This is about EVE Online


An analysis of turrets’ attributes – 1


A long, long time ago I wrote a post in which I tried to analyse the differences between turrets. I was looking to form my own opinions on the subject, rather than guessing or accepting what others said, especially in a game like EVE Online in which there are many players with opinions. Due to my limitations with the latest developments in software at that time (my skills were focused on C and C++ as applied to science and engineering), I extracted the data manually (from the info page of each item) for the meta 0 items only, and did an analysis with the understanding that the higher meta variants kept their relative differences unchanged – meaning that the meta 0 rankings would still remain true for the meta 5 items. Since I was only interested in the relative comparison between the turrets, and not actually looking for the dps (or any other) value, such a reasoning seemed valid (I still think it is).

Nowadays, I discovered the beauty of SQL together with the EVE data dump, and I am proudly presenting you with the latest analysis, this time including all items. I must admit that spreadsheets were still employed to carry out the sorting and comparison functions, as I am still in the process of learning how to do that directly in SQL. I tell you, if ever you need to learn new software and techniques, do that on the data dump of your favourite MMO! In this regard, a big thank you goes to the authors of this and this post.

So I will be posting a series of articles in order to present the data and make it readable and manageable. The plan for the posts is as follows:

  1. Presentation of the series (this post);
  2. The analytic framework;
  3. Raw data for small turrets;
  4. Analysis, comparison and rankings for small turrets;
  5. Raw data for medium turrets;
  6. Analysis, comparison and rankings for medium turrets;
  7. Raw data for large turrets;
  8. Analysis, comparison and rankings for large turrets;
  9. Raw data, analysis, comparison and rankings for the extra large turrets.

In carrying out my research, I was very frustrated at not finding the raw data readily available for copy-pasting in a spreadsheet. In this series you will find the raw data available for your enjoyment. I also hope to stimulate your creativity in playing with the numbers and come out with your own discoveries and conclusions. Based on feedback and RL time availability, I also plan to carry out a similar study of the numerous hulls available ingame.


Sov mechanics, technetium and null sec politics

Today I read two blog posts about the recent situation between CFC and HBC.  These are the two blocs controlling EVE’s null sec and relations seem to have deteriorated but no true war is forthcoming.

One blog author, Marc Saurus, attributes this to the sovereignty mechanics, quoting the sources as saying that they are not willing to go through the lengthy grind of the mechanic in order to win sov (again).

A war that would’ve involved 20,000 players, 75% of nullsec space, and hundreds of supercapitals was halted not by diplomacy, but by a game mechanic so dreadful that those who have experienced it previously have no desire to do so again.” [Marc Saurus]

The second blog author, Poetic Stanziel, attributes this lack of will to warring to the fact that it will be economically damaging to the big boy, so in the face of such costs the will to war dwindles.

Being in EVE since 2009 – I am now unsubscribed (since a couple of weeks) but follow it attentively out of game – I tend to agree with Poetic Stanziel more.  Before unsubscribing I was in wormholes.  I liked them because they resembled null sec, the place I loved most in EVE.  The place I couldn’t live in due to the way the “leaders” there expect others to play – a requirement which ultimately results in the leaders’ benefit, not the players.  It is always for their benefit, the few who assure for themselves a massive passive income by dictating the gameplay of others.  In the years since I left I had been experiencing a “I can’t live with you – I can’t live without you” situation which ultimately lead to not renewing my subscribtion.

Marc Saurus is also right although he misdiagnosed the situation and put the blame on the game mechanic and CCP.  Sov warfare is an endless grind because the players, the same few who do not want this war and dictate the gameplay of others, made it such by hoarding so much space under one cap.  This in itself is the problem: the sheer quantity of systems that need to be attacked; and not the mechanic.  The mechanic is great when holding or wanting a handful (or a few more) of systems.  In the mechanic systems are owned by Corporations, not alliances.  This was meant to create a dynamic environment in which corps leaving/joining alliances would change the sov scenario and make it highly dynamic.  This mechanic allowed for attacking key corporations, breaking them, thus breaking the alliance.  The leaders do not like this – they want the ultimate control, to the point that even with a few corps they can still hold on to the space until the next bill comes along.  These alliance leaders created the system in which solar systems are held by the alliance’s infrastructure corp, thus avoiding this dynamism and in the process creating the bloc spanning multiple regions.  Corps joining or leaving the alliance do not have an effect on the alliance’s holdings.  THIS is the problem.

The tendency (or drive by the few in safeguarding their interests) for the focus to be on alliances rather than corps.  THIS is the problem.

Can I do something about it?

Poetic Stanziel referred to moon resources (in particular technetium) as the reason behind it.

The only reason why this war will not happen is because of technetium. The Mittani can try to spin it any way he wants. As crappy as the sovereignty mechanics in EVE Online may be, it certainly did not stop The Mittani from prosecuting several wars to capture more of New Eden’s technetium supply. And at least one war to protect the tech cartel he helped create.” [Poetic Stanziel]

Technetium inevitably pops up whenever null politics is discussed.  The location of this (and other valuable) mineral is unknown to the common folk – those who would eagerly harass the establishment through guerrilla tactics.  Its location is a heavily guarded secret and whoever has this information will not divulge it readily.  This is also part of the information that keeps the large null sec alliance beyond the reach of the smaller ones.

I believe in the old adage that information is power (or a good part of it).  I think that if the location of moon minerals is known with precision, initiatives for targeted attacks will arise and a serious challenge to the establishment can be created.  The biggest threat will be from those whose only aim will be to watch the world burn, and for these guys I’ll be acting!

The Moon Survey Project

I will return to the game and start a survey of the moons in the North of New Eden and publish here, for public knowledge, my findings.  You can help too, by doing the same and posting your own findings.  Most importantly I urge you to use my findings and get a fleet to disable these POSes, or go do some other damage and harassment.

THEY deserve nothing better.  Because null sec is ours, not theirs.  It is mine too!

CTA and 100% tax

Yesterday (Saturday) I logged on to add some skill training to the queue and check mails.  In alliance there was a message that today (Sunday) there were going to be 3 ops.  I made a mental note to check whether on Sunday there was going to be 100% tax on Corp.


And on Sunday, as expected, there was a corp mail by the leader saying that since these ops were important, 100% tax was going to be set ALL DAY to encourage participation in these ops.  Now some things really piss me off about this policy:

Firstly, the moment I see it, I just log off and go to another game.

Secondly, 100% tax affects only those who rat (like me).  I think I’ll be turning miner in view of all these 100%-tax occassions.

Thirdly, any op seems to be a CTA these days.


I just wonder, from a management point of view, how effective is 100% tax to encourage participation.

Player classifications

Have you ever had a look at the recruitment channel, or at the recruitment threads on the forums?

“Looking for pvp pilots” …

“Miners/Industrialists/Mission runners wanted” …

“… check them out, they have a pretty good killboard …”

Take me.  I do some mining every now and then, build some things every now and then, run a couple of missions, do some exploration, move stuff from A to B when needed, and when bored, go for a solo roam to the nearest red dots on the map (the fact that my battleclinic kb does not have recent kills/losses, doesn’t mean I don’t go out – it only means I loose ships less frequently).  What does this make me?  How do I answer to such adverts?

Take it one step to the generic.  Why classify players?  Is it not possible in EVE to do whatever you please as long as you have the skills for it?  It’s not like you choose a race and skills and can not change them, or do other things apart from the initial set.  Why the classification?

Is it related to mindset?  Because then I’m really sorry for whoever thinks this way.  EVE is a G A M E, nothing else.  Do you want a job?  Look for it in real life, not here, where it absolutely means nothing!  What are you going to earn by doing what you are told in this game?  ISK?  And what is the real life impact of that?  Wasted time?

Turrets! Of Autocannons, Blasters and Pulse weapons

This post is dedicated to the analysis of short range turrets.  I have heard many capsuleers talk about the autocannon and how it allows you to dictate range, and about the highly situational nature of the blasters.  I have never until now got their stats in one table and did my own comparisons.  So here it is, for my own benefit not to lose the information gathered, and for all you my readers.

The analysis considers small turrets only, keeping in mind that the pattern repeats itself on the mediums and heavy guns.  It also considers the T2 versions; once again the ratios remain the same across the whole meta range.  Also note that these are the base values which will be modified through the skills; again, the ratios remain unaltered for the same skill levels.

Tracking (rad/s)
Name of turret Value %
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 0.417 1.00
Light Electron Blaster II 0.365 0.88
150mm Light AutoCannon II 0.362 0.87
Light Ion Blaster II 0.336 0.81
Light Neutron Blaster II 0.317 0.76
200mm AutoCannon II 0.315 0.76
Gatling Pulse Laser II 0.308 0.74
Dual Light Pulse Laser II 0.274 0.66
Medium Pulse Laser II 0.246 0.59

We start by looking at tracking.  This number represents how fast a turret is able to rotate.  In practical terms it relates to how fast and close a ship can orbit you and still be hit.  The higher it is, the better.

Optimal range (m)
Name of turret Value %
Medium Pulse Laser II 6000 1.00
Dual Light Pulse Laser II 5400 0.90
Gatling Pulse Laser II 4800 0.80
Light Neutron Blaster II 1800 0.30
Light Ion Blaster II 1500 0.25
Light Electron Blaster II 1200 0.20
200mm AutoCannon II 1200 0.20
150mm Light AutoCannon II 1080 0.18
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 960 0.16

Optimal range is also a value taken directly from the stats of the items.  This represents how far out the turret can throw its damage.  At this range, full damage can be dealt.  Complementing this is the falloff value, also very important, but due to the high optimal of the pulse weapons, falloff of the others becomes irrelevant.

Name of turret Value %
Light Neutron Blaster II 1.20 1.00
Light Ion Blaster II 1.13 0.94
Light Electron Blaster II 1.05 0.88
Medium Pulse Laser II 1.03 0.86
200mm AutoCannon II 0.92 0.77
Dual Light Pulse Laser II 0.89 0.74
150mm Light AutoCannon II 0.88 0.73
Gatling Pulse Laser II 0.86 0.71
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 0.83 0.69

This value is calculated by taking the ‘damage modifier’ and dividing it by the ‘rate of fire’.  The higher this number, the more damage per second the turret does.  In this category nothing beats the blasters.

Tracking DPS
Name of turret Value %
Light Electron Blaster II 0.383 1.00
Light Neutron Blaster II 0.380 0.99
Light Ion Blaster II 0.378 0.99
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 0.344 0.90
150mm Light AutoCannon II 0.318 0.83
200mm AutoCannon II 0.291 0.76
Gatling Pulse Laser II 0.264 0.69
Medium Pulse Laser II 0.253 0.66
Dual Light Pulse Laser II 0.243 0.63

Whilst DPS is important, it quickly becomes irrelevant if you cannot hit your target.  In this table, we take the DPS calculated earlier and multiply it with the tracking speed.  The higher the number, the more we are assured that our damage hits the target.  A major assumption of this table is that the target is within the optimal range of the guns.  Once again, in this category nothing beats the blasters and the pulse weapons lose their position to the autocannons.  Consider this table if you are sure you are the one to dictate range during the engagement.

Range Tracking DPS
Name of turret Value %
Medium Pulse Laser II 1773.0 1.00
Dual Light Pulse Laser II 1496.5 0.84
Gatling Pulse Laser II 1333.7 0.75
Light Neutron Blaster II 1158.4 0.65
200mm AutoCannon II 1047.8 0.59
150mm Light AutoCannon II 1043.3 0.59
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 1018.3 0.57
Light Ion Blaster II 945.0 0.53
Light Electron Blaster II 747.3 0.42

Sometimes it is very difficult to get close to a target for using effectively the blasters.  It is very common to find yourself between 5km and 10km from a target, and this is a good range if you want to use your full ship speed, maintain a decent orbit, and make effective use of the speed tanking tactic.  It is also important to make sure that your guns are tracking effectively the target, otherwise it becomes useless to shoot.

This table considers all these factors.  The value represents DPS x optimal range x tracking.

Range Tracking
Name of turret Value %
Gatling Pulse Laser II 741 1.00
Dual Light Pulse Laser II 624 0.84
Medium Pulse Laser II 493 0.66
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 411 0.56
Light Electron Blaster II 356 0.48
150mm Light AutoCannon II 351 0.47
200mm AutoCannon II 302 0.41
Light Ion Blaster II 280 0.38
Light Neutron Blaster II 276 0.37

If you are looking for a gun that hits something no matter what, the Gatling Pulse Laser II is the one for you.  This table considers only range and tracking.  High ranking guns in this table could be ideal to get those troublesome drones off your back, or scare away that tackler!