They're in a Mamba--no wonder. They can throw their ship further than they can jump it, and they have to dock and refuel every system. They'll never get to the problem that way.
Elite Dangerous: Ascendancy | Now Live!
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
I have some sympathy with that, but then again a lot of that complexity is already in lore and it has to be figured out by the player for their headcanon anyway; and the situation at the moment is they get basically no tools to do it. That's what causes playstyle issues. If there were antipathy between Powers it would be pretty obvious to a player as to why certain Assignment types were dropped at that point. I honestly wonder if that was in an earlier design because as a couple of other people noted on here already, we did have more of a "smuggling and all sorts" flavour trailed earlier in the year somewhat.
If there were better tools other than wrassling filters on a map, then you could have, and tell, much more complex stories. If the assignments were presented in-ship with a lot more context it wouldn't matter if there were twice as many rules, because the complexity you are talking about jumps out at you if you look at it across the whole set of powers, but in-ship in-game you are allied to one power so you simply don't need that. "I am running a misinformation campaign against a neighbouring system to flip them over to my power" is pretty damn simple and it should be presented that way in the Cmdr's experience.
PP 2.0 is a LOT better than missions in this regard though, what triggers what in terms of missions is not really presented at all in-game either eidetically or mimetically other than that little bit of copy about "we're in a boom." You have to go and read about all of that out of game if you want to really understand it. At least PP 2.0 makes some basic sense in-game and you can see the moving parts somewhat.
They are different ships, the Mando is based on the Mamba, if every cockpit was the same it would be as boring as NMS.
O7
I was going to say, never flown a Mamba?
But the Mandalay is supposed to be an exploration ship, unlike the Mamba.
Besides, they already changed the cockpit (by adding a window on the floor), so it's not like it's unprecedented.
But again why should they all look the same? If you like the view in the Asp fly the Asp.
I raced a Ferrari around Donnington once, it was fast but i couldn't see nowt out the side windows, my bike went round the track slightly slower but i could see everything.
Its a choice.
O7
It's not about looking the same. It's about being a good exploration ship, which the Mandalay is very explicitly designed to be. And good canopy visibility is an integral part of an exploration ship.
Even if they removed those two protrusions, it wouldn't "look the same" as the AspX cockpit view.
View attachment 407531
absolutely essential they house the auto deploy windscreen wipers for when it rains
Especially that nasty acid stuff you get on Venus.
as some planets can actually rain rock and possibly diamonds the titanium wiper blades handel that with great efficiency
the housings contain canopy heat blowers for when it gets icy too (given away by the small rectangular outlets)
the housings contain canopy heat blowers for when it gets icy too (given away by the small rectangular outlets)
Last edited:
The Python has not been specifically designed to be an exploration ship.
you've all been duped with all the "exploration ship" and "not a combat ship nonsense. It's not designed as an explorer, it's Frontier's cunning plot to design a completely OP multirole ship with exceptional jump range and hardly any drawbacks, but selling it as an "explorer" and "not a combat ship" so nobody immediately cries "OP!!!!" .
.Aha, so it's the Lying Bast*** ? I knew it. These are General Products hulls aren't they? Zorg is a Puppeteer front!you've all been duped with all the "exploration ship" and "not a combat ship nonsense. It's not designed as an explorer, it's Frontier's cunning plot to design a completely OP multirole ship with exceptional jump range and hardly any drawbacks, but selling it as an "explorer" and "not a combat ship" so nobody immediately cries "OP!!!!"
An exploration ship is not an exploration just because of the cockpit.
The Beluga isn't marketed as an exploration ship yet look at that view.
O7
Just because exploration ships (should) have a really open canopy doesn't mean that other ships can't. It's not exclusive to exploration ships.
But it does mean that if a ship that is being explicitly marketed as an exploration ship has poor visibility, then it's bad design.
Couldn't disagree more, sorry, its not a bad design for a cockpit not to be a goldfish bowl, you have a set of camera drones anyway.
Are we now saying the DBX is rubbish?
O7
i tend to use the nav panel personally