I just want to compare the yamato 2 with exeter 2 and ignore the entire genari discussion because its seems like i am talking to a cult sometimes (numbers don't talk) about balance between factions: yamato 2 8+3 * 2 = 22 plasma 5 * 8 = 40 warheads 24 max shield capacity and x4 multiplier exeter 2 6+4 * 4 = 40 plasma 7+4 * 2 = 22 long range plasma 24 max shield capacity and x4 multiplier So the yamato 2 has less accuracy, same damage, same max shield and multiplier as the exeter 2. Some other stuff i don't have specific numbers on but pretty sure. Yamato 2 has more hull, lower movement, lower initiative. There is no reason to buy the yamato 2 over the exeter 2. I propose we change the yamato 2 like the kumano 3 or bengbu classes. I hate the kumano 3 or bengbu ships but some people love that ship line so it works out. Make a yamato 3 that has 7-9 short range plasma's this makes it: 6+3 * (7-9) = 63-81 max damage Between 20-24 max shield multiplier 4 Medium engine power Make a yamato 4 that has 5-6 long range plasma weapons: 7+4 * (5-6) = 55-66 damage 21-24 shield multiplier 3 High engine power The biggest issue i have with t9 sol ships is that we are basically forced to play the genari way: short range. You don't have to agree with the numbers but i think they are fair. You can just use the graphics from the yamato 2 for my part and do it for all of those ships. I discussed it with some sol players and they would prefer the yamato 3 and i would prefer the yamato 4. Some variation at the end game is needed. t7 has a perfect balance of playstyles on sol. I understand that maybe its not implemented yet but i think it should be. For my part use place holder graphics because i am really missing this.
I haven't looked at these two ships in game for a long time. However the power efficiency of missile weapons vs beam weapons is usually really good at max damage. So, accuracy and range for power efficient is a trade off. However I find a lot of the missile hulls have less power, which kind of breaks the value you are getting. Having less power tends to make missile ships less versatile instead of more, because beam ships can put 1 power to a weapon and still get range and captain bonus damage bonuses.
plasma with +4 bonus 1 power = 5 damage 2 power = 6 damage 3 power = 7 damage missile 3 power = 5 damage (yamato 2) The t4 missile ship i think has: 3 power = 6 damage There is no benefit to missiles for sol in either case.
Agreed all t8's are stronger then Yamato not just Exeter, even the cheapest Baltimore can outperform the Yamato variant quite hard based on ini movement and damage almost even naked! and it cost 1/2 the price. Then if we compare the Yamato to the Nova in tier strength there's absolutely no reason to use it. The thing about all of this is now people are going to think the Baltimore and Exeters are "Too strong" I think the c8's are the only ships in our fleet that can actually use the full potential of SOL shielding the way I think was intended but this does not make them strong by a long stretch, it just makes them VIABLE in the current genari meta. I want to propose upgrading Balitmores HULL and movement(to compensate for the jump to battleship tier) then putting it in c9 tier at yamato price. The Baltimore 3 and most specifically the exeter(as far as shielding) is a good example of a GOOD expensive ship, you get what you're paying for it has a lot of officer potential, you can shield move decently and have a decent amount of damage. It even does its close range game better then the yamato. At the very least lower the price so it doesn't cost 30k more then the NOVA which is 3x better by hard math alone.
I did but the only thing it states is that the yamato couldn't stand up to the nova. (while we were supposed to be better lategame) and that it has 5% more engine compared to the yamato 1 so it could run away with its tail between its legs even faster. I can go deeper into this discussion again but i found that pointless so i really want to avoid the sol vs genari cult discussions here like is going on in of-topic. (i will sent you straight numbers in a conversation but i want to keep that discussion outside this topic) I am just comparing the yamato 2 with the exeter 2 and proposing we make the yamato 2 worthwhile to use over it and to implement 2 extra ship designs for the people that like another playstyle. The number one rule a game developer should go by is that gameplay goes over lore in my opinion anyway even if i think it doesn't even apply here.
Having in depth lore in a game is critical for emersion and storytelling and should never be understated in any game in my opinion although balance of gameplay should also not be affected due to lore as this will obviously effect players choice of race and ships . A balance needs to be reached between the two as they are so equally important.
The importance of lore is a fine discussion but lets go back on topic, i really want to get this some serious consideration.
I agree with you on creating several different class of ships to suit other play styles as you have proposed.
Still, I think that missile should be more long range weapon than short range. Just give better accuracy to missile on long range, thanks to maneuvering and lower few % on short range because missile they have to "speed up" Then Yamato still be weak on short range combat, but can play as long range missile ship. Don't have a lot of movement so can't hit & run everything Some balance about dmg/power cost also should be done. Also maybe near to max range missile should have -dmg.
