open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked [Statistics] ECM and ECCM: Facts instead of feelings.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 13:09:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 14:12:53
Originally by: Hugh Ruka

now we need a working envelope for the formula ...

do we keep current jammer cycle ?



I would do so, yes - but balance it in a way that it affects un-ECCMed BS the same way it does now. Let's develop a formula for that.

Let's take relock time + module activation on a standard target as 9 seconds (which really is the best you can get in general, taking lock times of all BS and a relatively lagless fight - assuming sig analysis V).

Let's say we want that 9+blackout_time should equal, say, 29 seconds (cycle time+9) on average non-ECCM BS, which is the same amount they're kicked off the fight right now on average.

The average sensor str of BS is 21.08 sensor strenght. Let's assume that the standard ECM ship gets 14.5 jam strenght (it's relatively easy to modify in the linear model, you will see).

Which leads us to two possibilities (well, you can make variations) for a formula:

(a) Linear scaling with sensor strenght
blackout=((jammer_str+jam_modifier/sensor_str)*base_blackout)
where jam_modifier=6.58 and base_blackout=20

Results:
1 ECCM BS (average sensor str is 41.3168) - blackout = 10.2 seconds (total time out of fight is 19.2 seconds on average)
1 non-ECCM BS (average sensor str is 21.08) - blackout = 20s (total time out of fight is 29 seconds)
1 ECCM BC (average sensor str is 33.81) - blackout = 12.47s (total time out of fight is, assuming 5s lock+activation time, 17.47s)
1 standard BC (average sensor str is 17.25) - blackout = 24.44 seconds (total time out of fight is 29.44s, assuming lock+activation time 5s)
1 interceptor (assuming 13 sensor str) - blackout time is 32.43 seconds (total time out of fight 34-35 seconds)

As we can see, this helps ECCM-ed BS/BCs noticeably (so in first case you get preety much a 20s out of fight effect, in second one a bit less even - naturally, ECCM-ed BS are considerably harder to jam to offset it, and suffer less from multiple added blackouts). It even enhances ECM effect vs smaller ships... which I don't really mind, but it's the only weakness of the linear scaling model (which I quite like).

This could definitely be considered a big boost for ECCM.

(b) I ran out of time, will post it later.

Quote:

should there be a maximum blackout time ?



Yes, but a high maximum time (maybe 60-90 seconds) and docking/jumping needs to clear it obviously (small detail). Just to prevent people from messing up interceptor pilots by 'hello, two of us will uncloak now, jam you with 10 jams, and render you unable to play the game for the next three-four minutes' for the laughs. I know someone people who'd find it funny Very Happy

On a more serious note, limited (to a minute, for instance) maximum blackout time would prevent tactics like warp in->jam->warp out from being too effective (although they'd be feasible if it's too unsafe to stay, but you absolutely must jam someone).

Quote:

should there be an imunity level ? I mean if the sensor strength is that much higher, no blackout time ever occurs, just lock break if successfull...



With linear scaling, it's not really a issue. If you have 100 ECCM str, then you've got 4.21 seconds blackout - if you even get a jam. Which is fine, really.

Quote:

my orgiginal proposal was to equalise the jam penalty on the jammed ship.


Yes, it can probably be done, but it's a tad more complicated (particularly given the very high differences between sensor strs and comparably low lock+activation times). Details in next post...

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 14:00:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 14:09:28
Ok, now, if we want all un-ECCMed ships to have roughly the same penality (which we'll say is 29s of blackout+relock+module reactivation), and taking into account this data:

Average BS sensor strenght: 20.8 str , average time out of fight: 9s
Average BC sensor strenght: 17.25 str , average time out of fight: 6s
Average cruiser sensor strenght: 14.42 str , average time out of fight: 5s
Average frigate sensor strenght: 9.5 str , average time out of fight: 2.5s

Now, if we want all to have the equal (29s) penality when jammed, we're going to have to do some matemathical kludging... which I'm currently stuck on (no functions which are computationally reasonable work for all non-ECCMed ships being kicked off for 29s). I want some elegant solution...

You could modify the last formula using:
blackout=((sqrt(jammer_str+jam_modifier)/sqrt(sensor_str))*base_blackout)

which would reduce the blackout time decrease on weaker jammers and reduce the blackout time increase when used vs frigates (to about 29.593 blackout time vs a 9.5 sensor str frig), while leaving battleships the same (although ECCM would help them less in the case, but would still reduce blackout time to 14.2 seconds with one ECCM). However, it is not a very elegant solution.

Multimorph
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.09.12 14:15:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Multimorph on 12/09/2008 14:16:09
Well, this going pretty fast here now:)

Just want to make sure I understand what you guys have in mind:

Your idea is to let the length of the jamming cycle depend on the jammerstrength/sensorstrength ratio?

I.e. if I jam a ship with low sensorstrength it will be jammed for a longer time than a ship with high sensor strength?
And now you try to find a formula for the dependance of jamming time on the jammer/sensor strength ratio that reproduces the effect of ecm as it is if applied to a non-eccm'ed ship?

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.09.12 14:34:00 - [64]
 

A question you could consider - is it better to fit an ECCM, or to try and jam the jammer back? Let's assume that most ECM boats are likely to be Caldari, so you're using a racial jammer against them.

Crazy Tasty
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
Posted - 2008.09.12 14:47:00 - [65]
 

Same old arguments here as in every ECM whine tbh. People who don't fly a specced ECM ship seem to think its a magic box that instantly perma-jams any fleet on gird then think the point of ECCM is to make you 100% immune to ECM.

Any ECM pilot with much seat time at all can testify that ECCM does work, however not 1v1 with a dedicated ECM ship. Just like 1 sensor booster won't nullify a Arazu or a MWD won't nullify a Rapier. What ECM does, across a fleet, is make that FLEET take about 60 to 80% less jams (say 5 or 6 BS against 1 Falcon). If anyone disputes that fact your are seriously full of **** and have never tried it as an ECM pilot. I can tell instantly when even a single BS has ECCM fitted, as I go from 1-2 jammers per ship to 2-3, or I can hopefully get 3 to 4 ships per cycle down to 2 maybe 3. How is that overpowered for a dedicated ECM recon?

Comparing ECM to other recons is Apples to Oranges also. All other forms of EW are a guaranteed effect. You are in range, you hit the mod, it works. ECM is not guaranteed. I can tell you from experience about missing 4+ cycles on a non-ECCM BS or missing all my cycles on an ECCM BS.

Finally, and again, if you know a fleet has a ECM ship, why would you play to its strength anyway? I mean, forget having to actually use some tactics to nullify a ship, we should all be able to sit still and F1, F2, F3 right? How many times have counter ECM ships been discussed on this board, how many times has it been pointed out by people that fly ECM ships what the most effective counter to them is. I can tell you 3 Ceptors on my Falcon just cut my effectivness by over 50%, 1 ECCM'd Curse and I'm dead if I miss the first cycle or get bumped. Then again stuff like that would take a little creativity, and its much easier to whine about something and hope for a nerf.

ECM is fine, if you constantly get beat because of it you are doing something wrong.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2008.09.12 14:50:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Crazy Tasty

Comparing ECM to other recons is Apples to Oranges also. All other forms of EW are a guaranteed effect. You are in range, you hit the mod, it works. ECM is not guaranteed.



Except often you won't be in range, use of dampeners is pretty typically in falloff, and guess what when it is? Dice roll.

Due to ship bonus and good base optimal ECM is usually used within optimal. So yes, you can compare.

Crazy Tasty
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
Posted - 2008.09.12 14:57:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Crazy Tasty on 12/09/2008 14:59:26
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: Crazy Tasty

Comparing ECM to other recons is Apples to Oranges also. All other forms of EW are a guaranteed effect. You are in range, you hit the mod, it works. ECM is not guaranteed.



Except often you won't be in range, use of dampeners is pretty typically in falloff, and guess what when it is? Dice roll.

Due to ship bonus and good base optimal ECM is usually used within optimal. So yes, you can compare.


If you are not in range who's fault is that? Base optimal even on racial ECM, with out the ships bonus and player skills is well below 150k. All Arazu/Lach pilots I know can damp reliably past 150k.

Edit: Even with ships bonus on a falcon optimal is still well below 150k, so guess what makes it good? The pilot. Imagine that, 1 good pilot being able to take out a few other pilots.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.12 15:03:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 14:09:28
Ok, now, if we want all un-ECCMed ships to have roughly the same penality (which we'll say is 29s of blackout+relock+module reactivation), and taking into account this data:

Average BS sensor strenght: 20.8 str , average time out of fight: 9s
Average BC sensor strenght: 17.25 str , average time out of fight: 6s
Average cruiser sensor strenght: 14.42 str , average time out of fight: 5s
Average frigate sensor strenght: 9.5 str , average time out of fight: 2.5s

Now, if we want all to have the equal (29s) penality when jammed, we're going to have to do some matemathical kludging... which I'm currently stuck on (no functions which are computationally reasonable work for all non-ECCMed ships being kicked off for 29s). I want some elegant solution...

You could modify the last formula using:
blackout=((sqrt(jammer_str+jam_modifier)/sqrt(sensor_str))*base_blackout)

which would reduce the blackout time decrease on weaker jammers and reduce the blackout time increase when used vs frigates (to about 29.593 blackout time vs a 9.5 sensor str frig), while leaving battleships the same (although ECCM would help them less in the case, but would still reduce blackout time to 14.2 seconds with one ECCM). However, it is not a very elegant solution.



I have one more for you ... This is also an idea I toyed with pre-ECM nerf ...

what if we modify the jammers to just project your own sensor strength outside with a given efficiency ? ECM specced ships would get a bonus to that efficiency.

This would obsolete SDAs and jamming rigs as you could just use ECCM instead, but it would allow proper class scaling. A BS like a Scorpion will have the best jamming efficiency while suffering the usual BS drawbacks of low scan res when locking targets. The Kitsune would be god in quick lock breaks but would have a hard time keeping anything above cruiser hull jammed ...

Of course stacking of sensor boosters and backup arrays would have to be revisited for this to be viable.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 15:09:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 15:10:55
Originally by: Crazy Tasty
Falcon pilot is whining like crazy.


Please stop whining and mis-understanding the discussion.

(a) Your argument that fleet takes less jams when ECCM fitted is of course true. The issue is that relock+reactivation times increases your efficency vs a jammed BS from 30%-ish (where it should be according to jam %) to 40% to 50%-ish, thereby making ECM perform better then the actual jam chance is. We're discussing how to potentially bring that efficency to it's on paper level vs ECCM-ed ships.

(b) Your argument about other EW being guaranteed, well, chance-based mechanics have definite advantages as well and 'guaranteed' is debatable. One damp is guaranteed to be useless vs most ships in regards to combat ability, while one ECM (even unbonused) might work (although it teorethically shouldn't). I can tell you of times where I've been saved by a stupid ECM burst or ECM drones which shouldn't have worked vs a ECCM-ed target - but did, because it's a chance based mechanic.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 15:10:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 19:41:19
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 15:13:25
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 14:09:28
Ok, now, if we want all un-ECCMed ships to have roughly the same penality (which we'll say is 29s of blackout+relock+module reactivation), and taking into account this data:

Average BS sensor strenght: 20.8 str , average time out of fight: 9s
Average BC sensor strenght: 17.25 str , average time out of fight: 6s
Average cruiser sensor strenght: 14.42 str , average time out of fight: 5s
Average frigate sensor strenght: 9.5 str , average time out of fight: 2.5s

Now, if we want all to have the equal (29s) penality when jammed, we're going to have to do some matemathical kludging... which I'm currently stuck on (no functions which are computationally reasonable work for all non-ECCMed ships being kicked off for 29s). I want some elegant solution...

You could modify the last formula using:
blackout=((sqrt(jammer_str+jam_modifier)/sqrt(sensor_str))*base_blackout)

which would reduce the blackout time decrease on weaker jammers and reduce the blackout time increase when used vs frigates (to about 29.593 blackout time vs a 9.5 sensor str frig), while leaving battleships the same (although ECCM would help them less in the case, but would still reduce blackout time to 14.2 seconds with one ECCM). However, it is not a very elegant solution.



I have one more for you ... This is also an idea I toyed with pre-ECM nerf ...

what if we modify the jammers to just project your own sensor strength outside with a given efficiency ? ECM specced ships would get a bonus to that efficiency.

This would obsolete SDAs and jamming rigs as you could just use ECCM instead, but it would allow proper class scaling. A BS like a Scorpion will have the best jamming efficiency while suffering the usual BS drawbacks of low scan res when locking targets. The Kitsune would be god in quick lock breaks but would have a hard time keeping anything above cruiser hull jammed ...

Of course stacking of sensor boosters and backup arrays would have to be revisited for this to be viable.


Would have to run the numbers on that idea, got to finish some real work first Very Happy

Edit: too much of a pain. It would require figuring out two formulas (jamming probability + blackout time) to get reasonably sensible numbers with three variables (well, four to be precise), and balancing it against two sets of results.... maybe when I really have the spare time for that, I'm going to go play EvE for a bit now Very Happy I doubt sensible results are even possible.

Originally by: Multimorph
Edited by: Multimorph on 12/09/2008 14:16:09
Well, this going pretty fast here now:)

Just want to make sure I understand what you guys have in mind:

Your idea is to let the length of the jamming cycle depend on the jammerstrength/sensorstrength ratio?

I.e. if I jam a ship with low sensorstrength it will be jammed for a longer time than a ship with high sensor strength?
And now you try to find a formula for the dependance of jamming time on the jammer/sensor strength ratio that reproduces the effect of ecm as it is if applied to a non-eccm'ed ship?


Yeah. It's a very interesting idea Very Happy

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.12 15:18:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Multimorph
Edited by: Multimorph on 12/09/2008 14:16:09
Well, this going pretty fast here now:)

Just want to make sure I understand what you guys have in mind:

Your idea is to let the length of the jamming cycle depend on the jammerstrength/sensorstrength ratio?

I.e. if I jam a ship with low sensorstrength it will be jammed for a longer time than a ship with high sensor strength?
And now you try to find a formula for the dependance of jamming time on the jammer/sensor strength ratio that reproduces the effect of ecm as it is if applied to a non-eccm'ed ship?


Yes ... we are basicaly trying to come up with a formula where we eliminate the relock time.

current jam cycle + relock time = too long (your graphs show that the relock time makes a rather big impact)

future jam cycle + relock time ~= current jam cycle

sh4rp ov3rvolt
tr0pa de elite
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:39:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: sh4rp ov3rvolt on 13/09/2008 10:45:34
just let the jammed player start locking during blackout, even if actual lock can only be gained only if locking time ends after blackout time has expired... This should not be so hard to implement and it would also favour the player who knows how long does it takes for his ship to lock a certain target...

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:49:00 - [73]
 

While this thread is very good, I would have two main concerns with any change to ECM:

1. Carriers and Motherships. They are virtually unjammable at present. The sensor strength on them is way too high, and they are present in large numbers in the game.
2. Every ecm ship except falcon - no-one is generally moaning about any ship except the falcon. Personally I think even with these new figures that ECM is fine, but nonethless why nerf ships that no-one minds at all?

Chienka
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2008.09.13 11:33:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Chienka on 13/09/2008 11:36:00
Originally by: Cautet
1. Carriers and Motherships. They are virtually unjammable at present. The sensor strength on them is way too high, and they are present in large numbers in the game.


I beg to differ. I have been in 0.0 gangs and seen 2 falcons jam 2 carriers 50% of the time, without standard fits and standard skills. I have seen this more than once. Large remote-repping carrier gangs become harder to affect, given the nature of RR gangs. Of course more falcons vs different race Carriers gets easier due to racial jammers. But even 1 falcon can do it. Heck, watch cowns video where hes sitting in a 150 sensor strength maelstrom getting nearly permajammed by a falcon (i think it was a falcon). The point stands, high sensor strengths are easily jammable. The only factor is how many ships the falcon is trying to jam.

Moms cant be jammed as it stands. This is perfectly legitimate, given the large ~20bil pricetag, you're paying for more than a slightly-better-carrier.

Anyway, my take on the whole problem is that ECM calculations need to be changed. Not back to the old "stacking" method, but to something that perhaps makes a target with twice the ECCM strength of your ECM more harder to jam than it currently is.

Heres a quick equation to look at:

JamChance p = JamStrength/(2*(TargetStrength*(TargetStrength/JamStrength)))

I havent thought of a calculation for where JamStrength > Targetstrength, (since p goes above 1), some sort of inverse version would be nice.

Quick numbers on a target with sensor strength x, with 1 ECM module of 15 strength active. p is probability of a jam.

x = 15, p = 0.5
x = 20, p = 0.28
x = 25, p = 0.18
x = 30, p = 0.125
x = 40, p = 0.07
x = 80, p = 0.02
x = 110, p = 0.01
x = 150, p = 0.005

Too steep? Falcon pilots go ahead and attack me.

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.09.13 11:54:00 - [75]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 13/09/2008 12:03:28

Originally by: Chienka
Edited by: Chienka on 13/09/2008 11:36:00
Originally by: Cautet
1. Carriers and Motherships. They are virtually unjammable at present. The sensor strength on them is way too high, and they are present in large numbers in the game.


I beg to differ. I have been in 0.0 gangs and seen 2 falcons jam 2 carriers 50% of the time, without standard fits and standard skills. I have seen this more than once. Large remote-repping carrier gangs become harder to affect, given the nature of RR gangs. Of course more falcons vs different race Carriers gets easier due to racial jammers. But even 1 falcon can do it. Heck, watch cowns video where hes sitting in a 150 sensor strength maelstrom getting nearly permajammed by a falcon (i think it was a falcon). The point stands, high sensor strengths are easily jammable. The only factor is how many ships the falcon is trying to jam.

Moms cant be jammed as it stands. This is perfectly legitimate, given the large ~20bil pricetag, you're paying for more than a slightly-better-carrier.

Anyway, my take on the whole problem is that ECM calculations need to be changed. Not back to the old "stacking" method, but to something that perhaps makes a target with twice the ECCM strength of your ECM more harder to jam than it currently is.

Heres a quick equation to look at:

JamChance p = JamStrength/(2*(TargetStrength*(TargetStrength/JamStrength)))

I havent thought of a calculation for where JamStrength > Targetstrength, (since p goes above 1), some sort of inverse version would be nice.

Quick numbers on a target with sensor strength x, with 1 ECM module of 15 strength active. p is probability of a jam.

x = 15, p = 0.5
x = 20, p = 0.28
x = 25, p = 0.18
x = 30, p = 0.125
x = 40, p = 0.07
x = 80, p = 0.02
x = 110, p = 0.01
x = 150, p = 0.005

Too steep? Falcon pilots go ahead and attack me.



1. 15 ECM strength is not possible in game*. The very fact you are using 15 strength ECM makes me wonder. With max skills and 3 sig dist amps II you get 14.1 ECM str. Usual setups use both rigs for range.

2. I saw that thread about the maelstrom - I gave my views on that in that thread. This is a much better thread with much more realistic outcomes. That mealstron proved nothing.

3. Falcons recevied an effective 25% increase to their bonuses - there were no complaints about falcons before that. Your solution is to nerf all ECM by 50%. Are you a dev in disguise?

4. Carriers and motherships - I agree that a solo carrier can be jammed some of the time by 1-2 falcons. However, not much of the time. Once you get 2-3 carriers falcon pilots should leave field of battle and come back in something else. Preferrably a carrier or dread. Remote reps are the only thing ecm can potentially effect. They have limited use against fighters and smartbombs - but as you admit vs remote repping carriers falcons are useless.

* with Legion ECM, 3 sig dist amps II, and 2 ECM amplifier rigs I can get 15 ecm str in EFT. So technically is possible to reach 15 ECM strength, just about with faction gear and gimped ship. Never used or even seen this module in game though so have no idea on cost. Using 15 ECM strength for any test is still plain incorrect though.

Chienka
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2008.09.13 13:02:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Cautet
Quote:
1. 15 ECM strength is not possible in game*. The very fact you are using 15 strength ECM makes me wonder. With max skills and 3 sig dist amps II you get 14.1 ECM str. Usual setups use both rigs for range.


Its purely for comparison, and it was hypothetical in order to explain the example. I knew someone would undoubtedly pick at that.

Quote:
2. I saw that thread about the maelstrom - I gave my views on that in that thread. This is a much better thread with much more realistic outcomes. That mealstron proved nothing.


It proved that you can effectively permajam a ship regardless of how much ECCM it has - with one ship.

Quote:
3. Falcons recevied an effective 25% increase to their bonuses - there were no complaints about falcons before that. Your solution is to nerf all ECM by 50%. Are you a dev in disguise?


Yes I'm a dev in disguise, how'd you guess? Rolling Eyes

Don't know where you got that figure from. The suggestion I made was that when a jammer goes up against a significantly higher strength target, the chance of a jam decreases exponentially rather than linearly, increasing the effectiveness of ECCM.

Quote:
4. Carriers and motherships - I agree that a solo carrier can be jammed some of the time by 1-2 falcons.


Fun Fact: A solo carrier will be permajammed by two falcons. I've seen this happen many times in 0.0. 3-4 racial jammers + 1-2 multispecs and you might as well be logging off.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2008.09.13 13:37:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Crazy Tasty

If you are not in range who's fault is that? Base optimal even on racial ECM, with out the ships bonus and player skills is well below 150k. All Arazu/Lach pilots I know can damp reliably past 150k.



At 150km a dampener is deep in falloff, the chance to get a hit gets quite low, and it involves a dice roll exactly like ECM.

Kano Sekor
Amarr
Burning Steel Inc.
Posted - 2008.09.13 15:23:00 - [78]
 

Remove SDA:s TBH and ECM rigs there arent any low slot modules to increase TD:s or Sensor Dampeners or Target painters (who whould want that anyways?).

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.09.13 16:02:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 13/09/2008 16:46:15
Edited by: Cautet on 13/09/2008 16:03:45
Originally by: Chienka
Originally by: Cautet
Quote:
1. 15 ECM strength is not possible in game*. The very fact you are using 15 strength ECM makes me wonder. With max skills and 3 sig dist amps II you get 14.1 ECM str. Usual setups use both rigs for range.


Its purely for comparison, and it was hypothetical in order to explain the example. I knew someone would undoubtedly pick at that.

Quote:
2. I saw that thread about the maelstrom - I gave my views on that in that thread. This is a much better thread with much more realistic outcomes. That mealstron proved nothing.


It proved that you can effectively permajam a ship regardless of how much ECCM it has - with one ship.

Quote:
3. Falcons recevied an effective 25% increase to their bonuses - there were no complaints about falcons before that. Your solution is to nerf all ECM by 50%. Are you a dev in disguise?


Yes I'm a dev in disguise, how'd you guess? Rolling Eyes

Don't know where you got that figure from. The suggestion I made was that when a jammer goes up against a significantly higher strength target, the chance of a jam decreases exponentially rather than linearly, increasing the effectiveness of ECCM.

Quote:
4. Carriers and motherships - I agree that a solo carrier can be jammed some of the time by 1-2 falcons.


Fun Fact: A solo carrier will be permajammed by two falcons. I've seen this happen many times in 0.0. 3-4 racial jammers + 1-2 multispecs and you might as well be logging off.


1. You say hypothetical. I say impossible.

2. I got the at least 50% reduction by your ecm str of 15(impossible) acting like an ecm str of 7.5 against target with 15 sensor strength. The more I look at the figures the more I see that it is a much more than 50% reduction vs higher sensor str targets, the ships that falcons are ineffective against anyway. If those changes were made ECM would break, and they would be changes of such a huge magnitude that they would not be made, even by CCP. NB: it could however be that I am misreading what you are saying - in which case please clarify

3. That mealstrom "test" proved nothing. It was not a statistical analysis, it was an inaccurate and misleading "test" with no actual results. You need actual results to form conclusions. There was no permajamming.


4. 1 carrier vs 2 falcons. So you are saying that falcons are ineffective against carriers. I can't see how you can conclude anything else. Against carriers and in large battles falcons are much much less usefull. Maybe if it is a solo carrier then sure 2 falcons can be usefull. An arazu would do a better job though.

(1 arazu is effective against 1 carrier. 1 curse is effective against 1 carrier. 1 HIC is effective in it's area against 1 carrier. 1 dread or carrier is effective against 1 carrier. 2 falcons are needed though. 4 BS can kill 1 carrier. Hence falcons are ineffective - those 2 falcons going for another type of ewar ship (1 arazu 1 curse or 2 BS or 2 cap or a HIC and a curse or some such would do a better job.

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2008.09.13 16:18:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Cautet

4. 1 carrier vs 2 falcons. So you are saying that falcons are ineffective against carriers. I can't see how you can conclude anything else.



you fail so hard

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.09.13 16:41:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 15/09/2008 12:41:32

no u

EDIT to remove highly inflamatory expansion and add a gloat in instead:

http://kb.insrg.com/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=43460&scl_id=26

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.13 17:29:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Cautet
Edited by: Cautet on 13/09/2008 17:05:09
no u

EDIT to expand:

You don't fly falcons. You don't fly arazu's. I can deduce all this from your post. You felt like trolling. But you are too stupid so you cut and paste a one-liner from another thread. Probably COAD. Now **** off.

I fly falcons and arazus. Against carriers. And not just the one man band carrier hugging a station who thinks he can solo eve. I have just returned from a few months break but the stats on these ships have not changed. I know which is more effective.

The guy I was responding to was saying his friend permajammed a carrier. He wasn't in either ship and so was not involved and doesn't know what he is talking about either. However, at least he was polite and not a total ****head like you.


Hi ... thanks for your contribtion to the discusion. Please try to remain calm and civil. Personal attacks won't get us anywhere and only make this thread harder to read ...

The issue with capital ships and ECM jammer strength is a difficult one. They have high sensor strength but pay dearly in lock time. This makes them more vulnerable to a jam/damp due than rather single jammer. My take on thi is that capital ships should be jamable, but at most a lock break so that the jam+damp combo is needed for effectivnes ...

murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
Posted - 2008.09.13 18:08:00 - [83]
 

@ Multimorph: wow man. Really impressive work. Impressive in that your experiments really get to the heart of the mechanics of how ECM operate in actual combat. That being said, your numbers are spot on with what I 'feel' in combat with respect to ECM effectiveness.

Branko (the voice of reason in the thread so far) has already hammered home all of the obvious points (and done well while doing so) so I'm not going to reiterate all of what's been said.

From Multi's graphs it's clear that one ECM module (even if you knock the strength down from 15 to a more realistic 14.x) will pretty much totally disable a battleship with a very high theoretical base sensor strength (again, best case scenario, this doesn't take into accoutn tier 1 or tier 2 BS, or BS of Minmatar make) for the entire fight. Add one ECCM and you still have a BS disabled for around half the fight.

To me this is totally overpowered and unacceptable, but it's not telling me anything I didn't already know. Removing a ship from a fight with a single module might be fine if said ship is a frig or a T1 cruiser, but not a BS, and most certianly not a BS with a best-in-game ECCM fit.

Sure, if you want to pile on three or four or even five ECM on a BS to ensure it's out of the fight, that's fine. But a single ECM module? That's ridiculous. The OP's info demonstrates that a Falcon can remove 3-4 BS (and I'm being conservative here) from a fight quite readily. That's overpowered.

My idea: in addition to being chance based, have ECM have a minimum ECM strength requirement vs. a target: if the total number of points applied to the target arn't equal to or greater than it's sensor strength, then it doesn't get jammed. At all.

So for example: in order to even begin to try to jam a BS with a sensor strength of 22, a Falcon with a per-ECM strength of 14 would require a minimum of two ECM modules per BS to even attempt to jam it. A ship fitting a 96% ECCM would require three ECM modules to begin to attempt to jam it. Once the minimum requirement is met then the chance to jam is as normal. ECM from other ships cooperates in a positive fashion with other ECM being applied to the same target with respect to meeting the minimum strength requirement.

The idea here is that the ECM needs a minimum strength to begin to overwhelm the targeting systems of the targeted ship. Anything below that will simply have no effect, as the targeting systems are capable of dealing with such a low powered threat.

Just a side note: this is very similar to how real-world ECM works. You pile enough energy into a radar reciever until it whites out, unable to see anything. Anything less than the threshold and the Radar is still operable, and even once above the threshold, the radar still operates intermittently.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.13 20:38:00 - [84]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/09/2008 20:47:54
Originally by: Cautet

2. Every ecm ship except falcon - no-one is generally moaning about any ship except the falcon. Personally I think even with these new figures that ECM is fine, but nonethless why nerf ships that no-one minds at all?


This is mostly because the Falcon has a combination of high jam str (after it got its bonus boosted to Rook's standards), high range and, most of all, covops cloak. The reason Falcons are so used (primarily in low-sec) is precisely because of their combination of resiliance to normal ships (via range) and demanding specific counters on top of the fact you cannot scout for them. For people using a alt in combat, it's incredibly more handy because it's got a covops cloak (so you don't really run the risk of it being probed out while you're messing around with your main) + requires less micromenagement then any other cloaky (or non-cloaky, for that matter) ship - while dual-boxing two conventional ships is a much trickier business.

Another thing that gets whined about is ECM drones, occasionally. I think they're fine (they have low probability to jam), but the relock time effect probably has a significant impact on their effectiveness too (making them in reality more effective then on paper).

I don't see a removal of locktime effect as a significant ECM nerf in general, except in cirrumstances where to jam chance is relatively low - and locktime boosts ECM efficency significantly in this case (boosting its on paper efficency by about 10-15% according to the graphs, or by a very hefty 40%-50% in relative terms!). With a change to relocking - or, as has been suggested in thread, a change to how long something with very high sensor str is jammed (meaning, lower sensor str ships get jammed somewhat longer, higher sensor str ships get jammed for shorter duration - but balancing the effect to be roughly the same on a non-ECCMed BS as it is now (meaning 20s+locktime+mod activation) while disabling a ECCM-ed BS for 20s), then the effect of jammers when the jam probability is very low gets nerfed a bit (while jammer effectiveness when probability is high gets boosted a slight bit, however).

I think it's a very reasonable thing to do - improves the value of ECCM (and high sensor str in general) while improving the value of ECM at high jam probabilities. I still think it won't really help the Falcon whines - it's still going to be the absolutely best suprise buttsex ship.


Sionide
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:06:00 - [85]
 

Good work to the OP. Most pvpers that specialize in skirmish warfare (5-15 per side fights) knows the vital importance of having or being against one or multiple falcons.

It's just a matter now of "if you can't beat them join them" sort of mentality, which took nano-ing to the next level; as well as, passive shield tanking on bcs.

Currently, it seems if there is a relatively big fight coming 3-4 falcons are not uncommon. Is this really where CCP wants skirmish warfare to be?

For example, most people that are gearing up for a skirmish fight these days rarely have just one falcon in their gang. 2-3 falcons are the de facto now (to nullify the oppositions falcon(s))...and as more people have 2-3 falcons, the other side will have more.

We use falcons, just so we can survive falcon fights, our corp has always had the stance to nerf the falcon to the point of being useless. In other words, we only use falcons, because we have to (due to the other side's falcons). It's really the cold war of falcons. No one wants nukes, but we need them to protect yourself from the other countries that have them/will use them.



Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:36:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky

Quote:

Actualy the best scenario is a recalibration time dependant on the ratio of jammer/sensor strength.

If I black out a frig that has lower sensor strength than my jammer, he gets hit by a sensor cluster recalibration and then relock time. His relock time is short, so most of the penalty comes from the jamming. A BS on the other hand, most of the penalty comes from relocking as the sensors are much more resistant, so I actualy only may break his locks but he can start relocking instantly ... but this was also propsed long ago ... This even forces falcons to work side by side with gallente recons for better effect ...


Add RSDs to that. . .and it all makes sense.


Actually, when I read that again - it is very interesting. RSDs + ECM would achieve very very good synergy (as with a single bonused RSD, a few seconds of jamming (vs a ECCM-ed BS with high sensor str) + relock time is somewhere close to the 20s cycle), while bringing ECM alone would not do *that* much to ECCM BS, while low sensor str ships would get jammed (recalibration time) for quite a while, possibly longer then the 20s cycle if they have really low sensor str.

It's a interesting idea, if I'm reading it correctly. Would make ECM + Damps a very awesome combination, while increasing the importance of high sensor str.




I have been saying this for a while, people tend to say stuff like oh, but it will just be permajammed the arazu wont help at all... someone has never flown a falcon. Laughing

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 10:50:22
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 10:49:37
Originally by: Hugh Ruka

finaly somebody :-) actualy the cycle time would need to be shortened on the ECM modules. there's also the problem of jammer stacking. right now they do not, but the statistical mechanics make up for the lack of stacking. in case the relation sensor/jammer also determines the effect (how much blackout time), there needs to be some change in jammer stacking.



No need if you just make blackout additive. It's the same as jammer stacking (for blackout purposes), in fact.

If we give blackout a base value modified by jammer strenght / sensor strenght, then:
blackout=((jammer_str/sensor_str)*base_blackout)*N (if you simply make blackout times additive)

in case of jammer stacking (so 2 jammers get double jam str), then:
blackout=(((jammer_str*N)/sensor_str)*base_blackout)

Which are obviously the same (depending on potential stacking penalities of course). Additive blackout solves the issue of spread out (time-wise) jams better, too, since a jammer hitting at T and another hitting at T+1 would create some problems regarding jammer stacking.



dammit, I said this bit too (without the n bit), although I may have read it somewhere else, and I don't know exactly how N would work. I don't think you need that bit, unless n is the stacking penalty function, and then well you would disrupt their lock a lot, but have almost no jam time Twisted Evil

and reading some of the further posts black out time imo should be capped out at jam cycle time. so that inty pilot still gets permajammed for the 20 seconds.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2008.09.13 22:32:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko

I don't see a removal of locktime effect as a significant ECM nerf in general



If anything that would be a dampener nerf, one of the last reasons to use dampeners is to use scan resolution dampening on big (low scan res) ships so they take longer to reload between jams. Lachesis are nice Falcons sidekicks in that regard.

Corstaad
Minmatar
Vardr ok Lidskjalv
Posted - 2008.09.13 23:05:00 - [88]
 

The real issue is these ships are flown to much for dual boxxing. Since its a alt made for straight jamming most likely it will have extreme max skills and max jamming fits. When I get into my falcon I won't want my ship nerfed because of lame arse dual boxing and people to stupid to fit outside of EFT DPS molds.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.14 14:26:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/09/2008 14:30:26
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

Originally by: Cpt Branko

No need if you just make blackout additive. It's the same as jammer stacking (for blackout purposes), in fact.

If we give blackout a base value modified by jammer strenght / sensor strenght, then:
blackout=((jammer_str/sensor_str)*base_blackout)*N (if you simply make blackout times additive)

in case of jammer stacking (so 2 jammers get double jam str), then:
blackout=(((jammer_str*N)/sensor_str)*base_blackout)

Which are obviously the same (depending on potential stacking penalities of course). Additive blackout solves the issue of spread out (time-wise) jams better, too, since a jammer hitting at T and another hitting at T+1 would create some problems regarding jammer stacking.



dammit, I said this bit too (without the n bit), although I may have read it somewhere else, and I don't know exactly how N would work. I don't think you need that bit, unless n is the stacking penalty function, and then well you would disrupt their lock a lot, but have almost no jam time Twisted Evil

and reading some of the further posts black out time imo should be capped out at jam cycle time. so that inty pilot still gets permajammed for the 20 seconds.


N is number of jammers which hit (succeed) in this example. I didn't include stacking penalities of any sort (although it's easy to add them on). I forgot to specify what N meant Embarassed

In fact, the formula is wrong, because you can't multiply by N (for multiple jammers) unless they've got a similar jam strenght, but I felt it was simpler (for purposes of showing my poing about jammer stacking or jammer adding in regards to blackout time).

The correct formula for N=1...X jammers would naturally be:

blackout=((jammer_str[1]/sensor_str)*base_blackout)+...+((jammer_str[X]/sensor_str)*base_blackout)

which of course translates to ((jammer_str/sensor_str)*base_blackout)*N if all jammer_strs are equal.

Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: Cpt Branko

I don't see a removal of locktime effect as a significant ECM nerf in general



If anything that would be a dampener nerf, one of the last reasons to use dampeners is to use scan resolution dampening on big (low scan res) ships so they take longer to reload between jams. Lachesis are nice Falcons sidekicks in that regard.


That's why the suggestions we're making are aimed at reducing 'blackout time' to achieve the same result you get now (while reducing it on ECCM-ed ships); interestingly enough, you get more % value in that case when using a damp Lachersis to augument jamming - as +10 seconds is more important in relative terms, on top of 20s rather then on top of 29 seconds (the numbers are +33% with 29s and +50% with 20s).

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.14 14:42:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Corstaad
The real issue is these ships are flown to much for dual boxxing. Since its a alt made for straight jamming most likely it will have extreme max skills and max jamming fits. When I get into my falcon I won't want my ship nerfed because of lame arse dual boxing



Dual boxing falcons it is only really popular due to covops cloak+range (in combination with high jam str). It is a different issue then the increased effectiveness (by 40-50% from it's 'on paper' effect) of ECM when jam chances are low due to locktime.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only