A slightly more constructive criticism of the Ion Beam range nerf

[Yaddah]

I see lots of people complaining (including myself), but not enough constructive solutions suggested. So I wanna do just that.

Let's start with identifying the issue. The problem I and others see with the range nerf is that it makes the weapon too "same-y" compared to the other energy weapons (Blasters & Heavy Lasers) that all have similar ranges. The range increase from classic to early access made the Ion Beams more versatile and thus more interesting. I think many people thought they were op, because they didn't know/properly understand that they do less damage the longer they traveled. But they were actually balanced. They could be a low damage long range option, but also a high damage close range one. Now they are relegated only to being an option, if you want to melt ships up close. That is fun, but less interesting, if it's the only thing such an iconic weapon can do.

Now to the solution. I think it lies in a more creative playing around with the different values the weapon has, instead of just a blunt and brutal 33% range nerf. It would've been a better solution to settle somewhre half way - like 375m, as it could then still get kited by missiles, but also significantly outrange other closer energy weapons. But that would still be only tweaking the range stat, when we have many other aspects of the weapon to look at. Distance damage fall off might be another one. But I wanna focus on a more creative & more thematic solution: Increase the beams range depending on how much power it has. Prisms would then be a bit like Rail Gun Accelerators. It'd be a nice trade off between having a long range beam with lots of combination damage loss and a powerful short range beam that can afford to not combine much. This would pose interesting challenges when designing the shape & logistics of your ship - which is already what the game heavily leans into. Distance damage falloff should scale with the modular beam range - maybe even going down to only 30% damage at 600m. It would then be an interesting energy based counterpoint to the Rail Gun - less powerful, but infinite ammo.

Of course this solution of mine is not perfect. Single or multiple aspects could and should be tweaked. But the blunt nerf to range just isn't a good solution.

[raneo]

+1

[Katsu.I]

IMO the range should vary based on how much power gets shunted into the beam.

[a small rabbit]

The problem with the beam was that it was too easy to use and that's why almost every build you saw posted was massive ion beam setups buried in armor and shields.

Making the beam range scale with power would just put it back to where it was before.

I do think 300 is too short and it should be around 350 or so, but the weakness of a stacking railgun is the longer it is, the harder it becomes to protect the front because of building space.

Having a massive death laser is cool, but being able to protect it behind layers and layers of armor and shields because you can put them as far back as you want was problematic. Every other weapon bar missile launchers is far more exposed. Ion beam had almost no drawbacks.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Katsu.I:

IMO the range should vary based on how much power gets shunted into the beam.

Agreed. That would make it much more of a truly "scaled" weapon, like Railguns. (It "is" now, but that would assure it. Though, they may not want it "too" similar in that way, giving Railguns their own niche.)

I haven't yet patched... so my current play is saved from this travesty...

Now, though, was this done to make Railguns more attractive? To change Beamer ships to Rammers? To reduce the advantage Ion blocs have in the early game? To increase the allure of going all Ammo based?


So..., I now have to use railguns to seek a range advantage over most opponents? (When I patch.)

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by a small rabbit:

...Ion beam had almost no drawbacks.

Truly powerful beams had huge space requirements.

They could have just made the width of the beam greater than what it was (1/3 of a tile or so) and that would mean everything would have to scale up, including any armored apertures, making them more vulnerable and more costly in their use of space in the ship. A "slight nerf" to range could have gone hand-in-hand there, too, without terrifying Beamship players too much... :)

[Bobucles]

Ion beam had almost no drawbacks.

Except for the gigantic hole in your ship.

[a small rabbit]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

Truly powerful beams had huge space requirements.

They could have just made the width of the beam greater than what it was (1/3 of a tile or so) and that would mean everything would have to scale up, including any armored apertures, making them more vulnerable and more costly in their use of space in the ship. A "slight nerf" to range could have gone hand-in-hand there, too, without terrifying Beamship players too much... :)

Yea space requirements. That could be put anywhere on a ship unlike basically every other weapon that has to go on the edge, exposing it.

Originally posted by Bobucles:

Except for the gigantic hole in your ship.

Oh you mean the giant hole that you could armor the hell out of and have multiple layers of shields?

I mean c'mon guys. You can't pretend that ion beam wasn't pretty much the go to weapon of most players for a reason. It was OP compared to everything else.

[amimai002]

space, cost, and defence are all pretty important considerations, that being said i don't really see the range Nerf as that much of a major, ions still range everything except rail and missiles...

also for perspective this is the "cheapest" laser pump, anything less and you are probably better off just sticking it on the outer hull. ions were never particularly competitive in the sub-1M cost category
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2887940146

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by amimai002:

space, cost, and defence are all pretty important considerations, that being said i don't really see the range Nerf as that much of a major, ions still range everything except rail and missiles...

also for perspective this is the "cheapest" laser pump, anything less and you are probably better off just sticking it on the outer hull. ions were never particularly competitive in the sub-1M cost category...

In PVP and competitive design.

But, in Career Mode, it's a different sort of game. IIRC, my Ion ship only has 8 beams, which is all I can rationally support atm within my Crew limits in Career mode, being a little more than halfway through the game's difficulty. (It performs(ed) excellently against everything but full nuke boats, which I just made another ship to help deal with.)

Originally posted by a small rabbit:

Yea space requirements. That could be put anywhere on a ship unlike basically every other weapon that has to go on the edge, exposing it...

But, such arrangements are nearly entirely dependent on the location of the exit Crystal, which can only be protected by Shields. It can't be blocked by Armor and no other link in the chain can be so blocked.

In that case, the Crystal is just like any other exterior surface mounted component. And, reducing that by locating it further in a "tunnel of armor" very much limits its targeting arc and the ship's overall flexibility in combat in terms of maneuvering.

It's a powerful weapon when used correctly, no doubt. But, it has it's problems, too, and some consideration of those has to be taken into account.

In amimal002's pic, that's 64 Crew just for the dedicated Operators, none of which can possibly do any double-duty else the entire beam their contributing too, out of the two, will have its output relatively crippled.

Then, there are the loaders necessary for energy and they must keep up the pace as well, else the same effect will occur and the beam their efforts contribute to will be drastically impacted.

It's a dance for those Ion configurations and every piece has to work without fail else it all breaks down pretty drastically, considering most ships that would use that arrangement rely on it nearly completely.

PS: I'm not an Ion Sympathizer or Apologist, :) just pointing out some things that I think make the Ion Beam system sometimes more vulnerable and expensive than other systems/approaches.

[Hyndis]

The advantage ion beams have is that only the one exit crystal is exposed. Thats it. Just one weak point, which you can cover with layered shields. The main part of your ion beam array can be buried deep within the ship behind a 30-thick layer of armor.

In the case of laser blaster or cannon builds your entire front has to be exposed. You cannot hide these behind armor. This makes them highly vulnerable to EMP and piercing shots, the components are expensive to build, require vulnerable crew working at the surface level of your ship, and because its power hungry you need reactors shallow which further increases the vulnerability to piercing shots.

Defending a beam ship means just plopping down more inert armor on the outside. You don't need point defense, you're immune to EMP, you're not risking any crew or valuable components.

There's a reason why nearly all ships submitted on the screenshots page are ion beam builds. Nearly no ships are laser blaster or cannon builds.

[MechanizedCheese]

The way I see it the nerf is needed to bring more balance vs the railgun but they do over nerf the range.

As of Ion setup need a lot of space, yes it does but in a 2D way, which is still significantly better than railgun that require you to have a really long ship, that needed power source all along the rail. Or else you have to constantly wiggle your ship to do fanning.

As of Ion's outer most crystal tend to be destroy, yes they do but you can still do spinal aim with your inner crystal, which preferably defended by 6+ shield, the system will remain operational. In the case of railgun, it just immediately die when the tip is destroyed.

Ion still have more versatility.

[Yaddah]

Originally posted by a small rabbit:

The problem with the beam was that it was too easy to use and that's why almost every build you saw posted was massive ion beam setups buried in armor and shields.

Actually the beam was and is one of the most complicated weapons in the game. Which is why so many people struggled to learn how to properly set up prisms and ships shapes that used it. It has so many variables that many didn't properly understand like distance damage falloff, combination loss, how to minimize the number of prisms etc. I think the real reason why we saw so many beam ships in early access - but also in classic when the range was 300m too and we will continue seeing them - is because it's the most interesting and iconic weapon Cosmoteer has to offer. Playing with prisms is just inherently more fun than setting up a railgun or a blaster battery and the result is much more beautiful than any of those weapons too.

Originally posted by a small rabbit:

Making the beam range scale with power would just put it back to where it was before.

No it wouldn't, for the reasons stated above. Additionally it would make people think about exactly how many beam combinations they want to engage at a certain range. It would change a very important aspect of the weapon and make it more interesting.

Originally posted by a small rabbit:

the weakness of a stacking railgun is the longer it is, the harder it becomes to protect the front because of building space.

Railguns are very easy to protect too - like any spinal weapon. Just put massive layers of armor in front of the muzzle and line shields within that armor slab. Or you could, as seen with many Ion Chambers, put the Railgun muzzle beneath a Shield Chamber with sidewards large shield generators. The same is not always possible with beams, if you want them to be able to aim.

Originally posted by a small rabbit:

Having a massive death laser is cool, but being able to protect it behind layers and layers of armor and shields because you can put them as far back as you want was problematic. Every other weapon bar missile launchers is far more exposed. Ion beam had almost no drawbacks.

That's not true at all. How are missiles that you can mount in the rear of your ship, that then fire and loop around your ship to still hit the enemy any less protected? They have not just layers of armor, but the entire ship in front of them. And as explained above, the front of Railguns are just as easy to protect as Ion Beams - even easier actually, because Ion Chambers are wide and bulky while a Railgun is sleek -> less area to protect.

[Yaddah]

Originally posted by Hyndis:

...beams op cause too protected...

There's a reason why nearly all ships submitted on the screenshots page are ion beam builds. Nearly no ships are laser blaster or cannon builds.

The reason why we see so many beam ships is because the weapon is the most interesting one in the game. Playing with prisms is inherently more fun than setting up Railguns or Blasters. And Railguns & especially missiles are even easier to protect than Ion Chambers. Railguns can be armored the same way as Beam outlets, but they are sleek and long instead of wide and bulky and missiles can be put in the back of your ship facing away from the enemy and still loop around to hit them - they don't just have armor in front of them, but the entire freaking ship!
And why are you guys talking about the supposedly problematic protectability of Ions in the first place, when the range nerf did absolutely nothing about that aspect??? It's like saying that the food is too salty, that's why you'll add less pepper next time. ????????

Can we stick to the topic, which is my suggestion and not some tangential aspect of the weapon?

[Yaddah]

Originally posted by MechanizedCheese:

The way I see it the nerf is needed to bring more balance vs the railgun but they do over nerf the range.

How exactly was the railgun outperformed by Ions? It not only did only 55% of its damage at 450m, but the Railgun already outranged the beam by a whole 150m. How exactly would the Railgun benefit from outranging it even more? Also, if there is a problem with Railguns, then the correct way is to buff Railguns, not make Beams less interesting.

Originally posted by MechanizedCheese:

As of Ion setup need a lot of space, yes it does but in a 2D way, which is still significantly better than railgun that require you to have a really long ship, that needed power source all along the rail. Or else you have to constantly wiggle your ship to do fanning.

having long ships is actually a lot better than having wide ones, because most of the damage is going to come from the front and the front of Railgun ships is much less wide, than the front of Beam ships and therefore easier to protect. Also, this has nothing to do with the range nerf, as nerfing the range does nothing to protectability. Why are we talking about this here?

Originally posted by MechanizedCheese:

As of Ion's outer most crystal tend to be destroy, yes they do but you can still do spinal aim with your inner crystal, which preferably defended by 6+ shield, the system will remain operational. In the case of railgun, it just immediately die when the tip is destroyed.

Railguns can be armored the exact same way the inner Ion Chamber outlet prism can. And when that prism dies, so does the entire chamber. Take a look at the Shrike or that Monolith ship that has its third railgun buzzle deep within the ship. Saying beams are easier to protect just doesn't make any sense at all and - again - has nothing to do with the range nerf.

[Yaddah]

To the 3 people claiming that Railguns are less protectable than Ion Chambers.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2887715196
There. Can we now end this tangential discussion that has nothing to do with the range nerf or my proposed solution, because the nerf didn't affect beam protectability? Thx.