I find them very useful because you only need to have one weapon with it to make it work, having multiple or larger multicannons does not increase the corrosive effect so you can put other special effects.
It lowers hull hardness. Doesn't flat increase damage.
So, it only benefits low caliber weapons, like frags, MCs, and most lasers.
And, in those instances. Yes. Those classes of weapons need all the help they can get to compete against Railguns, Missiles, and Plasma.
So, it all depends on the build.
Unless they've changed something recently and without notice, corrosive is a flat 25% increase to all incoming hull damage, in addition to a twenty point reduction in hull hardness. It's extremely potent.
Check the wording:
Armor and hull hardness is reduced.
Meaning, it's just the hull hardness rating still and the rest is just an assumption based on the poor word choice.
And, yes, guns which have smaller caliber will (when hitting the hull,) do 25% more damage than if corrosive was not hitting the target.
But, guns which already do full damage will gain no increase. (Weapons with over 100 piercing for example, or piercing which already beats a ship's hull hardness.)
Such as plasma, railguns, and missiles.
Also, an out of context quote to weapon colors makes the argument that much more flawed.
But, it's not like simple tests for plasma have shown this for years either. If the wording of corrosive worked in the way you applied it, then damage from weapons like railguns and plasma would always scale up when hitting targets as their piercing is 100. Do they? No. They do not.
Damage scales down if your weapon is below the hardness rating, and corrosive allows a weapon which would take a damage hit to do damage at up to 25% of what it would be doing (as in reduced damage) based on the lowering of hull hardness.
Geeze, it's not rocket science to deduce the wording . . . unless I'm speaking to a META pilot who uses corrosive as a convenient excuse to cover up or mask premium ammo plasma builds.
Inb4 I have to be sarcastic with 'missiles do phasing' to knock sense into this age old debate and have people take that out of context after losing the argument.
One more poignant point regarding this:
Let's use the example of focused plasma which exceeds 100 piercing. Does the gun do more damage because its piercing is higher?
No. It does not. Take that as you will, META lancer.
Last edited:
Corrosive doesn't reduce hardness, it increases piercing. This is not the same. A weapon going from 20 to 40 piercing will double damage against a target with 40 or more hardness. The effect would look the same if the target have exactly 40 hardness, but not if it had say 60.
There is also a cap on hardness effect, so the point about 100 piercing doing more damage is moot. Formula is Floor(1,Piercing/Hardness)
There is also a cap on hardness effect, so the point about 100 piercing doing more damage is moot. Formula is Floor(1,Piercing/Hardness)
Are you sure about it? I have info it actully increase damage from othher weapons too. Some patch changed how it work maybe?
I didn't imply anything of the sort. I know how the piercing and hardness work and I know having piercing over hardness does not result in a damage increase.
The wording I was emphasising in that post is the statement of a damage increase wholly unrelated to piercing/hardness ratio. To me, that statement implies that there is a 25% increase, above and beyond anything having to do with hardness, that would apply to all incoming damage, even from sources other than weapons.
It's been quite a while (the 2.1 beta) since I've tested this, but the last time I did, I'm almost certain even collisions and weapons with vastly higher piercing than target hardness were getting a damage increase from corrosive. Guess it's time for a retest.
I wasn't sure on this (though in hindsight there is no way it could work otherwise, doing what it does to cytos and the like) and you are correct, they aren't the same thing.
However, the additional 25% to incoming damage (on top of what, if anything, occurs from the piercing increase) from corrosive seems to be what's been overlooked.
Last edited:
It should be an easy test to perform. Equip any weapon which have corrosive and a PA. Shoot first the corrosive then PA while corrosive is active and note health. Then do the same with them spread out more than 5 sec.
I did another test recently, and while I don't know the exact formula for hull repair cost, you can use this to compare if two damage events are identical. If the repair cost is the same, damage taken is the same. This allows for far greater accuracy than just looking at health %.
I did another test recently, and while I don't know the exact formula for hull repair cost, you can use this to compare if two damage events are identical. If the repair cost is the same, damage taken is the same. This allows for far greater accuracy than just looking at health %.
Yes, that's more or less what I had in mind, though with a 25% increase, even a ballpark figure should reveal if the effect is there or not.
As long as your PA does minimum ~5% hull damage that should work. If it only does 4% you may get unlucky and not quite reach the next % with Corrosive, depending on how the game handles rounding. I.e. first shot might have dealt 3.55%, rounded to 4%, and second would do 4.44%, rounded to 4% with no change visible. Easy to get around by picking a ship that barely survive the corrosive triggering shot and the PA shot.
Just tested a large PA and some collisions against a bone stock FDL hull with a stock PA and a high-cap G5 small corrosive turret set to forward fire. Since the station instance we were at was a little iffy, I just took repair limpets and did the test after we dropped a ways away, with repairs between each segment.
Corrosive Shell definitely has a flat damage multiplier beyond any armor piercing/hull rating considerations. The PA did ~25% more hull damage during the corrosive effect. The collisions were hard to get consistent, but did appear to be augmented to a roughly similar degree.
This is what Mark Allen was referring to, what I noticed in my initial testing four years ago, and why corrosive is extremely potent (too potent, IMO, but that's another matter).
Uploading the video now and will link it when processing is done.
Corrosive Shell definitely has a flat damage multiplier beyond any armor piercing/hull rating considerations. The PA did ~25% more hull damage during the corrosive effect. The collisions were hard to get consistent, but did appear to be augmented to a roughly similar degree.
This is what Mark Allen was referring to, what I noticed in my initial testing four years ago, and why corrosive is extremely potent (too potent, IMO, but that's another matter).
Uploading the video now and will link it when processing is done.
Well done testing, sounds like I was expecting. I too think that corrosive is too strong, it's essentially never the wrong choice of experimental if you don't have it already. I think it would probably be better if it was only a piercing increase, or even a kinetic/explosive damage increase.
Uncut test with what we had on hand. Not terribly precise, but the results seem clear none the less.
Corrosive is in a weird state because it is basically necessary to deal significant damage to high hardness ships in PvP without the use of PAs or Rails... BUT it also stacks with PAs and rails.
Since engineering allows for high hull resistances across all damage types, a Medium OC Cannon (supposedly the premier hull-killer) will have its 62 damage reduced by ~40% by resistances, and then a further ~28% by its 50 piercing vs a 70 hardness FDL. This leaves only ~27 damage remaining.
This is compared to an equivalent Efficient PA, which suffers no piercing penalty and minimal resistance penalties, leading to 56 of its 67 damage going through.
With corrosive, the Cannon damage goes from 27 to 47, which is much more reasonable. But the PA goes from 56 to 70! And don't get me started on rams...
IIRC, the PvP consensus last year was that Corrosive should not apply the 25% bonus, but the effect on Piercing should be greater. I also like the idea of reducing Kinetic resistances, as currently Kinetic weapons are pretty pointless in PvP: they perform far worse against most shields than thermal, and way worse against both shields and hull than Absolute
Since engineering allows for high hull resistances across all damage types, a Medium OC Cannon (supposedly the premier hull-killer) will have its 62 damage reduced by ~40% by resistances, and then a further ~28% by its 50 piercing vs a 70 hardness FDL. This leaves only ~27 damage remaining.
This is compared to an equivalent Efficient PA, which suffers no piercing penalty and minimal resistance penalties, leading to 56 of its 67 damage going through.
With corrosive, the Cannon damage goes from 27 to 47, which is much more reasonable. But the PA goes from 56 to 70! And don't get me started on rams...
IIRC, the PvP consensus last year was that Corrosive should not apply the 25% bonus, but the effect on Piercing should be greater. I also like the idea of reducing Kinetic resistances, as currently Kinetic weapons are pretty pointless in PvP: they perform far worse against most shields than thermal, and way worse against both shields and hull than Absolute
Lasers?
Was looking for when you actually started to shoot corrosive. . .
Nice "Ram" tests and talk in wing chat.
PA shot alone : 83.4
Multiple Kinetic Corrosive shots + PA to 83.4
Result is that corrosive is not helping the PA damage as given the hull value and more than likely bulkheads of that hull, the FDL just took a bunch of kinetic damage.
Good "test" but conclusive to corrosive not being of use which is why it's not often used in PVP. The corrosive did help the MC though, so there's that.
(That moment when a PA is doing 21% hull to an FDL's armor. lol.) That alone makes it easy to figure out how much damage each MC bullet was doing. That's why it makes it rather easy to spot that the corrosive didn't provide a benefit.
Just math it out. Once again, it's not rocket science. Well, maybe for people who don't PVP. . . but still.
405 integrity FDL - 1 Class 3 PA shot = 321.6 Hull Points remaining
405 integrity FDL - 1 Class 3 PA shot and 3 Class 2 MC shots = 316 Hull Points remaining
(Stock bulkheads offer -20% protection from kinetic ammunition, and you're doing 3.6 damage base + 25% extra for the corrosive, and then another 20% extra for the kinetic resistance)
It's literally that easy to math out.
If a stock PA (which does 83.4 damage per shot,) had a corrosive benefit, it would instead do 104.24 damage.
(Which, once again makes this really easy to truly math out.)
Like seriously, all you had to do was open up coriolis to figure this out - you didn't need to make a video that disproved your case simply because "what is outfitting?"
Last Edit:
An up to date source is what I would recommend you next time you fail to make the argument that corrosive just flat gives damage.
It is a give and take.
Cause: Hull Hardness is reduced.
Effect: Weapons which generally suffer against Hull Hardness now do more damage.
Last edited:
You are mistaken.
~21.5% hull damage done from the PA alone. ~27.5% hull damage done from a burst of three small MC turret shots + PA + corrosive.
Guess what happens when you multiply 21.5 * 1.25?
A small MC turret does 0.6 damage per shot base and has an APV of 22; even after the corrosive effect (APV equivalent of 44 + 25% more damage after adjustment), those three bullets are less than 1% of the target's hull value. That "bunch of kinetic damage" is totally negligible...which you would know if you read anything in my previous post or simply watched the video.
Next time, if the video isn't entertaining enough for you, you can refrain from commenting on it's contents rather than making blatantly false statements about it.
Math it out yourself.
The corrosive shell has always multiplied all incoming damage by 1.25, above and beyond what it does to piercing. It's in Mark Allen's statement from three and a half years ago, and has been independently tested many times. It's also not easy to miss if you are fighting in shieldless or hybrid vessels.
Last edited:
I didn't even bother to read that past the first sentence. How dare I prove you wrong!
Have a good day guy who is only a PVE'er.
Fly safe.
(Don't cry about dislikes on a video if you post the wrong information. It's Youtube, be prepared to get dislikes on your videos and do not cry about it.)
Maybe next time, try actually doing PVP?
Last edited:
Weapon stats are shown at 3:33:
Three class one turret MC shots.
Do your math again.
An up to date source is what I would recommend you next time you fail to make the argument that corrosive just flat gives damage.
It is a give and take.
Cause: Hull Hardness is reduced.
Effect: Weapons which generally suffer against Hull Hardness now do more damage.
Neither INARA nor the in-game description are complete, never have been.
Corrosive shell has always and still does increase all incoming hull damage, from any source, by 25%.
Last edited: