Assembly Hall

Synopsis:

Change jamming mechanics from:

Z = X/Y

to:

Z = 2*X/(2*X+Y).

X = Jamming Strength
Y = Sensor Strength
Z = Jamming Chance

Discussion:
Lets skip the deeper questions and implications with regards to jamming and keep this one simple: Jamming is supposed to be chance based.

However, this is not the case with the current mechanics. Once the jamming strength of a jammer becomes greater then the sensor strength of a ship, jamming is no longer chance based, jamming becomes a given. Taking into account the bonuses from modules, rigs, skills, ship bonuses, thermodynamics, implants, and gang bonuses especially from the recent move towards POSed up T3s, jamming is no longer chance based for the vast majority of ships flown these days.

While the existing mechanics worked when jamming strengths of any given module were typically less the half that of the sensor strength of a ship, they break down as the jamming strength approaches and eventually surpasses the sensor strength of a ship.

Firstly, as the jamming strength approaches the sensor strength of a ship small increases in jamming strength will have a huge reduction in the chance of the target avoiding being jammed. For example a Vagabond being jammed by a Falcon with an ECM - Phased Inverter II that has a jamming strength of 12 has about a 14% chance of not being jammed. If the Falcon takes steps to increase the jamming strength of its ECM module to 13, the Vagabond now has a 7% chance of not being jammed. So approximately an 8% increase in the jamming strength resulted in a 50% reduction in the chances of a Vagabond avoiding being jammed.

Secondly, as we continue the example above and the Falcon takes yet another step to increase the jamming strength of its ECM module to 14, approximately a 7% increase we now find the poor Vagabond has 0% chance of not being jammed. Unfortunately, jamming strengths of 12, 13 or 14 are not that unreasonable and ultimately a Falcon or Rook can get nearly a jamming strength of 18 out of its T2 racial ECM modules. That means such a ship would be guaranteed to jam at 100% almost every Battlecruiser and below with the exception of some Recon, Logistics and Caldari ships.

Now if we revisit the examples above with the proposed change we find the following:

Vagabond = 14 Sensor Strength

Jamming strength of 12; 2*12/(2*12+14) = 63% Jamming Chance, 37% Not Jammed
Jamming strength of 13; 2*13/(2*13+14) = 65% Jamming Chance, 35% Not Jammed
Jamming strength of 14; 2*14/(2*13+14) = 67% Jamming Chance, 33% Not Jammed
Jamming strength of 18; 2*18/(2*18+14) = 72% Jamming Chance, 28% Not Jammed

As we can see in this revised situation two things happen, the Falcon is no longer guaranteed to jam the Vagabond every time and as the jamming strength of the Falcon's jamming module increases we see a more reasonable corresponding increase it the jamming chances.

Currently the only chanced based EWAR is ECM and personally I like that in some cases jamming somone is a given. One of the major drawbacks of the Skirmish based ships is that they are extremely vunerable to ECM. While the more EWAR specialized ships are capable of handling ECM. Also considering that most ECM boats have no tank compared to ships in the same class as them, missing one jamming cycle very bad for your ships bulkheads.

The ECM 'fix' is fleet diversity, not a complete reworking of game mechanics. Not Supported.

Not Supported

Jamming ships are not used in 1 vs 1 scenarios.

Even if the falcon pilot in your imaginary scenario did engage that vagabond in a 1 vs 1 its MASSIVE 40 DPS from his railguns won't break the tank on the vaga.

I just added the above to illustrate how stupid 1 vs 1 math writeups of ECM mechanics really are. Ye he can jam you.. woohoo.. then what ?

You need to look at ECM in fleets where you have multiple ships engaging. The falcon pilot there will not be able to jam ALL targets and will always be called primary target if he's dumb enough to be closeby.

What i'm trying to say is that ECM is countered by tactics, not modules.

You could drop the doubling from your formula if you just doubled the base jam strength of all the jammer modules in the game.

But yeah, I agree. The current ECM formula is all special kinds of fubar. I had previously suggested something with an exponential formula similar to the current turret tracking formula, but this would work fine too.

I'd like to see that double web/scram/ecm tank + dps scorpion fit you used to kill those two idiots with...

ECM is only preferred in fleet engagements when I do small gang work we much prefer TD's to any other racial EWAR types ( as they effect the most ships and don't require a special hull to be used for high effect).

Also neutering a races recon line is just plain wrong. Why would anyone risk a falcon/rook for a *chance* to be effective. FC's want to know that things are going to work if it isn't they might as well bring DPS.

Jams are the most powerful ewar in eve.... This is because they prevent all external actions a ship can perform, eliminating the ewar they provide, the majority of their dps, and their tackle.... To balance this, Jams are supposed to be chance based. The truth is though, they are not chanced based on a significant number of ships.

I think that your formula is off, as it gives too much improvement to unbonused jammers, and deminishes the jamming bonus gained from bonused jammers. I think a much better formula would be:

chance to jam = min (0.96, X/Y). This way there is always a 1/25 chance of missing a jam, but you maintain the current jam strength/signal strength balance.

I think you should only be able to put one jammer on one target, so it isnt completely ridiculous in small gangs, while still being just as effective in large gangs.