open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Falcon, the anti-fun of eve
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

Author Topic

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.01.16 04:19:00 - [301]
 

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 Rolling Eyes


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.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.01.16 04:29:00 - [302]
 

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.

Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
Posted - 2009.01.16 06:13:00 - [303]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel


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.


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.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.01.16 07:06:00 - [304]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 16/01/2009 07:40:28
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 go.

Basically you factorate your integrative 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 make some rearrangement, which demand a lot of work, given, but are simple enough.

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 than 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.


Pac SubCom
True Creation
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.01.16 08:10:00 - [305]
 

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.

Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
Posted - 2009.01.16 09:42:00 - [306]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel


Lol, do you consider a simple integral a difficult problem, kid? I feel I am helping you with your homework. But here we go.

Basically you factorate your integrative 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 make some rearrangement, which demand a lot of work, given, but are simple enough.

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 than 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.




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.


chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:03:00 - [307]
 

Originally by: Pac SubCom
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 08:12:56

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.


This is not Correct. People mix up absolute probabilities and conditioned probabilities. If it did not change anything why would it be a theory used? I dont provide numbers cause it's a ****ing ****load of work and i don't feel urged to invest so much time so u guys have a number.

I'm not saying "bayesian calculation proves falcon is overpowered" how could it?
i have no idea how big the influence is (hard to calculate), i'm just stating you guys compute permajamming chances the wrong way.

i personally feal the falcon is overpowered but that's nothing pure to numbers. let's say you have a situation where u compute a permajamming chance of 40% while the real permajamming chance (in the beginning of the fight and while more jammers free to deploy) is 43%. would that prove falcons are overpowered? no. Would it prove falcons were overpowered if it was 69% ? No. That's why i don't put the effort in calculating it. it would neither prove if falcons are overpowered nor if they are not. My statement is all the peeps who want to bring math arguments for or against the falcon fail cause they calculate the jamchances wrong.

I will once again try to explain it on a simple example.

You have a falcon with 6 jammers and 2 target ships. jaming chance is 50%
relock time is set to the amount of player reaction time on the falcon to make calculation easy, which means if a ship trys to lock and the falcon has a jammer free i can throw it into before the ship got a lock. this is restrictive but if you fu.ck around you can come op with a more realistic model yourself.
So: Classical Calculation

Falcon deploys 3 jammers to each target at once
Chance target 1 is jammed: 1-(o.5^3)=0.875
Chance target 2 is jammed is equally= 0.875

BAyesian calculation:

Falcon put's one jammer on each target and waits the result:

Well and now it's where things get complicated:

Given target 1 is jammed by the first jammer, the Falcon has 5 jammers free and the jamming chance of target 2 becomes (1-0.5^5)=0.96875. (the falcon flame brigade: don't use this number, you will use it wrong. It does not say falcons have 100% jamchance on ship 1 and 96.875% on ship 2...)

I'm pretty sure you may have noticed that while jamming the second ship with a higher probability you have only 50% on the first ship. Thats indeed true and is the reason why overall jamming chances don't change (since the jammers are uncorrelated) but it does not matter. stage one of the game (1 jammer applied to each ship) is played and done. Ship one beeing jammed is not a stochastic event anymore but a given condition in this stage of the game.

The whole thing is staged (if the first jammer fails on ship one and you apply another one which succeeds you have another 4 to deploy to ship 2) the whole thing can be looked at from both sides.

If the first jammers on both ships fail the game is reset with the falcon now having 4 jammers and starting again.
The fact that you can gather information by staging your jammers is why you have to use baysian calculus.

i kno this will result in missunderstandings and flames since people don't get the concept at all ( JAM CHANCES DON'T CHANGE; FAAAAIL) or just missinterpret it like sayying it's the proof that ecm is not stacking nerfed Rolling Eyes(lolwhat?) or will demand NUUUUUUMBERS. Here i have to say FUC:K YOU again. i will not create a dynamic probability model just to find out how high the probabilty of a blinky thing in an online game is. Gimme the money that is common for dynamic statistic calcs and i'll reconsider

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:06:00 - [308]
 

sorry amira but he's right. You can't fool people who who a topic well into believing you also know it well.

it is kinda obvious that you and murina have not the slightest idea what the hell i'm talking about so please give in.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:12:00 - [309]
 

Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 10:15:16
Originally by: chrisss0r
sorry amira but he's right. You can't fool people who who a topic well into believing you also know it well.

it is kinda obvious that you and murina have not the slightest idea what the hell i'm talking about so please give in.


Actually we both know exactly what your talking about, but its practical applications in eve are limited and cause other issues like a significantly delayed jam.

Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:15:00 - [310]
 

Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 16/01/2009 10:15:38
Originally by: chrisss0r
sorry amira but he's right. You can't fool people who who a topic well into believing you also know it well.

it is kinda obvious that you and murina have not the slightest idea what the hell i'm talking about so please give in.


I'm convinced that Amira is Murina and that the person behind the keyboard is cackling and laughing away. That or it's a Jekyll and Hyde scenario, where one is unaware of the other's presence...

Either way, [/thread] (please!)

Burn Mac
Minmatar
The Tuskers
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:16:00 - [311]
 

ECM is the killer for small gang pvp for 0.0 fleet battles im sure its balanced.

Pac SubCom
True Creation
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:32:00 - [312]
 

Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 10:45:49
Originally by: chrisss0r

FUC:K YOU


I get it, I get it: Wasting jammers is bad!

I feel a bit 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 that Sader now than to wait whether your magneto jammer does its job on the Brutix?

The "Bayesian calculus" is a designation for business as usual. Your days long data processing work would only confirm this.

Leyalor Esperence
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:36:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: chrisss0r
This is not Correct. People......(well presented argument continuation)


^agree.

I should not have to field a standby falcon alt just for a solo roam or small gate camp, changes need to be made.

Also stop with the trolling in this thread; keep it to EVE.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:39:00 - [314]
 

Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 11:05:21
Originally by: Leyalor Esperence



I should not have to field a standby falcon alt just for a solo roam or small gate camp, changes need to be made.



So your predictable solo pvp in your i-win vs X ship types is no longer as easy as it was before?.

Suck it up.


Dray
Caldari
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.01.16 11:02:00 - [315]
 

Originally by: Leyalor Esperence
Originally by: chrisss0r
This is not Correct. People......(well presented argument continuation)


^agree.

I should not have to field a standby falcon alt just for a solo roam or small gate camp, changes need to be made.

Also stop with the trolling in this thread; keep it to EVE.



Actually you should, your roaming solo and guess what, people want you gone whether its killing you or scaring you off and to do that they will use whatever tools at their disposal be it a falcon or a blob, you want to solo then go ahead but remember its only become harder as time has gone on and it wont get easier anytime soon, suck it up your solo roaming isn't hard because of falcons, its hard because you're on your own.

True story....

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.16 11:57:00 - [316]
 

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

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
Posted - 2009.01.16 12:03:00 - [317]
 

This thread has turned into a forumised version of that bar scene in Good Will Hunting.

Pac SubCom
True Creation
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.01.16 12:19:00 - [318]
 

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.

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.16 12:29:00 - [319]
 

Originally by: Pac SubCom
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.


because you calculate from a point of view where a falcon ahs no free jammers anyways. The bayesian calc comes into account when there are many more jammers than targets. if there is as many targets as jammers the simple formula accounts or, as you noticed correctly the fail/notfail method will provide a more probable jam on a few targets while the falcon does not try to jam the rest and gets toasted.

Now consider solo/small gangs and you'll see why it is important to factor the real jamming probabilities instead of the simple ones which are wrong in that case for as long the falcon has free jammers to apply


Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
death from above..
Posted - 2009.01.16 12:35:00 - [320]
 

And you are just speaking of engagements of 40 people on each side and more. Medium and large scale battles are not up to debate.

Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
Posted - 2009.01.16 13:38:00 - [321]
 

Ok, let me break it down for you blobber geniuses. No actual math needed. Just logic.

The less people in gang, the more of a difference being jammed makes. Larger percentage of your gang is not doing ****, when you get jammed. The less people the falcon has to concentrate on jamming, probability of him having greater impact rises. "But omg why, I'm a math professor and the probability to jam formula doesn't change, wtf newb, learn to math..." Well, duh genius, but having 2 ships jammed in a gang of 120 is hardly comparable to how much of an impact there is having 2 people jammed (lol if you're lucky only 2) in a gang of 5.

"But you newb, learn to play like us blobbers, bring snipers fit eccm, do this do that." Hello, 5 people. Mids are needed for necessary modules to make pvp happen. ECCM is a rarely affordable luxury. Snipers? Don't make me laugh. A liability in a small gang. Would fold like a paper plane, coz it isn't all that hard to spot in a small gang.

Getting it yet? ECM/Falcon is a small gang/solo issue. Why is it that always someone that has never experienced it, lectures those that have?

Major Celine
Posted - 2009.01.16 14:10:00 - [322]
 

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.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.01.16 14:39:00 - [323]
 

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...

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.01.16 14:44:00 - [324]
 

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.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.01.16 18:23:00 - [325]
 

Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 16/01/2009 18:32:13
Originally by: chrisss0r

because you calculate from a point of view where a falcon ahs no free jammers anyways. The bayesian calc comes into account when there are many more jammers than targets. if there is as many targets as jammers the simple formula accounts or, as you noticed correctly the fail/notfail method will provide a more probable jam on a few targets while the falcon does not try to jam the rest and gets toasted.



This ffs.

His point isnt if the falcon can 'permajam' (I'll just use this term, bare with me) or not, it is how many other ships the falcon might take out after 'permajamming' the primary target.

Now you dont need any fancy calculations, just a programming language of your choice (Excel prolly can do with macros), a few dozen lines of code and you get a pretty good approximation (in about 1 hours work).

For those too lazy to do it themselves, in short: falcon with all caldari racials vs only caldari BSs will take one out of the fight almost entirely, and severely hamper a second one. That is a scenario that gives all good cards in the game to the falcon pilot though... while I still think the actual result is balanced.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.01.16 18:32:00 - [326]
 

Originally by: burek

Getting it yet? ECM/Falcon is a small gang/solo issue. Why is it that always someone that has never experienced it, lectures those that have?


Well, the thing is every ewar (bar TPs and RSDs to some extend) is a solo issue.

Try to fight against someone who does put TDs on your turret ship, and that guy can do it with an unbonused ship even. ECM is fine.

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.16 18:33:00 - [327]
 

Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 16/01/2009 18:32:13
Originally by: chrisss0r

because you calculate from a point of view where a falcon ahs no free jammers anyways. The bayesian calc comes into account when there are many more jammers than targets. if there is as many targets as jammers the simple formula accounts or, as you noticed correctly the fail/notfail method will provide a more probable jam on a few targets while the falcon does not try to jam the rest and gets toasted.



This ffs.

His point isnt if the falcon can 'permajam' (I'll just use this term, bare with me) or not, it is how many other ships the falcon might take out after 'permajamming' the primary target.

Now you dont need any fancy calculations, just a programming language of your choice (Excel prolly can do with macros), a few dozen lines of code and you get a pretty good approximation (in about 1 hours work).

For those too lazy to do it themselves, in short: falcon with all caldari racials vs only caldari BSs will take one out of the fight almost entirely, and severely hamper a second one. That is a scenario that gives all good cards in the game to the falcon pilot though... while I still think the actual result is balanced.


asked a friend to code it for me. see the other thread

Vrikshaka
Yawn Corp
Posted - 2009.01.17 17:52:00 - [328]
 

Originally by: Durzel
This thread has turned into a forumised version of that bar scene in Good Will Hunting.


Yup, and boy does it make for good entertainment!! Smile *passes on the bucket of popcorn* Keep up the good work guys!

(oh, and nerf falcons!!)

V

Major Celine
Posted - 2009.01.17 19:16:00 - [329]
 

So all in all, after all formulas and math lessons, there is no logical argument that either Falcon or ECM are "overpowered" because ECM is unique and cannot be compared with something else really (i.e. stacking penalized stuff).

Bottom line:

It is still a bad feeling people have who are unable or unwilling to deal with ECM at all. This thread is based on opinions. Let's see if and what CCP is going to do (and how many threads will follow now and after a possible re-design of that ecm / eccm / ecm-ships thingy).


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

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