Improve Cobra Mk IV

seeplay

seeplay
Since there are new technological discovery in game and Cobra Mk V on the horizon.
I've suggest improve prev ship a little bit.

I like to fly small and medium ships but when i see that Type 8 more maneuverable and faster (~531 vs ~440 - lol) then small fighter ship - that looks weird to me.
You basically can't play some roles on this ship because of his bad maneuverability even with top engineering.
That ship very rare in the game and i want to use it more but so far Cobra Mk3 would be better choose

i suggust 2 options
1) Upgrade Thrusters 4 to 5 (that would create limitations on power but allow people create some builds and more fighter capable ship)
or
2) Let Felicity Farseer develop new pre engineered Thrusters 4+, we have 3 size only right now (but that would impact many other ships)

And this upgrade could be delivered with Cobra Mk5 and news that Faulcon DeLacy great company etc. What do you think?
20230210232048_1_3.jpg
 

seeplay

seeplay
After reviewing the Cobra Mark V specs one more time (which is available right now so far), I realized that Cobra Mark 4 will be fully obsolete after Cobra Mark V will be released.
It outmatch this ship in any way. Since Cobra Mark 4 was designed as combat ship only, i'm still highly recommended upgrade Thrusters from 4 to 5.
That still be worse then Mark V but at least get some special function in line of Cobra`s.

I do not want to store my Cobra Mk 4 forever at the station
 

Attachments

  • 20241129163404_1.jpg
    20241129163404_1.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 41
  • 20241129163852_1.jpg
    20241129163852_1.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 44
  • 20241129025342_1.jpg
    20241129025342_1.jpg
    500.8 KB · Views: 46

seeplay

seeplay
varonica said:
Except time to improve the game for the majority of players, right?
Click to expand...

How players (users) lose the time for improve the game for the majority of players? 🤔
what are you even talking about?


You didn’t even bother to read the text fully and understand the context, yet you’re already writing a toxic comment.
 

tolm

tolm
Honestly, I’m kinda disappointed it’s no longer gonna be a medium ship … as a medium I was viewing it as potentially my “final” multi-role … hoping for a little less jump range but more firepower than the Mandalay, similar performance and a more “traditional Elite” design. Would have been a definite Arx purchase.

As a small? Meh, it might replace my Viper MkIV as Odyssey mission transport but it doesn’t seem like it will do anything that doesn’t already do.
 

Tifu

Tifu
Looking at this thread gives me hope that "Cobra mk4 for everybody!" threads will finally hit the graveyard ☠️
 

yianniv

yianniv
seeplay said:
How players (users) lose the time for improve the game for the majority of players? 🤔
what are you even talking about?


You didn’t even bother to read the text fully and understand the context, yet you’re already writing a toxic comment.
Click to expand...
  1. As Veronica said, dev time is short and precious. If they spend it on a feature for a select few, they spend less on something that affects everyone, like the latest bugs introduced by the PP2 update.
  2. Just because someone disagrees with somebody else's idea, doesn't make their comments toxic.
  3. You could have seen the "big picture" and avoided suggesting something on the selfish side.
  4. They are fixing MkIV. The fix is called MkV.
 

seeplay

seeplay
varonica said:
You understand that dev time spent (wasted) changing the mk4 is dev time not available for stuff I want?
Click to expand...

My statement was not about Dev's, but about users who will be upset about this topic because they do not have cobra mk4.

Once again, read first - then comment.

Regarding your message. Changing thruster from 4 to 5, it so small change that could be done in 1 week development cycle. It is 3-5 story points max.
 
Last edited:

seeplay

seeplay
yianniv said:
  1. As Veronica said, dev time is short and precious. If they spend it on a feature for a select few, they spend less on something that affects everyone, like the latest bugs introduced by the PP2 update.
  2. Just because someone disagrees with somebody else's idea, doesn't make their comments toxic.
  3. You could have seen the "big picture" and avoided suggesting something on the selfish side.
  4. They are fixing MkIV. The fix is called MkV.
Click to expand...

It was toxic, because she or he didn't read the original posts to the end, and didn't understand the context.

Regarding "not waste time" - not agree. That is very small change. Change 1 line in the config basically and sent to QA for test.

It is not DCS where if you change engine model you need 1-2 years of extra development. I believe It's just a config which then goes to the code engine and calculate ship top speed by math formula.
 

yianniv

yianniv
seeplay said:
It was toxic, because she or he didn't read the original posts to the end, and didn't understand the context.

Regarding "not waste time" - not agree. That is very small change. Change 1 line in the config basically and sent to QA for test.

It is not DCS where if you change engine model you need 1-2 years of extra development. I believe It's just a config which then goes to the code engine and calculate ship top speed by math formula.
Click to expand...
The word toxic is being overused so much, that it really makes me think that the people using it are the real toxic ones. I speak generally, don't need to take personal offense. And I should apologize up front if my opinion sounds toxic to you...

You could have said that you disagreed with her point, but "toxic"? far from it.
Additionally, what you suggest in option 1 sounds more than 1 line of code, unless it's a very long line of code. I mean, by changing the thrusters' size in code, the designers would probably have to change the outfitting screen, check for possibly rebalancing because of the weight change, etc.
Your option 2 would definitely take a lot of 1 line code changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom