Engineers Ok I want to add incendiary rounds to my anaconda, multicannons throughout, where shall I put them?, is the small question, and under what theory? is

[Gobin Splat]

Ok I want to add incendiary rounds to my anaconda, multicannons throughout, where shall I put them?, is the small question, and under what theory? is the bigger question.
I understand that incendiary rounds cut through Shields quicker than kinetic rounds, however once the shield is gone then kinetic rounds do more damage than incendiary rounds, so therefore it seems that, I have to get the balance right, and and I'm also guessing that needs to reflect the proportion of Shields to Hull on on my most of my enemies, so Shields to Hull on most NPCs, is it 50/50 is it 70/30 is it 30/70 is it 60/40? any ideas greatly received

 

[LumberTubs]

Others will answer your questions better than I can but you may want to add the corrosive shell experimental effect to one of your multicannons. Once the shields are down, they "soften" the hull so to speak for a limited time (maybe 5 secs) during which all damage to the hull from the other multicannons will be increased. Corrosive doesn't stack so you only need to add it to one of your multis to benefit from it.

Feel free to disregard if I'm telling you what you already know

 

[Fett_Li]

I assume that NPCs fly with stock modules and military grade composites. This means that their hull has -20% kinetic resistance and 0% thermal resistance whereas their shields have 40% kinetic resistance and -20% thermal resistance. Against NPCs, it should be your goal to do the same amount of damage to shields and hull. This means that you should have more thermal than kinetic damage because whereas the negative resistances are -20% on both alloys and shields, the kinetic resistance is 40% on shields whereas thermal resistance is non-existent on alloys.

To find the equilibrium of damage types, we can solve the following system of equations:
1.2*k + t = 0.6*k + 1.2*t
k+t = 1
0 <= k
0 <= t

The first equation simply states that we want to deal the same amount of damage to shields and hull factoring in resistances; the left side of the equation is damage dealt to hull, the right side damage dealt to shields. If I hand this system of equations to Wolfram Alpha it gives me k=0.25 and t=0.75 as a result. What you should aim for is three times as much thermal damage than kinetic damage.

Incendiary rounds convert the damage portions into 90% thermal and 10% kinetic damage. So going for incendiary rounds only would overshoot on thermal damage. I would suggest to go to https://coriolis.io/ and play around with the weapons. If you scroll down and go to the OFFENCE tab, there is a table that summarizes your SDPS (sustained damage per second). If you hover you mouse over the numbers there, coriolis also tells you the damage type parts, e.g. for a small pulse laser and a small multicannon it says that overall SDPS is 12.9 with 6.6 kinetic and 6.3 thermal damage. That way you can try to aim for the 1/4 kinetic, 3/4 thermal balance.

 

[Gobin Splat]

So kinetic resistance to thermal is 25/75 so that needs to be reflected in my weapons. I already have one gun with corrosive. Thanks

 

[MK Regular]

Personally, I would recommend having corrosive on the huge hardpoint, emmissive on one of the large hardpoints, and incendiary on everything else. I don't know what the ratio of thermal:kinetic damage would be (Coriolis seems to be broken right now), but I would hazard to say that it is around 3:2 instead of the 3:1 you are looking for.

A better option would be to have high capacity and corrosive on one of the mediums, with overcharged emmissive on the other medium and overcharged incendiary on everything else. This would give you a T:K ratio of around 2.7:1.

Edit: That said, the SDPS increase offered by the Auto-loader secondary might actually result in more damage output against shields than incendiary. I will need to run the numbers on it when Coriolis is working for me again.

The Auto-loader secondary does not provide more SDPS against stock shields than incendiary. Against engineered shields with balanced resistances Auto-loader would provide more SDPS, but against stock shields Incendiary works better.

 

[Gobin Splat]

I currently have corrosive on my huge gun but since corrosive is just as effective on a small gun it sounds like a waste of my huge cannon. In fact there are suggestions that same corrosive impact would be reapplied more quickly from the smaller faster canon. My thoughts are to apply corrosive to one small cannon fast reload to my 3 large cannons and incendiary to everything else

 

[HunterMemnoch]

I currently have corrosive on my huge gun but since corrosive is just as effective on a small gun it sounds like a waste of my huge cannon. In fact there are suggestions that same corrosive impact would be reapplied more quickly from the smaller faster canon. My thoughts are to apply corrosive to one small cannon fast reload to my 3 large cannons and incendiary to everything else

Corrosive is a waste in the huge. It needs to go on whatever your smallest hardpoint is, preferably with high capacity engineering since corrosive reduces the amount of ammo.

 

[MK Regular]

Corrosive is a waste in the huge. It needs to go on whatever your smallest hardpoint is, preferably with high capacity engineering since corrosive reduces the amount of ammo.

Part of that comes down to what you plan on doing. I tend to go with corrosive on my huge multi-cannon if I have one because

• The huge multi-cannon has no spin-up time, meaning that the target will have the corrosive debuff before any of my other multi-cannons start shooting.
• Due to how low the RoF is on the huge multi-cannon, I will run out of ammo for every other multi-cannon before I run out of ammo for my huge multi-cannon even with the corrosive secondary. If I'm not planning on sticking around long enough to need synthesis (which I usually don't), the lower ammo count has no effect on me.

Ymmv, but that is why I use corrosive on my huge multi-cannon.