Engineers Changing Damage Type

[Old Duck]

I don't fully understand all the nuances of changing a weapon's damage type. For example, applying Incendiary Rounds SE to a multicannon, or conversely, applying Inertial Impact to a burst laser.

My question is, does applying one of these special effects cause the weapon to lose its original advantage? Is a multicannon with IR now much weaker against hulls, and is a burst laser with II much weaker against shields? If so, then why do these SEs even exist? Why would anyone choose one of these instead of just using lasers for shields and MCs for hulls?

Any clarification regarding exactly what these SEs do and why that is useful would be appreciated

 

[Old Duck]

Anyone? Surely this is a noob question that every Elite CMDR knows the answer to

 

[Misty_Dark]

it would be great if the weapons and modules could show their numbers.


So I would like for weapons to show damage in couple of stats

Thermal
Kinetic
Explosive
Caustic
absolute damage (ignoring resistances)



If we had this, we would not have to guess or be unsure on what the different effects do to a weapon. like in this case, what does Incendiary Rounds do?

 

[Chaosflo88368]

So yeah, if you want a multicannon that is stronger to hulls, then apply the affect for it, if you want it for shields, you take the other one (can be useful, because multicannons fire a lot faster than impulse/burst lasers[yesnod]

 

[Mugur]

As far as I know, only part of the damage is converted (for example on incendiary MCs, only part of the damage becomes thermal, not all kinetic --> thermal). At least this is how the mod is described.

 

[Nero Tacitus]

At least this is how the mod is described.

I'm fairly confident that's due to outdated tooltips, IMCs used to be 80/20 split, but a bug caused them to be too powerful, and FDev's fix was to fully convert the damage. AFAIK the mods completely convert the damage to the new type.

OP, people use ICMs because they have much better damage falloff range than lasers, 2k vs 500-600m, and because they have lower mounting and distributor draw. The trade off is obviously heat generation. A handful of people use inertial impact because it applies a massive damage increase, combined with the short range mod, it can hit like a truck on ships fast enough to remain in constant proximity.

 

[Old Duck]

I'm fairly confident that's due to outdated tooltips, IMCs used to be 80/20 split, but a bug caused them to be too powerful, and FDev's fix was to fully convert the damage. AFAIK the mods completely convert the damage to the new type.

OP, people use ICMs because they have much better damage falloff range than lasers, 2k vs 500-600m, and because they have lower mounting and distributor draw. The trade off is obviously heat generation. A handful of people use inertial impact because it applies a massive damage increase, combined with the short range mod, it can hit like a truck on ships fast enough to remain in constant proximity.

One of the reasons I'm considering these SEs is because I'm a bit OCD when it comes to symmetry. Take the humble Sidewinder or it's big brother, the Vulture. I don't like having mismatched weapon types in those two hardpoints, but committing to dual lasers for a shield eater that's not very good against tough hulls, and vice-versa for MCs. A Vulture with two MCs, one with IR, should be relatively good at taking down shields and chewing up hull, correct? Similarly, two burst lasers, one with II, should also be good at both shields and hull.

 

[StiTch]

f so, then why do these SEs even exist? Why would anyone choose one of these instead of just using lasers for shields and MCs for hulls?

Lazors and kinetics aren't the same weapon outside of damage type.

For a start only part of the damage is converted, so the MCs would still stand up against hull. But they would still be multicannons either way, not a laser - limited ammo, bullet travel time, but a DpE so efficient that you barely have to worry about pips in WEP unless you have other weapon types too. Especially on lower classes, lasers can't match the DpS of MCs either.

The same would be for II lasers, but they are a different kettle of fish. IIRC their DPS is much better than without II, but the effect adds a poop ton of jitter that makes them nigh on impossible to use at anything but close range.

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

Part in part, all the available options when engineering is what makes the process so daunting to noobs. One either takes the word from an experience player with a play style that matches ones own or learns by trial and error to engineer a particular mod for a purpose one isn't completely aware of in their experience.

I use the experience of others, whom play simualar to the way I do, and then eventually as I gain more experience, alter my original engineering to be more aligned with my actual play style. My go to ship for general purposes engineered mods are not engineered the same exact way as those in my Challenger which is only for the purpose of pew pew and not general missions. I've got three conda's with completely different loadouts for three specific different play styles, one for long range exploring and events, one for just mining and a third for the eventuallity that I become a fuel rat. Though all are completly engineered, no two are exactly the same.

 

[Morbad]

If so, then why do these SEs even exist? Why would anyone choose one of these instead of just using lasers for shields and MCs for hulls?

An incendiary MC is much more efficient than a laser at delivering thermic damage to most targets.

A beam laser can out damage the MC, but only at the cost of vastly more WEP use per unit of damage delivered.

Efficient pulse or burst lasers can come close to an OC incendiary MC in DPE, but will fall short in damage, range, and falloff distance.

Laser still have the advantage of being hitscan and never running out of ammo, but where these factors are not crucial, an incendiary MC is almost always better.

One of the reasons I'm considering these SEs is because I'm a bit OCD when it comes to symmetry.

An eccentricity that will cost you.

A Vulture with two MCs, one with IR, should be relatively good at taking down shields and chewing up hull, correct?

Against standard resistances, yes. Also, corrosive is wise for the non-incendiary MC.

Similarly, two burst lasers, one with II, should also be good at both shields and hull.

Inertial impact comes with a 3 degree jitter, which makes it virtually unusable in many scenarios. Avoid it unless you want a laser that's only effective at frag range, if that.

For a start only part of the damage is converted

I'm pretty sure incendiary is 100% thermic now.

 

[StiTch]

I'm pretty sure incendiary is 100% thermic now.

Ah okay, they must have been updated again - after they were initially nerfed to reduce their ridiculous total DPS increase I remember them still being part thermal, part kinetic.

But I've been away a few months, so I have no doubt missed a few steps.

 

[Nero Tacitus]

One of the reasons I'm considering these SEs is because I'm a bit OCD when it comes to symmetry. Take the humble Sidewinder or it's big brother, the Vulture. I don't like having mismatched weapon types in those two hardpoints, but committing to dual lasers for a shield eater that's not very good against tough hulls, and vice-versa for MCs. A Vulture with two MCs, one with IR, should be relatively good at taking down shields and chewing up hull, correct? Similarly, two burst lasers, one with II, should also be good at both shields and hull.

This setup would give you one thermal and one kinetic hardpoint, so yes, you'd have an even split. Keep in mind however that against stock shields/hulls, thermal does %120/%100 while kinetic does %60/%120, so having all thermal isn't a bad idea.

IIRC the Vulture has some heat issues, especially with the nearly mandatory OC PP, so keep that in mind when dealing with incendiaries.

 

[Old Duck]

An eccentricity that will cost you.

If I'm flying my Vulture, and especially if I'm flying my Sidewinder, it's for fun, not maximum damage; my BattleConda is my "git-r-done" combat ship of choice. I'm crazy enough to mount turreted weapons on a Vulture just to roleplay battles of "The Expanse"

 

[JustJon]

If I'm flying my Vulture, and especially if I'm flying my Sidewinder, it's for fun, not maximum damage; my BattleConda is my "git-r-done" combat ship of choice. I'm crazy enough to mount turreted weapons on a Vulture just to roleplay battles of "The Expanse"

Surely a python is a better Rocinante?

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

PvP resistance markers sit at 50% accross the board so use that as a mark.

Regardless of damage type, in a large number of cases it is larely irrelevant in the face of PA's. After all, resistance based damage will nearly always be taking small penalties at the low end, very much larger ones at the high end.

 

[Old Duck]

PvP resistance markers sit at 50% accross the board so use that as a mark.

Regardless of damage type, in a large number of cases it is larely irrelevant in the face of PA's. After all, resistance based damage will nearly always be taking small penalties at the low end, very much larger ones at the high end.

Pretend you are Samantha Carter and I'm Jack O'Neill, because I have no idea what you are saying, LOL.

 

[Nero Tacitus]

Pretend you are Samantha Carter and I'm Jack O'Neill, because I have no idea what you are saying, LOL.

In PvE, stock resistances are in play because most NPCs don't engineer, meaning thermal and kinetic hardpoints perform drastically differently depending on whether you're firing at shields or hulls.

In PvP, engineering is assumed, so stock resistances on shields/hull go out the window. Everyone is running 2+RA boosters and Thermal Reactive Armor, so end up with ~50% resistance to all damage types; thermal vs kinetic becomes largely irrelevant as you do the same damage regardless, because everything you fire at is sitting on 50% resistance across the board.

Plasma Accelerators (PAs) deal 60% absolute damage, which ignores resistances.

 

[Old Duck]

In PvE, stock resistances are in play because most NPCs don't engineer, meaning thermal and kinetic hardpoints perform drastically differently depending on whether you're firing at shields or hulls.

In PvP, engineering is assumed, so stock resistances on shields/hull go out the window. Everyone is running 2+RA boosters and Thermal Reactive Armor, so end up with ~50% resistance to all damage types; thermal vs kinetic becomes largely irrelevant as you do the same damage regardless, because everything you fire at is sitting on 50% resistance across the board.

Plasma Accelerators (PAs) deal 60% absolute damage, which ignores resistances.

Gotcha! I rarely PvP (and soon I'll be restricted to Solo), and I've never been a big fan of PAs despite their popularity among many CMDRs.