EVE General Discussion

Fellow Important Internet Spaceship Commanders,
After countless trials and experimentation I have discovered the TRUE ECM formula in EVE. Everything else is incorrect! You may wonder why ECM is so damn effective, and yet misguided people attempt to defend it.
This post will shed light on the sensitive issue, through irrefutable mathematical evidence.

The true ECM formula is below:

C = ( 1 - ( 1 - J / S ) ^ n ) * 0 + 100
J = Jamming strength of ECM modules (Previously modified with falloff/skills/etc)
S = Sensor strength of ship
n = Number of jammers
C = Chance to jam (%)

Now, any mathematician of any skill level can tell you that there is something very, very wrong with the formula!
Pay particular attention to the bolded and underlined text:
C = ( 1 - ( 1 - J / S ) ^ n ) * 0 + 100

The underlined portion is completely irrelevant in this formula, as it has been multiplied by 0! Therefore, the ECM formula is effectively:
C = 100

100% chance to jam all the time! Forget fitting ECCM modules, they aren't even part of the formula! Forget about the strength of your ECM module, or if the race is correct: any will work! Think about it: Have you ever been targeted by a BECAUSE OF FALCON and NOT jammed? It's completely unheard of!
Clearly, this cannot be working as intended, and I declare ECM to be broken and overpowered. I suggest a complete revision of the ECM formula to following:

P = ( J + S ) ^ ( ( N + 4 ) ^ 1024 )
J = Jamming strength of ECM modules (Previously modified with falloff/skills/etc)
S = Sensor strength of ship
n = Number of jammers
P = Points of damage the ship which uses the ECM modules receives


With this modification, I believe New Eden can become a more balanced and enjoyable place. Please, post your feedback on these findings.

I tried reading your post but some bastard jammed me. It's ok though a fleet mate got him. Too bad about your post OP, maybe next time.

So, I see you finally sprung for that online math degree from the University of Phoenix.

You did read the formula right?

Touche, good sir. Well played.

I would say you're trolling but you're in RVB so I'm assuming you're new...or something. When you say Tengu, do you mean Falcon? Jamming Tengus are pretty rare. On to the crux of the matter, you are saying jams work 100% of the time? Well I can tell you this is in no way correct, I have a falcon pilot and have fought against falcon/blackbirds/scorpians...tengus and have witnessed jams fail many hundreds of times over the years. If this is troll, touche.

I can neither confirm nor deny that I may or may not be trolling.

Also, I got my hands on some leaked CCP pseudocode regarding turrets. It seems that the turret formula is worthless too, as it is being modified further.


There seems to be some kind of purposeful syntax error for hybrid turrets. I'm assuming this is what makes them so terrible, despite the seemingly good numbers when using the turret formula.

The troll level of this thread has somehow increased to 20/10.

Mission accomplished.

Its not, arazu´s and expecialy rapiers are more common than the falcon. Should they be nerfed too.. no ofc not.. why? Points and Webs are more common used and out a pshycology point of view people are more used to when a rapier prevent them from getting back to a gate. Ecm is fine as it is now. Expecialy after the optimal range nerf. get close to a falcon and u will see its very hard to get a jam up (personal experiance). In the victims eyes a falcon is more evil and rare, its like the big bad pokémon thats actualy crap when using the right pokéballs. The best thing about eve is the sandbox thing where strategy is really important. I can solo falcons in a sabre even when they have 2 minni jams.

So, this formula implies that if I don't fit an ECM module I have a 100% chance to jam. Alternatively, it is the chance of this being a terrible troll.