Completed at last, with shield and hull damage for every weapon.
Truesilver
Truesilver
Official FDev Damage Stats for Every Weapon
- Thread starter Truesilver
- Start date
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Truesilver thanks for all the hard work I used your data to update my Weapon Calc Sheet. Everyone feel free to check it out https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PCkCXhHIGI_jLWANqrlmDcyR8B5lHITUkScKFq43SO4/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for putting all this together!
This week I've been working on updating edshipyard with all the new beta information, including weapon damage and capacitor modeling; a preview of that update is available here: http://www.edshipyard.com/beta/
For the moment I have simply input all data values "as stated" from the beta's outfitting screens, but I see you've noted many cases where these values have inconsistent meanings (i.e. including reload time or not, etc). I wonder, would you be willing to prepare "normalized" values for things like capacitor draw and rate of fire that I can use to show more accurate modeling?
This week I've been working on updating edshipyard with all the new beta information, including weapon damage and capacitor modeling; a preview of that update is available here: http://www.edshipyard.com/beta/
For the moment I have simply input all data values "as stated" from the beta's outfitting screens, but I see you've noted many cases where these values have inconsistent meanings (i.e. including reload time or not, etc). I wonder, would you be willing to prepare "normalized" values for things like capacitor draw and rate of fire that I can use to show more accurate modeling?
Thanks for sharing this Truesilver! Very nice!
Hi Taleden,
Firstly let me say how honoured I feel to receive a request from you and how grateful I am to you for ED Shipyard - must have spent days on there
As we can see from the Patch Notes extract below, outfitting stats are in something of a state of flux at the moment and although I don't expect much more affecting the core weapons, on any basis we might want to wait until Beta is concluded before really going to town on this.
That said, my own thinking is that it might be better if (as you are already doing) ED Shipyard reflected official stats only rather than player-tested stats ... and (eg) altering DPS figures based on including or excluding reload times would potentially involve an element of testing (more so if including than excluding - excluding would be more reliable - if you see what I mean).
I think perhaps the best way forward is for me to start a fresh thread in the Beta forum with my proposed UI changes (see my post in the first page of this thread re frags etc). To do that I will of course need to check 2.1.4 tonight first. Then we can wait and see what if any changes FDev are willing to make during Beta ... before reviewing any remaining need for consistency improvements?
Thanks again for your post and please do keep in touch!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE CONCERNING 2.1.4 PATCH NOTES, OP EDITED:-
EDIT: Extract below from 12 May 2016 Beta 2.1.4 Patch Notes: tables will be amended to reflect changes below asap!
Weapons
- Assorted buffs/fixes/rebalancing to missiles:
- Speed of Seeker missiles increased from 450 to 625.
- Speed of drunk (packhound) missiles increased from 400 to 600.
- Speed of Dumbfire missiles increase from 600 to 750.
- Blast radius of small seekers and dumbfires increased to be in line with mediums (50% boost).
- Hardness piercing of small seekers & dumbfires plus drunk missiles brought up to intended levels and consistent with medium (100% boost).
- Base damage and hull/module split of all missiles increased as intended, approximately a 40% increase to hull damage and 120% increase to module damage.
- Missiles now take an extra two point defence shots to bring down, but are still easily shot!
- Some impact effects rebalanced in light of new material change
- More optimisations (Cannon in particular)
- Slightly increased damage and fire rate of turreted weapons so that they're more in line with the damage progression from fixed to gimballed
- Fixed the missing confusion stat from the new gimballed weapons we recently added
- Buffed cannons effectiveness without changing their DPS.
- Remove damage fall off completely. They'll now do their full damage up to their maximum range
- Slightly increase projectile speed so they're easier to use at range
- Increase armour piercing so they get to apply they're full damage to even larger ships than before
- Slightly increase their chance to breach the armour and increase the module/hull damage split when they do
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why, MrCoffee, how nice of you to drop by! As an in-game expression of your gratitude, would you kindly stop griefing my heat-inducing lasers with your heat sinks and my missiles with your point defence turrets?
Last edited:
Brilliant! Edited into the OP, with thanks, Super Dave
Tables now frozen as at 2.1.3, op edited with more info. To be unfrozen soon!
In relation to data presentation via Outfitting I have started a thread in the Beta forum here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=250367
In relation to data presentation via Outfitting I have started a thread in the Beta forum here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=250367
TL;DR: See below for a table of module attribute values with higher precision than is currently displayed in the new outfitting UI.
After looking over all the new attribute values that FDev has added (which are fantastic!) I've found myself wishing we had just a little more precision in some values, especially for weapons. For example, rate-of-fire is only given to one decimal place, which is okay for things like the 1G/G Multi-cannon since ~8.3/s at least gives two significant figures, and the potential rounding error is only 0.05 / 8.3 ~= 0.6%. But for things like the 1D/F and 1E/G Cannons which fire only ~0.5/s, that error is 0.05 / 0.5 ~= 10% which is a little more problematic. For those two modules in particular the issue is even clearer, since they appear to have matching rates of fire of 0.5/s but if you equip and fire them together, you can quickly see that they're actually slightly out of sync.
I made a post requesting that FDev consider increasing the precision of these displayed values, but in the mean time, I've found a way to get a little more accuracy out of the existing UI. The trick is to equip something with a value in some attribute which is both relatively small and known to a very high precision, and then use the outfitting percentage comparison to determine other values to within 1% of that reference value.
For example, the 1B/FD Missile Rack specifies its damage=50.0, rate-of-fire=0.5/s and damage-per-second=25.0/s, which are such nice round numbers that we can be fairly confident that they are in fact perfectly exact and not rounded at all. So if we equip that module and then browse for a replacement, such as the 1F/F Burst Laser, we see that its stated rate-of-fire of 4.7/s is +847% compared to the missile rack's 0.5, which means the actual value is probably closer to 0.5 * 9.47 = 4.735. (If its rate-of-fire were truly exactly 4.7, then we would expect the displayed difference to be (4.7 - 0.5) / 0.5 = +840% and not +847%). By repeating this process for all other modules which show the rate-of-fire in the summary stats (which is the only place we can get the nice +/-X% display), we can establish the true rate-of-fire of all those other modules to within approximately 0.5 * 0.01 = 0.005/s, which is much better than the 0.05 precision that we get by default.
We can do this for a few other attributes as well, using various modules as the reference value. For example, the 1D/F Mining Laser probably has exactly 2.0 damage-per-second which can give us a precision of 0.02 on everything else. Per-shot damage is a little trickier to establish, but the best candidate I could find was the 1E/G Fragment Cannon which has per-pellet damage of ~1.01 (found by comparing it to Torpedoes, which have damage of exactly 120.0). So with the frag cannon we can establish damage values to within ~0.01.
Unfortunately this process doesn't work for all attributes on all modules, because some types of module don't happen to show the desired attribute in the summary screen. For example Rail Guns don't show their per-shot damage or rate-of-fire in the comparison summary, so we can't get better values for those. But, for any module where we can improve the precision of at least two from among damage, rate-of-fire and damage-per-second, we can then use those two refined values to in turn refine the third value.
So, here are the tables of updated attribute values for various weapons, derived by following the process described above:
All of these values have been updated at www.edshipyard.com/beta 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).
After looking over all the new attribute values that FDev has added (which are fantastic!) I've found myself wishing we had just a little more precision in some values, especially for weapons. For example, rate-of-fire is only given to one decimal place, which is okay for things like the 1G/G Multi-cannon since ~8.3/s at least gives two significant figures, and the potential rounding error is only 0.05 / 8.3 ~= 0.6%. But for things like the 1D/F and 1E/G Cannons which fire only ~0.5/s, that error is 0.05 / 0.5 ~= 10% which is a little more problematic. For those two modules in particular the issue is even clearer, since they appear to have matching rates of fire of 0.5/s but if you equip and fire them together, you can quickly see that they're actually slightly out of sync.
I made a post requesting that FDev consider increasing the precision of these displayed values, but in the mean time, I've found a way to get a little more accuracy out of the existing UI. The trick is to equip something with a value in some attribute which is both relatively small and known to a very high precision, and then use the outfitting percentage comparison to determine other values to within 1% of that reference value.
For example, the 1B/FD Missile Rack specifies its damage=50.0, rate-of-fire=0.5/s and damage-per-second=25.0/s, which are such nice round numbers that we can be fairly confident that they are in fact perfectly exact and not rounded at all. So if we equip that module and then browse for a replacement, such as the 1F/F Burst Laser, we see that its stated rate-of-fire of 4.7/s is +847% compared to the missile rack's 0.5, which means the actual value is probably closer to 0.5 * 9.47 = 4.735. (If its rate-of-fire were truly exactly 4.7, then we would expect the displayed difference to be (4.7 - 0.5) / 0.5 = +840% and not +847%). By repeating this process for all other modules which show the rate-of-fire in the summary stats (which is the only place we can get the nice +/-X% display), we can establish the true rate-of-fire of all those other modules to within approximately 0.5 * 0.01 = 0.005/s, which is much better than the 0.05 precision that we get by default.
We can do this for a few other attributes as well, using various modules as the reference value. For example, the 1D/F Mining Laser probably has exactly 2.0 damage-per-second which can give us a precision of 0.02 on everything else. Per-shot damage is a little trickier to establish, but the best candidate I could find was the 1E/G Fragment Cannon which has per-pellet damage of ~1.01 (found by comparing it to Torpedoes, which have damage of exactly 120.0). So with the frag cannon we can establish damage values to within ~0.01.
Unfortunately this process doesn't work for all attributes on all modules, because some types of module don't happen to show the desired attribute in the summary screen. For example Rail Guns don't show their per-shot damage or rate-of-fire in the comparison summary, so we can't get better values for those. But, for any module where we can improve the precision of at least two from among damage, rate-of-fire and damage-per-second, we can then use those two refined values to in turn refine the third value.
So, here are the tables of updated attribute values for various weapons, derived by following the process described above:
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| 1E/F Beam Laser | 9.80 | 9.80 | - |
| 1E/G Beam Laser | 7.66 | 7.66 | - |
| 1F/T Beam Laser | 5.40 | 5.40 | - |
| 1F/F Burst Laser | 8.14 | 1.72 | 4.735 |
| 1G/G Burst Laser | 6.44 | 1.22 | 5.280 |
| 1G/T Burst Laser | 4.16 | 0.87 | 4.795 |
| 1F/F Pulse Laser | 7.88 | 2.04 | 3.847 |
| 1G/G Pulse Laser | 6.22 | 1.56 | 3.987 |
| 1G/T Pulse Laser | 3.96 | 1.18 | 3.339 |
| 1D/F Cannon | 8.60 | 17.20 | 0.500 |
| 1E/G Cannon | 7.20 | 13.90 | 0.520 |
| 1F/T Cannon | 4.80 | 11.10 | 0.435 |
| 1E/F Fragment Cannon | 95.32 | 1.43*12 | 5.555 |
| 1E/G Fragment Cannon | 71.28 | 1.01*12 | 5.880 |
| 1E/T Fragment Cannon | 39.42 | 0.69*12 | 4.760 |
| 1F/F Multi-cannon | 9.06 | 1.18 | 7.690 |
| 1G/G Multi-cannon | 6.82 | 0.82 | 8.330 |
| 1G/T Multi-cannon | 4.00 | 0.56 | 7.140 |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| 2D/F Beam Laser | 15.96 | 15.96 | - |
| 2D/G Beam Laser | 12.52 | 12.52 | - |
| 2E/T Beam Laser | 8.82 | 8.82 | - |
| 2E/F Burst Laser | 13.04 | 3.53 | 3.695 |
| 2F/G Burst Laser | 10.28 | 2.45 | 4.200 |
| 2F/T Burst Laser | 6.74 | 1.72 | 3.930 |
| 2E/F Pulse Laser | 12.06 | 3.49 | 3.448 |
| 2F/G Pulse Laser | 9.56 | 2.68 | 3.567 |
| 2F/T Pulse Laser | 6.20 | 2.04 | 3.037 |
| 2D/F Cannon | 12.14 | 26.39 | 0.465 |
| 2D/G Cannon | 10.24 | 21.30 | 0.485 |
| 2E/T Cannon | 6.88 | 17.19 | 0.405 |
| 2A/F Fragment Cannon | 153.58 | 12*2.56 | 5.000 |
| 2D/G Fragment Cannon | 123.14 | 12*1.95 | 5.260 |
| 2D/T Fragment Cannon | 74.60 | 12*1.43 | 4.345 |
| 2E/F Multi-cannon | 15.64 | 2.19 | 7.140 |
| 2F/G Multi-cannon | 12.60 | 1.64 | 7.690 |
| 2F/T Multi-cannon | 7.30 | 1.17 | 6.250 |
| 2C/F Plasma Accelerator | 16.92 | 51.27 | 0.330 |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| 3C/F Beam Laser | 25.78 | 25.78 | - |
| 3C/G Beam Laser | 20.28 | 20.28 | - |
| 3D/T Beam Laser | 14.34 | 14.34 | - |
| 3D/F Burst Laser | 20.78 | 7.74 | 2.685 |
| 3E/G Burst Laser | 16.60 | 5.16 | 3.215 |
| 3E/T Burst Laser | 11.00 | 3.53 | 3.115 |
| 3D/F Pulse Laser | 18.12 | 5.98 | 3.030 |
| 3E/G Pulse Laser | 14.76 | 4.58 | 3.223 |
| 3F/T Pulse Laser | 9.44 | 3.49 | 2.705 |
| 3C/F Cannon | 16.82 | 40.00 | 0.425 |
| 3C/G Cannon | 14.32 | 32.51 | 0.445 |
| 3D/T Cannon | 9.68 | 26.40 | 0.370 |
| 3C/F Fragment Cannon | 213.80 | 12*3.92 | 4.545 |
| 3C/G Fragment Cannon | 184.56 | 12*3.23 | 4.760 |
| 3C/T Fragment Cannon | 122.86 | 12*2.56 | 4.000 |
| 3C/F Multi-cannon | 20.76 | 3.53 | 5.880 |
| 3C/G Multi-cannon | 18.92 | 2.84 | 6.665 |
| 3B/F Plasma Accelerator | 22.60 | 77.97 | 0.290 |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| 4A/F Beam Laser | 41.38 | 41.38 | - |
| 4A/G Beam Laser | 32.68 | 32.68 | - |
| 4A/F Pulse Laser | 26.94 | 10.23 | 2.633 |
| 4A/G Pulse Laser | 21.72 | 7.82 | 2.777 |
| 4B/F Cannon | 22.94 | 60.31 | 0.385 |
| 4B/G Cannon | 19.68 | 49.20 | 0.400 |
| 4A/F Multi-cannon | 24.48 | 2*4.04 | 3.030 |
| 4A/G Multi-cannon | 23.28 | 2*3.46 | 3.365 |
| 4A/F Plasma Accelerator | 26.30 | 105.19 | 0.250 |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
| 1F/F Cytoscrambler Burst Laser | 18.28 | 2.40 | 7.615 |
| 1F/F Enforcer Cannon | 13.04 | 3.00 | 4.345 |
| 2E/F Pulse Disruptor Laser | 4.66 | 2.80 | 1.664 |
| 3C/F Pacifier Frag-Cannon | 185.44 | 12*3.40 | 4.545 |
| Module | DPS | Dmg | ROF |
All of these values have been updated at www.edshipyard.com/beta 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).
Awesome, simply awesome.
Op edited with link to ED Shipyard Beta, will review tables again when I finalise this thread after 2.1 goes live.
Thanks for a truly great post, very very useful.
I am however left wondering where Hull Reinforcements sit in this?
From what you say about Military spec armour I am assuming that HRP also just add to armour hit points?
If this is the true there may be a case for working out kg for kg which is better HRP or Mil Armour.
HRP's fitted 'off the shelf' add the hit points shown in outfitting plus a small, yet 'stackable' improvement to the hull's damage resistance modifiers, which can also be found in outfitting.
o7
All tables now updated to Open 2.1
You really need a volunteer to be your target vessel, ideally taking video of your testing which you can later consider also. The 'Groups' section of the forums or reddit equivalent could be a good place to start if you're short of volunteers!
Patch 22.6.16, added Huge Burst Lasers