PvP Corrosive shells on PvP

Falter

Banned
I'm just ignoring you now.
Don't care. You're wrong. It's that easy.

All I had to do was look at your video post history to determine just the type of information you both have, and peddle. That easy.
"Not complete!?" You linked a many year old article, and tried to say that resistances do not factor into damage which only cares about resistance (as in MC damage!.)
See, you can keep typing and editing Mr. PVE'er, but all you're diong is weakening your argument more.

The in-game and the inara descriptions are what we should go by! Not outdated information from an out of context thread that has to do with weapon colors.
If you think the ingame description is wrong, submit a bug report to fix the description to how you want it to be. I'll call your bluff.

Guess what happens when you multiply 21.5 * 1.25?
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.
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.
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%.
Inb4 you tell me that Overcharge still does an increase to rate of fire, or other such 3 year ago game mechanics.
 
Last edited:
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.
I was talking about your comments here. You clearly did not watch the video as you repeatedly make false references to it.

I cannot see who votes on the videos in my YouTube channel and there are no comments on this video...not that an of that matters, the channel has never been monetized.

"Not complete!?"
Yes, that's what something is when it omits relevant information.

You linked a many year old article
Which is still accurate as of 3.5.03, as I've just demonstrated.

and tried to say that resistances do not factor into damage
I never made any such statement or implication. However...

which only cares about resistance (as in MC damage!.)
... a negative resistance to the damage from three (correction, two) small MC turret bullets doesn't change anything pertinent.

You can look at the video right before I fire the PA and note that the target display is still at 100% after the two MC bullets have hit.

The in-game and the inara descriptions are what we should go by!
The actual, demonstrable, effect is what we should go by.

If you think the ingame description is wrong, submit a bug report to fix the description to how you want it to be. I'll call your bluff.
It's clearly vague and incomplete, as are the descriptions of many other effects. I'm also fairly sure this is intentional.
 

Falter

Banned
Guess what happens when you multiply 21.5 * 1.25?
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.

Weapon stats are shown at 3:33:
Source: https://youtu.be/uRb0_t041PU?t=213




Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUgbK_S0lQU



Three class one turret MC shots.

Do your math again.



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%.
I was talking about your comments here. You clearly did not watch the video as you repeatedly make false references to it.

I cannot see who votes on the videos in my YouTube channel and there are no comments on this video...not that an of that matters, the channel has never been monetized.



Yes, that's what something is when it omits relevant information.



Which is still accurate as of 3.5.03, as I've just demonstrated.



I never made any such statement or implication. However...



... a negative resistance to the damage from three (correction, two) small MC turret bullets doesn't change anything pertinent.

You can look at the video right before I fire the PA and note that the target display is still at 100% after the two MC bullets have hit.



The actual, demonstrable, effect is what we should go by.



It's clearly vague and incomplete, as are the descriptions of many other effects. I'm also fairly sure this is intentional.

Adding Falter's personal translation note of this is: 💩



Shame you still peddle that attempt at a come back at me in the way you still are.
Funny - I wish I could link the screenshots of what you said in game, but that'd be against forum rules now wouldn't it?
I think the word you are still looking for is PVE'er and crimes on fail gank. But, let's not split hairs. Besides, why should I fight someone in full on reverse? I think I made an argument about that a while back iirc.

Besides, running from a fight you don't GG in and then attempting to glorify yourself by continuing a fight you've already lost?
I think there's a PVP group that both runs crimes, only reverses and does that... I can't quite put my name on it. . . .I think it starts with two numbers a 1 and a 3. . .
:ROFLMAO:

Years of experience fighting PVP'ers with corrosive and an entire video segment of getting shot by it vs. a player who struggled with my old build to the point he had to fly in reverse with crimes and multiple wakes to attempt to compete with me alone, and only shoots unengineered NPCs in G5 ships.
Take your pick of the arguments. My question is..why is a backer objectively a worse pilot than I? . . . It's a big think that one.
 
Last edited:

Falter

Banned
Falter how do 2 turreted Hi Cap MC shots do 6% damage when a large PA does 21%?

Well, I was going to justify you with a response, but then I saw the double standard in your about so I decided no response for you.
Pretty sure you've only fought me in reverse. So, my response is:

If you're a double standard then I won't answer straw men. Good day.
 
Shame you still peddle that attempt at a come back at me in the way you still are.
Seemed like a relevant response to your disingenuous statements regarding PvP experience.

Funny - I wish I could link the screenshots of what you said in game, but that'd be against forum rules now wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn't.



As I stated then, you pulled a mission runner loadout the first time, when I realized it wasn't sufficient, I left, completed my missions, and switched to a combat loadout. When you pulled me again, I forced you to flee.

This is the ship you were fighting in that video of yours...you can compare the clocks:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGa3q9HPpRw
 

Falter

Banned
Seemed like a relevant response to your disingenuous statements regarding PvP experience.



No, it wouldn't.



As I stated then, you pulled a mission runner loadout the first time, when I realized it wasn't sufficient, I left, completed my missions, and switched to a combat loadout. When you pulled me again, I forced you to flee.

This is the ship you were fighting in that video of yours...you can compare the clocks:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGa3q9HPpRw

I compare the ship names. I don't compare the clocks.
And, all I see from your posts here is proof about my original.

It's like saying:
Oh, you only fought my Taxi, but did my Taxi commit to the engagement?
If yes, then she still fought and a loss is still a loss.
Did you fight back and engage with both SLFs and crimes while in constant reverse against my older setup?

Yep. So, regardless all that this post shows me is that your first loss and your coming back when I'm wanted in system and not even reloading because I can't means you were salty and looking for any excuse you could to justify your original loss while posting what you did on Simbad the day you did in an attempt to save face and do damage control.

Like stated: that's very 13th of you. A loss is a loss is a loss. You lost, and then you had to go and RRR and counter build to compete with me before I'm even reloaded or repaired.
Very much the antithesis of what "salt" is in this game.
Besides, if you are so good surely you can do it again, right? And if corrosive is such a good buff then why did you struggle so much against my old setup which only carried 3280 armor under her 288 shield?
(Begs the question still of you going to Solo play to run your missions because you would continue to lose once I realized you counter built to me and had conceded my loss to RRR too) If you were so good, then you'd not have gone to Solo / PG / Blocked (whatever you did that year or so ago,) but what did you in fact choose to actually do?
These videos seem to be more your attempt to lash out at getting proved wrong which only further emphasize just how wrong you indeed are.
 
Last edited:
If anyone else is having trouble grasping how little damage the corrosive MC in my video was doing, I've pulled relevant frames from it to illustrate...

No shots fired, 168 ammo in magazine, FDL freshly repaired:


Two MC shots fired and hit, corrosive applied for a bit over one second, just before firing the PA:


The stats of the weapon in question:
 
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.
It's got some competition with emissive on MCs and drag on frags, but in general, I do consider corrosive shell to be one of those must have effects...at least if you expect to be fighting ships that can stick around after shields fail.

I'm not sure why they thought a 25% global increase to all incoming damage was a good idea for a binary effect with no cooldown and the most straightforward balance improvement would be to simply remove that aspect of the effect and bring it in-line with it's description.

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
Rather than an effect that nullifies armor rating/hardness considerations I'd like the piercing increase to rails reverted and PAs APV and absolute damage fraction reevaluated. There should be some reason for sturdy mount, for example, and hardpoint size should be a real consideration again. Hull resistances would also be much more interesting if they didn't rapidly equalize around 40-50%...but all that's all leading off on a broader tangent.
 

Falter

Banned
It's got some competition with emissive on MCs and drag on frags, but in general, I do consider corrosive shell to be one of those must have effects...at least if you expect to be fighting ships that can stick around after shields fail.

I'm not sure why they thought a 25% global increase to all incoming damage was a good idea for a binary effect with no cooldown and the most straightforward balance improvement would be to simply remove that aspect of the effect and bring it in-line with it's description.



Rather than an effect that nullifies armor rating/hardness considerations I'd like the piercing increase to rails reverted and PAs APV and absolute damage fraction reevaluated. There should be some reason for sturdy mount, for example, and hardpoint size should be a real consideration again. Hull resistances would also be much more interesting if they didn't rapidly equalize around 40-50%...but all that's all leading off on a broader tangent.
Rebalancing shields before rebalancing hull.
As of now, hull is more weak to most sources of damage than shields are.
And, while corrosive will only benefit sustain builds, the amount of shielding in low tier builds like lances is what really skews the balance.
If a player is struggling to kill ships which have hull then the solution is to carry weapons which benefit from having higher damage outputs to begin with.
That or Aim5Head is another easy solution.

Of course sustain is going to struggle against most engineered builds or have trouble dealing damage when shields themselves in addition to armor will make the guns feel very weak.
Especially if the player using said guns is having to also use gimbals or turrets since that's indicative of struggling to aim to begin with.
There are a lot of things to factor in, but changes to armor is not one of them for an effect that's only used in sustain builds as it doesn't benefit alpha builds.
 
Any fight that ever makes it to hull benefits from a 25% increase to hull damage and plenty of high alpha builds leverage corrosive shell to boost PA damage. Three PAs and two frags (one drag, one corrosive) is a pretty potent Krait setup, for example.

Hull having too many counters, with corrosive being one of those, is one of the many unbalancing factors in favor of shield focused setups. While I'd certainly like to see the effectiveness of shielding reduced (the 2.3.10 beta changes would be a good start to this), that's beyond the purview of the corrosive effect.
 

Falter

Banned
Any fight that ever makes it to hull benefits from a 25% increase to hull damage and plenty of high alpha builds leverage corrosive shell to boost PA damage. Three PAs and two frags (one drag, one corrosive) is a pretty potent Krait setup, for example.

Hull having too many counters, with corrosive being one of those, is one of the many unbalancing factors in favor of shield focused setups. While I'd certainly like to see the effectiveness of shielding reduced (the 2.3.10 beta changes would be a good start to this), that's beyond the purview of the corrosive effect.
Fight my hybrid then tell me that.
Fight any amount of decent PVP then tell me that again.
Specifically this:
Any fight that ever makes it to hull benefits from a 25% increase to hull damage and plenty of high alpha builds leverage corrosive shell to boost PA damage. Three PAs and two frags (one drag, one corrosive) is a pretty potent Krait setup, for example.
While I still applaud your lack of understanding, sadly that's what it is.
I'll see if I ever see you in open. o7o7o7 PVE "backer."

Corrosion being useful in actual PvP has gotta' be my new favorite meme since it doesn't benefit plasma. Good on ganker fits though. But, then again they're running sustain like frags and MCs.
 
Watched the video, and the tests are very clear. Anyone who watched the video can see that the PA did increased damage while affected by corrosive.

You even got consistent speeds for the impacts and same distance. The Corrosive is definitely an increase in damage beyond the piercing bonus, but I'm unsure about the impact doing so much more damage there. Can impacts cause module damage? If not, there is a possibility that impacts use hull hardness, so that you have two effects going on (perhaps your hull hardness/their hull hardness). This could easily explain why you did more than double the damage.
 
Watched the video, and the tests are very clear. Anyone who watched the video can see that the PA did increased damage while affected by corrosive.
Yes.

You even got consistent speeds for the impacts and same distance. The Corrosive is definitely an increase in damage beyond the piercing bonus, but I'm unsure about the impact doing so much more damage there. Can impacts cause module damage? If not, there is a possibility that impacts use hull hardness, so that you have two effects going on (perhaps your hull hardness/their hull hardness). This could easily explain why you did more than double the damage.
It was a double impact in the second collision of the second set of collision tests. I'm pretty sure I bounced, but I suspect latency or latency compensation caused a delay in the transfer of momentum resulting my ship bouncing back through, or rotating into, to the FDL causing two hits (you can see this to a degree on the first test, because the FDL failed to move and was grazed again by the DBX as it spun). For that test I consider the first hit to have done ~54% hull damage (even three MC hits failed to reach the 1% threshold), but yes, it's much more ambiguous than the PA test. Still, discounting that one anomaly, there did appear to be an increase in damage at similar impact velocities and angles while corrosion was in effect.

I'll cut out the relevant section of the original file and give you a link to it so you can frame step that segment and see what I'm seeing more easily.

Edit: https://www.sendspace.com/file/1g3gb2 -- 113MB, 12 second, excerpt cut from the raw recording.

Regarding module damage, I've seen ships explode from collisions without hitting zero percent hull, but have never been able to specifically duplicate internal damage from collisions in testing.
 
Last edited:
405 integrity FDL - 1 Class 3 PA shot = 321.6 Hull Points remaining
If a stock PA (which does 83.4 damage per shot,) had a corrosive benefit, it would instead do 104.24 damage.
321.6/405 is 79.4%
83.4/405 is 20.6%

104.25/405 is 25.7 damage.

Using your numbers this closely match what is seen in the video.

Although your numbers aren't correct:
PA does 60% absolute damage, 20% thermal, and 20% kinetic. That give damage against a stock hull:
83.4×(.6+.2×1.2+.2×1)=86.736
83.4×1.25×(.6+.2×1.2+.2×1)=108.42
 
Top Bottom