No, not RNG. 
Warning: Personal Opinion Ahead.
Now, more than ever, ship building is about the number of internal slots, the number of utility slots, and the number/ size of hardpoints.
Several ships are now being introduced. My opinion is that the survivors will be the best multipurpose ships, or the best combat ships. The latter will be dependent on many variables, but the overall survivor will be the new Python replacement.
Contrast the DBX with the Asp Explorer, or the Python with the Krait 2.
Some are looking forward to a seventy light-year jump explorer. That's fine, until it gets killed just short of delivering it's data. The ships that will dominate the traffic reports will tell if the design is one that can stand the test of time.
Example: As much as I love my T-6 and Cobra 4, they are limited by hardpoints and utility slots, respectively. They are still great mining ships, and the T-6 serves well as a low cost explorer. The Cobra 4 is a mini-Python, but slow as molasses. Only two utility slots. And an engineered jump range that is trounced by the Cobra 3. Plus, speed.
My DBX is even better without the burden of a discovery scanner, but cannot match the versatility of the Asp Explorer. Six guns, versus three badly placed ones, and too few internal slots.
The Python is still the medium end-game ship. The Krait is a Python with a fighter bay, and slightly de-nerfed. But the Python still does the hauling. It's the C-130. That will still be in use during the lifetimes of everyone now alive.
The big ships are a different matter. It's easier to design a large ship, as there is room for everything. The Anaconda is the 747. No matter what Airbus comes up with, the 747 is a lasting design. The Clippers and Belugas are almost there, but they are behind a grind wall.
The removal of the discovery scanner is one of the great events, greater than any new ship.
Warning: Personal Opinion Ahead.
Now, more than ever, ship building is about the number of internal slots, the number of utility slots, and the number/ size of hardpoints.
Several ships are now being introduced. My opinion is that the survivors will be the best multipurpose ships, or the best combat ships. The latter will be dependent on many variables, but the overall survivor will be the new Python replacement.
Contrast the DBX with the Asp Explorer, or the Python with the Krait 2.
Some are looking forward to a seventy light-year jump explorer. That's fine, until it gets killed just short of delivering it's data. The ships that will dominate the traffic reports will tell if the design is one that can stand the test of time.
Example: As much as I love my T-6 and Cobra 4, they are limited by hardpoints and utility slots, respectively. They are still great mining ships, and the T-6 serves well as a low cost explorer. The Cobra 4 is a mini-Python, but slow as molasses. Only two utility slots. And an engineered jump range that is trounced by the Cobra 3. Plus, speed.
My DBX is even better without the burden of a discovery scanner, but cannot match the versatility of the Asp Explorer. Six guns, versus three badly placed ones, and too few internal slots.
The Python is still the medium end-game ship. The Krait is a Python with a fighter bay, and slightly de-nerfed. But the Python still does the hauling. It's the C-130. That will still be in use during the lifetimes of everyone now alive.
The big ships are a different matter. It's easier to design a large ship, as there is room for everything. The Anaconda is the 747. No matter what Airbus comes up with, the 747 is a lasting design. The Clippers and Belugas are almost there, but they are behind a grind wall.
The removal of the discovery scanner is one of the great events, greater than any new ship.
