Points taken. Then let me argue from their game development and historical standpoint: FDev implemented buffs and nerfs over the years. Every single time it led to complaints.
Why would they change the Mamba for no apparent reason?
Mamba buffs?
- Thread starter dsagent
- Start date
Why would they change the Mamba for no apparent reason?
Because people will complain either way (see all the threads that keep popping up.) It's a question of if you want a game to be more balanced with changes to try to make things better, or never change anything/return to dead game status because oh no, complaints.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'an RPG way' here, or what would make balance less important in an RPG.
They are, but I don't see any particular reason why the current automobile trends should be extrapolated into far future fantasy spacecraft. There are plenty of real-world counter analogies too. We have aircraft using seventy year old airframes that haven't been decisively surpassed and the hull forms of displacement vessels (larger ships and submarines) have not evolved dramatically in a similar amount of time.
The Elite setting is one in which spacecraft have been mature technology for several centuries. Not only that, they are highly modular, so advancements that don't apply to the hull/spaceframe itself are tied to modules and can be ported over that way.
Python had it's rotational rates severely nerfed in 1.1. FDL had it's rotational rates increased significantly in 1.5. Mamba had a it's rotational rates increased significantly in the beta in which it was introduced.
The FDL buff in 1.5/2.0 that increased it's PP size also increased it's pitch rate by 15% and it's roll rate by 10%, as well as a second buff to it's thermal efficiency.
Last edited:
These are "locked" on the ship in the meaning that you can remove all modules but can't use them with other ships.
'dead game' is a non-argument or rather a killer-argument, therefore I dismiss this statement. Neither there is proof for ED being a 'dead game' nor there is any evidence that a subjective rebalancing would prevent ED from becoming 'dead' or 'undead'. What some players demand here, is an arbitrary rebalancing due to a personal preference and I'd bet that FDev would not implement it for this reason.
and therefore my advise: If you are planning to engineer any pre-installed module - don't do it. Sell them off and buy a 'regular' module, instead. I learned it the hard way when I decided to exchange my Mandalay's pre-installed power distributor (which had received some engineering) with a smaller one: It was lost with all its modifications.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I dont claim to have played them all but i cant think of a single RPG which doesnt have ever increasing gear. I am glad elite does not go all in with a new weapon every time you kill a ship and i am not claiming to be objectively correct here. its a sliding scale and as much as personally i am fine with slight creep equally i don't think it would be good to have say the panther clipper have a 3000t hauling capacity.
imo the cobra V probably goes to far it really is the king of small ships now.... but OTOH the cobra IV imo didnt justify being marketed as a new generation of cobra. it was more akin of an estate version of a saloon car of the same line. (a cobra mk3 XL perhaps)
Last edited:
Personal gear progression isn't the same thing as setting advancement introducing new stuff that obsoletes prior equipment. Most RPGs also go to great lengths to balance the introduction, acquisition, maintenance, and retention of equipment.
The reason why newer ships outclassing old ships is problematic is because Frontier irreparably broke personal gear progression a decade ago. Inflationary rewards and steady reduction in opportunities for attrition mean that it's trivial to get any vessel, equipped in any matter. There is no longer any meaningful gear progression in this game. Introduction of new equipment would usually be balanced by economic and scarcity factors that we don't have. Works out in Frontier's favor, as this situation is perfect for monetization; they can just sell progress.
Perhaps dead game wad the wrong term. But still, if we cannot have a thing because people will complain about it, Panther Clipper is out because people who demand 2000t cargo will complain if they don't get it, people who think that is dumb will complain if they do get it...
The the only solution is blessed unchanging stagnation (which will also get complained about, but any complaints about changes beyond what already exists is just an 'arbitrary [change] based on personal preference', why should FDev bother?)
Last edited:
Oh, I forgot I made this thread.
Anyways after speaking with a few other pilots in game we should be prepared for Frontier to continue to release more powerful ships, leaving the rest behind.
Especially since selling things for ARX is a profit boost for them.
I wonder in a few years if the entire cast of classic ships will be rendered obsolete.
Anyways after speaking with a few other pilots in game we should be prepared for Frontier to continue to release more powerful ships, leaving the rest behind.
Especially since selling things for ARX is a profit boost for them.
I wonder in a few years if the entire cast of classic ships will be rendered obsolete.
Thinking about it, they could easily change/supplement life support to include an 'emergency force field'. Then you just have your pilot take constant damage while the ship is in flight rather than dying of o2 deprivation.
That would fairly easily explain it, since while your suit could defend you from space, it couldn't defend you from bits of interstellar debris moving at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour.
As long as every ship has its own unique flavor for combat, there will always be a reason to use almost every ship. Lots of people don’t always settle for chocolate or vanilla when butter pecan exists.
I have yet to find a ship that lets me destroy combat zones and res sites as fast as a Chieftain.
I have yet to find a ship that lets me destroy combat zones and res sites as fast as a Chieftain.
I think that's just the wrong way to look at this. What's "better" on paper isn't what always makes the ship. The Cutter has rendered the Type-9 "obsolete" years ago, but there are still commanders (lots of them) who hate the Cutter and will swear by their Type-9. The Mandalay is the exploration king, but old ships like the DBX and Phantom have a large extremely loyal fan-base.
The Mamba has a huge hardpoint, drop dead sexy looks. Better hardpoint placement and conversion. It handles better than the Corsair at ANY speed, and maintains it's speed through maneuvers far better than the Corsair. Does the Corsair make the Mamba obsolete? I think that's going too far.
Military aircraft would be a better analogy than consumer automobiles. Look at how the B-52 has been upgraded over the years ... it keeps getting better engines, radar, defensive systems, weapons, etc. and will have been flying for a century by the time it leaves service. But yeah, the upgrades aren't for free.
that sounds a bit like Trigger's brush!
Maybe advocate for all older ships, and not just the hipster fdl.
Been advocating for them, people keep whining about how it wold ruin everything with cursed change.
My issue with the mamba is
The forums hate change it's true lol