|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
   |
Posted - 2009.01.13 13:09:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Katarlia Simov
A camp of a mega/rage raven, an onyx and 5 falcons... How do you combat that ?
3 Lachesis plus 3 hacs.
---------------
∞ TQFE
|
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 09:58:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Shate Def
Originally by: JohnPaulJones
In small group of 5 or less indeed the Falcon is a freaking killjoy. However if there is just one Falcon on the targets side you can easily counter it with a Gallente recon and with much better effect. Wait for Falcon to decloak and pop him with a sensor dampener that wont fail to cycle.He cant lock anything untill he closes his gap thus making him vulnerable to sentries(depending on which side of the law he's on) or your own team mates. That just means you trade a damage dealer for a pilot who can dampen scan signature and targeting range 100% of the time. Its not so bad.
the optimal on damps would have to be doubled for this to be sumwhat effetive.
Myth. |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 09:41:00 -
[3]
Originally by: burek
I don't see how anyone could refute this. With logic of course. There is always memes and name calling available.
The meme I would use are facts. Please give some numbers and the reason why they change anything in jamming probability. I can't see the point. Is there one? |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:23:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
There's a reason why the calculations haven't been done - see above.
No numbers - no point. Nice try though, everyone. |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:09:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Until then, it's a moot point.
The "Bayesian method" doesn't influence the final outcome. It's still (1-p)^n, no matter which timeframe your calculations are based on. The real moot point is the pretension that wasting half of your jammers is what CCP created their balance around.
For instance, if the jamming probability of a single jammer is 30%, the Bayesian method does not convert this into 100% on one ship + 30% on a second with two jammers, and this is what I suspect he wants to say. If I win the lottery, this doesn't mean the probability to win is 100%.
---------------
∞ TQFE
|
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 08:10:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 08:12:56
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
If you did care to read, he is unable to provide any result at all. So, he is right about what?
His point is that that "a high efficiency jamming method results in more permajams than you think." With "than you think" being the core (non-)argument. It has no further descriptive power as regards the discussion.
Nonetheless it can be a useful tactic. But it doesn't change the jamming probabilities, therefore it doesn't change permajamming probabilities. |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:32:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 10:32:58
Originally by: chrisss0r
FUC:K YOU
I feel sorry that you have to spend so much time writing such long posts defending a hopeless (or at best meaningless) position. Those "free jammers" aren't free to make a jamming attempt on another ship. This does increase permajamming chances for a primary or secondary target, but not for all of them. At the receiving end the permachances don't change overall, because it isn't guaranteed that any given target ship will be chosen as primary.
You get the same efficiency by just spreading n jammers over n targets, if you wouldn't weigh target selection for importance. But important targets could have ECCM, which lets you end up piling the jammers on it. Another consideration is the scarceness of the correct jammer type - isn't it better to put that "free" radar jammer on the Amarrian ship now than to wait whether your magneto jammer does its job on the Brutix?
The "Bayesian method" is a fanciful name for business as usual. Your days long data processing work would only confirm this.
---------------
∞ TQFE
|
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 12:19:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 12:21:24
Originally by: chrisss0r
Edited by: chrisss0r on 16/01/2009 11:59:06
Originally by: Pac SubCom
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 10:45:49
Originally by: chrisss0r
FUC:K YOU
You get the same efficiency by just spreading n jammers over n targets,
Sorry this is bull****. You did not get it at all.
And this is not some "fancy numbers" i came up with but scientific reality.
"bayes yields around 2.5m google hit's. Alot of people who like to do complex calculations that come to the same effect as simple calcs. Just for the fun of it, you know
You describe is a method to avoid the waste of jammers. Good job, but it doesn't change the probabilities of the Falcon permajamming me a single bit because of the chances that he will not primary me and use his [yes/no] algorithm on me. Should he spread jammers equally, my gang will lose the same damage over time than if he made sure to permajam one or two targets.
Spreading jammers might be even more effective because a relocking period of many ships can reduce gang dps more than permajamming few.
If you would provide numbers to prove your point or some mathematical proof, I would reconsider. I suspect you see the whole thing narrowly, ie the permajamming of primaries as a psychological effort to drive them to the forums to whine, while I look at ECM as a whole (damage reduction of the whole enemy gang), and that is why we diverge. You are correct, just as I am.
---------------
∞ TQFE
|
|
|
| |
|