EVE Search - Ecm Jamming Chance and Bayesian Probability

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Ecm Jamming Chance and Bayesian Probability

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:02:00 - [121] Originally by: Cohkka ECM should get a change that a) lessen the effect it has on the ship b) is as relyable as any other form of EWAR in optimal range. Randomized systems are BS, at least I don't get a sense of achievement when something random helps me win a fight, and I don't think I'm the only one. You realize that would mean it needed a 100% success rate?
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:06:00 - [122] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 18/01/2009 18:08:49 Originally by: Captator CS/BC/HAC with 1 ECCM 20-30 sensor strength, so the impact of an ECM boat is much higher (well duh ), but you also don't have the range/damage combination to hurt the ECM boat like a BS sniper can. The problem is that an ECM boat is the best counter for an ECM boat. Simple solution tbh: dont fight gangs with ecm support if you only have a CS,BS and HAC Your 3 man gang dont need to be able to win against everything for the game to be balanced.
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:07:00 - [123] Originally by: Omara Otawan You realize that would mean it needed a 100% success rate? No wai Sherlock!
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:10:00 - [124] Originally by: Captator There needs to be a sub BS ship that is better at getting rid of falcons than a falcon is (for example). The vulture has good range and a reasonable buffer tank, as well as a good sig str that would benefit a lot from a eccm unit, plus the ability to fit a gang link/links.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:12:00 - [125] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Simple solution tbh: don't fight gangs with ecm support if you only have a CS,BS and HAC You dont need to be able to win against everything for the game to be balanced. That implies you are perfectly happy for one type of ship to completely remove sub BS gang combat from the game. Sorry, but we don't all get our kicks flying big heavy ships all the time. Your logic is flawed, because the fact that ecm support renders these gangs impotent is one of the main draws of having it, you are arguing backwards. I don't want to use 1 ship and win all the time, but the current state of play is one of fewer options, not more. Don't try and make out I am wanting to always win in a single ship with a single tactic. Games have a roughly rock/paper/scissors approach, with a few more variables, but ECM currently on specialized ships is like a nuke in rock/paper/scissors; it can beat everything and the best counter is another nuke.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:17:00 - [126] Edited by: lebrata on 18/01/2009 18:18:41 Originally by: Cohkka The point is that ECM in its current form is too much of an advantage (at least on falcons), it can't be effectively countered unless you dedicate some ships to it. So a dedicated ship needs a dedicated ship to deal with it?, and the ship in question that you use to deal with the falcon is also good at other things within the gang, while the falcon is not...i do not see a issue with that tbh. Originally by: Cohkka CCP nerfed damps because they were way too effective in removing ships from the fight, why shouldn't ECM? The nerfed damps because they were too effective on non bonused ships while also being a non-racially limited system. Originally by: Cohkka b) is as rely able as any other form of EWAR in optimal range. ECM 100% BEING EFFECTIVE AT CLOSE RANGE (LIKE THE OTHER SYSTEMS) WOULD SEE ECM FITTED IN ALMOST EVERY MID SLOT ON EVERY BS AND SHORT RANGE SHIP IN THE GAME!!!!!. THINK BEFORE YOU POST DUDE.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:17:00 - [127] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 18/01/2009 18:22:32 Originally by: Captator That implies you are perfectly happy for one type of ship to completely remove sub BS gang combat from the game. Sorry, but we don't all get our kicks flying big heavy ships all the time. No, your conclusion is wrong. First off I dont even fly battleships at all, only BC and below. But I'm happy to accept that I cant beat any gang setup with what I happen to be flying at the moment. You seem to be unable to accept that though. And 2nd, how would you win against a properly fit RR BS gang with a same sized sub-BS gang? Quote: Your logic is flawed, because the fact that ecm support renders these gangs impotent is one of the main draws of having it, you are arguing backwards. Just because you dont want to follow it it isnt wrong. Look at poker for a simple game example, Royal Flush beats any hand in the game, nobody complained so far Royal Flush being overpowered in poker though afaik.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:18:00 - [128] Originally by: lebrata The vulture has good range and a reasonable buffer tank, as well as a good sig str that would benefit a lot from a eccm unit, plus the ability to fit a gang link/links. 500 volley and 150 dps isn't an effective counter (same on eagle), at that rate it would take nearly 2 minutes continuous firing, at which point the likelihood of the entire gang being dead already is pretty high. The best counter for Caldari ECM should be Gallente ewar (damps) as that fits RP, but the problem is if you boost gallente ewar as it stands currently, you will exacerbate the problem, so ECM needs to be changed or nerfed, while damps are boosted.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:22:00 - [129] Edited by: Jonas Barcal on 18/01/2009 18:22:53 Originally by: Captator . The best counter for Caldari ECM should be Gallente ewar (damps) as that fits RP, but the problem is if you boost gallente ewar as it stands currently, you will exacerbate the problem, so ECM needs to be changed or nerfed, while damps are boosted. Gallente damps on it's dedicated ewar platform are getting a boost you'll need to do an search on it but I read a dev saying they were looking to improve the effectiveness a couple days ago.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:23:00 - [130] Edited by: lebrata on 18/01/2009 18:23:58 Originally by: Captator Originally by: lebrata The vulture has good range and a reasonable buffer tank, as well as a good sig str that would benefit a lot from a eccm unit, plus the ability to fit a gang link/links. 500 volley and 150 dps isn't an effective counter (same on eagle), at that rate it would take nearly 2 minutes continuous firing, at which point the likelihood of the entire gang being dead already is pretty high. The best counter for Caldari ECM should be Gallente ewar (damps) as that fits RP, but the problem is if you boost gallente ewar as it stands currently, you will exacerbate the problem, so ECM needs to be changed or nerfed, while damps are boosted. You seem to be defining that a "counter to ECM" must kill the ship using it while the reality is that the counter to ECM is ECCM. Small ships by their nature have faster lock times and are more maneuverable and quick to get into warp and as such should use those natural advantages to deal with falcons/ecm ships.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:25:00 - [131] Originally by: Jonas Barcal Gallente damps on it's dedicated ewar platform are getting a boost you'll need to do an search on it but I read a dev saying they were looking to improve the effectiveness a couple days ago. Really? Thats interesting, as it is basically the only feasible way I could imagine, besides minor changes to ecm that the ~~whiners~~ critics wouldnt accept anyway.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:25:00 - [132] Originally by: Lilith Velkor No, your conclusion is wrong. First off I dont even fly battleships at all, only BC and below. And 2nd, how would you win against a properly fit RR BS gang with a same sized sub-BS gang? Several ways: 1. Logistics ships supporting resistance tanked t2 cruisers/BCs 2. I would use ECM 3. I wouldn't engage Therein lies the problem, the other kinds of ewar are massively subordinate to it; even in a say 6v6 where both sides have 2 CS, 2 HACs, a HIC, and a recon, the side with the falcon will stand a far greater chance of winning. Quote: Just because you dont want to follow it it isnt wrong. Look at poker for a simple game example, Royal Flush beats any hand in the game, nobody complained so far Royal Flush being overpowered in poker though afaik. It is a different kind of game, you should be comparing to something like rock/paper/scissors. If the entire game was chance based, then it would be acceptable to have one outcome that is unbeatable, but it isn't, so it isn't.
Ay'Not Sivad Minmatar Brutal Repression	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:26:00 - [133] Originally by: lilith velkor This is not what this is about at all, multiple jammers vs one single target is a scenario everyone in his right mind will see you'll be reliably taken out, that is the whole purpose of the ecm ship. (and can be easily calculated without much effort). Basically what calculating the jamming chance with staged probabilities changes is the expected efficiency against multiple targets, it does change nothing at all against a single target. Are you that much of a dumbass? That's EXACTLY ''what this is all about''... His calculations, were 6 jammers, versus two targets, you simplify that fraction = 3 jammers versus 1 target. For the type of game this is, you'd think more people were adapt to common math.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:29:00 - [134] Originally by: lebrata You seem to be defining that a "counter to ECM" must kill the ship using it while the reality is that the counter to ECM is ECCM. Small ships by their nature have faster lock times and are more maneuverable and quick to get into warp and as such should use those natural advantages to deal with falcons/ecm ships. A counter must either: a) neutralise b) force off the field c) kill The ships you propose cannot do a), and of the other 2, b) will only occur after nearly 2 minutes if the falcon pilot can hold their nerve. No ship currently can effectively and reliably fulfil the first condition, other than another ECM boat. I would prefer it if damps could do this, but as eve is not locked into unirace fleets, I worry that merely boosting damps will cause a problem where a falcon and arazu working in tandem can as I say guarantee 4-6 ships being removed from play.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:35:00 - [135] Originally by: Captator Originally by: lebrata You seem to be defining that a "counter to ECM" must kill the ship using it while the reality is that the counter to ECM is ECCM. Small ships by their nature have faster lock times and are more maneuverable and quick to get into warp and as such should use those natural advantages to deal with falcons/ecm ships. A counter must either: a) neutralise b) force off the field c) kill The ships you propose cannot do a), and of the other 2, b) will only occur after nearly 2 minutes if the falcon pilot can hold their nerve. No ship currently can effectively and reliably fulfil the first condition, other than another ECM boat. I would prefer it if damps could do this, but as eve is not locked into unirace fleets, I worry that merely boosting damps will cause a problem where a falcon and arazu working in tandem can as I say guarantee 4-6 ships being removed from play. Your looking at the fight with the perspective of the falcon being 200km away and untouchable, as the ships in your gang are all smaller than BS repositioning so the falcon has to engage at close range or at best its delayed until it can warp to 100km from a buddy is very available to small gang. Lets face it you should be doing that against gangs of similar or larger size anyway so its not like its a un-practiced tactic for a experienced gang pvper.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:49:00 - [136] Originally by: lebrata Your looking at the fight with the perspective of the falcon always being 200km away and untouchable, as the ships in your gang are all smaller than BS repositioning so the falcon has to engage at close range or at best its delayed until it can warp to 100km from a buddy is very available to small gang. Lets face it you should be doing that against gangs of similar or larger size anyway so its not like its a un-practiced tactic for a experienced gang pvper, in fact its a "must know" basic of gang pvp as far as i am concerned. PS: Most counters in eve do not do those things you list above btw, they tend to just reduce and/or limit the effectiveness of things. There is no modular way of countering a falcon ongrid, the gate tactic applies equally to any ship that is weak and utilises range as some/all of its tank, there is still no rock to ECM's scissors. Local counter to applied dps = repping, which comes under a) Counter to turret fire = TDs/ECM ( a) ) Counter to drones = smartbombs/ECM (can't deploy and get auto aggro if jammed before drones launched) ( b)/c) ) Counter to missiles = ECM/damps ( a) ) Counter to remote repping = ECM/damps/cap warfare ( a) ) There is an interesting trend in that ECM can counter nearly everything, but it is somewhat besides my point, which is that most counters in eve do fit into these categories.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:58:00 - [137] Originally by: Ay'Not Sivad Edited by: Ay''Not Sivad on 18/01/2009 18:38:23 Originally by: lilith velkor This is not what this is about at all, multiple jammers vs one single target is a scenario everyone in his right mind will see you'll be reliably taken out, that is the whole purpose of the ecm ship. (and can be easily calculated without much effort). Basically what calculating the jamming chance with staged probabilities changes is the expected efficiency against multiple targets, it does change nothing at all against a single target. Are you that much of a dumbass? That's EXACTLY ''what this is all about''... His calculations, were 6 jammers, versus two targets, you simplify that fraction = 3 jammers versus 1 target. no he doesn't you fail
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.01.18 18:59:00 - [138] Originally by: lebrata So a dedicated ship needs a dedicated ship to deal with it?, and the ship in question that you use to deal with the falcon is also good at other things within the gang, while the falcon is not...i do not see a issue with that tbh. No, a Falcon needs multiple SPECIFIC ships to deal with it, and the chances of actually removing it from the battlefield for good are slim. The ship then is next to useless for your gang activitys depending on the size of your gang. The most important part is: It's not viable to do in small gangs and it's not viable to do in sub-BS gangs either. Quote: ECM 100% BEING EFFECTIVE AT CLOSE RANGE (LIKE THE OTHER SYSTEMS) WOULD SEE ECM FITTED IN ALMOST EVERY MID SLOT ON EVERY BS AND SHORT RANGE SHIP IN THE GAME!!!!!. THINK BEFORE YOU POST DUDE. No need to freak out. Sorry this is just stupid and I refuse to point out the obvious. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5...
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:03:00 - [139] Originally by: Cohkka Originally by: lebrata So a dedicated ship needs a dedicated ship to deal with it?, and the ship in question that you use to deal with the falcon is also good at other things within the gang, while the falcon is not...i do not see a issue with that tbh. No, a Falcon needs multiple SPECIFIC ships to deal with it, and the chances of actually removing it from the battlefield for good are slim. The ship then is next to useless for your gang activitys depending on the size of your gang. The most important part is: It's not viable to do in small gangs and it's not viable to do in sub-BS gangs either. Thank you for echoing my point, was beginning to wonder if I am just being unclear.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:03:00 - [140] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 18/01/2009 19:05:54 Originally by: Ay'Not Sivad I haven't even written a program on this, and I could have told you this information... Anyone with a basic knowledge of the way math works, knows that 2-3 jammers with 10 jam strength, will hit a jam on almost every cycle on a ship with 20 strength. I've been aware of this obvious fact, ever since I first started pvp'ing and encountering ECM(in like 80% of fights...). Originally by: Ay'Not Sivad Are you that much of a dumbass? That's EXACTLY ''what this is all about''... His calculations, were 6 jammers, versus two targets, you simplify that fraction = 3 jammers versus 1 target. Funny statement, thats exactly what this is not about. Read the OP again and try to understand, you CANNOT compute your chance by simplyfying the problem into 3 jammers vs 1 target. To explain it once again, should I hit my first jammer on target1 I have 5 jammers for target2, not just 3. This obviously changes our expected efficiency in our favor. That is what the OP is on about, and he is correct. Dumbass
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:08:00 - [141] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 18/01/2009 19:09:47 ECCM Burst. 'nuff said. Quote: ECCM Burst I Emits random electronic bursts intended to disrupt ECM jamming on the host ship. Given the unstable nature of the bursts, there is a high probability that the ECCM Burst will backfire causing the host ship to knock out it's own sensor systems. Only one module of this type can be activated at the same time. Volume: 5.0m3 Mass: 5000 kg Activation Cost: 240 Energy Strength: 6 Duration: 30 secs Simple really: the same jamming calculation is carried out when the module is activated as when a jamming module is calculated, the only difference being that instead of X=(1-(1-J/S)^N)100 where J is the jammer strength, S the sensor strength and N the number of jammers, it would be X=(1-(1-(S+E)/J))100 where E is the strength of the ECCM module (otherwise as before). This would mean that you're better fitting an ECCM module to resist ECM on larger ships, but best to use an ECCM Burst on smaller ships to "gamble" the opporunity to get stuck in on the jamming ship. [/thread] ?
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:14:00 - [142] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos ECCM Burst + fluff It counters ECM like an injector counters neuting; not really a true counter, and is a chancy and unreliable method of resisting its effects, also for small ships that capacitor cost is ludicrously high. There needs to be a valid sub BS true counter to ECM boats, I have said earlier in thread what I think that should be.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:17:00 - [143] Quote: Given the unstable nature of the bursts, there is a high probability that the ECCM Burst will backfire causing the host ship to knock out it's own sensor systems. That is an interesting idea, maybe have cycle time 40 sconds, i.e. 2 times that of ecm modules. Quite worth thinking bit more into it though.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:24:00 - [144] Hey, how many ECM-whine-threads by the same goup of ppl do we have by now? 30? 40? Nice campaign. Ok, this number crunching thread turns into "omg plz ccp nerf ecm, I cannot lock teh targets mommy, i must win!!11", too. It is getting really rediculous. Stop the baby crying already. Whining about ECM means you are terrible at PvP.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:25:00 - [145] Edited by: chrisss0r on 18/01/2009 19:25:10 Originally by: Major Celine Hey, how many ECM-whine-threads by the same goup of ppl do we have by now? 30? 40? Nice campaign. Ok, this number crunching thread turns into "omg plz ccp nerf ecm, I cannot lock teh targets mommy, i must win!!11", too. It is getting really rediculous. Stop the baby crying already. Whining about ECM means you are terrible at PvP. no whine in my fist post so please shut up. This thread is about getting facts straight
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:25:00 - [146] A chance based counter against a chance based system? We have this already, and ECM burst seems to be rather a gimmick than a viable counter... at least not on small ships that need the cap and have no med slots to dispose. No, it actually doesn't solve ANY of the problems.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:26:00 - [147] Originally by: Lilith Velkor I dont think small ships should have a strong counter, a very weak counter that is more likely to fail than work would be perfect on frigs imo. Quite worth thinking bit more into it though. The unstable nature bit is what you're talking about: On a larger ship, the chances of the module being effective are reduced and so fitting standard ECCM is the best solution, whereas on a smaller ship the ECCM Burst has a higher probability of success, but also a higher probability of backfiring. The calculation would be peformed twice: First time, has it overcome the ECM effect. Second time, has it backfired. The calculation would be identical, so the higher the probability of success the higher the probability of a backfire (which the backfire is basically another ECM cycle on your ship)
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:30:00 - [148] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 18/01/2009 19:32:50 Originally by: Captator Originally by: Lilith Velkor And 2nd, how would you win against a properly fit RR BS gang with a same sized sub-BS gang? Several ways: 1. Logistics ships supporting resistance tanked t2 cruisers/BCs 2. I would use ECM 3. I wouldn't engage 1) would work well to reduce ecm advantage too, as long as your logistics are properly eccmd (read: as well as against a BS RR gang) 2) moot point since you want it gone but I guess you know And especially 3 baffles me: So not engaging is a valid counter against a gang superior in logistics, but not against a gang superior in ecm. Strange logic if you ask me. Quote: Therein lies the problem, the other kinds of ewar are massively subordinate to it; even in a say 6v6 where both sides have 2 CS, 2 HACs, a HIC, and a recon, the side with the falcon will stand a far greater chance of winning. And about your 6vs6 scenario, make the 2nd recon a curse and this is a very nice and even fight, would engage any day but rather on side of the curse gang tbqh.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:36:00 - [149] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 18/01/2009 19:18:10 Quote: Given the unstable nature of the bursts, there is a high probability that the ECCM Burst will backfire causing the host ship to knock out it's own sensor systems. That is an interesting idea, maybe have cycle time 40 sconds, i.e. 2 times that of ecm modules. Also I dont think small ships should have a strong counter, a very weak counter that is more likely to fail than work would be perfect on frigs imo. Quite worth thinking bit more into it though. Maybe ecm should have a built in chance to "backfire" and that chance get's higher the more jammers you have on a single target while it's 0 if you have only 1 jammer on the target. Would help small gang combat alot while not touching bigger gang mechanics and would also be a slight boost to ecm as soaking up more jammers would mean getting a higher backfire-chance aswell
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.18 19:38:00 - [150] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos The calculation would be peformed twice: First time, has it overcome the ECM effect. Second time, has it backfired. The calculation would be identical, so the higher the probability of success the higher the probability of a backfire (which the backfire is basically another ECM cycle on your ship) Ah well, this will be a problem. To put it simply, if you are likely to roll a success with your stats, you are also likely to pay with an extra jam cycle for it. As in: if you can expect to reliably overcome jamming, then you can expect the mod to reliably backfire.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.