Ships A question to devs: could you settle that question about corrosive effect?

[CMDR DUANES]

There is an argument among players about how corrosive exactly works: the way it works as per the game definition is "Experimental rounds that temporarily weaken hull hardness and increase all damage taken". Formally, the effect is: "TARGET ARMOR HARDNESS REDUCED", a 20% reduction, it is assumed. Reversing the maths, this -20% hardness causes an "increases in all damages taken" by 25%. This makes sense, corrosive does indeed increase damages, but it does so INDIRECTLY, because it reduces hardness: this fits the definition given. The logical conclusion is that weapons with very high piercing don't benefit from corrosion as their piercing > hardness anyway. This too makes sense.

However, CMDRs did run real-life tests apparently showing that the way it works is not as per the definition: they states that it works by first ADDING +20 piercing to the weapon (not reducing hardness) and then ADDING another +25% buff to the weapon itself not related to piercing, meaning that any weapon, including PAs and RGs, will still benefit from corrosion. However, this is not what the effect states, nor how it is supposed to work, and it would mean that corrosive effect is useful in any situation, whatever weapon we use.

Knowing that our test are always somehow made from bits and pieces and that results are not always consistent, what are the correct mecanics? Could a dev explain them once and for all?

Thanks

 

[Three Stars]

I’m not a dev, but I can say that your second paragraph is correct. It’s +20 to the armor piercing value of any weapon striking the hull, and then +25% to damage, including breach damage against modules.

Cytoscramblers are a good test case since they have an AP value of 1 at base. Against an anaconda they’d do 1/65th of their listed damage against hulls. If the AP was reduced on the target they would do 1/45th of their damage plus 25%…but that’s not the case. Instead, their own AP value is increased such that they do 21/65ths of the listed damage plus 25%. Not a tremendous amount to be sure, but a noticeable one.

 

[Aleks Zuno]

I’m not a dev, but I can say that your second paragraph is correct. It’s +20 to the armor piercing value of any weapon striking the hull, and then +25% to damage, including breach damage against modules.

Cytoscramblers are a good test case since they have an AP value of 1 at base. Against an anaconda they’d do 1/65th of their listed damage against hulls. If the AP was reduced on the target they would do 1/45th of their damage plus 25%…but that’s not the case. Instead, their own AP value is increased such that they do 21/65ths of the listed damage plus 25%. Not a tremendous amount to be sure, but a noticeable one.

I love very much that I have a video collection obscure enough to cover moments such as this one. Cytoscramblers versus Anaconda hull!

Please note that relying only on the Cytoscramblers to strike a corroded hull is not a serious hunting method. That said, the fact that one Cytoscrambler can both deplete shields and shred some of the less well-reinforced hulls is something I use to save a lot of time and ammunition.

 

[Three Stars]

I love very much that I have a video collection obscure enough to cover moments such as this one. Cytoscramblers versus Anaconda hull!

Please note that relying only on the Cytoscramblers to strike a corroded hull is not a serious hunting method. That said, the fact that one Cytoscrambler can both deplete shields and shred some of the less well-reinforced hulls is something I use to save a lot of time and ammunition.

It’s a rite of passage to try the all Cytoscrambler Chieftain or Challenger.

Basic level is just a bunch of efficient ones.

Advanced level cytoscrambling is all Short Range Inertial Impact. The build even has an official name: Jazz Hands.

 

[CMDR DUANES]

I’m not a dev, but I can say that your second paragraph is correct. It’s +20 to the armor piercing value of any weapon striking the hull, and then +25% to damage, including breach damage against modules.

Cytoscramblers are a good test case since they have an AP value of 1 at base. Against an anaconda they’d do 1/65th of their listed damage against hulls. If the AP was reduced on the target they would do 1/45th of their damage plus 25%…but that’s not the case. Instead, their own AP value is increased such that they do 21/65ths of the listed damage plus 25%. Not a tremendous amount to be sure, but a noticeable one.

Thank you, I agree with all that, but that is the thing: test are not always consistent. The effect seems to work the way you describe, yes, but it should not, and with certain ships it dosen't. That is why I wouuld have loved to have the actual mecanics, instead of us reverse-engineering how it is supposed to work.

 

[Three Stars]

Thank you, I agree with all that, but that is the thing: test are not always consistent. The effect seems to work the way you describe, yes, but it should not, and with certain ships it dosen't. That is why I wouuld have loved to have the actual mecanics, instead of us reverse-engineering how it is supposed to work.

Not sure what you mean by it not working with certain ships. The only ship specific variable is the Hardness value of each respective hull. That’s compared against the Armor Piercing value of each weapon.

Sheet Damage x (AP / Hardness) = Actual Damage Done.

 

[Aleks Zuno]

Thank you, I agree with all that, but that is the thing: test are not always consistent. The effect seems to work the way you describe, yes, but it should not, and with certain ships it dosen't.

Could you supply a specific example—attacker, weapon, target? Images or video would also be excellent if you already have that, though the testing and production time is not needed if there turns out to be a logical explanation.

Corrosive Shell works exactly as you described earlier, and you already understood the interactions between Pierce and Hardness. I use one Cytoscrambler on a Mamba which has otherwise mostly Fragment Cannons, and I find that the Corrosive effect works every time for enabling the Cytoscrambler to strike hull effectively. One application of the Corrosive effect lasts just long enough that four Cytoscrambler bursts can strike before requiring another Corrosive Shell strike.

 

[Treya]

Lucky you, the devs actually answered this one a couple of years ago. It's both a buff to damage received (+25%) as well as a +20 buff to AP (technically a debuff on hull hardness). I know because I dug out the post for the Wiki page (Wayback Machine FTW), and AFAIK FDev didn't alter it since so it's still the canonical answer.

For your reading pleasure:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/how-to-have-a-good-time-using-multi-cannons.250470/post-3888564

 

[Aleks Zuno]

Great find with the developer post; that answers the original question! However...

(technically a debuff on hull hardness)

No, that part alone is wrong, amidst a reply which was otherwise perfect. Exactly as the developer post said, and indeed as you said just before that part, it is 20 bonus Piercing to attacks against that target. It is not 20 Hardness reduction to the armour of that target.

The difference was already described above. For Piercing P and Hardness H against corroded hull, said difference is (P + 20) / H versus P / (H − 20), which are not equal in general¹. The correct one is the 20 bonus Piercing, or (P + 20) / H.

1. Solving them gives H = P + 20, so they coincide when the corrosive effect supplies the exact difference of 20 required for the two to match. Restricting amplification, this becomes H ⩽ P + 20.