sensor strength: entityTargetJamDurationChance.
You can verify this information yourself from the data dump, or if you want a user friendly version, I would suggest using a site such as Eve Info.
|
Alex Verrel
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 07:49:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Alex Verrel on 11/03/2008 08:04:39
Originally by: Ki Tarra
What I propose is looking at the actual game mechanics of NPC jamming, and contrasting it with PvP jamming.
I have seen data dumps and I know what developers stated about NPC jamming. But developers never stated ECCM had no effect on NPC rats.
Have you considered, that a ECCM module could reduce the probability of an NPC jam by the factor of its bonus to sensor strength? That would not require any NPCs to have any sensor strength of their own. And would not contradict with anything devs said. AND would make sense too.
Also, this could be a side effect of an optimisation code (or rather a lazy programmer's shortcut), where the player jam chance is calculated in a similar way (a wild guess, but who knows). In this case even the developers would not be aware of the effect.
Having said all this, why would some Golem owners not reproduce my test and report the results they get here? Its simple and would be rather interesting to know.
Originally by: Jmanis Catharg
I've run plenty of mish without ECCM, and never been ECM'ed by ECM rats in lots of cases.
If your test results are conclusive, explain my results.
What are you results? Can I see your timings, ship type, rat types, cycle counts?
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 15:16:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Alex Verrel
But developers never stated ECCM had no effect on NPC rats.
Originally by: CCP Lingorm
NPC ECM is % based. It is not effected by the targets Sensor strength.
This means that the Marauders are effected exactly the same as any other ship by NPC ECM activities.
If you are going to claim that game mechanics do not work the way they have been asserted to work, you need to show some detailed documentation.
Your "test" doesn't state anything about what ships you were facing, what range they were at, and many other very important details.
If sounds like you ran a couple of missions, tried flipping on some ECCM and happened to get luck the times that you fitted ECCM.
If you are going to stand by your claim that ECCM works against NPC, find something to back it up besides your incomplete and informal test results. Speculating on "lazy programmer's shortcut" that actually require extra work will not cut it.
|
Spitfury
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 19:37:00 -
[14]
Thanks all, I'll prolly skip using ECCM and just put up with getting jammed 10 times in a row while doing Guristas Extravaganza etc.
I'm now off to write "Golem not Golum" 100 times on a blackboard to appease Lord Morkoth and Newbear 
|
Alex Verrel
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 21:36:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Alex Verrel on 11/03/2008 21:39:33
Edited by: Alex Verrel on 11/03/2008 21:36:40
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: Alex Verrel
But developers never stated ECCM had no effect on NPC rats.
Originally by: CCP Lingorm
NPC ECM is % based. It is not effected by the targets Sensor strength.
This means that the Marauders are effected exactly the same as any other ship by NPC ECM activities.
If you are going to claim that game mechanics do not work the way they have been asserted to work, you need to show some detailed documentation.
Somehow I get the feeling that you argue for the sake of the argument.
You quote a developer. Where is ECCM mentioned in that quote? I do not see it there. So far my words (specifically, the quoted ones) do not contradict anything the developers have said.
Also your main point seems to be that my test is bad, and you state it multiple times without much argumentation of your own.
I do not want to be rude, but if you want to prove me wrong so much, could you please do it in a more sensible way?
Originally by: Ki Tarra
If sounds like you ran a couple of missions, tried flipping on some ECCM and happened to get luck the times that you fitted ECCM.
This part further proves that your only concern is to argue your point, not to find out how things really work.
It is not that difficult to count that the total amount of testing time was (4+2+3)*5=45 minutes, all in the same specificaly set up environment. It was also executed and measured under quite definite conditions. So its not just "a couple of missions flipping ECCM".
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Your "test" doesn't state anything about what ships you were facing, what range they were at, and many other very important details.
Actually it does. It says "gurista HACs from the second pocket of The Assault", the Dire Pithum xxx ones. Becuase the test was performed for a considerable amount of time, it is also not difficult to figure, that the jamming ships were in their optimal orbit around the Golem.
What other "details" would you wish to know?
Also, no matter how many quotation marks you use referring to the test in question, it will not change the fact that it is a test that provides some data, so it is much better than nothing, which is exactly the amount you have contributed.
I am getting tired of this because it seems pointless. Feel free to believe whatever you will.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To Ki Tarra:
If this question interests you that much, why not do something yourself already, instead of just exercising in writing arrogant phrases? Which were not in any way backed up by any evidence that you know what you are talking about so far, btw.
You demand no less than scientific argumentation, I could give it (that's my main occupation anyway) but why would I bother in the first place?
I have given some simple facts that indicate a probable inconsistency in the common belief regarding ECCM. Those were not some "random results" as you claim, but a planned and recorded experiment, which is much more than what is commonly posted in this forum anyway.
If you choose to simply ignore these facts without backing your position with information of your own, then feel free to do it. But why do you bother to post so much on the matter then?
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 21:54:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Alex Verrel
To Ki Tarra:
If this question interests you that much, why not do something yourself already, instead of just exercising in writing arrogant phrases? Which were not in any way backed up by any evidence that you know what you are talking about so far, btw.
I fully intend to do more than just talk.
I intend to run my own tests as soon as practical.
The Assault appears to be the best mission available for such a test, and the next time I get it I plan to run that test.
While I still believe that there are several problems with the way that you have reported your results, biggest being that you did not properly state what was jamming you (there are only 2 HAC's with ECM in that mission stage), I might still find that ECCM does have an effect as you have speculated. Until I have my own results I will leave it as that.
Regardless, the OP's question has been addressed - that ship type / sensor strength does not affect NPC ECM.
|
Alex Verrel
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 22:01:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Alex Verrel on 11/03/2008 22:03:47
Originally by: Ki Tarra
I fully intend to do more than just talk.
I intend to run my own tests as soon as practical.
Agreed, this starts to look constructive.
I do apologise for the wording my first response, kind of forced you on the defensive  without realizing it, and then it got ugly.
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 22:18:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Alex Verrel
I do apologise for the wording my first response, kind of forced you on the defensive without realizing it, and then it got ugly.
We forced each other on the defensive.
Apology accepted and reciprocated.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |