Largest week of Capital loss ever

(Scipio Artelius) #1

As a result of B-R5RB back at the end of January 2014, 740 capitals were killed in the week of that fight (576 in the single engagement).

The last 7 days was the first time the destruction of capitals has exceeded that same period. It’s been a short war, but the destruction has been great:

768 Capitals destroyed in the last 7 days (to midnight Tuesday).

  • 619,857,781 total damage taken (mean of 807,106 per ship)
  • 2,909,271,645,549.2 ISK value (zkill estimation approach)

By ship group:

394 Dreadnaughts
135 Force Auxillaries
211 Carriers
25 Supercarriers
3 Titans

Not as destructive as B-R5RB in a single fight, but more consistently destructive over the last week of the current (now ending) war.

There were 72 Rorquals killed in the last week as well, taking total capital loss for all capitals to 840.

Hope the next war comes around quickly.

EVE not dying? Nullsec not stagnant? No blue donut? etc. - all true

(Rexxar Santaro) #2

Yep. Most of capitals was destroyed in Nalvula (Imperium vs GoTG + PanFam) and in different southern regions (CO2 + TRI vs DRF).

Definitely the Mittani should call: “Retreat!”.

That marches to the North wasn’t so effective as many imagined. But, finally during August 21 in Perimeter citadel siege the Goons managed to destroy a citadel, possibly filled, with a swarm-kind T1 fleet.

In my opinion, the spoils of this war are PVP tactics. Goons found a way how to operate in the next expansion with changed ‘Moons’ and ‘Citadels’. I have to update my thread “Is this WW Bee II?” with synopsis data also…

BTW, nice article.

(Cade Windstalker) #3

Fantastic post Scipio :slight_smile:

Also worth noting that capital losses have been climbing steadily for the last couple years from a low point in the summer of 2015.

Oh and let’s not forget that this month is three Supercarrier losses short of an all-time high as well and there’s still a week left.

(LouHodo) #4

Is it bad that when I see that graph all I can think is…
There are no transits around this star, and it is a unstable star.

(Cade Windstalker) #5

You may have spent a bit too much time on Project Discovery… xD

(Shallanna Yassavi) #6

I blame Rorqals. The mineral supply in null was a lot higher this time around.

(Scipio Artelius) #7

Yeah, that must have clearly had an effect on the supply of capitals, not just for the war, but for the continued upward trend in capital losses.

The rebalance has also been good for Rorqual losses as well:

There’s been 1955 Rorquals destroyed since last November when the rebalance occurred (average of 49 per week almost).

I haven’t looked at the value, but just eyeballing it from the data it looks to be around 6 Billion per loss, for a total somewhere around 11 trillion ISK worth in Rorquals alone.

All that destruction is good for everyone. Not just pvpers, but for industrialists and the whole supply chain down.

All of that is a huge positive. The couple of goon capital fleet move videos were pretty impressive too:

(Lola Madullier) #8

As someone who has no interest in nullsec wars and politics, this information is irrelevant in regard to the overall health of EVE. EVE could be on the brink of death and these nullsec wars would still be possible because the participants represent only a small fraction of the player base. For a slightly over the top satirical analysis of this topic, see this article:

(Scipio Artelius) #9

Sure. Not everything posted in the forum is going to be of interest to everyone. People take from it what they want.

The effects will still trickle down to the benefit of people in other regions of space; and other activities, regardless.

(Manwithdog) #10

would like to know how many capitals are being built in that timescale though , just compare losses with replacements

(Scipio Artelius) #11

I think the ability to have a stab at working out the rate of capital construction was part of the motivation for the CSM asking for changes in the monthly economic report.

But it’s fair to say (though I can’t show any evidence) that the rate of capital construction is outstripping loss.

Until we get the next sustained war over a couple of months, that will probably remain true. But that’s just a guess. Not anything I can support with figures.

(Manwithdog) #12

damn , less caps I feel would shake things up around here

(Tiddle Jr) #13

Nice summary, not sure if caps like Freighters/JF should be included.

(Scipio Artelius) #14

Thanks and freighters and jump freighters aren’t included. Only the combat capable capitals (other than the Rorqual, which has it’s own separate graph).

So those kills include Titans, Supercarriers, Carriers, FAX and Dreadnaughts.

Freighters, Jump Freighters, Bowhead and Orca I track as a completely separate set of stats, mainly as part of my own hauling activities.

(Tiddle Jr) #15

I see now, so you’ve counted an avg. price of bare hulls right, and those fits (rigs included) are not included which is fine with me.

If you don’t mind share non combat stats would be glad to aknowledge wiht it.


(Scipio Artelius) #16

No, the total value of the loses is the fully fit value of each loss.

/u/squizz takes the CREST killmail and adds some zkillboard specific metadata to it. This includes things like the exact location of the kill, the total value, fitted value, points value for the ship, etc…

For example, the zkillboard metadata for the current Erebus kill on the top of the zkill homepage is:


So the total value is a sum of the totalValue field in the zkill metadata for all the kills.

I’ll post the non-combat capitals later on when I’m back at home.

(Salvos Rhoska) #17

Great news, for a change.

Thanks for reporting.

Is this WW Bee II?
(system) #18

This topic was automatically closed after 90 days. New replies are no longer allowed.