Corrosive Shell

LazyCalf

L
alright, i've looked around and i cant find any data that accurately represents the hull degredation that corrosive shell gives. i can feel myself do more damage, but i don't know how much by, if its worth over taking the uptime bonus of having auto loader.
i read somewhere on multiple occasions (from random people) that it gives 25% hull damage bonus. some people say it's flat, caps at 25%, some say its for a few seconds, some say it goes up to 100% everytime it's procced and as far as i know, none of them are confirmed.
does anyone have any real data or veriafiable proof i can see to make a good assumption from?
because i'm torn between auto loader and corrosive shell, i could just have 1 multi cannon with corrosive and have the other auto, because of the non stacking, but, really, in most cases across most games, (and in real life for that matter)
that uptime typically beats out, because downtime drops dps, or time to finish exponentially,
and ofcourse,
what good is a 25% damage bonus for a few seconds if you have to reload like a chump, because there's no manual reload, effectively wasting the mod's dps potential when you could have autoloader and not have that problem?

either way, i think im sticking to autoloader, until there's a manual reload implemented, i mean come on FDEVS, just make it take 3x as long as an automatic reload, whatever, i dont like starting an engagement on 2 rounds in the chamber, and it makes all of the other experimental effects feel redundant, because uptime really does generally beat out in dps, consistency beats spike damage in most cases (well in pve that is, pvp is a totally different story because nobody is a robot and does maneuvers perfectly so it doesnt come down to consistency),

but i would like to see what damage per second i am potentially losing (if any) if i switch out one of my multicannons to corrosive shell
 

Frenotx

Frenotx
It's a very powerful effect. Fantastic for frag cannons. Also hilarious with cytoscramblers. Unfortunately, since so much combat is done vs. shields, the armour hardness / armour piercing mechanics are often poorly understood / utilized.
 

C64Fan

C64Fan
Yes, it’s a very good effect :).

One question. If we imagine that I have 1 medium multi-cannon and 2 two large multi-cannons on a ship in the same firegroup..... I know the effect doesn’t stack, but is there a benefit damage wise from putting the corrosive effect on one of the large multi-cannons compared to putting it on the medium cannon? We assume that all cannons has the same amount of ammo available.

I am not sure.
 

Truesilver

Truesilver
C64Fan said:
One question. If we imagine that I have 1 medium multi-cannon and 2 two large multi-cannons on a ship in the same firegroup..... I know the effect doesn’t stack, but is there a benefit damage wise from putting the corrosive effect on one of the large multi-cannons compared to putting it on the medium cannon? We assume that all cannons has the same amount of ammo available.
Click to expand...

No. The game does not 'know' what applied the effect to the hull in question. It just 'knows' whether the hull in question is under the effect. (In this respect corrosive's rules are similar to numerous other binary on/off specials like TLB, Dispersal and Emissive, as opposed to 'value-based' specials like force shell or thermal shock.)

It follows that it will usually make sense to apply corrosive to the weapon with the lowest damage, eg a c1 hardpoint on Anaconda.

However, there is one exception to the general rule above ... because corrosive reduces ammo pool as a side-effect, and the ammo pool on a c4 multi is disproportionately large compared to the others due to high damage, low RoF and same number of bullets ... you can make the argument for putting corrosive on a c4 on eg FdL. Personally I don't - I'm a PvP min/maxer so I want corrosive on a c2 and autoloader on the c4 - but the argument is there, perhaps particularly for lower-intensity use such as PvE RES farming.
 

C64Fan

C64Fan
Truesilver said:
No. The game does not 'know' what applied the effect to the hull in question. It just 'knows' whether the hull in question is under the effect. (In this respect corrosive's rules are similar to numerous other binary on/off specials like TLB, Dispersal and Emissive, as opposed to 'value-based' specials like force shell or thermal shock.)

It follows that it will usually make sense to apply corrosive to the weapon with the lowest damage, eg a c1 hardpoint on Anaconda.

However, there is one exception to the general rule above ... because corrosive reduces ammo pool as a side-effect, and the ammo pool on a c4 multi is disproportionately large compared to the others due to high damage, low RoF and same number of bullets ... you can make the argument for putting corrosive on a c4 on eg FdL. Personally I don't - I'm a PvP min/maxer so I want corrosive on a c2 and autoloader on the c4 - but the argument is there, perhaps particularly for lower-intensity use such as PvE RES farming.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info. It was exactly what I needed :) .
 

Crimson Kaim

Crimson Kaim
Truesilver said:
It adds 20 to the APV of all weapons striking the affected hull and, also, adds +25% to damage taken by the hull from all sources.

Source, Frontier's damage supreme Dev Mark Allen ...

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?p=3888564&viewfull=1#post3888564

... and confirmed many times by testing. Never once changed, afaik.
Click to expand...

To be more accurate, the armor hardness of your ship is reduced (you can check that in thestatistics panel). But other than that, yes, corrosive is insanely strong. It's a pity we don't have that for shields.
 

Truesilver

Truesilver
Crimson Kaim said:
To be more accurate, the armor hardness of your ship is reduced (you can check that in thestatistics panel). But other than that, yes, corrosive is insanely strong. It's a pity we don't have that for shields.
Click to expand...

Unless something has changed, that is not my belief and I think the UI in right panel may be wrong...!

I think the APV is buffed by +20, the Hull Hardness is not reduced by -20.

Frentox proved this a long time ago based upon a PM suggestion of mine via the following method: use corrosive and Cytoscramblers only. The corrosive buffs the Cytos up to APV 21 meaning they do regular damage, eg 21 / 65, so about a third.

If they stayed at APV 1 and HH dropped by -20 to eg 45 they would do 1 / 45, i.e. nothing.
 

Frenotx

Frenotx
Truesilver said:
Unless something has changed, that is not my belief and I think the UI in right panel may be wrong...!

I think the APV is buffed by +20, the Hull Hardness is not reduced by -20.

Frentox proved this a long time ago based upon a PM suggestion of mine via the following method: use corrosive and Cytoscramblers only. The corrosive buffs the Cytos up to APV 21 meaning they do regular damage, eg 21 / 65, so about a third.

If they stayed at APV 1 and HH dropped by -20 to eg 45 they would do 1 / 45, i.e. nothing.
Click to expand...
Correct! In this video, I'm only firing the frags often enough to apply the effects. Note that these cytos are short range inertial impact, so almost 5 jitter, 72 DPS, and mostly kinetic damage. Still just an APV of 1, though, or 21 when corrosive is in play.
[video=youtube;LQKf2yyo8Y0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQKf2yyo8Y0[/video]
 

Sebastian Rooks

Sebastian Rooks
Zelos1983 said:
Tip:

Mix corrosive with high capacity and mount it on a small HP. Just for providing the debuff while you can damage-enhance your main battery.
Click to expand...

I've done that on a couple ships. Never noticed any extra hidden benefit to it. I just found it pretty handy NOT running out of corrosive ammo before my other guns ran out, lol.

Rooks o7
 

C64Fan

C64Fan
Zelos1983 said:
Tip:

Mix corrosive with high capacity and mount it on a small HP. Just for providing the debuff while you can damage-enhance your main battery.
Click to expand...

Another tip is to do that and put it on a turret. That’ll make your other turrets much more effective as long as they can fire on the target at the same time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom