I haven't done a lot of PvP in ED so I wanted to know. Are corrosive shells a common in PvP? Do you guys think it is OP for basically increasing your damage output with all your weapons when hitting the hull? Do you think it should be changed?
It lowers hull hardness. Doesn't flat increase damage.I haven't done a lot of PvP in ED so I wanted to know. Are corrosive shells a common in PvP? Do you guys think it is OP for basically increasing your damage output with all your weapons when hitting the hull? Do you think it should be changed?
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.It lowers hull hardness. Doesn't flat increase damage.
Check the wording: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.
Nope, All the effects on the weapon itself work just fine however many you want to run with, in whatever colours. But Corrosive has an additional effect - anyone hit by it has their armour reduced for a few seconds, meaning that they take (numbers subject to change) 25% increased damage from ALL sources and all attack against them get 20 bonus armour piercing - that target effect won't stack. Having one or 8 cannons applying that effect won't make any difference, but if you've got at least one you're getting full benefit on all attacks.
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.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.
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.Corrosive doesn't reduce hardness, it increases piercing. This is not the same.
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.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 %.
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.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.
Was looking for when you actually started to shoot corrosive. . .Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRb0_t041PU
Uncut test with what we had on hand. Not terribly precise, but the results seem clear none the less.
You are mistaken.PA shot alone : 79
Multiple Kinetic Corrosive shots + PA to 74
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.
Math it out yourself.Just math it out. Once again, it's not rocket science. Well, maybe for people who don't PVP. . . but still.
I didn't even bother to read that past the first sentence. How dare I prove you wrong!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.
Weapon stats are shown at 3:33:How dare I prove you wrong.
Have a good day guy who is only a PVE'er.
Three class one turret MC shots.3 Class 2 MC shots
Neither INARA nor the in-game description are complete, never have been.
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.