Warframe Damage Chart

[oriam]

After months away form warframe and spreadsheet, i'm back with an updated chart.

This chart compares every weapon in game, all of the weapons use a build to maximize their damage potential.

The Tiers are my personal opinion, if you think that they are wrong you are free to suggest a modification.

If you spot any mistake in the chart's math or spelling, please let me know.

Warframe Damage Chart

To the Moderators: If this is not the right place to post the chart on i will happily move the post.

[Robolaser]

I just noticed that for the Quanta and QV, you listed the manually detonated secondary projectile's damage instead of the beams damage. It might cause confusion, as the rate of fire and magazine capacity values become irrelevant. Maybe add a cell comment, and/or list the beams damage instead for consistency?

Nitpicking aside, these stats seems presented in a really convenient way overall. As always it's up to each reader to make good use of them. Calculations, builds and tiers are given exemples. Thank you very much for sharing :)

Edited September 11, 2016 by Robolaser

[OkniolasPrime]

Holy hek!

 

That's quite a spreadsheet you got there, I'm sure I'll find this most useful when instructing never players whom I've recruited in to my clan, have my upvote OP.

Edited September 10, 2016 by okinolas
Typos, typos everywhere.

[ScorpioneITA]

Heavy caliber on lanka.... ARE YOU INSANE? :O

[oriam]

20 minutes ago, ScorpioneITA said:

Heavy caliber on lanka.... ARE YOU INSANE? :O

Yes, that was the thing that i forgot, Argon Scope on snipers and bows

EDIT: Fixed, removed Heavy Caliber from all Snipers and Bows

Edited September 10, 2016 by oriam

[Cray]

It's not just about numbers on a piece of paper. There are multiple reasons why I'll choose the Strun Wraith over the Rakta Cernos, and the Dex Sybaris over the Synoid Simulor.

 

And vice versa.

Edited September 10, 2016 by DeltaPhantom

[oriam]

45 minutes ago, DeltaPhantom said:

It's not just about numbers on a piece of paper. There are multiple reasons why I'll choose the Strun Wraith over the Rakta Cernos, and the Dex Sybaris over the Synoid Simulor.

 

And vice versa.

The chart is just a tool to help player compare different weapons, but the tiers are admittedly a little bit arbitrary.. (Also having two of the most "apples to oranges" comparisons possible doesn't really help your point.)

Edited September 10, 2016 by oriam

[Xzorn]

I'm not sure where most of these damage numbers are coming from. None of the weapons I've calculated in the past show similar results.

If you want to truly compare weapons you have to calculate proc probability, avg Bleed proc rate per second and Avg Bleed damage per second.

Of course there's still things like crit Vs head-shots and armor will cause results to vary no matter what. This just seems like it will confuse new players.

Also try this Dread build and re-evaluate please. http://goo.gl/4lXEf9

[oriam]

1 hour ago, Xzorn said:

I'm not sure where most of these damage numbers are coming from. None of the weapons I've calculated in the past show similar results.

If you want to truly compare weapons you have to calculate proc probability, avg Bleed proc rate per second and Avg Bleed damage per second.

Of course there's still things like crit Vs head-shots and armor will cause results to vary no matter what. This just seems like it will confuse new players.

Also try this Dread build and re-evaluate please. http://goo.gl/4lXEf9

If it wasn't clear enough, i don't really care about status.

The chart uses all pure number without taking into consideration the damage type or armor, and includes a mini modding guide to help new players.

Care to share what formula you use? One of the reason i created the chart is warframe builder bad math, so i wouldn't be surprise if the calculations there would differ from mine.

That dread build is too slow imho, anemic agility is a must.

[Xzorn]

8 minutes ago, oriam said:

If it wasn't clear enough, i don't really care about status.

The chart uses all pure number without taking into consideration the damage type or armor, and includes a mini modding guide to help new players.

Care to share what formula you use? One of the reason i created the chart is warframe builder bad math, so i wouldn't be surprise if the calculations there would differ from mine.

That dread build is too slow imho, anemic agility is a must.

 

So then there's no point in the list at all then....

You don't care to represent any near accuracy to actual weapon performance. This is not good for new players. It's not good for anyone really.

Spoiler

Sustained DPS Formula: damage per second = [ physical damage per shot + elemental damage per shot ] * [ 1 + ( critical multiplier - 1 ) * critical chance / 100 ] * clipsize / [ reload time + ( clipsize - 1 ) / fire rate ]

Burst DPS Formula:  damage per second = [ physical damage per shot + elemental damage per shot ] * [ 1 + ( critical multiplier - 1 ) * critical chance / 100 ] * fire rate

Avg Damage per Shot Formula:  damage = [ physical damage per shot + elemental damage per shot ] * [ 1 + ( critical multiplier - 1 ) * critical chance / 100 ]

Proc Rate Formula:  status rate = number of pellets * (1 - ( 1 - status chance ) ^ (1 / number of pellets) Or use a Binomial calculator like this one http://vassarstats.net/binomialX.html

Warframe builder is correct around 80% of the time. There's a 1% deviation in Sustained DPS. I think because they don't consider the first bullet fired before counting. I'm not sure I never cared enough to check. The off-brand weapons are sometimes incorrect. Like for a while Twin Grakatas was wrong and I believe Twin Khomak is wrong currently. But it's still a decent quick reference and good for showing someone a build. It's just not to be fully trusted.

The Dread build I linked you has superior Damage per shot to Rakta Cernos. You can't say you only care about the raw numbers then talk about handling. Besides it's a bow, they're primary stat is Damage per shot not DPS.

[Cray]

2 hours ago, oriam said:

Also having two of the most "apples to oranges" comparisons possible doesn't really help your point.

Two weapons may be apples and oranges, but when you're picking your weapons, the factors that make them so vastly different are going to matter. If it's a stealth mission, I'd prefer the Cernos to the Strun. If I'm walking into an augmented armor sortie, Strun or bust. But if you still want apples to apples, I'd pick the Dread over the Cernos in certain missions, and the Cernos over the Dread in others. The same argument can be said for the Sancti Tigris and the Tigris Prime, either Tigris and the Vaykor Hek, and the Strun Wraith and the Boar Prime (to name a few).

 

Take a look at (this) chart. It shows damage modifier growth as a function of corrosive procs against a level 200 Bombard. Even though Corrosive suffers against Alloy Armor (compared to packing Radiation), a high-status weapon that farts corrosive procs (Strun Wraith, Boar Prime, Akstiletto Prime, Tysis, etc.) will make short work of that armor, allowing you to quickly ramp up your damage against that Bombard.

 

I will admit: You can't really show status in a chart like yours. But then, you can't show actual, non-paper damage vs. anything, unless you have either too many entries, or too few. Believe me, I've tried: Apart from varying amounts of health and armor, there's also shields and shield-to-health carry-over to consider, as well as Viral, Toxin, Slash, Magnetic, Heat, and Gas procs. Unless you run the numbers for a specific enemy at a specific level, you'll never be able to show your true DPS. And even that's not enough, because status throws a monkey wrench into any plans to calculate an average. The actual solution is to write yourself a simulation engine and recreate Damage 2.0, then feed it weapon and enemy stats, and calculate an average across 1000+ simulations. (I'm doing this right now, no eta for release though...)

 

The point is, I don't think choosing weapons based on paper-DPS is something we should be telling beginner players to do. I think a better test would be to show how high enemy levels have to go before the weapon starts to really fall off in damage output. (Ex: This weapon with this build can handle up to level 50 Grineer without issue) This sort of measuring stick is much easier to relate to than a field of numbers that you'll never actually see in-game.

[oriam]

26 minutes ago, DeltaPhantom said:

snip

The fact is that base damage typing matter very little, at most they account for 45% of the average damage, and if they are physical their multipliers are much smaller than  elemental multipliers. If the base damage is elemental it will get mix in the average damage so there is no problem there. What you should use this chart for is a baseline, if the weapon i correctly modded you will deal quite a bit more damage, i think that the weapons will deviate at most 5% from their spot considering armor multipliers (based off memory of some calculations i did some time ago which was Rakta Cernos vs Dread, the Rakta did in fact win against all possible enemies). Status proc damage is also gravy.

What i'm getting at is that you don't need a 100% precise tool with all of the variables, you need something good enough, that 100% precision is going to prove the chart wrong roughly 5% of times (referring to the comparisons of the weapons), it's not worth it to  create a simulator to get those 5% of cases covered imho.

Also i'm adding status chance to weapons that would benefit from it (as of now it means 30%+ base status chance for melee and secondary, working on the primaries)

I guess the Tier is kinda of the indicator in the chart, even though the Burston Prime has the highest burst dps in game, it is in tier 2, not on the level of ter 1 or tier 1.5 weapons, that is more of a felt/handling thing that i do account in the chart, and actually want feedback on.

1 hour ago, Xzorn said:

snip

Read above to see why i feel the chart is useful,

Now we are going to talk about the math:

Let's start from the basics

Average Damage per Shot= [ physical damage per shot + elemental damage per shot ] * [ 1 + ( critical multiplier - 1 ) * critical chance / 100 ]

Now because no build in the chart uses IPS mods, and nobody should use them because they are bad.

The elemental damage per shot is calculated off of the physical damage per shot

so [ physical damage per shot + elemental damage per shot ]= physical damage per shot*(1+elemental multiplier)

from now on PHYS*(1+ELE)

The PHYS can be broken down in: base damage, base damage multiplier & multi-shot multiplier with this relationship

PHYS= Base damage*(1+Base damage multipliers)*Multi-shot Multiplier

From now on PHYS=BASE*(1+BASEm)*MULTIm

my crit multiplier it's the same as yours, but uses the multipliers

[ 1 + ( critical multiplier - 1 ) * critical chance / 100 ]= ((Crit Chance*(Crit multiplier-1))+1)

From now on ((CRC*(CRM-1))+1), if you are using mods that alter your crit chance of multiplier the formula will look like this: ((CRC*CRCm*(CRM*CRMm-1))+1), also using percentages i don't need to divide the number by 100

So the final thing would look something like this: Avarage Damage per Shot=BASE*(1+BASEm)*MULTIm*(1+ELEm)*((CRC*CRCm*(CRM*CRMm-1))+1)

All of the words with a little m are numbers, and you can see where those numbers are coming from by looking at the build and the mechanics of the weapon you are checking out. (if a weapons has weird mechanics most likely at the formula above will be added a multiplier at the end eg.[ Average Damage per Shot=BASE*(1+BASEm)*MULTIm*(1+ELEm)*((CRC*CRCm*(CRM*CRMm-1))+1)*k]

Average Damage per Shot will be called SHOT from now on

 

Burst DPS: SHOT*fire rate

I call fire rate ROF in the chart, so Burst DPS= SHOT*ROF*ROFm (the ROFm is a number that indicates any fire rate modifier on the weapon, again check the build to know its origin. Another thing that can show up here is a number that follows the ROFm This is usually for burst weapons eg. [Burst DPS= SHOT*ROF*ROFm*k]

 

Burst DPS will be called BURST from now on

 

Sustained DPS=BURST*clipsize / [ reload time + ( clipsize - 1 ) / fire rate ]

 

Here our formulas are different because your is wrong, the correct formula should compare the time that it takes to empty a mag, and the time that it takes to empty a mag and reload, so the average percentage of time that you are shooting (emptying the mag) 

As with before ROF is the rate of fire, and REL is the reload time

the time to tempty a mag is calculataed= MAG/ROF

 

So the time shooting would be something like (MAG/ROF)/[(MAG/ROF)+REL]

To clean the formula we do this process (MAG/ROF)/[(MAG+REL*ROF)/ROF] and the we simplify the two ROF so we are left with MAG/(MAG+ROF*REL)

 

So from now on: MAG/(MAG+ROF*REL)=Time firing=TFR

Sustained dps= BURST*TFR

 

And because i care about how often the weapon is going to proc i don't use the proc rate formula but the Status Chance formula= 1-(1-Status Chance)^(n of pelletts)

which in the chart looks like: Status Chance(final)=1-(1-STC)^MULTIm

So now you know where this numbers come from, the formulas are almost the same as yours, pretty sure your doing something wrong to not get the same numbers with the same build.

[Xzorn]

27 minutes ago, oriam said:

The fact is that base damage typing matter very little, at most they account for 45% of the average damage, and if they are physical their multipliers are much smaller than  elemental multipliers. If the base damage is elemental it will get mix in the average damage so there is no problem there. What you should use this chart for is a baseline, if the weapon i correctly modded you will deal quite a bit more damage, i think that the weapons will deviate at most 5% from their spot considering armor multipliers

I see numbers changing in that chart while I'm looking at it. I know you're correcting the numbers as I'm posting this.

The damage variance between our numbers on some of these weapons is also because many of these builds are bad. You're going for highest paper DPS, sure. But then you claim "correctly modded" which many of these are not. The weapons deviate 200% or more when armor comes into play due to Corrosive damage ignoring a portion of armor and status effects.

1 hour ago, oriam said:

What i'm getting at is that you don't need a 100% precise tool with all of the variables, you need something good enough, that 100% precision is going to prove the chart wrong roughly 5% of times (referring to the comparisons of the weapons), it's not worth it to  create a simulator to get those 5% of cases covered imho.

Yes you do need all the variables and yes it will prove that chart wrong prolly 9 out of 10 times.

1 hour ago, oriam said:

I guess the Tier is kinda of the indicator in the chart, even though the Burston Prime has the highest burst dps in game, it is in tier 2, not on the level of ter 1 or tier 1.5 weapons, that is more of a felt/handling thing that i do account in the chart, and actually want feedback on.

The Tier list means nothing cuz you didn't properly parse all the weapons and Burston isn't even near top Burst DPS. Most of the Shotguns have that spot.

1 hour ago, oriam said:

Now because no build in the chart uses IPS mods, and nobody should use them because they are bad.

This is a joke right?

 

Your damage formula is not well designed because it does not allow you to easily add any modifiers to damage types. It does not easily allow you to count damage weight for procs or separate damage types when considering frame buffs.

You need to know the proc rate so you can calculate the proc weight and get the probability of the procs you want per shot. Status rate doesn't matter if you proc a bunch of worthless effects.

Honestly, after that IPS remark I think we're done here. Slash mods are a large boost in damage for many weapons but you have to calculate weapon damage properly to see.

[(PSN)Onder6099]

Lesson for the future: don ´t spend your precious free time to make something usefull, because everytime some1 more clever will appear who will ruin your whole effort

[Cray]

6 hours ago, (PS4)Onder6099 said:

Lesson for the future: don ´t spend your precious free time to make something usefull, because everytime some1 more clever will appear who will ruin your whole effort

There's a few lessons to be learned, but that's not one of them.

 

There's no single 'right' way to mod a weapon. You can usually find 2 or 3 builds that are all slightly different, but work just fine for 95% of the game's content. Builds are surprisingly subjective at times, even after you run the numbers and find the clear winner.

 

Paper-DPS is worthless. I've been preaching this one for a while, because it's such an easy mistake to fall prey to. Sure, my fancy MK1-Prime does 50k Radiation damage, but against a level 100 Bombard, 50k Radiation becomes 11,585 after you consider damage modifiers and armor mitigation. They have ~41.7k health at that level, so on paper you're 1-shotting them, while realistically 4-shotting. (And that's when you take the 'right' damage type. Imaging taking 50k Magnetic!)

 

But if you had to take away only one lesson, I'd say consult, test, repeat. As mentioned earlier, I've been working on a calculator-by-simulation, and I regularly talk with a few people to confirm that I've got this or that aspect of the system correct, for maximum accuracy. I also compare the results I get against tests in the Simulacrum, to ensure that my numbers make sense. The program has gone from 'almost accurate' to 'pretty damn spot-on' because of this.

Edited September 11, 2016 by DeltaPhantom

[oriam]

8 hours ago, DeltaPhantom said:

There's a few lessons to be learned, but that's not one of them.

 

There's no single 'right' way to mod a weapon. You can usually find 2 or 3 builds that are all slightly different, but work just fine for 95% of the game's content. Builds are surprisingly subjective at times, even after you run the numbers and find the clear winner.

 

Paper-DPS is worthless. I've been preaching this one for a while, because it's such an easy mistake to fall prey to. Sure, my fancy MK1-Prime does 50k Radiation damage, but against a level 100 Bombard, 50k Radiation becomes 11,585 after you consider damage modifiers and armor mitigation. They have ~41.7k health at that level, so on paper you're 1-shotting them, while realistically 4-shotting. (And that's when you take the 'right' damage type. Imaging taking 50k Magnetic!)

 

But if you had to take away only one lesson, I'd say consult, test, repeat. As mentioned earlier, I've been working on a calculator-by-simulation, and I regularly talk with a few people to confirm that I've got this or that aspect of the system correct, for maximum accuracy. I also compare the results I get against tests in the Simulacrum, to ensure that my numbers make sense. The program has gone from 'almost accurate' to 'pretty damn spot-on' because of this.

The point is though, 95% of the time, a really bad weapon like my Poo-Poo which does 5k Radiation will be worst than you fancy MK1-Prime, and that's the bloody point of the chart.

Edited September 11, 2016 by oriam

[oriam]

2 minutes ago, Robolaser said:

I just noticed that for the Quanta and QV, you listed the manually detonated secondary projectile's damage instead of the beams damage. It might cause confusion, as the rate of fire and magazine capacity values become irrelevant. Maybe add a cell comment, and/or list the beams damage instead for consistency?

Nitpicking aside, these stats seems presented in a really convenient way overall. A always it's up to each reader to make good use of them. Calculations, builds and tiers are given exemples. Thank you very much for sharing :)

Added the note, and thank you so much for getting the point of the chart :) Hope you will continue to enjoy it.

[xbigUwU]

Thanks for the chart! Pretty refreshing to have all this info organized nicely in one place.