pretty much the same as the FDL obviously....
What's The Mamba's niche?
- Thread starter Strangepork
- Start date
The Joestars secret technique
Take a FDL and fly as fast as you can, front siding head on into a NAV buoy.. I give you the MAMBA \o/
Popcorn maker!
I was kinda hoping the P. Clipper would be just a little bit ugly bugly, industrial like.
The mamba looks great as a sporty medium ship, good for joyriding and basking. I'd noticed its got a great multi-crew canopy view for the 2nd seat, perhaps the best of the ships. And one step closer to spacelegs presumably with varying pov from within a ship. It's got that ladder detail that seems to lead to lower decks. It could also be like a "bubble" seat-turret if the game had them someday. I also like how when the ship overheats there is the rotating alert strobe in the back. The back engines also "putters" when slow coasting. For combat, basically another FDL-like fast strike /w huge hardpoint. Also a decent data mission and small cargo courier.
I'm fine with how FD did the initial drawbacks for the mamba such as the overheating tradeoffs which seems to be annoying to some. FD tends to start their balancing "negotiation" low with their wise goal of conforming to their overall ship fleet lore, then adjust while gauging how and how many actually use the new ship.
I'm fine with how FD did the initial drawbacks for the mamba such as the overheating tradeoffs which seems to be annoying to some. FD tends to start their balancing "negotiation" low with their wise goal of conforming to their overall ship fleet lore, then adjust while gauging how and how many actually use the new ship.
Last edited:
...
I'm sorry, but what? They're the only ships that do look like an actual spaceship. I know they'd been retired, but has everyone already forgotten about the space shuttles?
That's because it is a Ferrari the size of an apartment building.
The Mamba is completeley useless. It can't jump anywhere and its undersized engines make it very susceptible to weight... a reasonably heavy combat build can boost only 580 m/s, which kinda destroys the ship's only advantage. And it jumps 16-17LY with it... not fun.
The engines should be increased to C6 and the FSD to C5 to make it useful.
The engines should be increased to C6 and the FSD to C5 to make it useful.
No useless ships, only useless pilots. Bortas, I would suggest at least trying to understand the game mechanics before commenting, same problem over in the beta forum, too many cmdrs making suggestions when they have no idea what they are talking about. There would be no point putting C6 engines on the Mamba
Fortunately a couple of guys over there know what they are talking about. Perhaps the devs will listen to them. Have a proper read of the Mamba thread you commented on over there.
![[VR] DDM_Reaper20](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/44/44021.jpg?1588332101){kind=avatar}
Thanks for making me laugh.
Gotta LOVE the English language . . . I plan to use the Mamba for assassinations. Huge beam (fixed, G5 efficient w. thermal vent), 2 gimballed large multis (G5 overcharged, one corrosive, one autoloader), 2 small railguns (both G4/5 long range (depending on the mats) w. feedback cascade), w. 6 shield boosters & maxed out thrusters, plus bi-weaves (I'm a sucker for bi-weaves).
SHOULD be very nice.
For me I can't see myself using it. As a racer it's too sluggish, and as a fighter it feels like a worse FDL with a slightly higher speed that sets itself on fire.
So instead of disproving my points with arguments, you are getting personal? Didn't expect this particularly from you, but this only strengthens my conviction about the mamba. Like everyone on the beta forum is just claiming that the Mamba's critics are all just failing to understand the game mechanics, doing it wrong, and whatnot. Arguments to disprove them? None.
Yes, there would. It would make its top speed less susceptible to additional mass. 580 m/s is a joke considering all its shortcoming. The Phantom with its C6 thrusters is far more tolerant to heavy modules... I built heavy combat fittings with both ships and in the end result the Phantom was boosting as fast as the Mamba (~580 m/s), despite being considerably heavier and having almost 40 m/s lower speed when both are stripped down. The Phantom loses 10 m/s when fitted with a combat build compared to a lightweight build. The Mamba loses 50.
But hey, what do I know... I don't understand the game mechanics... Who cares about empiric evidence? Of course the engine size doesn't make any difference. [wacky]
True. You are not one of them, though.
Last edited:
Am not getting personal with you dude, there are plenty of cmdrs (including you) that have not taken a look at C5/C6 mass limits, then taken a look at the Mamba's mass.
This happens a lot in Beta, people cry Moar!! without actually knowing what the end result will be.
There have been some sensible comments over on the beta forum, one of which is to simply reduce the Mamba's hull mass slightly. Adding a C6 thruster will do nothing for top speed, it will however give the ship a more expensive module with virtually zero gain.
If cmdrs must have more speed and less sensitivity to mass change, reduce hull mass (slightly and adjust the baked in modifier slightly. Slapping on a larger more expensive C6 is pointless
Last edited:
I think the most sensible option (and interesting one at that) is lower the hull mass, as 777 explained. I would also increase the top speed along with it to something in the 700's.
Rationale :
Rationale :
- Creat a high mass dependency for top speed. That good, because now you have to think carefully on what you fit for combat. You can go heavy and end up a bit like a faster FDL, or you can go light, divebomber style. Faster, but more fragile.
- 700's boost speed is where the fun begins for canyon racing (IMO), so the ship would be interesting for that. Racing builds are light, so it also means that the jump range would be rather good. Nice, since it allow you to get the to racing place faster, e.g. hind nebula and other such "nearby" fancy places.
- The ship would now have a niche and fit in some kind of progression as a heavy iCourrier. Slower, but packing serious heat
Ed Lewis said in the livestream yesterday that they would do something about the heat issues of the Mamba for the next Beta, which is scheduled for next week. See this link for the info => https://youtu.be/6oxdkSQIiFQ?t=520
Reducing it slightly is not enough... I thought you knew this, but I will explain how minimum mass on thrusters works:
- Once your total mass gets higher than the minimum mass value of your engines, your ships starts loosing top speed rapidly.
- 5A Thrusters (DD5 / DragDrives) have a minimum mass of 365 tons
- 6A Trhusters (DD5 / DragDrives) have a minimum mass of 626 tons
Conclusion: The minimum mass difference between C5 and C6 thrusters is 260 tons. Good luck with "slightly" reducing the Mamba's hull mass by that amount. C6 thrusters on the Mamba would make it possible to build a heavy combat fitting and still retain a top speed well over 600 m/s. If this is desirable can be debated, I think it's necessary because speed is the only thing the Mamba has going fort it compared to the FdL.
but whatever your opinion regarding this possibly is: Your statement that increasing thruster size to C6 was pointless is just wrong.