EVE Search - Sensor Strength vs. ECM

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Sensor Strength vs. ECM

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Xiaden	Posted - 2008.09.08 17:28:00 - [1] So I was wondering if anyone had any calculations on how high of a sensor strength a ship has to have to be impervious or at least difficult to jam from a blackbird, falcon, and/or scorpion.
Izo Alabaster Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.09.08 17:32:00 - [2] . Will edit.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.09.08 17:41:00 - [3] If you want invulnerability from ECM there are only a few routes to take. A carrier in logistics mode, a dreadnaught in seige mode a mothership or a titan all gain EWAR immunity. Other than that you pretty much have to approach the problem as a measure of probability. No matter how high your sensor strength you'll always have a slim chance of being jammed. One can calculate their chances of being jammed by dividing the jammer strength by the sensor strength and multiplying the result by 100. As a reference, here are the probable Jammer strengths you'll see: Rook/Falcon/Widow: Multispec: 9 - 9.5 Racial: 13.5 - 14 Kitsune: Multispec: 8 - 9 Racial: 13 - 14 Blackbird/Scorpion Multispec: 7.5 - 8 Racial: 11 - 13
Odre Echee Equestrian Knight Order of Lolicon	Posted - 2008.09.08 17:45:00 - [4] Statistically, you always carry a chance of being jammed, just like how you always have a chance of not getting jammed. Better idea may be making that EWar run away. If approach A (ie - higher sensor) does not work, try approach B (make EWar run). ------------------- Equestrian Knight Order of Lolicon is recruiting! Take no substitute when it comes to alt-corp
Ethan Hunte TARDZ	Posted - 2008.09.08 18:59:00 - [5] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=864453 NERF ECM oR BOOST ECCM.
Cautet Precision Engineering	Posted - 2008.09.08 20:08:00 - [6] Originally by: Izo Alabaster Edited by: Izo Alabaster on 08/09/2008 18:15:34 Edited by: Izo Alabaster on 08/09/2008 18:02:57 Edited by: Izo Alabaster on 08/09/2008 18:02:35 I've done testing with an alt flying a blackbird, and this character flying a dominix with a full rack of the appropriate racial ECCM, and the alt using racial jammers. In short, ECCM is useless. I set it up to test the effectiveness of a falcon vs. the effectiveness of ECCM. My alt had a jamming strength of 7.5 per jammer, or 1/2 that of a falcon's single racial jammer. 2 of my alt's jammers = 1 falcon racial jammer, so my alt could effectively field up to 3 falcon jammers. My Dominix had a sensor stength of 160 with all the ECCM activated, but could still be jammed fairly often with all the jammers working on him, which is the equivalent of 3 falcon racials. With 0 ECCM and 1 falcon racial jammer on you, you're basically removed from the fight, spending 85% of your time or more jammed or in the process of targetting. With 1 ECCM and 1 falcon racial jammer on you, you're still more or less ineffective, spending around 70% of your time being jammed, or in the process of retargetting. I considered making a youtube video of it, but it would be boring, and since they are limited to 10 minutes, you wouldn't be able to see the entire experiment, but yes, I spent a few hours checking how often my Domi got jammed vs. how many ECM and ECCM it took to do it or not do it, and whether or not I have a life. In the end, anything less than 2 ECCM might as well be 0 ECCM, and if you're going to fit 2 or more ECCM, then you're seriously limiting your ship's potential as anything other than an anti-ECM ship. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Izo/Dominix2ECCM.JPG IMO, E-war in general needs a good looking at and probably a complete overhaul. I'm sorry you spent so much time (but not enough time to actualy produce results), but you conclusions are wrong. With sensor str of 160 its going to jam like 4% for the first ECM and less with each extra ecm (if taking into account putting all on at once the total chance of jamming - as although each jammer has 4% chance to jam 4 jammers don't have 16%) Domi with 1 ECCM = Sensor Strength of 43.1 Falcon pilot with Recon 5 and all other relevant skills at 5(including the one 90% of people have at level 4) gives ECM str of 14.12 Chance to jam with 1ECCM against 1 ECM = 14.12/43.1 = 32.89% Now yes if he jams you, you have to relock. But: A a domi is a drone boat and you drones are still working whilst relocking B Falcon has locking delay after decloaking C If falcon misses jam on you he misses jam for whole cycle, not 1 second. So on average you spend maybe 35% of the time jammed in a long engagement, or none of the time on average in a short engagement, and domi is not that hamped by falcons anyway. Falcon wouldn't even usualy put one on a Domi if any other galenti ship was present.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.09.08 20:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Izo Alabaster My alt had a jamming strength of 7.5 per jammer, or 1/2 that of a falcon's single racial jammer. 2 of my alt's jammers = 1 falcon racial jammer, so my alt could effectively field up to 3 falcon jammers. ECM does not work that way. It is not, in any way, additive or cumulative. Jam chance is calculated per jammer, and you can calculate your total jam chance manually. Your SS 160 Domi has: 7.5/160 = 4.69% of being jammed by a single 7.5 strength jammer. This is a 95.3% chance of not being jammed. The likelyhood of being jammed, as a function of jammers used, is as follows: Jam Prob = 1-(1-[Jam Strength / Sensor Strength])^n, where n is the number of jammers used. # of Jammers Jam Probability 1.... 4.69 2.... 9.15 3... 13.45 4... 17.51 5... 21.39 6... 24.09 Just so you know. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Wannabehero Caldari Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.09.08 20:49:00 - [8] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Izo Alabaster My alt had a jamming strength of 7.5 per jammer, or 1/2 that of a falcon's single racial jammer. 2 of my alt's jammers = 1 falcon racial jammer, so my alt could effectively field up to 3 falcon jammers. ECM does not work that way. It is not, in any way, additive or cumulative. Jam chance is calculated per jammer, and you can calculate your total jam chance manually. Your SS 160 Domi has: 7.5/160 = 4.69% of being jammed by a single 7.5 strength jammer. This is a 95.3% chance of not being jammed. The likelyhood of being jammed, as a function of jammers used, is as follows: Jam Prob = 1-(1-[Jam Strength / Sensor Strength])^n, where n is the number of jammers used. # of Jammers Jam Probability 1.... 4.69 2.... 9.15 3... 13.45 4... 17.51 5... 21.39 6... 24.09 Just so you know. Not arguing this point, as it is entirely true and is very much worth pointing out. But as and ECM enthusiast I just felt like mentioning that using twice as many jammers with half the strength results in striking similar total jam chances (mathematically speaking). 7.5/160 6 jammers = 24.09% jammed 15/160 3 jammers = 25.57% jammed Fun fact P.S. @ Izo Alabaster : Max Skill best racial jam strength for a Falcon (paper falcon, no armor plate) is ~14.125. Your Blackbird was jamming slightly better than half the strength of a falcon -- Don't harsh my mellow
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.09.08 22:31:00 - [9] Originally by: Wannabehero Not arguing this point, as it is entirely true and is very much worth pointing out. But as and ECM enthusiast I just felt like mentioning that using twice as many jammers with half the strength results in striking similar total jam chances (mathematically speaking). 7.5/160 6 jammers = 24.09% jammed 15/160 3 jammers = 25.57% jammed Fun fact Well I'll be damned, it is. Didn't know that that was actually a good way to approximate and now I feel rather like a douche __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Cautet Precision Engineering	Posted - 2008.09.09 00:12:00 - [10] Edited by: Cautet on 09/09/2008 00:15:16 Hha i should double check before opening my fat mouth. I was about to point out maths error, but I think error was mine. Move along, nothing to see here
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2008.09.09 01:14:00 - [11] I fly with 6 gal racials, just to make sure I'm good to go if the 160 strength domis wanna play.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.09 01:17:00 - [12] Edited by: AstroPhobic on 09/09/2008 01:22:30 ECM calculations are pretty easy. It's.... 1- ((1- (Jam Str/Sensor Str))^# of jammers). Just make sure to follow the paranthesis. Edit: Example time! 3 Jammers Jam str per mod: 5 Ship sensor str: 15 5/15 = .333 1 - .333 = .667 .667 ^ 3 = .297 1 - .297 = .703 You have a 70.3% chance of jamming the ship.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.09 01:27:00 - [13] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 09/09/2008 01:27:48 Originally by: Derek Sigres As a reference, here are the probable Jammer strengths you'll see: Rook/Falcon/Widow: Multispec: 9 - 9.5 Racial: 13.5 - 14 Kitsune: Multispec: 8 - 9 Racial: 13 - 14 Blackbird/Scorpion Multispec: 7.5 - 8 Racial: 11 - 13 keep in mind that IS with maximum skills and a full rack of Signal Amps Falcon gets 14.1 with Recon V and Signal Dispersion V With both those skills at IV (much more likely), it only gets 12.2... which for a jammer is a significant drop in effectiveness - Infectious -
Izo Alabaster Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.09.09 02:39:00 - [14] So much for the reading comprehension of the EVE community. Yes, using a blackbird with 2 jammers to approximate a falcon's single racial jamming capability is not 100% accurate, but it was somewhere around 95-99% accurate. I don't have a falcon alt (yet) so I used the closest thing I could. PLEASE OH GOD EVE FORUM COMMUNITY FORGIVE MY WRONGDOING! @Teriana Eri, I've seen you make some extremely intelligent and insightful posts, particularly about ship loadouts, but on this topic, you were way off. I'll talk to Magus and see if I can have you put on his Douches of EVE thread if you want. Ok? You're still my favorite pirate though. ECM is most certainly additive. Going from 1 ECM to 2 ECM on a target increases your chance to jam them by (roughly but not quite) 100%. @Wannabehero,sir, I think you might be forgetting rigs, Particle Dispersion Augmentors, which boost a falcon's jam strength by 10% per rig (minus stacking penalty?) up to something roughly like 14.67758 jam strength. Or are there other rigs that are more likely to be used? I'm not a falcon pilot, nor do I want to be one, so I don't know. One range and one jam strength rig would give 14.52364. So, my original statement still stands: With 1 ECCM on, versus a falcon with good skills who knows what they are doing, you're basically screwed. You can count on being jammed or in the process of retargetting for about 70% of the battle if he only devotes 1 racial jammer to you; and he has 7 jammer slots. This is why I say that small gang warfare is being dominated by falcons. It's not a matter of skill, skillpoints, ship loadouts, or tactics (excluding the tactic of having a falcon). It's a matter of which side brought a falcon to the fight.The Falcon is the "I win button" of small gang warefare.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.09.09 02:59:00 - [15] Originally by: Izo Alabaster @Teriana Eri, I've seen you make some extremely intelligent and insightful posts, particularly about ship loadouts, but on this topic, you were way off. I'll talk to Magus and see if I can have you put on his Douches of EVE thread if you want. Ok? You're still my favorite pirate though. ECM is most certainly additive. Going from 1 ECM to 2 ECM on a target increases your chance to jam them by (roughly but not quite) 100%. The game doesn't treat it in an additive manner; the fact that the overall chance of the first two jammers hitting is very close to the cumulative individual chance is a coincidence, caused by the way the formula (and, indeed, math) works. I objected because you claimed 2x7.5 = 1x14 (for jammers, it is not); had you declared it as an approximation, I would have said nothing, and apologize for making a big deal out of it. Thanks for the comment on the posting though. (I don't see how I was "way off", in any case) __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.09.09 03:44:00 - [16] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Izo Alabaster @Teriana Eri, I've seen you make some extremely intelligent and insightful posts, particularly about ship loadouts, but on this topic, you were way off. I'll talk to Magus and see if I can have you put on his Douches of EVE thread if you want. Ok? You're still my favorite pirate though. ECM is most certainly additive. Going from 1 ECM to 2 ECM on a target increases your chance to jam them by (roughly but not quite) 100%. The game doesn't treat it in an additive manner; the fact that the overall chance of the first two jammers hitting is very close to the cumulative individual chance is a coincidence, caused by the way the formula (and, indeed, math) works. I objected because you claimed 2x7.5 = 1x14 (for jammers, it is not); had you declared it as an approximation, I would have said nothing, and apologize for making a big deal out of it. Thanks for the comment on the posting though. (I don't see how I was "way off", in any case) And it is a coincidence that does not hold for different values. For example a ship with a sensor strength of 15 being jammed by 2 ECMs with 7.5 str will have a chance of 75% to be jammed. Not (50 + 50)% = 100%. The "coincidence" only holds when each individual chance is very small. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.09.09 04:29:00 - [17] Originally by: Etho Demerzel And it is a coincidence that does not hold for different values. For example a ship with a sensor strength of 15 being jammed by 2 ECMs with 7.5 str will have a chance of 75% to be jammed. Not (50 + 50)% = 100%. The "coincidence" only holds when each individual chance is very small. That's what I was trying to say, but I couldn't find the words for it (math skills failing me); thanks for getting that across __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.09.09 04:34:00 - [18] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Etho Demerzel And it is a coincidence that does not hold for different values. For example a ship with a sensor strength of 15 being jammed by 2 ECMs with 7.5 str will have a chance of 75% to be jammed. Not (50 + 50)% = 100%. The "coincidence" only holds when each individual chance is very small. That's what I was trying to say, but I couldn't find the words for it (math skills failing me); thanks for getting that across I'm glad I was able to help ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.09 07:04:00 - [19] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Wannabehero Not arguing this point, as it is entirely true and is very much worth pointing out. But as and ECM enthusiast I just felt like mentioning that using twice as many jammers with half the strength results in striking similar total jam chances (mathematically speaking). 7.5/160 6 jammers = 24.09% jammed 15/160 3 jammers = 25.57% jammed Fun fact Well I'll be damned, it is. Didn't know that that was actually a good way to approximate and now I feel rather like a douche It's a good way to approximate when the sensor strength is very high compared to the jam strength. It's a poor way to approximate when they are closer. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.09 07:09:00 - [20] Originally by: Izo Alabaster So much for the reading comprehension of the EVE community. Yes, using a blackbird with 2 jammers to approximate a falcon's single racial jamming capability is not 100% accurate, but it was somewhere around 95-99% accurate. I don't have a falcon alt (yet) so I used the closest thing I could. PLEASE OH GOD EVE FORUM COMMUNITY FORGIVE MY WRONGDOING! @Teriana Eri, I've seen you make some extremely intelligent and insightful posts, particularly about ship loadouts, but on this topic, you were way off. I'll talk to Magus and see if I can have you put on his Douches of EVE thread if you want. Ok? You're still my favorite pirate though. ECM is most certainly additive. Going from 1 ECM to 2 ECM on a target increases your chance to jam them by (roughly but not quite) 100%. @Wannabehero,sir, I think you might be forgetting rigs, Particle Dispersion Augmentors, which boost a falcon's jam strength by 10% per rig (minus stacking penalty?) up to something roughly like 14.67758 jam strength. Or are there other rigs that are more likely to be used? I'm not a falcon pilot, nor do I want to be one, so I don't know. One range and one jam strength rig would give 14.52364. So, my original statement still stands: With 1 ECCM on, versus a falcon with good skills who knows what they are doing, you're basically screwed. You can count on being jammed or in the process of retargetting for about 70% of the battle if he only devotes 1 racial jammer to you; and he has 7 jammer slots. This is why I say that small gang warfare is being dominated by falcons. It's not a matter of skill, skillpoints, ship loadouts, or tactics (excluding the tactic of having a falcon). It's a matter of which side brought a falcon to the fight.The Falcon is the "I win button" of small gang warefare. Fun fact: by your own maths, 1 Falcon can reliably negate 4 other Falcons. Since we know that every gang has at least 1 Falcon, the logical conclusion is that the first Falcon in any gang should fit all Caldari jammers. 70% lockdown on a BS with ECCM with a single jammer? EllOhEll. I wish. I'm glad to get 50% on a BS with no ECCM. My racials are ~13.5 Seriously, people remember being jammed. They don't remember the fights when the falcon sits there and doesn't achieve a god dambed thing. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Evanade Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.09.09 07:12:00 - [21] All they need to do is introduce a skill that improves a ships sensor strength by 5% per level. --------------------------- sok alt - main got banzored
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.09 07:31:00 - [22] Originally by: Evanade All they need to do is introduce a skill that improves a ships sensor strength by 5% per level. How about a skill that improves ECCM bonuses by 5%/level? Come to think of it, how come no-one ever mentions remote ECCM? Last I heard, changing a ship's sensor strength in the middle of a jam give you a "re-roll" - another chance to resist the jamming - and projected ECCM is also significantly more effective (+120% vs +96%). If people can use remote reps, then why not a couple of ships with remote ECCM? Two of these puppies will boost a BS sensor strength straight up to almost carrier levels, and they have an activation time that's half as long as ECMs. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Evanade Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.09.09 08:07:00 - [23] Afaik it doesn't. Sensor strength is only used at the beginning of the cycle to calculate the odds, turning on an ECCM or remote ECCM in the middle of the cycle won't have any immediate effect. --------------------------- sok alt - main got banzored
Ralara Caldari Shadow Incursion	Posted - 2008.09.09 08:22:00 - [24] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Evanade All they need to do is introduce a skill that improves a ships sensor strength by 5% per level. How about a skill that improves ECCM bonuses by 5%/level? Come to think of it, how come no-one ever mentions remote ECCM? Last I heard, changing a ship's sensor strength in the middle of a jam give you a "re-roll" - another chance to resist the jamming - and projected ECCM is also significantly more effective (+120% vs +96%). If people can use remote reps, then why not a couple of ships with remote ECCM? Two of these puppies will boost a BS sensor strength straight up to almost carrier levels, and they have an activation time that's half as long as ECMs. Because that takes time and effort, and it's so much easier to whine. --
Furb Killer Gallente The first genesis Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.09.09 08:40:00 - [25] Because if one ship gets jammed soon the entire remote ECCM line fails.
Commander Shallow Caldari Synthetic Frontiers	Posted - 2008.09.09 10:26:00 - [26] When I first started out I flew a Drake with projected ECCM (to protect the heavy hitters from E-war)and that worked wonders. people rarely primary a drake and you just drop a recharger replace it with an omni ECCM and jobs a good'un. plus you can still do a nice amount of DPS yourself.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.09 10:29:00 - [27] Originally by: Evanade Afaik it doesn't. Sensor strength is only used at the beginning of the cycle to calculate the odds, turning on an ECCM or remote ECCM in the middle of the cycle won't have any immediate effect. I'm almost certain it used to. Might be worth checking.
Ceremony Garp	Posted - 2008.09.09 11:11:00 - [28] Extremely useful discussion. Not only that, but done with politesse! [Someone should report this to the trolls].
Multimorph Gallente NailorTech Industries Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2008.09.09 11:34:00 - [29] Edited by: Multimorph on 09/09/2008 11:35:04 Edited by: Multimorph on 09/09/2008 11:34:14 I was bored at work, so I wasted some time to come up with the following figure: [URL=http://imageshack.us][/URL] [URL=http://g.imageshack.us/img180/jammingactivetimepercenly0.png/1/][/URL] The figure shows, which percent of time you can expect to be removed from a fight, depending on your sensor strength if a ship with a jammer strength of 14 is constantly trying to jam you with one jammer. The computation includes the time you need to relock after being jammed for one cycle and not being jammed again. This relocking time i set arbitrarily to 10 seconds, however the influence of changing this value is rather low. (The figure was produces using Matlab)
Evanade Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:14:00 - [30] Edited by: Evanade on 09/09/2008 12:15:18 Awesome work MM, i wonder if CCP ever does calcs like that? What is, for an average combat situation (1 or 2 jammers on a ship) the influence of a 25% increase in sensor strength on the equiation (in the hypothetical scenario that they should introduce a skill that gives +5% sensor strength per level) --------------------------- sok alt - main got banzored
Wannabehero Caldari Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.09.09 15:39:00 - [31] Originally by: Multimorph Very nice figures Multi, thanks for sharing them Originally by: Malcanis It's a good way to approximate when the sensor strength is very high compared to the jam strength. It's a poor way to approximate when they are closer. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. I will agree that at lower disparities between sensor strength and jammer strength the error in approximaion of total jam chance by using twice as many jammers at half strength grows larger. This error is reduced significantly when using more iterations of jammers in the approximation. In fact, as your iterations approach infinity, your error approaches zero. When calculating jam chance from one jammer by using 2 half strength jammers, the error can be quite large (as much as 25% when the full strength jammer is just shy of 100% jam chance), however, once we use 4 half strength jammers to approximate 2 full strength jammers' total jam chance, the error is reduced significantly. Trend continues, so on and so forth. In the situation presented by the OP, when using 6 half strength jammers to approximate the total jam chance of 3 full strength jammers, the maximum error we can expect to see in calculations should be around 6% error from true value (or x1.06 - x0.94 from true value). Not that bad of an approximation. -- Don't harsh my mellow
Zero Void	Posted - 2008.09.09 18:07:00 - [32] Originally by: Wannabehero I will agree that at lower disparities between sensor strength and jammer strength the error in approximaion of total jam chance by using twice as many jammers at half strength grows larger. This error is reduced significantly when using more iterations of jammers in the approximation. In fact, as your iterations approach infinity, your error approaches zero. When calculating jam chance from one jammer by using 2 half strength jammers, the error can be quite large (as much as 25% when the full strength jammer is just shy of 100% jam chance), however, once we use 4 half strength jammers to approximate 2 full strength jammers' total jam chance, the error is reduced significantly. The "approximation" is just wrong. And if you know the correct way to calculate it, why the hell would you "approximate" it for 6 AFTER calculating for 3. Just to add error to your figures? And this only helps because as you increase the number of tries you diminush each attempt strength THUS MAKING EACH INDIVIDUAL ATTEMPT HAVE ONLY A SMALL CHANCE.
Wannabehero Caldari Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.09.10 15:29:00 - [33] Originally by: Zero Void Originally by: Wannabehero I will agree that at lower disparities between sensor strength and jammer strength the error in approximaion of total jam chance by using twice as many jammers at half strength grows larger. This error is reduced significantly when using more iterations of jammers in the approximation. In fact, as your iterations approach infinity, your error approaches zero. When calculating jam chance from one jammer by using 2 half strength jammers, the error can be quite large (as much as 25% when the full strength jammer is just shy of 100% jam chance), however, once we use 4 half strength jammers to approximate 2 full strength jammers' total jam chance, the error is reduced significantly. The "approximation" is just wrong. And if you know the correct way to calculate it, why the hell would you "approximate" it for 6 AFTER calculating for 3. Just to add error to your figures? And this only helps because as you increase the number of tries you diminush each attempt strength THUS MAKING EACH INDIVIDUAL ATTEMPT HAVE ONLY A SMALL CHANCE. The OP was empirically analyzing the jam rate on a ship using in-game tools, not just calculating the odds but observing experimentally. As, I am assuming, he did not have a maxed skill falcon at his disposal he approximated the jamming rate by using a blackbird with ~1/2 the jam strength of a maxed out falcon, and then used twice as many jammers. If he was testing for the rate of one jammer on a falcon by using two on his blackbird, his test results would not be very accurate for the true jam chance of the falcon. However, in his tests, the OP used six jammers total to simulate the effect of 3 jammers total on a falcon. In this case, because his study involved more jammers, the error from the true value of the jam chance of a falcon was much smaller (only 5.79% deviation from true in the OP's experiment). -- Don't harsh my mellow
Xiaden	Posted - 2008.09.10 16:42:00 - [34] I appreciate all the help and responses. So I was wondering then assuming max skills and 6 racials (14.5) against a sensor strength of 24 then the you have around a 100% chance of jamming. How would you calculate if you wanted to find the probability of jamming 4 ships same sensor strength and type as the first with the same setup?
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.10 21:42:00 - [35] Originally by: Xiaden I appreciate all the help and responses. So I was wondering then assuming max skills and 6 racials (14.5) against a sensor strength of 24 then the you have around a 100% chance of jamming. How would you calculate if you wanted to find the probability of jamming 4 ships same sensor strength and type as the first with the same setup? I posted the formula in the middle of the first page, but it seems everyone ignored it.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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.