PvP Corrosive shells on PvP

Falter

Banned
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
We already fully covered this and Morbad has already definitively shown his inexperience in failing this argument.
(Also, PA's always do full damage to armor, only when shooting shields do the resistances of the absolute / thermal / kinetic apply, iirc.)
But, like stated: the MC shooting in the way it did was only what caused the additional hull damage.

Other factors (because remember, if your equation factors resistances, then you must up the damage per shot for the negative resistances the FDL has,) such as the admission of a buggy station meaning Morbad is lagging, using repair limpets which we can not be certain repaired to full value, and other such innumerable factors already prove in the arguments side that corrosive will not benefit any weapon but small caliber.
If this were not the case then PvP'ers would run it almost regularly alongside plasma. We do not due to many factors.
In PVE, it's a useful tool for players who already struggle to kill un-engineered NPCs with fully engineered G5 builds. But, in PVP it is redundant and offers no benefit for the average loadout which is why other effects are chosen over it.

Corrosive is only ever paired with gank builds that are designed to shoot low resist traders. That way the corrosive of the all sustain loadouts will actually contribute to the damage dealt.
It's that simple.
So, if we use your math which factors in resists then that more proves me right, not wrong.
Case closed. Thanks for playing.
To be fair, I never expected that this thread would be more populated by non-PVP'ers and argumentation in the face of what is even considered viable in PVP, but that's par for the course as to be expected by those who do not even understand how to adequately fly.
 
nice and short (not so short in the end as i thought when i started) 😋

does corossive give 25% damage buff on any weapon
YES
this is in view of lasers, PAs, Rails, Frags, Multicannon and any other weapon which is around out there.
i did tons of tests with it myself cause it has such a high potential (buffing a PA build with one corossive gimballed multic for example.) and i didnt believe the info in the past that it just decreases the hardness which was the common opinion about it 2 years ago.

Does it work on Rams when Shields are down.
oh YES it does and its devestating.

Is it overpowered atm.
YES
its a huge disadvantage for hull tanks (hybrids) and one of the main reason why hull tanks are so seldom atm in wild pvp.

edit:
is it used atm in wild pvp?
YES
and its also accepted. you will not find a good setup pvp wing where no corossive weapon is in it.
imagine that one ship is applying the effect on a ship without shields. from this very moment the damage output from your whole wing and any other ship firing on it or ramming it is buffed at 25%.
corossive is a chemical effect so once applied every damage is buffed no matter which source did the damage.


how to fix:
one very good idea in the past to fix this was. that the effect of corossive is increased with the time the bullets are hitting the hull.
atm i can shoot one bullet with a gimballed long range multic to get a 25% damage buff of the attacked ship in a distance of many kms.
it would be better to start with 1% and then as longer the bullets are hitting the hull the effect is increased to the 25%
this would also pay out frag corossive cause they should have a bigger effect with one hit.
 
Last edited:
nice and short (not so short in the end as i thought when i started) 😋

does corossive give 25% damage buff on any weapon
YES
this is in view of lasers, PAs, Rails, Frags, Multicannon and any other weapon which is around out there.
i did tons of tests with it myself cause it has such a high potential (buffing a PA build with one corossive gimballed multic for example.) and i didnt believe the info in the past that it just decreases the hardness which was the common opinion about it 2 years ago.

Does it work on Rams when Shields are down.
oh YES it does and its devestating.

Is it overpowered atm.
YES
its a huge disadvantage for hull tanks (hybrids) and one of the main reason why hull tanks are so seldom atm in wild pvp.

edit:
is it used atm in wild pvp?
YES
and its also accepted. you will not find a good setup pvp wing where no corossive weapon is in it.
imagine that one ship is applying the effect on a ship without shields. from this very moment the damage output from your whole wing and any other ship firing on it or ramming it is buffed at 25%.
corossive is a chemical effect so once applied every damage is buffed no matter which source did the damage.


how to fix:
one very good idea in the past to fix this was. that the effect of corossive is increased with the time the bullets are hitting the hull.
atm i can shoot one bullet with a gimballed long range multic to get a 25% damage buff of the attacked ship in a distance of many kms.
it would be better to start with 1% and then as longer the bullets are hitting the hull the effect is increased to the 25%
this would also pay out frag corossive cause they should have a bigger effect with one hit.
Wouldn't it be much better to simply get rid of the 25% buff at all?
 
it was a big topic in the EBD Discord the Elite balance discussion. there were some approaches discussed how to make it more reasonable.
tbh i dont feel like making a suggestion here cause any change here has a massive inpact in the actual pvp balance and maybe even meta.

i personally would like to see no corossive on gimballed and you need sucessful ToT to get the full 25%.
but thats just my 2 cents
 
We already fully covered this...
Yes we did, and I have demonstrated clearly why the PA does get an increase of 25% damage from Corrosive.
PA's always do full damage to armor, only when shooting shields do the resistances of the absolute / thermal / kinetic apply, iirc.)
This is false.
But, like stated: the MC shooting in the way it did was only what caused the additional hull damage...
Your hypothesises is that Corrosive only affect Piercing, and that it have no effect on PA due to it being at 100 Piercing, as piercing above hardness have no effect.

Thankfully, that is an easy thing to check, as I will demonstrate here:

Size 3 Plasma Accelerator shot does 83.4 damage.
60% of Plasma is absolute damage, 20% is thermal damage, 20% is kinetic damage. This give us:
50.04 Absolute damage
16.68 Kinetic damage
16.68 Thermal damage

Stock hull got 20% Kinetic vulnerability, which mean it will take:
50.04+16.68*1.2+16.68=86.736 Damage.

A stock Fer-de-Lance got 405 integrity
A stock FDL hit by 1 plasma shot will have 405-86.736=318.264 Integrity
That's displayed as 318.264/405=78.6% Integrity. The game will display this as 78 or 79%.
In the video, after getting hit by 1 PA at 35 seconds in, the FDL got 79% Integrity.

At 2:35 minutes in the video, the FDL is on 100% Integrity and the Multi-Cannon got 168 rounds in the magazine.
At 2:40 minutes in the video, the FDL is on 73% Integrity, and the Multi-Cannon got 166 rounds in the magazine. It was also hit by 1 PA.

The PA & 2 MC rounds in total did 100-73=27% damage.
For a stock FDL this is 405*0.27=109.35 damage
The PA damage according to your hypothesis have no increase in damage and thus still do 86.736 damage
This means that according to your hypothesis the 2 MC rounds did 109.35-86.736=25.95 damage
Each MC round according to your hypothesis did 25.95/2=12.975 damage
A HUGE Short Range Oversized 4A Multicannon does 8.34 damage each round.
Each MC round according to your hypothesis does 12.975/8.34=55.6% more damage than a Huge Short range oversized Multicannon.
I feel I should mention that the test is done in a DBS which lack a huge hardpoint.
3 Class 2 MC shots
Okay, let's ignore that there's only 2 shots of ammo used, and that the actual Multi-Cannon is size 1G as seen at 3:42. Let entertain the idea that it's 3 class 2 fixed MC.
As before, we need to account for 109-86.736=25.95 damage
Your believe that this is 3 class 2 MC shots.
This give us 25.95/3=8.65 damage/shot
Using a class 2E (which it isn't) with Short Range Oversized (which it can't be due to corrosive) we get 3.95 damage/shot
The Corrosive (purely from piercing according to your hypothesis) increase damage by 8.65/3.95=119%.

For Piercing to increase damage by 119% you need to increase piercing by 119% (and be below hull hardness)
Class 2E got a piercing of 37
Increasing piercing to make the shot do 119% more damage give it 37*(1+1.19)=81.03 Piercing.
Fer-de-Lance have 70 hardness, so anything beyond 70 provide no damage.

Because 81>70 the damage increase can not be from piercing increasing MC damage alone.
As such, your hypothesis is proved wrong.


Other factors (because remember, if your equation factors resistances, then you must up the damage per shot for the negative resistances the FDL has,)...
...So, if we use your math which factors in resists then that more proves me right, not wrong.
See above.
 
Yeah, if it was a mod that reduced hull hardness and (possibly) damage resistances but gave no direct damage bonus, it'd be great as a playfield-leveler against the meta of "PAs are best because engineered ships have crazy resistances and absolute damage bypasses resistances".
What if Corrosive made the weapon damage absolute against hull for that weapon only? Would that make it more interesting? This is a heavy blow to Cyto though, which I think is struggling to have a use anyway.
 
This is a heavy blow to Cyto though, which I think is struggling to have a use anyway.
Well, cytos are supposed to be and originally were, almost useless against hull. They don't really seem unbalanced with corrosive now, but corrosive shouldn't be there to make cytoscramblers more viable; both things need to be able to stand on their own.

That said I don't think changing damage type makes as much sense as just dropping the 25% damage increase. If a bigger change is in order, making a hull rating penalty (or piercing buff) scale in effect with damage, rather like scramble spectrum (more damage = full effect sooner) could work.

Most other suggestions sound like they'd change the effect too much for it to still be 'corrosive' (broadly weakening armor). They'd become 'armor piercing' (just letting that weapon ignore some or all armor/resists).
 
how to fix:
one very good idea in the past to fix this was. that the effect of corossive is increased with the time the bullets are hitting the hull.
atm i can shoot one bullet with a gimballed long range multic to get a 25% damage buff of the attacked ship in a distance of many kms.
it would be better to start with 1% and then as longer the bullets are hitting the hull the effect is increased to the 25%
this would also pay out frag corossive cause they should have a bigger effect with one hit.
On top of this progressional 25% damage increase, I would also want this to only apply to kinectic damage, in order to another already powerful weapons don't benefit so massively from it. This would sway the meta a little bit to the hull tanks again.
 
Entertaining and informative thread. Thanks for the testing and PVP video link, Morbad; I didn't get the pleasure of watching it a year ago when it was first posted. Your Krait absolutely dismantled that gunship. Was the cannon applying the corrosive effect being discussed?
 
Entertaining and informative thread. Thanks for the testing and PVP video link, Morbad; I didn't get the pleasure of watching it a year ago when it was first posted. Your Krait absolutely dismantled that gunship. Was the cannon applying the corrosive effect being discussed?
You're mixing up two separate videos, there was no corrosive involved in Krait (it's only on MCs and frags, not standard cannon...that one was just a force shell turret I added as an after thought as my triple focused PA loadout was proving too hot)vs. Gunship video...it was just a tangential digression in response to someone trying to attack the poster rather than the information contained in the post demonstrating corrosive.

Regardless, anyone with a corrosive weapon and a friend can do a quick test themselves to see it's effects.
 
Oh that's right; no corrosive flavor option for cannons. Anyway, good to see the test video as I've heard contradictory things about corrosive over the years and that looks pretty conclusive. Maybe I'll give the four med. PA/huge corrosive multi a try on the biweave FDL I just finished.
 
You're mixing up two separate videos, there was no corrosive involved in Krait (it's only on MCs and frags, not standard cannon...that one was just a force shell turret I added as an after thought as my triple focused PA loadout was proving too hot)vs. Gunship video...it was just a tangential digression in response to someone trying to attack the poster rather than the information contained in the post demonstrating corrosive.

Regardless, anyone with a corrosive weapon and a friend can do a quick test themselves to see it's effects.
... okay, turreted force shells sound like they'd be incredibly annoying for an FA-off pilot to deal with. I love it.
 
Well, cytos are supposed to be and originally were, almost useless against hull. They don't really seem unbalanced with corrosive now, but corrosive shouldn't be there to make cytoscramblers more viable; both things need to be able to stand on their own.

That said I don't think changing damage type makes as much sense as just dropping the 25% damage increase. If a bigger change is in order, making a hull rating penalty (or piercing buff) scale in effect with damage, rather like scramble spectrum (more damage = full effect sooner) could work.

Most other suggestions sound like they'd change the effect too much for it to still be 'corrosive' (broadly weakening armor). They'd become 'armor piercing' (just letting that weapon ignore some or all armor/resists).
One thing that has kind of puzzled me is why a 25% increase? Many (not all mind you) of the applied effects have a +/-10% applied; such as plasma slug granting a larger ammo pool-at a 10% damage reduction. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. Oldtimers disease...) So why the 25% increase damage with corrosive effect? 10% would have made more sense as a starting point, to me at least. Also, since I don't synth ammo except for basic, is it logical for me to assume that 15% and 30% stack with corrosive as well? I hope I'm correct about that. I really hate to assume anything. I'm a big enough one without assumptions.

SR o7
 
One thing that has kind of puzzled me is why a 25% increase? Many (not all mind you) of the applied effects have a +/-10% applied; such as plasma slug granting a larger ammo pool-at a 10% damage reduction. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. Oldtimers disease...) So why the 25% increase damage with corrosive effect? 10% would have made more sense as a starting point, to me at least. Also, since I don't synth ammo except for basic, is it logical for me to assume that 15% and 30% stack with corrosive as well? I hope I'm correct about that. I really hate to assume anything. I'm a big enough one without assumptions.
Not sure why they chose the precise effect they did. Maybe they felt the raw APV increase was insufficient for an effect that could only occur against hull and that it needed a bit more? Maybe they wanted a partial counter to small ships that could stack disproportionately more hull strength, but which had a low enough hull rating for the APV increase to be irrelevant?

I'd imagine the it would stack with everything as it appears to be a blanket increase to incoming damage.
 
Top Bottom