Hi Eric and team

 

I want to discuss some concerns I have with the lackluster ship component known as ION Missiles. My comfort zone is in a strike fighter and am naturally a missile dueler, I love my missiles and am very good with them. I did not however enjoy my experience with the Ion missile.

 

Simply put a player with all three types of Strike fighter gets 4 missile slots total. There are 6 missile choices. If you add a CM Strike you get another missile slot in your hanger but a limited one and it will likely mirror another missile slot.

 

Of those 5 slots, two cannot equip Ions. The 3 remaining you obviously desire one to be filled with EMP missiles. So we are left with 2 slots for Ions to compete for.

 

So lets assume Concussion goes to Type 1 Strikes but also assume a lesser chance a player puts Protons on a T1.

Also let's ignore Thermite Torpedo for the purpose of this discussion as it only can enter one slot and is an extremely specialist weapon that is also available on other ship classes.

Lastly lets assume a player has Equipped EMP missile as is obviously your desire.

 

So we are back to our 2 slots for Ions to fit with 3 total open slot, With Protons, Clusters and Ions without a home yet. You could put clusters on T1 and settle Ions and Protons between the T2 and/or T3. Reminder this requires purchase of the CM strike for a player to deploy all 5 missile types.

 

Here we enter my problem. The value of mirror loads such as cluster missiles or proton torps on 2 ships types in my opinion is more valuable then Ion missiles. Put in another way I'd rather have clusters on my CM(T1) and also on my T2 then Ions.

 

Ion missiles are too much of a hybrid, They compete against Clusters, Protons , and Concussions in the load out. and are inferior to all three by a significant margin.

 

The proposal: I have 3 actually.

 

The simplest is release a CM T2 Strike(CM T3 would work too). This yields another 2 slots for EMP and Ion missiles to POTENTIALLY occupy. The issue is this doesn't increase the value of Ions and it requires an in game purchase to make Ions a practical choice.

 

My other 2 suggestions unhybridize the Ion. Currently Ion mirrors the Concussion missile: medium range, medium damage, medium lock time. Which is why it sucks. There is a better Medium x3 weapon in the Concussion missile and a range upgraded Cluster has almost the same practical range which makes Ion + Cluster a non synergistic build.

 

My Second proposal: Synergies Ion missile with Protons. Change the range and lock time for Ion to match that of the base Cluster Missiles and reduce the damage to now be proportional to Clusters rather then Concussions. Likely you could leave it so it still has same retical as Concussion so it doesn't overshadow the cluster.

 

Here's sample scenario involving T2 Strike in current 2.6. Using my build of Clusters + Protons. It is an extremely effective strategy and I use if often.

 

- Begin lock at max proton range

- Achieve lock and fire at ~concussion range, targets evasiveness is now high, concussion/Ion lock is less likely.

- Proton hits target, reduced to <50% hull but still 100% shields

- Close to cluster range(takes ~1 second), clusters are more effective on evasive targets.

- Hit with clusters, target is now at minimal shields minimal hull

- Follow up with additional clusters or lasers.

 

In this example you can clearly see how targets shield is the primary hurdle to overcome and not it's hull strength. This become especially true when attacking bombers. So Ion damage is more effective then hull damage.

 

In this example I also show how both Ions and Concussion missiles are not synergized with proton torpedoes due to targets evasiveness after first proton lock. All SF missiles except clusters benefit form your targets ignorance to achieve the bulk of your lock on time, any follow up missile does not have that ignorance to benefit it. So it is impractical to attempt to follow up with Ion missiles.

 

My Third Proposal: This uses the above example to synergize with the cluster missile. You turn Ion into a better opener same as the proton. You buff the Ion to base proton range and shrink it's retical to that of the proton, while keeping damage and lock time the same as Ion currently is. This has has the benefit of providing maximum slow on target. It would also make it a top choice for GS killing.

 

In closing think the real issue is not that Ion is a bad weapon, it's simply that it is not competitive enough for the limited number of slots it is available in.

 

Thank you for your time.

Thing is, if you manage to hit someone with Protorp, you will also manage to hit them with Ion. At least I found landing Ion (or Concussion) hits way easier than Ions. Then, finish the job with Clusters.

 

You don't need to bring all kinds of missiles in fight, just the ones you need for your playstyle. I admit that as scout player I don't really use missiles, only pods, but once the third scout type comes, I will sure use Ion missiles.

 

You also want to look at other bonuses Ions provide. Snare, energy drain, useful stuff.

They are not used much, because they are not universal. That doesn't mean they need tweaks. Specialized players can use them with great success.

Thing is, if you manage to hit someone with Protorp, you will also manage to hit them with Ion. At least I found landing Ion (or Concussion) hits way easier than Ions. Then, finish the job with Clusters.

 

You don't need to bring all kinds of missiles in fight, just the ones you need for your playstyle. I admit that as scout player I don't really use missiles, only pods, but once the third scout type comes, I will sure use Ion missiles.

 

You also want to look at other bonuses Ions provide. Snare, energy drain, useful stuff.

They are not used much, because they are not universal. That doesn't mean they need tweaks. Specialized players can use them with great success.

 

Ion missiles are boring and their effectiveness is not valuable enough compare to straight damage missiles. Simplified:

- Their lock time/effect is too low

- Their availability on different ship types is too low, especially factoring EMP missiles which BioWare is practically demanding we use more.

 

@chrisschmit stated they want to improve missile utility in GSF, which is why we are getting the engine ability nerfs.

 

As to your point about Ions being a specialized missile for specialized players that only works in a more stable que environment where a team is forced to define clear roles for each member. Ranked would solve this but, the current premade climate yields diminished gameplay. Premades are not forced to specialize and most either maximize their kill power or farm ship mastery. This happens because premades rarely face another premade in enough frequency for a team to build synergistic roles. In fact I've seen a massive drop in the number of "stacked" permades because they are not receiving good gameplay and are not providing good gameplay. At least on Jedi Covenant.

I flew my strike fighter more before 2.6, but in the few occasions I have flown it since that patch I've used ions and concussions in the same loadout on my quell. The combo is enough to severely maim or outright kill an enemy vessel - bombers especially given the debuffs the ion missile brings and how much shield damage it does.

Wait for Tuesday's update. If informations on Dulfy are right, Ion should be decent even if the target has no shields...

So even if you equip Heavy cannons with range capacitors and take down the shields before, it won't be that bad. The right combination of cannons and capacitors may have a very good synergy with Ion.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Altheran

Wait for Tuesday's update. If informations on Dulfy are right, Ion should be decent even if the target has no shields...

So even if you equip Heavy cannons with range capacitors and take down the shields before, it won't be that bad. The right combination of cannons and capacitors may have a very good synergy with Ion.

 

Ummm.......................did you read well.............anything...................beside the word...............ION?

 

This thread is about Ion MISSILES, not Ion Cannons. If you had bothered to read more then one word you'd see my discussion is based on 2.7 ship availability. If it wasn't the theme would be more along the lines of "EMP and Ion Missiles are useless." but 2.7 does address this half way. Bioware has stated often "USE EMP" in all bomber complaint discussions. So we now(Tuesday) have an extra opportunity to use EMP, but Ion is still left out in the cold.

Edited April 5, 2014 by mr_sim

I want to discuss some concerns I have with the lackluster ship component known as ION Missiles. My comfort zone is in a strike fighter and am naturally a missile dueler, I love my missiles and am very good with them. I did not however enjoy my experience with the Ion missile.

 

Given the shield-only nature, I think the debuffs it applies should be a bit stronger.

 

Simply put a player with all three types of Strike fighter gets 4 missile slots total. There are 6 missile choices. If you add a CM Strike you get another missile slot in your hanger but a limited one and it will likely mirror another missile slot.

 

I don't think viewing it in "missile choices" is wise, nor do I think the devs should have to design the game around a 4-strike hangar.

 

Of those 5 slots, two cannot equip Ions.

 

I think it's ok that most can't ion. I would love a CM type 2 strike, though.

 

The 3 remaining you obviously desire one to be filled with EMP missiles. So we are left with 2 slots for Ions to compete for.

 

I don't think it's in any way obvious that EMP grabs a slot.

 

There's no scenario where you NEED ion missiles man. And the devs don't have to provide one. If your type 2 strike build lands an ion, or if your type 3 strike uses that, then great. But you never look out at a game map and think "I need to bring ion missiles to C".

 

Ion missiles are too much of a hybrid, They compete against Clusters, Protons , and Concussions in the load out. and are inferior to all three by a significant margin.

 

I don't put them in the same category as clusters, and protons are a different thing (and synergize poorly). They do compete with, and play well with, concussions, basically removing a shield arc on hit.

 

I think the real problem with ion missiles is that you are often shooting and missiling at the same time, and the edge they bring over concussion is just small. If I'm shooting at someone and launch a missile as they blast past, as concussion it has a real chance to kill them, as ion it does a lot less.

 

I think they just need to up the punishment for being hit by one. By a lot.

 

 

Second CM Type 2 Strike- This idea is good, but it does nothing for the power of ion missile. This solves your unique problem of not having a 5 strike hangar and not being able to justify ion, but it doesn't make most players want to bring ion.

 

Change it to be an ion cluster instead of an ion concussion- close range ions are frustrating for several reasons. Sure, you'd hit with them, but it's just shield damage, and then you have to swap to clusters to actually get the kill. Still, this could be fine.

 

 

Change it to be an ion proton instead of an ion concussion- an ion missile can't be upped in damage, because it already deals "your shield arc is erased" damage. This could work if the snare and drain were upped a lot, however.

Given the shield-only nature, I think the debuffs it applies should be a bit stronger.

 

 

 

1. I don't think viewing it in "missile choices" is wise, nor do I think the devs should have to design the game around a 4-strike hangar.

 

 

 

2. I think it's ok that most can't ion. I would love a CM type 2 strike, though.

 

 

 

3. I don't think it's in any way obvious that EMP grabs a slot.

 

4. There's no scenario where you NEED ion missiles man. And the devs don't have to provide one. If your type 2 strike build lands an ion, or if your type 3 strike uses that, then great. But you never look out at a game map and think "I need to bring ion missiles to C".

 

 

 

5. I don't put them in the same category as clusters, and protons are a different thing (and synergize poorly). They do compete with, and play well with, concussions, basically removing a shield arc on hit.

 

I think the real problem with ion missiles is that you are often shooting and missiling at the same time, and the edge they bring over concussion is just small. If I'm shooting at someone and launch a missile as they blast past, as concussion it has a real chance to kill them, as ion it does a lot less.

 

I think they just need to up the punishment for being hit by one. By a lot.

 

 

6. Second CM Type 2 Strike- This idea is good, but it does nothing for the power of ion missile. This solves your unique problem of not having a 5 strike hangar and not being able to justify ion, but it doesn't make most players want to bring ion.

 

7. Change it to be an ion cluster instead of an ion concussion- close range ions are frustrating for several reasons. Sure, you'd hit with them, but it's just shield damage, and then you have to swap to clusters to actually get the kill. Still, this could be fine.

 

 

8. Change it to be an ion proton instead of an ion concussion- an ion missile can't be upped in damage, because it already deals "your shield arc is erased" damage. This could work if the snare and drain were upped a lot, however.

 

^So I added numbers to organize my reply.^

 

1. The 4 strike hanger is the ideal situation in which Ion missiles have the highest possible chance of being chosen. Yet even in this situation Ions are not attractive.

 

2. I didn't propose more Ships get Ion, just fleshing out it's limits. Fact is the most chosen missiles are the ones available to all ships anyway.

 

3. This is based on statement made by Bioware that EMP should be equipped to some ships to counter bombers. BioWare publicly envisions a role for EMP missile that is why it is more assumed to get a spot.

 

4. Need or want apparently, it's boring so why not investigate changing it?

 

5. They compete with Custers, Protons and Concussions as choices for upgrades. and yes Clusters do synergize with Protons. My above scenarios describes how. But this is a conversation about Ion not cluster missiles, I'll gladly discuss the 2 somewhere else.

 

6. I did say it was a poor solution. But I saw the potential and chose to list it.

 

7. or you could use lasers. Especailly on the T3 strike.

 

8. My proposed Long range Ion would do exact same damage as current Ion.

Ummm.......................did you read well.............anything...................beside the word...............ION?

 

This thread is about Ion MISSILES, not Ion Cannons. If you had bothered to read more then one word you'd see my discussion is based on 2.7 ship availability. If it wasn't the theme would be more along the lines of "EMP and Ion Missiles are useless." but 2.7 does address this half way. Bioware has stated often "USE EMP" in all bomber complaint discussions. So we now(Tuesday) have an extra opportunity to use EMP, but Ion is still left out in the cold.

 

Who said anything about Ion cannons ?

 

Your problem is almost a non-problem. It's like if I were complaning that Ion cannon are only available to Starguards and Ion Rail only to Quarrel. Each ship (except CometBreaker) have an exclusive component. You can, if you prefer, not using it. Ion Missile is one of them.

You are entitled to ask for a cartel version of the Pike so that you can enjoy the Ion and the non-Ion part of the Strike. Most ships have their cartel version, this one does not, that's odd.

But that's related to the absence of a cartel ship, not Ion missile itself.

 

Then there are your second and third proposals... which are "reworks" of the Missile, so that you'd desire them more and end using it.

At that point you're questionning its efficiency. And you're judging its efficiency on data that will (probably) be obsolete soon.

That's why I'm telling you to wait for Tuesday's update.

 

 

 

Who said anything about Ion cannons ?

 

Your problem is almost a non-problem. It's like if I were complaning that Ion cannon are only available to Starguards and Ion Rail only to Quarrel. Each ship (except CometBreaker) have an exclusive component. You can, if you prefer, not using it. Ion Missile is one of them.

You are entitled to ask for a cartel version of the Pike so that you can enjoy the Ion and the non-Ion part of the Strike. Most ships have their cartel version, this one does not, that's odd.

But that's related to the absence of a cartel ship, not Ion missile itself.

 

Then there are your second and third proposals... which are "reworks" of the Missile, so that you'd desire them more and end using it.

At that point you're questionning its efficiency. And you're judging its efficiency on data that will (probably) be obsolete soon.

That's why I'm telling you to wait for Tuesday's update.

 

 

And frankly your second proposal is bad and the third proposal is at most not really improving anything.

 

The second is bad because if you're giving it Cluster's range, then most of your cannons will be in firing range, and you'll end destroying most if not all shields before the missile lands most of the time... which is absolutely bad design given that the weapon is supposed to be a shield killer.

 

The third is at best clunky and unnecessary. By giving it Proton's launching conditions you're loosing a lot of the ease of use. And for what ? Being absolutely sure you're out of range for other weapons and don't destroy shields too early ?

Destroying shields before the missile landing can occur only if you're using heavy with Range capacitors. Wouldn't it be simplier to use a combination of shorter cannons so that you synergize with both Ion and Clusters ? (Components aren't meant to synergize with everything)

And even if you were to destroy shields anyway, the hull damage will soon be decent. So again, wait for Tuesday's update.

 

You talk almost as much as I do but with very little specifics. don't say "Tuesday" like it's the title of some religious text please refer to what specifically you mean, your attempted point is too vague.

 

I'm not Complaining BTW about Ion missiles, I don't use them and currently don't need them. That said BioWare has shown a dislike of "Lackluster" aspects of the game. For example there is an open conversion on the Sniper Forum started by Eric Musco to change Laze Target because it has be deemed boring and Lackluster. This thread I've started will likely be viewed as valuable feedback by the developers, which is why I do it.

 

Now to your specific reply to my second and third proposals, Remember they are only proposals, they are get the ball rolling ideas.

 

Second proposal: Have you ever gotten in a orbit chase around a node. I have and there is no way in hell current Ion missiles will achieve a lock in that situation. But Ion missiles are the perfect thing in that situation because of their snares. Clusters will get a lock but odds are you get one lock one hit and your foe heals and recharges shields before the next launch. This theory that your lasers will have their shields down before your missile hits is not one I've seen in practice, and sounds like something a veteran wouldn't make easy to do either.

 

Third proposal: Did you catch that fact that that I'm proposing that the same lock time as concussion be maintained but at Proton range instead. Not proton lock time. Again I accuse you of not reading. Do you use proton torpedoes effectively? If not you'll never understand this idea.

Edited April 5, 2014 by mr_sim

I look at Ions as I look at Thermites.

Useless for most, but they have huge specialized damage output which I managed to abuse, have fun and reasonable results with. On my Pike I just see several decent options to couple with Clusters, and Ions are one of them. Needless to say, Pike is far from my main ship (that'd be my Nova), far from mastered and I am far from being good with it.

When I decide to fly my Pike, I usually choose one of the three "middle range" missile types to take with Clusters.

Concussions - Now I have the raw damage potential, I don't care if enemy is shielded or not, I just shoot them with the Conc from distance and with everything else once I get in range. Works? Yep, and it is quite fun.

EMP - Less long range damage, and I feel it. Once, I will disable enemy's engines for 15 seconds, and that is a blast. Now, I just use them as tiny Protorps. 300-ish straight hull damage, to finish off those guys who have little hull left and think they are safe under their shields. Against bombers, it's not that great as I tend to just destroy their turrets and mines with lasers. But overally, it also works its purposes.

Ion - Anyone I approach basically starts with no shields which is crazy abusable by Clusters and Quads. It works wonders against bombers themselves. Since usually I find it hardest to get through enemy shield, Ions make this easier for me. Ion, Cluster and Quad chained nicely is pretty much a guaranteed kill on unprepared enemy. Plus they look beautiful. I think they are my favourite.

 

Look funny on me, but I would not pick Protorps over them. Protorps are way harder to lock, plus, even if you lock, enemy knows it is a protorp because of the long lock time, so they know they need to use their lockbreaker. I have been hit by Protorp twice in my whole GSF history. True, I managed to land some nice hits with my Comet Breaker, but I would pick Ions with that one too, if it was possible.

 

I of course understand that you would like some changes, I would also like some, personally, but in the whole meta, I think even Ions and Protorps have their place. Maybe they will shine in new scenarios coming with new maps/modes, maybe they will indeed get tweaked a bit.

 

I, for example, would be delighted to see more "pods" type of rockets. Replace current Rocket Pods with two variants, Thermite Pods and Ion Pods. I guess you can figure the difference. Both 5-6k range, both the same fire rate and capacity (maybe a bit slower/lesser than current Pods), one strong against hulls and weak against shields, the other vice versa.

Maybe even transform current Ions into big dumbfire rockets with 7-8k range, hell, even 10k. Maybe even replace them with a small variant of railgun - no need to lead target, but no scope and only 10k range, with stats of Ion missile, not the railgun.

- uh, see, we all have our propositions to make things "right". Sorry bout that daydream part

You talk almost as much as I do but with very little specifics. don't say "Tuesday" like it's the title of some religious text please refer to what specifically you mean, your attempted point is too vague.

 

I'm not Complaining BTW about Ion missiles, I don't use them and currently don't need them. That said BioWare has shown a dislike of "Lackluster" aspects of the game. For example there is an open conversion on the Sniper Forum started by Eric Musco to change Laze Target because it has be deemed boring and Lackluster. This thread I've started will likely be viewed as valuable feedback by the developers, which is why I do it.

 

Now to your specific reply to my second and third proposals, Remember they are only proposals, they are get the ball rolling ideas.

 

Second proposal: Have you ever gotten in a orbit chase around a node. I have and there is no way in hell current Ion missiles will achieve a lock in that situation. But Ion missiles are the perfect thing in that situation because of their snares. Clusters will get a lock but odds are you get one lock one hit and your foe heals and recharges shields before the next launch. This theory that your lasers will have their shields down before your missile hits is not one I've seen in practice, and sounds like something a veteran wouldn't make easy to do either.

 

Third proposal: Did you catch that fact that that I'm proposing that the same lock time as concussion be maintained but at Proton range instead. Not proton lock time. Again I accuse you of not reading. Do you use proton torpedoes effectively? If not you'll never understand this idea.

 

I don't why the fact I refer to the next tuesday (April 8) which will have a major update including GSF changes as -you know how I phrase it- actually bothers you, but whatever.

 

I don't feel Ion missile that lackluster.

Its launching conditions doesn't make it unsuable, although it's not the easier to use. (I get your point about satellites, but I don't think the main purpose to Ion missile is to get a kill with a snare. I'll detail this a bit later)

The main gripe that could be made is that it was not that rare that when it lands shields were already down, doing lackluster damage/effect for the time spent locking.

It seems they know about this and are doing something.

 

Back on the the "Ion & satellite" subject. I believe it's purposely unusable in this situation. Whether we like Bombers or not, my belief is that it's clearly their job to settle things when it's turning to a stale in cramped area, not Strikes'.

But Ion missiles' snare would be nice in this situation I give you that.

Still, I think that giving it Cluster's launching conditions will result more to a loss by being less potent (balanced around Cluster instead of Conc => no shield one-hit obliteration, and more direct hull landing because of shorter range), than a gain due to more snares (that are only a T5 upgrade).

 

About Proton-alike launching conditions, there's still Proton's firing arc... It's so limited that it's really easy to break the lock, unless you take the T4 talent. And even with improved firing arc it's not rare it breaks because server decided "You/Your target lagged, so your target exited the arc. Retry."

It is that kind of "ease to use" that we'd lose.

It may be viable, more than Proton itself thanks to the shorter lock time, but while we get one "plus" in one hand (range), we also get one "minus" in the other hand (firing arc).

If it had little more degrees of firing arc, so that once improved it becomes similar to Concussion (Ion Missiles' upgrades would need to change in oreder to include a firing arc improvement), then it would be an significant improvement. Otherwise, it's just slightly changing the use, but without improving it that much.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Altheran

Look funny on me, but I would not pick Protorps over them. Protorps are way harder to lock, plus, even if you lock, enemy knows it is a protorp because of the long lock time, so they know they need to use their lockbreaker. I have been hit by Protorp twice in my whole GSF history. True, I managed to land some nice hits with my Comet Breaker, but I would pick Ions with that one too, if it was possible.

 

I of course understand that you would like some changes, I would also like some, personally, but in the whole meta, I think even Ions and Protorps have their place. Maybe they will shine in new scenarios coming with new maps/modes, maybe they will indeed get tweaked a bit.

 

Twice then you've never flown against me. I assure you Protorps are extremely effective, and nothing is more delightful when you drop one on a ship already at half health. I literally am confident enough to fire and forget and move on to the next target before the torp hits and do so often to be rewarded with kill text as I close on a new victim.

 

As I said this is to get the discussion going and BW thinking. If the game doesn't grow it's failing. Thermite torps are getting reworked because they weren't being used and maybe Ion missiles or even Plasma Rail are next.

I don't why the fact I refer to the next tuesday (April 8) which will have a major update including GSF changes as -you know how I phrase it- actually bothers you, but whatever.

 

I don't feel Ion missile that lackluster.

Its launching conditions doesn't make it unsuable, although it's not the easier to use. (I get your point about satellites, but I don't think the main purpose to Ion missile is to get a kill with a snare. I'll detail this a bit later)

The main gripe that could be made is that it was not that rare that when it lands shields were already down, doing lackluster damage/effect for the time spent locking.

It seems they know about this and are doing something.

 

Back on the the "Ion & satellite" subject. I believe it's purposely unusable in this situation. Whether we like Bombers or not, my belief is that it's clearly their job to settle things when it's turning to a stale in cramped area, not Strikes'.

But Ion missiles' snare would be nice in this situation I give you that.

Still, I think that giving it Cluster's launching conditions will result more to a loss by being less potent (balanced around Cluster instead of Conc => no shield one-hit obliteration, and more direct hull landing because of shorter range), than a gain due to more snares (that are only a T5 upgrade).

 

About Proton-alike launching conditions, there's still Proton's firing arc... It's so limited that it's really easy to break the lock, unless you take the T4 talent. And even with improved firing arc it's not rare it breaks because server decided "You/Your target lagged, so your target exited the arc. Retry."

It is that kind of "ease to use" that we'd lose.

It may be viable, more than Proton itself thanks to the shorter lock time, but while we get one "plus" in one hand (range), we also get one "minus" in the other hand (firing arc).

If it had little more degrees of firing arc, so that once improved it becomes similar to Concussion (Ion Missiles' upgrades would need to change in oreder to include a firing arc improvement), then it would be an significant improvement. Otherwise, it's just slightly changing the use, but without improving it that much.

 

Just so we are clear I wasn't suggesting Snares cause self destruct, not sure if you were going that way or no.

 

With everything there must be balance, though Ion missile might need a buff anyway but not what I'm discussing. That is why I suggest the smaller reticle. However more range means you can use that reticle more effectively. BTW if your using the tier 4 upgrade to reticle and not speed your doing it wrong IMO. The fact is it's lock on time more then reticle size that hinders Proton lock based on my experience.

 

PS I was aware the whole time you meant Apr 8. I still have no idea what change(s) you are referring to.

Just so we are clear I wasn't suggesting Snares cause self destruct, not sure if you were going that way or no.

 

With everything there must be balance, though Ion missile might need a buff anyway but not what I'm discussing. That is why I suggest the smaller reticle. However more range means you can use that reticle more effectively. BTW if your using the tier 4 upgrade to reticle and not speed your doing it wrong IMO. The fact is it's lock on time more then reticle size that hinders Proton lock based on my experience.

 

PS I was aware the whole time you meant Apr 8. I still have no idea what change(s) you are referring to.

 

Don't worry, neither of us was suggesting that snare cause self-destruct. They just allow an easier time closing up an ennemy, aiming, and locking other missiles, which is hard around a satellite.

 

Personnally, I find Proton's T4 "speed upgrade" over-rated. The lock time is so long that you just have to wait 1-2s refilling engines, and wait the "launched tune" to break the lock. Or just run behind an object if you had some spare energy.

As a result, Torpedos lands on people that either :

- play badly

- have wasted their lock-breaker

- ate a point-blank torpedo while jousting.

- play bombers

The speed will not make torpedoes land more significantly while the firing arc allows me to launch much more of them.

 

As for the update, as you know there are new ships. But also components tweaking.

Among the components changes some missiles were buffed in PTS (Thermite Torpedo and Ion Missile, although it wasn't advertised on patch notes)... and Ion missile's hull damage should normally go up from the (puny) damage it does now, to 790...

...Unless Dulfy's data are wrong.

But Thermite's buff was confirmed in the devs' livestream, so I doubt Ion's buff was wrong/cancelled.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Altheran

So I hear they didn't get a damage buff.

Yeah, they didn't in the end...

It's a shame to let it like that.