|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
   |
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:16:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
I suck. End of story. I'm sorry you are not capable to understand it.
You made a mistake while typing, but I corrected it for you. No need to tahnk me 
=====
"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... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:23:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
I suck. End of story. I'm sorry you are not capable to understand it.
I r stupid
There, I fixed it for you aswell.
Oh my, your "fix" has "a few"grammatical problems, my dear. And I see you don't object to mine as you quoted it too. Self awereness is a beautiful thing. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Stalina
You know the killboard only tells you who managed to get on the one killmail the "smaller fleet" achieved, it doesnt tell you how many of them escaped as they simply didn't manage to end up on any killmail.
But anyway, a 20 man bs-heavy fleet achieving one kill over a 10 minute period has nothing to do with the number of falcons, but with being outnumbered.
A 20 man short range bs-heavy fleet, when faced with its natural counter, dies. Oh my, so imbalanced!
=====
"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... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:44:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Stalina
1 ECCM, haha.
One ECCM is quite a lot. There is no other anti-EW madule taht is as effective as ECCM, mind you.
Quote:
1/10 for trolling.
I have to call you to reality, my friend. The troll here is you.
=====
"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... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:53:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
[
Wait are you kidding me? One ECCM does jack **** on my malediction. And tell me exactly why I shouldnt have the option on my tackling ceptor to be a falcon tackler and therefor use eccm in one of my mids. It should be viable on all ships, it is not. ECM IS OVERPOWERED.
One ECCM does for your malediction more than a sensor booster will do if you are dampened by an Arazu, or a cap injetor (lol) will do if you are neuted by a Curse or even the MWD will do if you are tripple webbed AND painted by a huggin.
Now how about using as an example ships that are not designed to be totally screwed by EW?
=====
"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... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:58:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
One ECCM does for your malediction more than a sensor booster will do if you are dampened by an Arazu,
This is not even true.
Oh yes, it is, and the Arazu is severily underpowered atm, but it can easily damp you to oblivion unless you fit a whole rack of sensor boosters, which would make your interceptor an interceptor without tackle  |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 04:19:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 16/01/2009 04:30:04
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Honestly, I seriously doubt you even understand a fraction of the 'college physics' involved 
Try me...shall we start talking about fourier transforms dear? Shall we?
Cute. He knows the name of a mathematical tool. I see you payed attention at least on the tittle of some lectures you attended to.
How about Discrete Time Fourier transforms? Would you mind to calculate me the general formula for the resistence between any two given points on am infinite mesh of 1 ohm resistors. Come on it is one of the classic examples. I will be eagerly waiting for the demonstration of your mathematical skills.
But then again, when you fail, maybe you keep your mouth shut about the comprehension of others, considering yours is null, that much is easy to infer from your lack of understandment about simple probabilities.
=====
"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... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 04:29:00 -
[8]
Originally by: chrisss0r
This is indeed true but only viable as long as you can be sure the fight won't last longer than 20 seconds. For every next jam cycles you will have wasted free jammers u would have had in many cases thus increasing the probability of your target to get a lock.
This post again shows that you did not understand what i'm talking about.
Bayesian probaility calculus is not about changing chances. The jam chances for The single jammer are still the very same but it's about gathering information.
instead of wasting all your jammers on the single target and allowing him a 20 seconds logspan in case they all should fail you just apply as many as needed. Jamming is not a single point event when u deploy your jammers 1 by 1. It get's staged and every new stage allows you to chose if you should apply another jammer and this is resulting in alot more permajams until all jammers are applied. Read the wikipedia article and freaking try to understand it.
Statistic calculus does not use the bayesian formula just for the simple joy it brings while havin the same results as your simple calculus.
You fail to quantificate the chances in a way to prove anything in your statements. Actually you fail to provide a conclusion or any objective claim at all.
What is your claim? ECM is overpowered? If so, define overpowered, describe the situations where this is the case and why, and quantificate the chances in order to back your claims. This way if you are right you can prove it beyond doubt, and if you are not your mistakes can be pointed.
As it is you only wrote vague statements about Bayesian Statistics that aren't even enough to prove that you know anything about it besides the name, and to define how it could be applied here to generate any results that can't be reached otherwise.
If you can't bother to do it, do us a favoir and don't bother to write your vague statements as well.
=====
"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... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 07:06:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Cute, how about you calculate the integral of 1/(1+x^4) Should be simple enough. I can't be arsed to calculate something you dont understand yourself.
Lol, do you consider a simple integral a difficult problem, kid? I feel I am helping you with your homework. But here we goes.
Basically you factorate your integrantive into 2 parts:
1/(1+x^4) = (Ax + B) /(x¦ +√2x +1) + (Cx + D) /(x¦ -√2x +1)
From here you calculate A, B, C and D and split into 4 integrals, one for the term that contains A, one for the one that contains B and so on.
The final result is:
(-2*ArcTan[1 - Sqrt[2]*x] + 2*ArcTan[1 + Sqrt[2]*x] - Log[-1 + Sqrt[2]*x - x^2] + Log[1 + Sqrt[2]*x + x^2])/(4*Sqrt[2])
This is a very simple math, which I learned in the first year of my engineering course. Even so it is of the same level of complexity of basic statistics, which you fail to comprehend.
By asking me to do your homework here, you prove your inability with probabilities extends to calculus as well. Now please go back to your hole.
=====
"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... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 14:39:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
You used maple to solve that. That is not how you solve it on paper. You need to use complex analysis to solve it, eventhough intrestingly enough the integral in the end actually has an imaginary part of zero.
I see you insist in embarassing yourself further. No I didn't use any of the myriad of offline or online tools to solve it, although I did use Wolfram Research Online Integrator to check the resuts.
Now I shouldn't be helping you further, but if you want to know how it is done here is a link to the step by step well explained solution, which uses only single variable calculus and algebra:
Explained solution
As you see no complex analysis or anything else needed. I really should charge you for the class...
=====
"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... |
|
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 14:44:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Major Celine
Originally by: burek
ECCM is a rarely affordable luxury.
If you really mean that, do not complain about being jammed. No maths needed.
Let me break it down for you whiners: There are the PvP ways to deal with ECM (many of them often enough explained in various threads which nobody seems to read) or, like you do, the forums way and the begging for strengthen tank and gank games. It's not the issue that you can't handle ECM, it's just because you do not want to.
Celine is right, if you can't bother about using ECCM it means you don't consider ECM dangerous enough, so it must be fine.
=====
"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... |
|
|
| |
|