Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GKP_light

Idea to balance the Corrosive

Recommended Posts

Corrosive proc Reduce the armor of 20% for 12 secondes for each stack, up to 10 stacks. 

With a multiplicative cumul. So at 10 stacks, it would remain 0.8^10 = 10.7% of the armor.

 

A longer duration, but not infinite.

excepte at 1 stack, the armor reduction is higher than actually, but less than before, and can not remove 100% of the armor.

with 10 stacks, remove 89.3% of the armor, instead of 80% actually.

with 7 stacks, remove 79% of the armor, instead of 62% actually.

with 3 stacks, remove 48.8% of the armor, instead of 38% actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 4 heures, (PS4)Spider_Enigma a dit :

if corrosive lasted 10 seconds and all stacks refreshed it would be fine

it doesn't need to be stronger

Actually, the corrosive proc is very bad compare to viral.

It is only useful on ennemis with armor, when viral work on all except shield. 

And excepte on ennemis with very high armor, and at 10 stack, viral proc increase more the damage than corrosive.

To kill ennemis with very high armor, slash, or viral-slash, are far better than corrosive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, GKP_light said:

Actually, the corrosive proc is very bad compare to viral.

It is only useful on ennemis with armor, when viral work on all except shield. 

And excepte on ennemis with very high armor, and at 10 stack, viral proc increase more the damage than corrosive.

To kill ennemis with very high armor, slash, or viral-slash, are far better than corrosive.

u mean viral heat

and its been proven in tests vs level 165s and probably railjack enemies that even with the cap of 3.5x multiplier that corrosive is better 

whats better, 3.5x ur damage when its being lowered by 95% or 1x ur damage when its being lowered by 20%? but again that's only in railjack atm that ur see that as an issue 

otherwise ur fully correct that viral is better in literly every other situation, but u still have to build stacks like u would corrosive

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 1 heure, (PS4)Spider_Enigma a dit :

u mean viral heat

and its been proven in tests vs level 165s and probably railjack enemies that even with the cap of 3.5x multiplier that corrosive is better 

whats better, 3.5x ur damage when its being lowered by 95% or 1x ur damage when its being lowered by 20%? but again that's only in railjack atm that ur see that as an issue 

otherwise ur fully correct that viral is better in literly every other situation, but u still have to build stacks like u would corrosive

 

I mean viral only. Add heat is strong, yes, but all i say is true with just viral.

 

"whats better, 3.5x ur damage when its being lowered by 95% or 1x ur damage when its being lowered by 20%?"

If the damage are reduce of 95%, it mean that the ennemis have 5700 armor.

With 10 stack of corrosive, they will have 1140 armor. so the damage are still reduce by 79.2%.

So at this point, it is better to increase the damage of 325% with 10 stack of viral than reduce the armor of 80% with 10 stack of corrosive.

And this calcul is do with 10 stack. With 1-9 stack, difference between viral proc and corrosive proc is far larger. and reach 10 stack only append with some very high status weapons.

(I know that corrosive have bonus damage on armor ; but is is not enough. it is only on the corrosive damage, it don't increase the base damage of the weapon.

And on the main gun, we have more viral damage than corrosive damage, because of Primed Cryo Rounds.)

 

"and its been proven in tests vs level 165s and probably railjack enemies that even with the cap of 3.5x multiplier that corrosive is better"

But "To kill ennemis with very high armor, slash, or viral-slash, are far better than corrosive."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GKP_light said:

I mean viral only. Add heat is strong, yes, but all i say is true with just viral.

 

"whats better, 3.5x ur damage when its being lowered by 95% or 1x ur damage when its being lowered by 20%?"

If the damage are reduce of 95%, it mean that the ennemis have 5700 armor.

With 10 stack of corrosive, they will have 1140 armor. so the damage are still reduce by 79.2%.

So at this point, it is better to increase the damage of 325% with 10 stack of viral than reduce the armor of 80% with 10 stack of corrosive.

And this calcul is do with 10 stack. With 1-9 stack, difference between viral proc and corrosive proc is far larger. and reach 10 stack only append with some very high status weapons.

(I know that corrosive have bonus damage on armor ; but is is not enough. it is only on the corrosive damage, it don't increase the base damage of the weapon.

And on the main gun, we have more viral damage than corrosive damage, because of Primed Cryo Rounds.)

 

"and its been proven in tests vs level 165s and probably railjack enemies that even with the cap of 3.5x multiplier that corrosive is better"

But "To kill ennemis with very high armor, slash, or viral-slash, are far better than corrosive."

Lets be honest here. Viral is OP. Corrosive shouldn't be buffed to match Viral, 

Viral and other element procs should be adjusted to sit around the same power level of Corrosive and Heat.

Slash is kinda of special case as itself defines a whole playstyle.
Would be lovely if all the physical damage types supported their own playstyle.
Impact to promote elemental status builds (more chance to proc an elemental status effect with every impact proc)
Puncture to promote crit builds (More chance to crit with every puncture proc up to flat 15%, but never go past yellow crit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shaburanigud said:

Lets be honest here. Viral is OP. Corrosive shouldn't be buffed to match Viral, 

Viral and other element procs should be adjusted to sit around the same power level of Corrosive and Heat.

Slash is kinda of special case as itself defines a whole playstyle.
Would be lovely if all the physical damage types supported their own playstyle.
Impact to promote elemental status builds (more chance to proc an elemental status effect with every impact proc)
Puncture to promote crit builds (More chance to crit with every puncture proc up to flat 15%, but never go past yellow crit)

i like this idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GKP_light said:

I mean viral only. Add heat is strong, yes, but all i say is true with just viral.

 

"whats better, 3.5x ur damage when its being lowered by 95% or 1x ur damage when its being lowered by 20%?"

If the damage are reduce of 95%, it mean that the ennemis have 5700 armor.

With 10 stack of corrosive, they will have 1140 armor. so the damage are still reduce by 79.2%.

So at this point, it is better to increase the damage of 325% with 10 stack of viral than reduce the armor of 80% with 10 stack of corrosive.

And this calcul is do with 10 stack. With 1-9 stack, difference between viral proc and corrosive proc is far larger. and reach 10 stack only append with some very high status weapons.

(I know that corrosive have bonus damage on armor ; but is is not enough. it is only on the corrosive damage, it don't increase the base damage of the weapon.

And on the main gun, we have more viral damage than corrosive damage, because of Primed Cryo Rounds.)

 

"and its been proven in tests vs level 165s and probably railjack enemies that even with the cap of 3.5x multiplier that corrosive is better"

But "To kill ennemis with very high armor, slash, or viral-slash, are far better than corrosive."


This is not entirely true or it is and yet it is not entirely wrong either. It is going to depend on what Armor type the enemies have.

Against Alloy Armor type you are correct in the calculation, however.
If enemies have Ferrite Armor Type, it is wrong.

If they have Ferrite you would have to first, 20% of the 5700, so 1140, then 25% of the 1140, so 285 armor.

Meaning around 48% Damage resistance from armor. However then the Corrosive damage part of the gun would also deal +75% Damage.

A more fairer comparison when it is Viral vs Corrosive is.
Alloy;    +325% Damage vs 20% armor.
Ferrite; +325% Damage vs 5% armor +75% Damage

The main thing to also look at is that some enemies are immune towards Viral, but not vs Corrosive.
Now i am not saying that Corrosive is always better, nor that Viral is always better. What i want to say is that there is some semblance of balance between them, obviously not perfect but it is not as out of whack that some people are saying either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
il y a 16 minutes, Hellmaker2004 a dit :

If they have Ferrite you would have to first, 20% of the 5700, so 1140, then 25% of the 1140, so 285 armor.

why " then 25% of the 1140, so 285 armor." ?

were come from this 2nd armor reduction ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GKP_light said:

why " then 25% of the 1140, so 285 armor." ?

were come from this 2nd armor reduction ?

https://warframe.fandom.com/wiki/Damage/Corrosive_Damage

- As with all damage types effective against armor,  Corrosive damage's type modifier works in two ways: it ignores a percentage of the target's armor, and increases the damage dealt in the same way as a type modifier against hitpoints. Practically speaking, this means that  Corrosive damage is only reduced by 25% of a target's whole Ferrite Armor and the base damage is increased by +75%.

It is quite funny, before the change to corrosive the armor stripping was, unless you fought enemies with really high armor a detriment, as if you stripped all armor from them, you would lose the +75% Damage modifier.

So despite the "nerf" to corrosive, it is actually a buff, or it is vs Ferrite armor type as long as the +75% outweighs the 5% armor they retain.
This is however not true vs Alloy armor type. To that corrosive was nerfed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...