These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

ecm...is it additive?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#21 - 2013-05-02 21:34:07 UTC
I thought they said ecm is addictive. Yes it certainly is. Once a player learns of its true power, he never flies without an ecm alt again.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-05-02 21:41:26 UTC
chatgris wrote:
Also, I thought that a large percentage of eve players were Computer Science guys, and this is first year stats.


I learnt this during first year of A-Levels.....

and ECM is boring, what's the fun in shootin something that can't shoot back?

Art of Explosions
Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
United Caldari Space Command.
#23 - 2013-05-02 22:21:46 UTC
chatgris wrote:
Also, I thought that a large percentage of eve players were Computer Science guys, and this is first year stats.


I flunked first year stats harder than a Squid drake fleets trying to learn how to nano.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#24 - 2013-05-02 22:28:45 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
I thought they said ecm is addictive. Yes it certainly is. Once a player learns of its true power, he never flies without an ecm alt again.



Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smile

https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#25 - 2013-05-03 12:25:27 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
[quote=chatgris]snip...

and ECM is boring, what's the fun in shootin something that can't shoot back?


The same could be said for most of the PVP in EVE: to win. Even one SD applied to the ECM boat can often works wonders.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-05-03 12:47:37 UTC
ECM is not additive. As far as I understand it, it works like this:

Each point of jam strength on a single ECM jammer increases the chance of a successful jam and each point of sensor strength (native, skill, ECCM, etc.) on the target decreases it. Each seperate ECM jammer is, in effect, an entirely seperate "re-roll." The effects of one ECM jammer on one ship do not have any effect on the success of a jammer on another ship - in fact, they don't even have any effect on any other ECM jammers on the same ship. More jammers mean more re-rolls, thus increasing the number of chances you get to jam someone during a given 20 second period. Given that unlike sensor dampening, target painting and tracking disruption, the effect of ECM is a binary state rather than a sliding scale, the optimal method of ECMing multiple targets would be to carefully and methodically cycle through your jammers until you get a successful jam and then move on to the next target, since after the first successful jam cycle drops, all subsequent jam cycles on the same target are completely wasted until the first cycle ends.

Because of this system there is always a variable non-zero probability (usually small) that all jam cycles on a given ship will fail. Ironically, from a theoretical perspective at least, this makes ECM the least reliable form of e-war.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#27 - 2013-05-03 17:49:04 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
ECM is not additive. As far as I understand it, it works like this:

Each point of jam strength on a single ECM jammer increases the chance of a successful jam and each point of sensor strength (native, skill, ECCM, etc.) on the target decreases it. Each seperate ECM jammer is, in effect, an entirely seperate "re-roll." The effects of one ECM jammer on one ship do not have any effect on the success of a jammer on another ship - in fact, they don't even have any effect on any other ECM jammers on the same ship. More jammers mean more re-rolls, thus increasing the number of chances you get to jam someone during a given 20 second period. Given that unlike sensor dampening, target painting and tracking disruption, the effect of ECM is a binary state rather than a sliding scale, the optimal method of ECMing multiple targets would be to carefully and methodically cycle through your jammers until you get a successful jam and then move on to the next target, since after the first successful jam cycle drops, all subsequent jam cycles on the same target are completely wasted until the first cycle ends.

Because of this system there is always a variable non-zero probability (usually small) that all jam cycles on a given ship will fail. Ironically, from a theoretical perspective at least, this makes ECM the least reliable form of e-war.


Yes, each jammer has a binary style of success (it either works, or fails).
FYI: Tracks, Damps, and Paints, when used on a target beyond optimal range, also first experiences a binary style of success (it either works or fails).

No, there is NOT ALWAYS a "viable non-zero probability" of jams missing.
P(Jam) = Jammer's Sensor Strength / Target Sensor Strength.
  • If the sensor strength of the Jammer is a bigger number than the sensor strength of your target, you will ALWAYS have a successful jam (when jamming within optimal range).
  • In general, The jammer strength is 8-12 for BBs, Griffins, and Scorps, 10-13 for Kitsune's, and 12-16 for Rook & Falcon.
  • The base sensor strength of most combat/attack frigates is 8-10, Cruisers 14-16, BCs 18-22, BSs 21-25. Disrutpion Ships and Faction Ships generally have significantly higher sensor strengths.

    • FYI: Most people don't know this about ewar: When using EWAR on a target beyond optimal range, there is first a "does this EWAR work on the target check". The chance of success is 50% at Opt + Falloff, and 0% at Opt + 2x Falloff.

    Secret Squirrell
    Allied Press Intergalactic
    #28 - 2013-05-03 17:58:22 UTC
    Andreus Ixiris wrote:
    Ironically, from a theoretical perspective at least, this makes ECM the least reliable form of e-war.


    Good thing we care about how effective it is, not how reliable =P
    Andreus Ixiris
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #29 - 2013-05-05 14:07:56 UTC
    Secret Squirrell wrote:
    Good thing we care about how effective it is, not how reliable =P

    Yeah, pretty much.

    Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

    Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

    Andreus Ixiris > ...

    Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
    Muad 'dib
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #30 - 2013-05-08 11:15:55 UTC
    I think ccp dont really care because its balanced on a large scale fight where its hard to spread out the jams as efficiently.

    In a 5v5 with 2 ecm ships they just put one on everything or having preferred targets called in gang.

    While thats not a great way to look at it, one thats even worse is ECM drones, who in a pack of 5 are FAR more effective than 5 any-other-ew because those are subject to stacking - there is no such stacking reduction in the modules effective ecm strength in regards to the points of ECM already applied.

    Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
    Previous page12