Author 
Topic 
Dinsdale Pirannha Gallente 
Posted  2008.11.24 22:09:00  [ 1]
OK, I was just testing dampeners on a willing target, and got some results I don't understand.
I know that once in falloff with jammers, the percentage chance of a jammer working is reduced, but if it does work, it is 100% for that cycle.
I thought that dampeners worked differently. I thought they hit 100% of the time, but with less efficiency in falloff.
The testing I just did showed the same results with 2 dampeners at 37 km and 100 km. In both cases, I reduced the target ships locking speed to 29.3% of its original speed.
I was told this is expected results. Has my understanding of dampeners been completely wrong, and they operate the same way jammers do, with regard to chance of working?
Is it really a binary operation for dampeners as it is with jammers?

Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED 
Posted  2008.11.24 23:21:00  [ 2]
falloff with all EWARs (TDs, ECM, damps... TPs if you're in denial) just reduces the chance of them succeeding, not the strength. 
Hoshi Hedron Industries Red Dwarf Racketeering Division 
Posted  2008.11.24 23:47:00  [ 3]
Both dampers and jammers work the same in falloff. They work just like guns so that you get a hit chance. For jammers in 99% of the cases reducing strength by 50% and giving a 50% hit chance have the same effect (the 1% is when the jamming strength are higher than the sensor strength) because of that most people assume it reduces strength. 
Tzar'rim 
Posted  2008.11.25 00:22:00  [ 4]
What you have to remember is that with chance based stuff like ECM there is no difference between having a 50% hit chance or having 50% lower jamming strength.
With TD's and SD's you WOULD see the difference since they normally have a 100% chance to work. 
Dinsdale Pirannha Gallente 
Posted  2008.11.25 07:34:00  [ 5]
OK thanks.
So basically, if my range with damps is 39+78, I am looking at a 100% to hit at 39km , but a 50% chance to hit (I am assuming one dampener for the sake of the scenario) at 117km? 
Tzar'rim 
Posted  2008.11.25 08:40:00  [ 6]
exactly 