STATUS: Up-to-date for Live 2.3
2.3 update: all rail gun armour piercing values increased to 100
2.2.03 updates completed:
Cannons (every size and variant)
Enforcer Cannon
Frag Cannons (every size and variant) including Pacifier
Plasma Accelerators (all) including APA
Lasers (bursts of every size and variant, fixed beam and fixed pulse) including Cytoscrambler, Pulse Disruptor, Retributor Beam Laser
Added APV for all weapons
(Previous updates 24.11.16, updating Packhounds, fixed cannons, fixed multis and plasma as per Live 2.2 Patch Notes, before that 22.6.16, Patch 2.1.3, added Huge Burst Lasers, 27.6.16 Advanced Accelerator nerf)
Version
The official stats below come from Live 2.2.03.
Interpretation
Note from the above that the truly 'hard' figures are FDev, RoF, DPS, Draw, ShSp & APV (and to some extent, DPE). The rest will be extrapolated, albeit I think on a sound basis (see Notes & Acknowledgements) using the method that some of you may recall from my hull damage table of January 2016, here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=226355
Please note especially that calculations concerning 'mixed' damage types (such as 'thermal-kinetic') contain some complexities - see Notes & Acknowledgments for more.
It is possible to consider almost any number of factors but I think that those I have worked out above, particularly DPSvS, DPSvH, EvS and EvH will usually be of the most practical assistance in both PvP and PvE, o7
Note also that some weapons such as c4 multis or all frag cannons feature higher DPS than FDev x RoF would suggest. This is the because the official DPS figure (which I have used throughout) takes into account the number of projectiles, whereas the FDev figure is for one projectile only.
One final point before we come to the tables. I deal a lot with damage against shield and hulls. This is not about intrinsic properties of shield and hulls but rather about the default resistances the game applies to them. They are the damage that will be done to an NPC or a 'vanilla' unmodded Cmdr's ship.
Those resistances are massively modifiable via 2.1 Engineering, meaning that against an apex PvP build you will probably be facing more or less equal resistances across the board - this is where the absolute FDev, DPS and DPE figures are a better guide.
THERMAL WEAPONS
*For pre-2.1 testing of the Pulse Disruptor's malfunction-inducement rate see Truesilver's Tests, No. 3:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=240937
**The Cytoscrambler's APV of 1 means that under normal circumstances it will cause infinitesimally small actual damage to hull. Although hull damage figures are included they should be treated as notional, therefore.
Note that the Beam distributor draw must be per second as opposed to per shot. Also all burst laser FDev and Draw figures are only 1/3 of the practical values (because of the triple shot) but at the moment I've input 'as per Outfitting'. DPS and EvS / EvH are better comparators.
KINETIC WEAPONS
Note that for Frag Cannons, the DPS and RoF figures above are as per in-game Outfitting but they do not take into account reload time - unlike with other weapons such as Plasma Accelerators - and therefore should not be used for direct comparison.
THERMAL-KINETIC WEAPONS & ABSOLUTE DAMAGE WEAPONS
EXPLOSIVES
*Pack hound missile racks fire four missiles per release
**Mines & 'Explosive-Thermal' damage - unlike torpedoes or missiles, mine damage is a combination of explosive and thermal. This has been (theoretically) taken into account in the extrapolated (Shield / Hull etc) figures above, see Notes & Acknowledgements below.
NOTES & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The FDev figures for damage and dps are ‘raw’, in that they assume a point-blank (0m or 1m) firing point and do not take into account any potential modifiers. See my discussion with FDev Lead Programmer and damage supremo, the very obliging Mark Allen, here:-
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=244308
The table of multipliers that I have previously applied to damage type by target type can be found in Cmdr Frentox’s hull hardness / piercing thread here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=224474
That table is still correct save that missile damage v shields has been buffed (previously 10% multiplier, now 50%).
The full, current table for damage multipliers is:-
*Note that lightweight, reinforced and military bulkheads all count as 'unmodified hull' - military and reinforced just add hp to base hull value - see my post history for more.
For the avoidance of doubt, the new 2.1 Outfitting screens express the same data in a different way, as modifiers to target 'resistance', as follows:-
However, the meaning is the same. I have checked! For confirmation of this I am once again indebted to Mark Allen of FDev, who on 9th May 2016 confirmed to me that the meaning of the figures is the same as before - it's just that FDev are experimenting with a '100 - multiplier' format as an alternative to the damage multipliers.
Thermal-Kinetic & Explosive-Thermal damage split
Lasers are thermal, cannons are kinetic ... easy enough so far.
However, rail guns feature mixed ‘thermal-kinetic’ damage and mines have a mixture of explosive and thermal.
I believe that I have previously established via testing that the rail gun thermal-kinetic split is 66.66%-33.33% or 2:1, see Truesilver's Tests, No.2:-
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=240168
The damage modifiers for rail gun thermal-kinetic weapons can therefore be calculated in the same proportions:-
I have not yet tested the explosive-thermal breakdown of mines.
However, Outfitting uses the words 'the main type of damage' and then gives that for rails as thermal and for mines as explosive.
I therefore think it reasonable to assume, pending testing, that mines are 2:1 explosive-thermal.
On that basis the mine calculation would be:
Plasma ('Absolute') Damage
ED 2.2.03 introduced an entirely new damage split, for plasma alone: 60-20-20.
(Deep breath...)
60% of plasma damage is 'absolute', that is, unmodified by target type. 20% is thermal. 20% is kinetic.
Hence the plasma calculations are:
Therefore, when calculating extrapolated damage and damage to energy figures in the weapon tables above I have applied the following percentages to the FDev figures for damage and DPS:-
The damage figures thus obtained apply to shots fired at point-blank range (0m or 1m) against shields or, in the case of hull, against a ship fitted with lightweight, reinforced or military bulkheads. Shots fired against the hull of a ship fitted with mirrored or reactive bulkheads will produce different outcomes in line with the first table above.
None of the figures take into account (a) armour piercing / hull hardness values, which differ by weapon and ship but, broadly speaking, mean that smaller / weaker weapons will do somewhat less damage to larger / stronger ships; or (b) damage fall-off by range, which affects some weapons (such as plasma or multis) a little and cannons not at all but other weapons (such as lasers or rails) a lot.
The final column in each table provides each weapon's APV - 'Armour Piercing Value'. This determines how much of the weapon's potential damage against a hull will actually be delivered. Each ship type has a unique (unmodifiable) Hull Hardness ('HH') figure. When a weapon strikes the hull, after all other modifiers are determined, the actual damage done is finally modified by the following equation:
APV / HH = % damage done, capped at 100%
Example:
A c4 fixed beam laser has APV of 60. If it strikes the hull of a Fer-de-Lance, which has HH of 70, it will do 60/70 = 85.7% damage.
If the same laser strikes a Sidewinder, which has HH of 20, it will do 60/20 (capped at 100%) = 100% damage.
For more on damage fall-off by range see the inimitable Cmdr Kornelius Briedis’ work at:
http://nosuchwebpage.com/index.php?lan=EN&post_id=195
Obviously, nothing in this post takes into account Engineer modifications to weapon or target.
Finally, note that a weapon will only inflict optimal hull damage if the shot fails to damage any modules (otherwise the majority of the damage will be applied to the module in question as 'Breach Damage'). In practice, weapons with a lower breach chance will thus achieve optimal hull damage more often than higher penetration weapons. Whether this is desirable or not is situational. Rail guns in particular will often cause more module damage than hull damage – albeit with a correspondingly greater chance of causing the target vessel to suffer module malfunction or destruction.
Finally, I would like to thank Cmdrs StarLightBreaker and Pale Night for their seminal work in this field. Although their tables of over a year ago are long since superseded, I must have referred to them a thousand times. o7
As ever, all corrections and comments welcome.
See you in the black,
TRUESILVER
P.S. List of associated third party resources
1.
http://www.edshipyard.com/
with more precise values for stats including RoF and DPS and where you can also find a new weapon damage and capacitor modeling feature, including simulation of applied damage against various resist profiles (shields, armor, mirrored, reactive) and ship hulls (which receive reduced damage from undersized weapons).
2.
Spreadsheet (with particular utility concerning EPS) courtesy of superDave27:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...UkScKFq43SO4/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1034838947
3.
A fresh, 2.2.03 google spreadsheet courtesy of reddit user ollomulder:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19CPuuj7lBmMX3v55c85jydwqo_H-qnvvmbQaC6ctcms/edit#gid=0
2.3 update: all rail gun armour piercing values increased to 100
2.2.03 updates completed:
Cannons (every size and variant)
Enforcer Cannon
Frag Cannons (every size and variant) including Pacifier
Plasma Accelerators (all) including APA
Lasers (bursts of every size and variant, fixed beam and fixed pulse) including Cytoscrambler, Pulse Disruptor, Retributor Beam Laser
Added APV for all weapons
(Previous updates 24.11.16, updating Packhounds, fixed cannons, fixed multis and plasma as per Live 2.2 Patch Notes, before that 22.6.16, Patch 2.1.3, added Huge Burst Lasers, 27.6.16 Advanced Accelerator nerf)
Version
The official stats below come from Live 2.2.03.
Interpretation
| FDev | = | Official figure for 'raw' damage: point-blank, unmodified |
| Shield | = | FDev damage figure modified for shield damage, see notes |
| Hull | = | FDev damage figure modified for hull damage, see notes |
| RoF | = | Official 'rate of fire' (number of shots per second) |
| DPS | = | Official figure for 'damage per second' (raw FDev damage x official rate of fire x number of projectiles) |
| DPSvS | = | DPS modified for shield damage, see notes |
| DPSvH | = | DPS modified for hull damage, see notes |
| Draw | = | Official figure for weapon capacitor draw |
| EPS | = | 'Energy per second' - Draw x RoF |
| DPE | = | 'Damage per energy' - FDev damage figure / Draw (or in the case of Beam Lasers, DPS / EPS) |
| EvS | = | 'Efficiency v shield' - DPSvS / EPS - i.e. per second damage per wep cap use, v shield |
| EvH | = | 'Efficiency v hull' - DPSvH / EPS - i.e. per second damage per wep cap use, v hull |
| ShSp | = | Official 'shot speed', i.e. projectile velocity (where applicable) in metres per second |
| APV | = | Official 'Armour Piercing Value' (relevant to hull damage, see notes) |
Note from the above that the truly 'hard' figures are FDev, RoF, DPS, Draw, ShSp & APV (and to some extent, DPE). The rest will be extrapolated, albeit I think on a sound basis (see Notes & Acknowledgements) using the method that some of you may recall from my hull damage table of January 2016, here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=226355
Please note especially that calculations concerning 'mixed' damage types (such as 'thermal-kinetic') contain some complexities - see Notes & Acknowledgments for more.
It is possible to consider almost any number of factors but I think that those I have worked out above, particularly DPSvS, DPSvH, EvS and EvH will usually be of the most practical assistance in both PvP and PvE, o7
Note also that some weapons such as c4 multis or all frag cannons feature higher DPS than FDev x RoF would suggest. This is the because the official DPS figure (which I have used throughout) takes into account the number of projectiles, whereas the FDev figure is for one projectile only.
One final point before we come to the tables. I deal a lot with damage against shield and hulls. This is not about intrinsic properties of shield and hulls but rather about the default resistances the game applies to them. They are the damage that will be done to an NPC or a 'vanilla' unmodded Cmdr's ship.
Those resistances are massively modifiable via 2.1 Engineering, meaning that against an apex PvP build you will probably be facing more or less equal resistances across the board - this is where the absolute FDev, DPS and DPE figures are a better guide.
THERMAL WEAPONS
| WEAPON | FDev | Shield | Hull | RoF | DPS | DPSvS | DPSvH | Draw | EPS | DPE | EvS | EvH | APV | WEAPON |
| c4 Beam - f | - | - | - | - | 41.4 | 49.7 | 41.4 | 8.19 | 8.19 | 5.05 | 6.07 | 5.05 | 60 | c4 Beam - f |
| c4 Beam - g | - | - | - | - | 32.7 | 39.2 | 32.7 | 8.99 | 8.99 | 3.64 | 4.36 | 3.64 | 60 | c4 Beam - g |
| c4 Burst - f | 20.6 | 24.72 | 20.6 | 1.6 | 32.3 | 38.8 | 32.3 | 2.98 | 4.77 | 6.91 | 8.13 | 6.77 | 65 | c4 Burst - f |
| c4 Burst - g | 12.1 | 14.52 | 12.1 | 2.1 | 25.9 | 31.1 | 25.9 | 2.41 | 5.06 | 5.02 | 6.14 | 5.12 | 65 | c4 Burst - g |
| c4 Pulse - f | 10.2 | 12.24 | 10.2 | 2.6 | 26.9 | 32.3 | 26.9 | 1.48 | 3.85 | 6.89 | 8.38 | 6.99 | 65 | c4 Pulse - f |
| c4 Pulse - g | 7.8 | 9.36 | 7.8 | 2.8 | 21.7 | 26.0 | 21.7 | 1.56 | 4.37 | 5.0 | 5.96 | 4.97 | 65 | c4 Pulse - g |
| c3 Beam - f | - | - | - | - | 25.8 | 31.0 | 25.8 | 5.10 | 5.10 | 5.06 | 6.07 | 5.06 | 50 | c3 Beam - f |
| c3 Beam - g | - | - | - | - | 20.3 | 24.4 | 20.3 | 5.58 | 5.58 | 3.64 | 4.37 | 3.64 | 50 | c3 Beam - g |
| c3 Beam - t | - | - | - | - | 14.4 | 17.3 | 14.4 | 3.51 | 3.51 | 4.10 | 4.93 | 4.10 | 50 | c3 Beam - t |
| c3 Burst - f | 7.7 | 9.24 | 7.7 | 2.7 | 20.8 | 25.0 | 20.8 | 1.11 | 3.00 | 6.94 | 8.32 | 6.93 | 52 | c3 Burst - f |
| c3 Burst - g | 5.2 | 6.24 | 5.2 | 3.2 | 16.6 | 19.9 | 16.6 | 1.03 | 3.30 | 5.05 | 6.04 | 5.03 | 52 | c3 Burst - g |
| c3 Burst - t | 3.5 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 11.0 | 13.2 | 11.0 | 0.56 | 1.74 | 6.25 | 7.59 | 6.32 | 52 | c3 Burst - t |
| c3 Pulse - f | 6.0 | 7.2 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 18.1 | 21.7 | 18.1 | 0.86 | 2.58 | 6.98 | 8.42 | 7.02 | 52 | c3 Pulse - f |
| c3 Pulse - g | 4.6 | 5.52 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 14.8 | 17.8 | 14.8 | 0.92 | 2.94 | 5.0 | 6.04 | 5.03 | 52 | c3 Pulse - g |
| c3 Pulse - t | 3.5 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 9.5 | 11.4 | 9.5 | 0.56 | 1.51 | 6.25 | 7.55 | 6.29 | 52 | c3 Pulse - t |
| c2 Beam - f | - | - | - | - | 16.0 | 19.2 | 16.0 | 3.16 | 3.16 | 5.06 | 6.08 | 5.06 | 35 | c2 Beam - f |
| c2 Mining Laser | - | - | - | - | 4.0 | 4.8 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.33 | 1.60 | 1.33 | 18 | c2 Mining Laser |
| c2 Beam - g | - | - | - | - | 12.5 | 15.0 | 12.5 | 3.44 | 3.44 | 3.63 | 4.36 | 3.63 | 35 | c2 Beam - g |
| c2 Beam - t | - | - | - | - | 8.8 | 10.6 | 8.8 | 2.16 | 2.16 | 4.07 | 4.91 | 4.07 | 35 | c2 Beam - t |
| c2 Burst - f | 3.5 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 13.0 | 15.6 | 13.0 | 0.5 | 1.85 | 7.0 | 8.43 | 7.0 | 35 | c2 Burst - f |
| c2 Burst - g | 2.5 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 4.2 | 10.3 | 12.4 | 10.3 | 0.49 | 2.06 | 5.10 | 6.02 | 5.0 | 35 | c2 Burst - g |
| c2 Burst - t | 1.7 | 2.04 | 1.7 | 3.9 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 6.8 | 0.28 | 1.09 | 6.07 | 7.52 | 6.24 | 35 | c2 Burst - t |
| c2 Pulse - f | 3.5 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 12.1 | 14.5 | 12.1 | 0.50 | 1.7 | 7.0 | 8.53 | 7.12 | 35 | c2 Pulse - f |
| c2 Pulse Disruptor* | 2.8 | 3.36 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 4.7 | 5.6 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 1.53 | 3.11 | 3.66 | 3.07 | 35 | c2 Pulse Disruptor |
| c2 Pulse - g | 2.7 | 3.24 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 9.6 | 11.5 | 9.6 | 0.54 | 1.94 | 5.0 | 5.94 | 4.95 | 35 | c2 Pulse - g |
| c2 Pulse - t | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 6.2 | 7.4 | 6.2 | 0.33 | 0.99 | 6.06 | 7.47 | 6.26 | 35 | c2 Pulse - t |
| c1 Beam - f | - | - | - | - | 9.8 | 11.8 | 9.8 | 1.94 | 1.94 | 5.05 | 6.08 | 5.05 | 18 | c1 Beam - f |
| c1 Retributor | - | - | - | - | 4.9 | 5.9 | 4.9 | 2.52 | 2.52 | 1.94 | 2.34 | 1.94 | 18 | c1 Retributor |
| c1 Mining Laser | - | - | - | - | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.33 | 1.6 | 1.33 | 18 | c1 Mining Laser |
| c1 Torval Min Lance | - | - | - | - | 8.0 | 9.6 | 8.0 | 1.75 | 1.75 | 4.57 | 5.48 | 4.57 | 18 | c1 Torval Min Lance |
| c1 Beam - g | - | - | - | - | 7.7 | 9.2 | 7.7 | 2.11 | 2.11 | 3.65 | 4.38 | 3.65 | 18 | c1 Beam - g |
| c1 Beam - t | - | - | - | - | 5.4 | 6.5 | 5.4 | 1.32 | 1.32 | 4.09 | 4.92 | 4.09 | 18 | c1 Beam - t |
| c1 Burst - f | 1.7 | 2.04 | 1.7 | 4.7 | 8.1 | 9.7 | 8.1 | 0.25 | 1.18 | 6.8 | 8.22 | 6.86 | 20 | c1 Burst - f |
| c1 Cytoscrambler** | 3.6 | 4.32 | 3.6** | 7.6 | 27.4 | 32.9 | 27.4** | 0.31 | 2.4 | 11.61 | 13.7 | 11.42** | 1 | c1 Cytoscrambler** |
| c1 Burst - g | 1.2 | 1.44 | 1.2 | 5.3 | 6.4 | 7.7 | 6.4 | 0.24 | 1.27 | 5.0 | 6.06 | 5.04 | 20 | c1 Burst - g |
| c1 Burst - t | 0.9 | 1.08 | 0.9 | 4.8 | 4.2 | 5.0 | 4.2 | 0.14 | 0.67 | 6.43 | 7.46 | 6.27 | 20 | c1 Burst - t |
| c1 Pulse - f | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 7.9 | 9.5 | 7.9 | 0.30 | 1.14 | 6.67 | 8.33 | 6.93 | 20 | c1 Pulse - f |
| c1 Pulse - g | 1.6 | 1.92 | 1.6 | 4.0 | 6.2 | 7.4 | 6.2 | 0.31 | 1.24 | 5.16 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 20 | c1 Pulse - g |
| c1 Pulse - t | 1.2 | 1.44 | 1.2 | 3.3 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 4.0 | 0.19 | 0.63 | 6.32 | 7.62 | 6.35 | 20 | c1 Pulse - t |
| WEAPON | FDev | Shield | Hull | RoF | DPS | DPSvS | DPSvH | Draw | EPS | DPE | EvS | EvH | APV | WEAPON |
*For pre-2.1 testing of the Pulse Disruptor's malfunction-inducement rate see Truesilver's Tests, No. 3:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=240937
**The Cytoscrambler's APV of 1 means that under normal circumstances it will cause infinitesimally small actual damage to hull. Although hull damage figures are included they should be treated as notional, therefore.
Note that the Beam distributor draw must be per second as opposed to per shot. Also all burst laser FDev and Draw figures are only 1/3 of the practical values (because of the triple shot) but at the moment I've input 'as per Outfitting'. DPS and EvS / EvH are better comparators.
KINETIC WEAPONS
| WEAPON | FDev | Shield | Hull | RoF | DPS | DPSvS | DPSvH | Draw | EPS | DPE | EvS | EvH | ShSp | APV | WEAPON |
| c4 Cannon - f | 83.1 | 49.9 | 99.7 | 0.4 | 31.6 | 19.0 | 37.9 | 1.61 | 0.64 | 51.61 | 29.69 | 59.22 | 900 | 90 | c4 Cannon - f |
| c4 Cannon - g | 56.5 | 34.0 | 67.9 | 0.4 | 22.6 | 13.6 | 27.1 | 1.72 | 0.69 | 32.85 | 19.71 | 39.28 | 750 | 90 | c4 Cannon - g |
| c4 Multi - f | 4.6 | 2.76 | 5.52 | 3.0 | 28.0 | 16.8 | 33.6 | 0.24 | 0.72 | 19.17 | 23.33 | 46.67 | 1600 | 68 | c4 Multi - f |
| c4 Multi - g | 3.5 | 2.1 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 23.3 | 13.98 | 27.96 | 0.37 | 1.26 | 9.46 | 11.1 | 22.2 | 1600 | 68 | c4 Multi - g |
| c3 Cannon - f | 55.6 | 33.4 | 66.7 | 0.4 | 23.4 | 14.0 | 28.1 | 1.07 | 0.43 | 51.96 | 32.56 | 65.12 | 959 | 70 | c3 Cannon - f |
| c3 Cannon - g | 37.4 | 22.4 | 44.9 | 0.4 | 16.5 | 9.9 | 19.8 | 1.14 | 0.46 | 32.81 | 21.52 | 43.04 | 800 | 70 | c3 Cannon - g |
| c3 Cannon - t | 30.3 | 18.2 | 36.4 | 0.4 | 11.2 | 6.7 | 13.4 | 0.53 | 0.21 | 57.17 | 31.90 | 63.81 | 800 | 70 | c3 Cannon - t |
| c3 Frag - f | 4.6 | 2.76 | 5.52 | 4.5 | 249.3 | 149.6 | 299.2 | 0.57 | 2.57 | 8.07 | 58.2 | 116.4 | 667 | 45 | c3 Frag - f |
| c3 Pacifier | 4.0 | 2.04 | 4.8 | 4.5 | 216.0 | 129.6 | 259.2 | 0.57 | 2.57 | 7.02 | 50.4 | 100.9 | 1000 | 45 | c3 Pacifier |
| c3 Frag - g | 3.8 | 2.28 | 4.56 | 4.8 | 215.4 | 129.2 | 258.5 | 0.81 | 3.89 | 4.69 | 33.2 | 66.4 | 667 | 45 | c3 Frag - g |
| c3 Frag - t | 3.0 | 1.80 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 143.3 | 86.0 | 172.0 | 0.37 | 1.48 | 8.11 | 58.1 | 116.2 | 667 | 45 | c3 Frag - t |
| c3 Multi - f | 3.9 | 2.34 | 4.68 | 5.9 | 23.1 | 13.86 | 27.72 | 0.18 | 1.06 | 21.67 | 13.08 | 26.15 | 1600 | 54 | c3 Multi - f |
| c3 Multi - g | 2.8 | 1.68 | 3.36 | 6.7 | 18.9 | 11.34 | 22.68 | 0.25 | 1.68 | 11.2 | 6.75 | 13.5 | 1600 | 54 | c3 Multi - g |
| c2 Cannon - f | 36.9 | 22.1 | 44.3 | 0.5 | 17.0 | 10.20 | 20.40 | 0.70 | 0.35 | 52.71 | 29.14 | 58.29 | 1051 | 50 | c2 Cannon - f |
| c2 Cannon - g | 25.5 | 13.5 | 27.0 | 0.5 | 12.3 | 7.4 | 14.8 | 0.75 | 0.38 | 34.0 | 19.73 | 39.47 | 875 | 50 | c2 Cannon - g |
| c2 Cannon - t | 19.8 | 11.88 | 23.76 | 0.4 | 8.01 | 4.81 | 9.61 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 58.24 | 34.36 | 68.71 | 875 | 50 | c2 Cannon - t |
| c2 Frag - f | 3.0 | 1.80 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 179.1 | 107.5 | 214.9 | 0.37 | 1.85 | 8.11 | 58.11 | 116.22 | 667 | 30 | c2 Frag - f |
| c2 Frag - g | 2.3 | 1.38 | 2.76 | 5.3 | 143.6 | 86.2 | 172.3 | 0.49 | 2.6 | 4.7 | 33.15 | 66.3 | 667 | 30 | c2 Frag - g |
| c2 Frag - t | 1.7 | 1.02 | 2.04 | 4.3 | 87.1 | 52.3 | 104.5 | 0.21 | 0.90 | 8.09 | 58.1 | 116.2 | 667 | 30 | c2 Frag - t |
| c2 Multi - f | 2.2 | 1.32 | 2.64 | 7.1 | 15.6 | 9.36 | 18.72 | 0.11 | 0.78 | 20.0 | 12.0 | 24.0 | 1600 | 37 | c2 Multi - f |
| c2 Multi - g | 1.6 | 0.96 | 1.92 | 7.7 | 12.6 | 7.56 | 15.12 | 0.14 | 1.08 | 11.43 | 7.0 | 14.0 | 1600 | 37 | c2 Multi - g |
| c2 Multi - t | 1.2 | 0.72 | 1.44 | 6.2 | 7.3 | 4.38 | 8.76 | 0.06 | 0.37 | 20.0 | 11.84 | 23.68 | 1600 | 37 | c2 Multi - t |
| c1 Cannon - f | 22.5 | 13.5 | 27.0 | 0.5 | 11.3 | 6.78 | 13.56 | 0.46 | 0.23 | 48.91 | 29.48 | 58.96 | 1200 | 35 | c1 Cannon - f |
| c1 Cannon - g | 15.9 | 9.54 | 19.08 | 0.5 | 8.3 | 4.98 | 9.96 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 33.13 | 20.75 | 41.50 | 1000 | 35 | c1 Cannon - g |
| c1 Cannon - t | 12.8 | 7.68 | 15.36 | 0.4 | 5.56 | 3.34 | 6.67 | 0.22 | 0.09 | 58.18 | 37.11 | 74.22 | 1000 | 35 | c1 Cannon - t |
| c1 Frag - f | 1.4 | 0.84 | 1.68 | 5.6 | 95.3 | 57.2 | 114.4 | 0.21 | 1.18 | 6.67 | 48.5 | 96.9 | 667 | 20 | c1 Frag - f |
| c1 Frag - g | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 5.9 | 71.3 | 42.8 | 85.6 | 0.26 | 1.53 | 3.85 | 28.0 | 55.9 | 667 | 20 | c1 Frag - g |
| c1 Frag - t | 0.7 | 0.42 | 0.84 | 4.8 | 39.4 | 23.6 | 47.3 | 0.10 | 0.48 | 7.0 | 49.2 | 98.3 | 667 | 20 | c1 Frag - t |
| c1 Multi - f | 1.1 | 0.66 | 1.32 | 7.7 | 8.6 | 5.16 | 10.32 | 0.06 | 0.46 | 18.33 | 11.22 | 22.43 | 1600 | 22 | c1 Multi - f |
| c1 Enforcer | 2.9 | 1.74 | 3.48 | 4.3 | 12.4 | 7.4 | 14.9 | 0.12 | 0.52 | 24.17 | 14.23 | 28.65 | 1800 | 30 | c1 Enforcer |
| c1 Multi - g | 0.8 | 0.48 | 0.96 | 8.3 | 6.8 | 4.08 | 8.16 | 0.07 | 0.58 | 11.43 | 7.03 | 14.06 | 1600 | 22 | c1 Multi - g |
| c1 Multi - t | 0.6 | 0.36 | 0.72 | 7.1 | 4.0 | 2.4 | 4.8 | 0.03 | 0.21 | 20.0 | 11.43 | 22.86 | 1600 | 22 | c1 Multi - t |
| WEAPON | FDev | Shield | Hull | RoF | DPS | DPSvS | DPSvH | Draw | EPS | DPE | EvS | EvH | ShSp | APV | WEAPON |
Note that for Frag Cannons, the DPS and RoF figures above are as per in-game Outfitting but they do not take into account reload time - unlike with other weapons such as Plasma Accelerators - and therefore should not be used for direct comparison.
THERMAL-KINETIC WEAPONS & ABSOLUTE DAMAGE WEAPONS
Note: For rail gun thermal-kinetic breakdown see Truesilver's Tests, No.2:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=240168
For the plasma 'absolute damage' ED 2.2.03 complexity, see Notes.
*For Imperial Hammers for Draw I have used the Outfitting figure of 2.0 but due to the triple-burst the practical figure would be 6.0.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=240168
For the plasma 'absolute damage' ED 2.2.03 complexity, see Notes.
| WEAPON | FDev | Shield | Hull | RoF | DPS | DPSvS | DPSvH | Draw | EPS | DPE | EvS | EvH | ShSp | APV | WEAPON |
| c4 PA | 125.2 | 120.2 | 130.2 | 0.3 | 31.3 | 30.05 | 32.56 | 21.04 | 6.31 | 5.95 | 4.96 | 5.16 | 875 | 100 | c4 PA |
| c3 PA | 83.4 | 80.06 | 86.74 | 0.3 | 24.2 | 23.23 | 25.17 | 13.6 | 4.08 | 6.13 | 5.93 | 6.17 | 875 | 100 | c3 PA |
| c3 Adv Acc | 34.4 | 35.78 | 35.78 | 0.8 | 28.7 | 27.55 | 29.85 | 5.5 | 4.4 | 6.25 | 6.26 | 6.78 | 875 | 100 | c3 Adv Acc |
| c2 PA | 54.3 | 56.47 | 56.47 | 0.3 | 17.18 | 17.18 | 18.62 | 8.65 | 2.6 | 6.28 | 6.61 | 7.16 | 875 | 100 | c2 PA |
| c2 Rail | 41.5 | 41.5 | 44.3 | 1.2 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 53.35 | 5.11 | 6.13 | 8.12 | 8.16 | 8.70 | - | 100 | c2 Rail |
| c2 Imp Ham | 15.0 | 15.0 | 16.0 | 4.1 | 61.4 | 61.4 | 65.51 | 2.0* | 8.2 | 7.5 | 7.49 | 7.99 | - | 100 | c2 Imp Ham |
| c1 Rail | 23.3 | 23.3 | 24.9 | 1.6 | 37.0 | 37.0 | 39.48 | 2.69 | 4.3 | 8.66 | 8.6 | 9.18 | - | 100 | c1 Rail |
| WEAPON | FDev | Shield | Hull | RoF | DPS | DPSvS | DPSvH | Draw | EPS | DPE | EvS | EvH | ShSp | APV | WEAPON |
*For Imperial Hammers for Draw I have used the Outfitting figure of 2.0 but due to the triple-burst the practical figure would be 6.0.
EXPLOSIVES
| WEAPON | FDev | Shield | Hull | RoF | DPS | DPSvS | DPSvH | Draw | EPS | DPE | EvS | EvH | ShSp | APV | WEAPON |
| Torpedo | 120.0 | 60.0 | 168.0 | 1.0 | 120.0 | 60.0 | 168.0 | - | - | - | - | - | 150 | 10,000 | Torpedo |
| Missile - df | 50.0 | 25.0 | 70.0 | 0.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 35.0 | 0.24 | 0.12 | 208.3 | 104.2 | 291.7 | 750 | 60 | Missile - df |
| Missile - FSD Disruptor | 40.0 | 20.0 | 56.0 | 0.3 | 13.3 | 6.7 | 18.6 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 166.7 | 95.7 | 265.7 | 750 | 60 | Missile - FSD Disruptor |
| Missile - hs | 40.0 | 20.0 | 56.0 | 0.3 | 13.3 | 6.7 | 18.6 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 166.7 | 95.7 | 265.7 | 625 | 60 | Missile - hs |
| Pack hound* | 7.5 [x4] | 3.75 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 60.0 | 30.0 | 84.0 | 0.24 | 0.48 | 31.25 | 62.5 | 175.0 | 600 | 60 | Pack hound |
| Mine** | 44.0 | 31.94 | 55.18 | 1.0 | 44.0 | 31.94 | 55.18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 60 | Mine |
| Shock Mine** | 32.0 | 23.23 | 40.13 | 1.0 | 32.0 | 23.23 | 40.13 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 60 | Shock Mine |
| WEAPON | FDev | Shield | Hull | RoF | DPS | DPSvS | DPSvH | Draw | EPS | DPE | EvS | EvH | ShSp | APV | WEAPON |
*Pack hound missile racks fire four missiles per release
**Mines & 'Explosive-Thermal' damage - unlike torpedoes or missiles, mine damage is a combination of explosive and thermal. This has been (theoretically) taken into account in the extrapolated (Shield / Hull etc) figures above, see Notes & Acknowledgements below.
NOTES & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The FDev figures for damage and dps are ‘raw’, in that they assume a point-blank (0m or 1m) firing point and do not take into account any potential modifiers. See my discussion with FDev Lead Programmer and damage supremo, the very obliging Mark Allen, here:-
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=244308
The table of multipliers that I have previously applied to damage type by target type can be found in Cmdr Frentox’s hull hardness / piercing thread here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=224474
That table is still correct save that missile damage v shields has been buffed (previously 10% multiplier, now 50%).
The full, current table for damage multipliers is:-
| TARGET | THERMAL | KINETIC | EXPLOSIVE |
| Shields | 120% | 60% | 50% |
| Light / Reinf / Military* | 100% | 120% | 140% |
| Mirrored | 50% | 175% | 150% |
| Reactive | 140% | 75% | 80% |
*Note that lightweight, reinforced and military bulkheads all count as 'unmodified hull' - military and reinforced just add hp to base hull value - see my post history for more.
For the avoidance of doubt, the new 2.1 Outfitting screens express the same data in a different way, as modifiers to target 'resistance', as follows:-
| TARGET | THERMAL | KINETIC | EXPLOSIVE |
| Shield | -20% | +40% | +50% |
| Light / Reinf / Military | +0% | -20% | -40% |
| Mirrored | +50% | -75% | -50% |
| Reactive | -40% | +25% | +20% |
However, the meaning is the same. I have checked! For confirmation of this I am once again indebted to Mark Allen of FDev, who on 9th May 2016 confirmed to me that the meaning of the figures is the same as before - it's just that FDev are experimenting with a '100 - multiplier' format as an alternative to the damage multipliers.
Thermal-Kinetic & Explosive-Thermal damage split
Lasers are thermal, cannons are kinetic ... easy enough so far.
However, rail guns feature mixed ‘thermal-kinetic’ damage and mines have a mixture of explosive and thermal.
I believe that I have previously established via testing that the rail gun thermal-kinetic split is 66.66%-33.33% or 2:1, see Truesilver's Tests, No.2:-
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=240168
The damage modifiers for rail gun thermal-kinetic weapons can therefore be calculated in the same proportions:-
| Shields | (0.66 x 120 = 80) | + | (0.33 x 60 = 20) | = | 100% |
| Hull | (0.66 x 100 = 66.66) | + | (0.33 x 120 = 40) | = | 106.7% |
I have not yet tested the explosive-thermal breakdown of mines.
However, Outfitting uses the words 'the main type of damage' and then gives that for rails as thermal and for mines as explosive.
I therefore think it reasonable to assume, pending testing, that mines are 2:1 explosive-thermal.
On that basis the mine calculation would be:
| Shields | (0.66 x 50 = 33) | + | (0.33 x 120 = 39.6) | = | 72.6% |
| Hull | (0.66 x 140 = 92.4) | + | (0.33 x 100 = 33) | = | 125.4% |
Plasma ('Absolute') Damage
ED 2.2.03 introduced an entirely new damage split, for plasma alone: 60-20-20.
(Deep breath...)
60% of plasma damage is 'absolute', that is, unmodified by target type. 20% is thermal. 20% is kinetic.
Hence the plasma calculations are:
| Shields | 60 | + | (0.2 x 120 = 24) | + | (0.2 x 60 = 12) | = | 96% |
| Hull | 60 | + | (0.2 x 100 = 20) | + | (0.2 x 120 = 24) | = | 104% |
Therefore, when calculating extrapolated damage and damage to energy figures in the weapon tables above I have applied the following percentages to the FDev figures for damage and DPS:-
| DAMAGE | Shield | Hull |
| Thermal | 120% | 100% |
| Kinetic | 60% | 120% |
| Thermal-Kinetic | 100% | 106.7% |
| Absolute | 96% | 104% |
| Explosive | 50% | 140% |
| Explosive-Thermal | 72.6% | 125.4% |
The damage figures thus obtained apply to shots fired at point-blank range (0m or 1m) against shields or, in the case of hull, against a ship fitted with lightweight, reinforced or military bulkheads. Shots fired against the hull of a ship fitted with mirrored or reactive bulkheads will produce different outcomes in line with the first table above.
None of the figures take into account (a) armour piercing / hull hardness values, which differ by weapon and ship but, broadly speaking, mean that smaller / weaker weapons will do somewhat less damage to larger / stronger ships; or (b) damage fall-off by range, which affects some weapons (such as plasma or multis) a little and cannons not at all but other weapons (such as lasers or rails) a lot.
The final column in each table provides each weapon's APV - 'Armour Piercing Value'. This determines how much of the weapon's potential damage against a hull will actually be delivered. Each ship type has a unique (unmodifiable) Hull Hardness ('HH') figure. When a weapon strikes the hull, after all other modifiers are determined, the actual damage done is finally modified by the following equation:
APV / HH = % damage done, capped at 100%
Example:
A c4 fixed beam laser has APV of 60. If it strikes the hull of a Fer-de-Lance, which has HH of 70, it will do 60/70 = 85.7% damage.
If the same laser strikes a Sidewinder, which has HH of 20, it will do 60/20 (capped at 100%) = 100% damage.
For more on damage fall-off by range see the inimitable Cmdr Kornelius Briedis’ work at:
http://nosuchwebpage.com/index.php?lan=EN&post_id=195
Obviously, nothing in this post takes into account Engineer modifications to weapon or target.
Finally, note that a weapon will only inflict optimal hull damage if the shot fails to damage any modules (otherwise the majority of the damage will be applied to the module in question as 'Breach Damage'). In practice, weapons with a lower breach chance will thus achieve optimal hull damage more often than higher penetration weapons. Whether this is desirable or not is situational. Rail guns in particular will often cause more module damage than hull damage – albeit with a correspondingly greater chance of causing the target vessel to suffer module malfunction or destruction.
Finally, I would like to thank Cmdrs StarLightBreaker and Pale Night for their seminal work in this field. Although their tables of over a year ago are long since superseded, I must have referred to them a thousand times. o7
As ever, all corrections and comments welcome.
See you in the black,
TRUESILVER
P.S. List of associated third party resources
1.
http://www.edshipyard.com/
with more precise values for stats including RoF and DPS and where you can also find a new weapon damage and capacitor modeling feature, including simulation of applied damage against various resist profiles (shields, armor, mirrored, reactive) and ship hulls (which receive reduced damage from undersized weapons).
2.
Spreadsheet (with particular utility concerning EPS) courtesy of superDave27:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...UkScKFq43SO4/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1034838947
3.
A fresh, 2.2.03 google spreadsheet courtesy of reddit user ollomulder:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19CPuuj7lBmMX3v55c85jydwqo_H-qnvvmbQaC6ctcms/edit#gid=0
Last edited:
