Dear Developers, Over the past couple of weeks, I've been giving a lot of thought to the changes presented by the teams involved in balancing the Ion. My reaction to the balance pass has been very negative as I bought the Ion for what was presented in the marketing materials as well as what I was seeing it do in the game. The changes have completely negated the reasons I bought the ship and are, quite frankly, a disappointment. That being said, I understand that the Ion was imbalanced and needed some tweaking to bring it into a state where it is not 'overpowered'. While I agree that a balancing pass was necessary, I disagree (obviously) with the balance pass which was chosen by the teams and here is my reasoning: The Ion was sold with the following marketing points which I found to be pivotal in my decision to purchase the ship via the pledge store: "Fleet-Leading Power and Defense," (marketing brochure, P.2) "Usually the remit of compromised shield-busters, the Ares ION expertly fulfills its task while maintaining formidable in all combat roles; integrated missile bays counter lighter fighters, while the high-velocity cannon eradicates smaller ships in seconds," (marketing brochure, P.6) "Its purpose-built Behring SF7E laser cannon accurately delivers high-powered shots to quickly disable the shields of gunships..." (marketing brochure, P.6) "The SF7E rewards high accuracy with devastating per-round damage, making it untouchable in the hands of skilled marksmen and patient pilots," (marketing brochure, P.7) So, the ION was sold as a highly accurate, extremely powerful, multi-role heavy fighter. The marketing material itself says that it rewards skilled marksmen, which requires an accurate weapon - again backed by page 6 where it says the SF7E accurately delivers high-powered shots. Page 6 also states that the high-velocity (is 700m/s really high-velocity?) cannon eradicates smaller ships in seconds. The balance pass completely removed all of these points from the Ares ION. Now, the reason I believe the ION needed a nerf is mostly based on point 4: "The SF7E rewards high accuracy... in the hands of skilled marksmen and patient pilots". In the initial release, the ION was rewarding everyone, not just skilled marksmen and patient pilots. This is a direct result of the ION's lethal combination of high speed, high maneuverability, high accuracy, and high damage output. This is where I'll get into the math of the ION. The ION has a maximum speed of 1120m/s, which I believe is a good maximum speed for this ship - it allows it to have the ability to establish and maintain a position around large and capital-class ships. Most of the light fighters I have flown have a maximum speed of ~1300m/s. Looking at these numbers, when flying a light fighter, I have a maximum relative speed against an ION at full speed (1120m/s) of 180m/s relative to the ION's movement vector. Let's take a look at some 'gap closure rates': Given an engagement at the ION's listed maximum range (3.4km) and, Given a rate of closure of 180m/s and, Assuming a straight line engagement, Time to 0m separation would be 18.89s That is a lot of time on target for the ION. Now, consider the following factors: Average range for a light fighter is ~2.8km, Max range at 0m/s relative velocity for ION is 3.4km, Ignoring the effect of absolute velocities, the ION has 600m of 'free shooting' against the light fighter, At a relative closure rate of 180m/s this translates to 3.33s where the light fighter is under fire and unable to return fire. Of course, absolute velocities increase the ION's maximum range, while decreasing the range of anyone directly pursuing the ION, which makes these number favor the ION even more. Now, I don't personally have a problem with this - the goal of a light fighter should be to push heavy fighters off of objectives and forcing an ION into a max-speed running fight achieves that goal. My personal concern with the ION has to do with the rates of turn about the different axes on the ION. The maximum rates of turn about the axes on the ION is 30 deg/s. Let's look at some of the math on that: At 4km, a 30deg/s rate covers 2km/s, At 3km, a 30deg/s rate covers 1.5km/s, At 2km, a 30deg/s rate covers 1km/s, At 1km, a 30 deg/s rate covers 500m/s, At 500m, a 30 deg/s rate covers 250m/s, At 250m, a 30 deg/s rate covers 125m/s, So let's go back to our example of a light fighter with a maximum relative pursuit speed of 180m/s: Given a maximum relative closure speed of 180m/s, The light fighter's maximum rate of passing or maneuvering off-vector from the ION is 180m/s. This is important for two reasons: 1) In order to out-pace the ION's ability to maintain a firing solution, the light fighter must pass within 360m of the ION (see range:rate calculations above). Essentially, the maximum passing speed must be greater than the distance covered per second by the ION's sweep. 2) After the moment of passing, any calculation of sweep must consider the loss of relative movement speed due to offset from the ION's velocity vector - the further the pass is offset from the ION's velocity vector, the greater the loss of relative velocity while, also, any change of velocity vector to be closer to the ION's velocity vector, the change in angle between the ships decreases resulting in a lower required sweep rate. This presents a tactical challenge for anyone engaging a ship (not just the ION) utilizing decoupled maneuvering at maximum velocity: remaining inside the 'bubble' where the opposing ship cannot sweep quickly enough to maintain a firing solution. For the ION, this 'bubble' has a maximum radius of 360m for a relative velocity of 180m/s. That's a very tight tolerance for anyone to maintain. So how is all of this relevant to the ION nerf? Quite simply, as it turns out. The teams responsible for the balance pass on the ION decided to remove advertised and experienced selling points of the Ares Starfighter ION to bring the ship in line with performance of other ships rather than address the hidden issues plaguing performance. The ship was advertised as being highly accurate with devastating firepower - capable of engaging capital-class ships, and eradicating smaller ships "in seconds" (advertising brochure, P.6). The ship's bespoke weapon, as originally released to the PU, was in line with advertised parameters. The current state of the weapon is not. The point that is breaking the ship is its failure to live up to the last statement I quoted in my opening: "he SF7E rewards high accuracy... in the hands of skilled marksmen and patient pilots." So how can this be fixed? Again, the solution is simple. The minimum engagement distance needs to be expanded, and this should be achieved through a nerf of the ION's ability to 'sweep'. A change, for example, from 30 deg/s to 20 deg/s would result in the following range performance: At 4km, a 20 deg/s rate covers 1.368km/s At 3km, a 20 deg/s rate covers 1.026km/s At 2km, a 20 deg/s rate covers 684.04m/s At 1km, a 20 deg/s rate covers 342.02m/s At 500m, a 20 deg/s rate covers 171.01m/s This would put the 'engagement bubble' where a light fighter can out-pace the ION's sweep at 528.26m as opposed to the current 360m. That is a much more manageable 'bubble' and allows the SF7E to remain powerful while having significant drawbacks should anyone manage to close the gap with an ION. Making this change to the ION would force players to consider their objective as well as escorts in the area. Why the ION's Speed, Accuracy, and Alpha Matter: When creating ships, it is important to consider the ability of the end-user to extricate themselves from a situation as it develops - a nerf to the ION's speed would put it in a position where it cannot disengage from situations where the user recognizes a high threat. With the average speed of light fighters being somewhere in the 1300m/s range, a nerf to the ION's already lower speed would make it a sitting duck as soon as a light fighter showed up, completely unable to manage a running pace while locking a jump to extricate itself from the situation (which is a win for the light fighter). Accuracy matters for a variety of reasons, perhaps, most importantly it matters because it was sold as being extremely accurate at range (see marketing brochure and above references). It also matters when considering sub-targeting against large and capital-class ships. A ship with a single S7 weapon with the current dispersion of shots cannot reliably sub-target engines, turrets, and components, which negates the selling point of the ION completely. As it is now, the ION can barely hit a Hercules or Hammerhead at ranges greater than 1.8km and that is without sub-targeting anything - the player is lucky to get more than one hit out of four shots. The ION requires a high accuracy to reliably target components and turrets on large and capital-class ships, which is the main role it was design and sold to fill. The Alpha output matters as the ION was designed, marketed, and sold as a fleet-leading offensive and defensive ship. The goal of the ION was to quickly disable shields and deal "devastating damage" to hulls and components. A nerf to the Alpha damage of the SF7E is also troubling for the outlook of other large weapons - if the SF7E damage is considered to be too high, what can we expect from other S7 weapons? From S8, S9, and S10 weapons? Should the community expect ridiculous rates of fire with very low damage outputs? What would be the purpose of having large weapons if they still have similar times to kill as smaller weapons? I'm about out of available characters for the Spectrum platform, so I will leave it at that. Regards, Banu Former Member of Vehicle Balance Team at Wargaming.net (6 years)