Stats for these are also now up on edshipyard.com, including higher-precision DPS, damage and ROF figures than what are displayed in-game, using the technique described earlier in this thread. (And you can remove the /beta from the link in the first post, now that all these changes are live
)Stats for these are also now up on edshipyard.com, including higher-precision DPS, damage and ROF figures than what are displayed in-game, using the technique described earlier in this thread. (And you can remove the /beta from the link in the first post, now that all these changes are live
Hi. When can we expect an update? Thanks
STATUS: UP TO DATE FOR OPEN 2.2.2
+++ Last 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 +++
NOTE THAT IN 2.2.3, AFTER A BETA, SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE EXPECTED. A FULL REVISION WILL OF COURSE FOLLOW
Preamble
The official stats below come from Open 2.1 on 31st May 2016. No changes have been reported since then.
Initially I’m going to focus on 12 core stats that affect damage to shields and hull - most transferred from in-game but some extrapolated. You'll note from the Outfitting screens that even more data is available and I may add (e.g.) Armour Piercing and Breach Damage at a future point. I have, however, already included a 13th stat - projectile velocity numbers (where applicable) - just because ... it's so great finally to have them.
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 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
Note from the above that the truly 'hard' figures are FDev, RoF, DPS, Draw, and ShSp (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, 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
WEAPON c4 Beam - f
-
-
-
- 41.4
49.7
41.4
9.1
9.1 -
5.46
4.55
c4 Beam - f c4 Beam - g
-
-
-
- 32.7
39.2
32.7
8.99
8.99 -
4.36
3.64
c4 Beam - g c4 Burst - f 20.6 24.72 20.6 1.6 32.3 38.8 32.3 3.71 5.94 5.55 6.53 5.44 c4 Burst - f c4 Burst - g 12.1 14.52 12.1 2.1 25.9 31.1 25.9 2.72 5.71 4.45 5.45 4.54 c4 Burst - g c4 Pulse - f
10.2
12.24
10.2
2.6 26.9
32.3
26.9
1.64
4.26 6.22
7.58
6.31
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
c4 Pulse - g c3 Beam - f
-
-
-
- 25.8
31.0
25.8
5.67
5.67 -
5.46
4.55
c3 Beam - f c3 Beam - g
-
-
-
- 20.3
24.4
20.3
5.58
5.58 -
4.37
3.64
c3 Beam - g c3 Beam - t
-
-
-
- 14.4
17.3
14.4
3.51
3.51 -
4.93
4.10
c3 Beam - t c3 Burst - f
7.7
9.24
7.7
2.7 20.8
25.0
20.8
1.39
3.75 5.54
6.66
5.55
c3 Burst - f c3 Burst - g
5.2
6.24
5.2
3.2 16.6
19.9
16.6
1.16
3.71 4.48
5.36
4.47
c3 Burst - g c3 Burst - t
3.5
4.2
3.5
3.1 11.0
13.2
11.0
0.63
1.95 5.56
6.77
5.64
c3 Burst - t c3 Pulse - f
6.0
7.2
6.0
3.0 18.1
21.7
18.1
0.96
2.88 6.25
7.54
6.28
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
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
c3 Pulse - t c2 Beam - f
-
-
-
- 16.0
19.2
16.0
3.51
3.51 -
5.51
4.59
c2 Beam - f c2 Mining Laser - - - - 4.0 4.8 4.0 3.0 3.0 - 1.60 1.33 c2 Mining Laser c2 Beam - g
-
-
-
- 12.5
15.0
12.5
3.44
3.44 -
4.36
3.63
c2 Beam - g c2 Beam - t
-
-
-
- 8.8
10.6
8.8
2.16
2.16 -
4.91
4.07
c2 Beam - t c2 Burst - f
3.5
4.2
3.5
3.7 13.0
15.6
13.0
0.63
2.33 5.56
6.7
5.58
c2 Burst - f c2 Burst - g
2.5
3.0
2.5
4.2 10.3
12.4
10.3
0.55
2.31 4.55
5.35
4.46
c2 Burst - g c2 Burst - t
1.7
2.04
1.7
3.9 6.8
8.2
6.8
0.31
1.21 5.48 6.78
5.62
c2 Burst - t c2 Pulse - f
3.5
4.2
3.5
3.4 12.1
14.5
12.1
0.56
1.9 6.25
7.64
6.37
c2 Pulse - f c2 Pulse Disruptor*
2.8
3.36
2.8
1.7 4.7
5.6
4.7
1.0
1.7 2.8
3.31
2.76
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
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
c2 Pulse - t c1 Beam - f
-
-
-
- 9.8
11.8
9.8
2.16
2.16 -
5.45
4.54
c1 Beam - f c1 Retributor
-
-
-
- 4.9
5.9
4.9
2.8
2.8 -
2.1
1.75
c1 Retributor c1 Mining Laser - - - - 2.0 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.5 - 1.6 1.33 c1 Mining Laser c1 Torval Min Lance
-
-
-
- 8.0
9.6
8.0
1.75
1.75 -
5.48
4.57
c1 Torval Min Lance c1 Beam - g
-
-
-
- 7.7
9.2
7.7
2.11
2.11 -
4.38
3.65
c1 Beam - g c1 Beam - t
-
-
-
- 5.4
6.5
5.4
1.32
1.32 -
4.92
4.09
c1 Beam - t c1 Burst - f
1.7
2.04
1.7
4.7 8.1
9.7
8.1
0.31
1.46 5.48
6.66
5.55
c1 Burst - f c1 Cytroscr**
2.4
2.88
2.4**
7.6 18.3
22.0
18.3**
0.4
3.04 6.0
7.22
6.02**
c1 Cytroscr c1 Burst - g
1.2
1.44
1.2
5.3 6.4
7.7
6.4
0.27
1.43 4.44
5.38
4.48
c1 Burst - g c1 Burst - t 0.9 1.08 0.9 4.8 4.2 5.0 4.2 0.16 0.77 5.63 6.49 5.45 c1 Burst - t c1 Pulse - f
2.0
2.4
2.0
3.8 7.9
9.5
7.9
0.33
1.25 6.06
7.58
6.32
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
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
c1 Pulse - t WEAPON FDev Shield Hull RoF DPS DPSvS DPSvH Draw EPS DPE EvS EvH 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 is believed to be subject to a unique adverse modifier reducing hull damage to next to nothing, so the hull damage stats should not be relied upon. I do not know whether shield damage is correspondingly increased beyond the figures given above.
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 inputted '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 WEAPON c4 Cannon - f
66.5
39.9
79.8
0.4 25.3
15.18
30.36
1.61
0.64 41.3
23.72
47.44
900 c4 Cannon - f c4 Cannon - g
49.2
29.52
59.04
0.4 19.7
11.82
23.64
1.72
0.69 28.6
17.13
34.26
750 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 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 c4 Multi - g c3 Cannon - f
44.5
26.7
53.4
0.4 18.7
11.22
22.44
1.07
0.43 41.59
26.09
52.19
959 c3 Cannon - f c3 Cannon - g
32.5
19.5
39.0
0.4 14.3
8.58
17.16
1.14
0.46 28.51
18.65
37.3
800 c3 Cannon - g c3 Cannon - t
26.4
15.84
31.68
0.4 9.7
5.82
11.64
0.53
0.21 49.81
27.71
55.42
800 c3 Cannon - t c3 Frag - f
3.9
2.34
4.68
4.5 213.8
128.28
256.56
0.57
2.57 6.84
49.91
99.82
667 c3 Frag - f c3 Pacifier
3.4
2.04
4.08
4.5 185.5
111.3
222.6
0.57
2.57 5.96
43.31
86.62
1000 c3 Pacifier c3 Frag - g
3.2
1.92
3.84
4.8 184.6
110.76
221.52
0.81
3.89 3.95
28.47
56.94
667 c3 Frag - g c3 Frag - t
2.6
1.14
2.28
4.0 122.9
73.74
147.48
0.37
1.48 7.03
49.82
99.64
667 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 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 c3 Multi - g c2 Cannon - f
29.5
17.7
35.4
0.5 13.6
8.16
16.32
0.70
0.35 42.14
23.31
46.63
1051 c2 Cannon - f c2 Cannon - g
21.3
12.78
25.56
0.5 10.3
6.18
12.36
0.75
0.38 28.4
16.26
32.52
875 c2 Cannon - g c2 Cannon - t
17.2
10.32
20.64
0.4 6.9
4.14
8.28
0.34
0.14 50.59
29.57
59.14
875 c2 Cannon - t c2 Frag - f
2.6
1.56
3.12
5.0 153.6
92.16
184.32
0.37
1.85 7.03
49.82
99.64
667 c2 Frag - f c2 Frag - g
2.0
1.2
2.4
5.3 123.2
73.92
147.84
0.49
2.6 4.08
28.43
56.86
667 c2 Frag - g c2 Frag - t
1.4
0.84
1.68
4.3 74.6
44.76
89.52
0.21
0.90 6.67
49.73
99.46
667 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 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 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 c2 Multi - t c1 Cannon - f
18.0
10.8
21.6
0.5 9.0
5.4
10.8
0.46
0.23 39.13
23.48
46.96
1200 c1 Cannon - f c1 Cannon - g
13.9
8.34
16.68
0.5 7.2
4.32
8.64
0.48
0.24 28.96
18.0
36.0
1000 c1 Cannon - g c1 Cannon - t
11.1
6.66
13.32
0.4 4.8
2.88
5.76
0.22
0.09 50.45
32.0
64.0
1000 c1 Cannon - t c1 Frag - f
1.4
0.84
1.68
5.6 95.3
57.18
114.36
0.21
1.18 6.67
48.46
96.92
667 c1 Frag - f c1 Frag - g
1.0
0.6
1.2
5.9 71.3
42.78
85.56
0.26
1.53 3.85
27.96
55.92
667 c1 Frag - g c1 Frag - t
0.7
0.42
0.84
4.8 39.4
23.64
47.28
0.10
0.48 7.0
49.25
98.5
667 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 c1 Multi - f c1 Enforcer
3.0
1.8
3.6
4.3 13.0
7.8
15.6
0.12
0.52 25.0
15.0
30.0
1800 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 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 c1 Multi - t WEAPON FDev Shield Hull RoF DPS DPSvS DPSvH Draw EPS DPE EvS EvH ShSp 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
Note: For rail gun thermal-kinetic breakdown see Truesilver's Tests, No.2:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=240168
The figures below assume, pending further testing, that plasma damage is in the same ratio, see Notes & Acknowledgments for a detailed discussion. Note however that it is at least possible (recent comments by FDev in November 2016) that the balance is more thermal even than that. But this will soon become academic when plasma becomes no-type damage in 2.2.3)
WEAPON
FDev
Shield
Hull
RoF DPS
DPSvS
DPSvH
Draw
EPS DPE
EvS
EvH
ShSp WEAPON c4 PA
120.0
120.0
128.04
0.3 30.0
30.0
32.01
21.04
6.31 5.70
4.75
5.07 875 c4 PA c3 PA
80.0
80.0
85.36
0.3 23.2
23.2 24.75
13.6
4.08 5.88
5.69
6.07 875 c3 PA c3 Adv Acc
33.0
33.0
35.21
0.8 27.5
27.5
29.34
5.5
4.4 6.0
6.25
6.67
875 c3 Adv Acc c2 PA
52.0
52.0
55.48
0.3 17.2
17.2
18.35
8.65
2.6 6.01
6.62
7.06
875 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
- 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
- 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
- c1 Rail WEAPON FDev Shield Hull RoF DPS DPSvS DPSvH Draw EPS DPE EvS EvH ShSp 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 WEAPON Torpedo
120.0
60.0
168.0
1.0 120.0
60.0
168.0
-
- -
-
-
150 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 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 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 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 Pack hound Mine** 44.0 31.94 55.18 1.0 44.0 31.94 55.18 - - - - - - Mine Shock Mine** 32.0 23.23 40.13 1.0 32.0 23.23 40.13 - - - - - - Shock Mine WEAPON FDev Shield Hull RoF DPS DPSvS DPSvH Draw EPS DPE EvS EvH ShSp 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 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 and plasma accelerators (including their Powerplay variants) 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 thermal-kinetic breakdown of plasma, nor the explosive-thermal breakdown of mines.
However, Outfitting uses the words 'the main type of damage' and then gives that for rails and plasma as thermal and for mines as explosive.
I therefore think it reasonable to assume, pending testing, that plasma is 2:1 thermal-kinetic, like rails, and 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%
(Note however, that in the case of plasma some recent comments by FDev may mean that there is even more thermal component than 66%. But this will soon become academic when plasma becomes no-type damage in 2.2.3)
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%
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.
For more on piercing / hardness see the Outfitting stats for Armour Piercing and also Cmdr Frentox’s superb piercing thread (link provided earlier).
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, lower penetration weapons 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 finally 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
