Jump to content
Jade Shadows: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

What was the point of nerfing corrosive procs?


Signs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let's start buy running over the changes DE did to corrosive procs and armor. Corrosive procs were changed from removing 25% of the target's current armor per proc to removing 26% of the target's maximum armor on first proc and removing 6% of the target's maximum armor on subsequent procs up to 80% total. Armor was changed in intervals. Enemies under level 60 got no changes, enemies between 60 and around 75 have increased armor and enemies above level 80 have decreased armor.

The following is a graph comparing the total % armor removal over # of procs. This shows that corrosive is significantly weaker than it was before the update. At 1 proc its barely a difference with the updated having an edge. But as we go further and further (well at 2 its already worse), the armor removal is significantly worse than before. (Note: this graph only goes to 10 but old corrosive keeps striping after 10 procs while new corrosive is capped at 10, this means after a couple more corrosive procs, the old corrosive would've striped around 95+ while the new one is stuck at 80). Well you may be telling yourself, "they nerfed armor so it won't be a big deal!" HOWEVER, DE has only nerfed armor for enemies above level 80 and actually BUFFED the armor of enemies between 60 and around 75. This means armored enemies under level 75~ are actually harder to kill than before! And as I'm about to show, sortie enemies are actually harder to kill.
lAd1rFF.png

-

This graph shows the old enemy armor scaling vs the new enemy scaling. Currently new health and shield scaling is unknown so those are left out. The main thing we are focusing on is the armor scaling.

t7E2V94.png

Old level 100 corrupted heavy gunner had 7332 armor while new level 100 corrupted heavy gunner has 5831 armor.

This graph shows the effectiveness of the first 20 corrosive procs on a level 100 corrupted heavy gunner. % DMG increase from prev refers to how much more damage you are going to do compared to the previous number. % DMG increase from prev on 15 procs means how much more damage you deal vs 14 procs. % DMG increase from 0 refers to how much more damage you are dealing compared to 0 corrosive procs. We're mostly going to be focusing on the % damage dealt as that is the most telling and useful stat here.

IJP7Saq.png

As we compare the % damage dealt of both graphs, obviously at 0 corrosive procs, the update corrupted heavy gunner takes more damage because armor was lowered. We then look at 1 and 2 corrosive procs, where the new one is still better, okay. But then we look at the ALL of the subsequent corrosive procs. They ALL favor the old corrosive proc even though the armor used for the new corrosive proc is supposedly the nerfed version of armor. Keep in mind, this is about a sortie level enemy.

Before anyone says, if you wanted to figure out how much damage viral does to these enemies, just take % damage dealt at 0 procs and multiply it by (100+25*(# of procs - 1))%. E.g. (4.893165878 * (100+100+25*(7-1))%=12.23% [viral deals 17.115% damage against nerfed armor at 7 procs] and you'll notice is still worse than pre nerf armor with 7 pre nerf corrosive procs)

As a side note: Viral Slash is super buffed xd

Obviously the % damage dealt doesn't factor in corrosive's 75% armor ignore and +75% damage to ferrite armor. If you guys want me to calculate that, I can. But that is just too much math and every weapon has different IPS/elemental spread so the information won't be that valuable.

Anyways, corrosive was straight up nerfed (according to math), enemy armor remained the same from levels 1 - 60 and was buffed 60 - 75~ and nerfed 80+. What does this mean? This means it's harder to kill armored enemies below level, I mean all levels. Obviously I did not do the math for all enemies at all levels, if you are curious on a specific enemy, you can let me know and I can do the math.

Edited by Signs
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 минут назад, DarkSkysz сказал:

For the simple reason they said in the patch notes. They do not want the players to take away 100% of a faction protection. No matter if it is shields or armor.

I wonder how does poison relate to this new-found principle.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DarkSkysz said:

For the simple reason they said in the patch notes. They do not want the players to take away 100% of a faction protection. No matter if it is shields or armor.

so explain oberon, frost , ect ability to perma strip? 

heck shattering impact ,  but reviewing on the changes and their behavior the notes makes me just think it simply was for ease of quick coding benefit not really players , aka all inheriting base duration directly from a root setup

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Serafim_94 said:

I wonder how does poison relate to this new-found principle.

Same as slash I assume.

21 minutes ago, (XB1)EternalDrk Mako said:

so explain oberon, frost , ect ability to perma strip? 

heck shattering impact ,  but reviewing on the changes and their behavior the notes makes me just think it simply was for ease of quick coding benefit not really players , aka all inheriting base duration directly from a root setup

Obe, Frosty and so on are frames, so theyir abilities should do things that weapons cant, if you decide to bring them for that specific thing.

Shattering Impact I'm not sure on why they let it stay. I guess it is because you give up something else and it is melee specific. You drop upfront damage in order to remove the armor instead. Corrosive brought both upfront damage and removed armor. The question is really how worth it Shattering Impact actually is since the patch, except for in a few specific cases.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

31 minutes ago, (XB1)EternalDrk Mako said:

so explain oberon, frost , ect ability to perma strip? 

heck shattering impact ,  but reviewing on the changes and their behavior the notes makes me just think it simply was for ease of quick coding benefit not really players , aka all inheriting base duration directly from a root setup

For more explanations, read the patch notes..

 

On 2020-03-05 at 12:32 PM, [DE]Megan said:

Why: We think being consistent is key. Passively removing 100% of an enemy's defenses is not an interesting choice, and we were completely inconsistent in this regard with Auras (i.e the efficacy of 4x Corrosive Projections vs 4x Shield Disruptions). 

 

As you can see, Megan said they do not want PASSIVE (keyword here) effects removing the protections. All the things you listed are manually activated by the player with skills or attacks.

Edited by DarkSkysz
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DarkSkysz said:

  

For more explanations, read the patch notes..

 

why would i need explanations, I read them and checked my pc account for testing, its not the end of the world for corrosive, but honestly when frames have guaranteed 100% armor strip thats permanent, i dont see why corrosive needed to be duration based other then to quick code it and all status types from a derived  base easier   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's likely for the same reason they nerf anything in Warframe most people used corrosive builds on all their weapons,  they typically wants some diversity.  for now just switch over to viral and you're fine,  though viral seems a bit op at the moment and I would expect to see nerfs at some point, but for now  it creates faster times to kill them corrosive ever did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (XB1)EternalDrk Mako said:

makes me just think it simply was for ease of quick coding benefit not really players , aka all inheriting base duration directly from a root setup

That is also not a bad reason or poor goal for the devs to pursue. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, (XB1)EternalDrk Mako said:

why would i need explanations, I read them and checked my pc account for testing, its not the end of the world for corrosive, but honestly when frames have guaranteed 100% armor strip thats permanent, i dont see why corrosive needed to be duration based other then to quick code it and all status types from a derived  base easier   

If you really read them you would know the reason. Megan said it there.

 

 

Also, full strip was a bad thing before and still is. Losing the damage bonus from corrosive/radiation damage was not good, since health is not weak against them.

Edited by DarkSkysz
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch videos on the subject before calling it a nerf

Enemies have way less armor than before, making them easier to kill. Plus you keep the damage bonus against ferrite armor since you can't remove it completely

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Xenox_Ilz-ot said:

Watch videos on the subject before calling it a nerf

Enemies have way less armor than before, making them easier to kill. Plus you keep the damage bonus against ferrite armor since you can't remove it completely

Against this specific level 100 corrupted heavy gunner, the new corrosive at 10 procs and factoring the 75% armor ignore, it has 291.55 armor giving it 49.28% damage reduction. Meaning you deal 51.72% damage to it.

The old corrosive at 10 procs and factoring the 75% armor ignore, it has 103 armor giving it 25.6% damage reduction. Meaning you deal 74.4% damage to it.

So how is this a buff? Probably look at the graph before talking. I don't know if you know this but corrosive deals the same damage to NO armor as it deals to 900 armor. This means anything above 900 armor is actually WORSE for corrosive damage than 0 armor. And this corrupted heavy gunner seems to have more than 900 armor after 10 new corrosive procs meaning OVERSTRIP IS BETTER THAN 10 NEW CORROSIVE PROCS ON THIS ENEMY. Also do you know how many corrosive procs it takes until this enemy is overstriped? 30. 30 corrosive procs. In these 20 more corrosive procs you are dealing far more damage than the new corrosive even though new corrosive is using diminished armor. Have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, (PS4)Eluminary said:

viral seems a bit op at the moment and I would expect to see nerfs at some point, but for now  it creates faster times to kill them corrosive ever did.

Except 10 new viral procs on new armor on this level 100 corrupted heavy gunner will only make you deal 22% damage and 10 old corrosive procs on old armor will make you deal 42% damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Signs said:

Against this specific level 100 corrupted heavy gunner, the new corrosive at 10 procs and factoring the 75% armor ignore, it has 291.55 armor giving it 49.28% damage reduction. Meaning you deal 51.72% damage to it.

The old corrosive at 10 procs and factoring the 75% armor ignore, it has 103 armor giving it 25.6% damage reduction. Meaning you deal 74.4% damage to it.

So how is this a buff? Probably look at the graph before talking. I don't know if you know this but corrosive deals the same damage to NO armor as it deals to 900 armor. This means anything above 900 armor is actually WORSE for corrosive damage than 0 armor. And this corrupted heavy gunner seems to have more than 900 armor after 10 new corrosive procs meaning OVERSTRIP IS BETTER THAN 10 NEW CORROSIVE PROCS ON THIS ENEMY. Also do you know how many corrosive procs it takes until this enemy is overstriped? 30. 30 corrosive procs. In these 20 more corrosive procs you are dealing far more damage than the new corrosive even though new corrosive is using diminished armor. Have a good day.

I don't really care about your calcul but your forgetting two things:

1. Your talking like corrosive is the only damage/proc on your weapon

2. I say that I don't care about your calcul because expectations & reality are most of the time very different, test it yourself & you'll see, or just watch this video which explains it briefly:

If you want to watch everything go to 2:33

Spoiler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DarkSkysz said:

For the simple reason they said in the patch notes. They do not want the players to take away 100% of a faction protection. No matter if it is shields or armor.

Okay. Add an armor strip cap to old corrosive problem solved? Why add this new trash corrosive? And increase the cap for stripped armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Xenox_Ilz-ot said:

I don't really care about your calcul but your forgetting two things:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Ignorance at its finest

5 minutes ago, Xenox_Ilz-ot said:

I don't really care about your calcul but your forgetting two things:

1. Your talking like corrosive is the only damage/proc on your weapon

2. I say that I don't care about your calcul because expectations & reality are most of the time very different, test it yourself & you'll see, or just watch this video which explains it briefly:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

1. Viral is worse than old corrosive. Corrosive is worse than old corrosive. Gas is dead. The only thing better than old corrosive is viral slash which is super buffed except a majority of the weapons can't do viral slash.

2. Yes just discredit math for damage dealt per corrosive proc because that data is unreliable when we are comparing the same element and with the same enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...