So, about those "functional differences" for new ships... (spoilers, maybe?)

I assumed "functional differences" simply means "different hardpoint/optionals config", to make clear it's not just a visual alternative.
I dunno... that's not what I'd call a functional difference. Someone else said it earlier, but for me it's more like how the liners can exclusively fit Luxury Cabins... meanwhile all ships have different hardpoints/optional configurations... so it's not really a difference.

But even if it's true and that's all it means, the emphasis placed on that term was just really awkward and weird.... just leave it as "it's a variant".
 
Wouldn't be the first time players have jumped off the deep end given the slightest push.
Isn't it compulsory on this forum to fabricate a complete construct from the slightest whisper or hint?
I love speculation and extrapolation too, don't get me wrong, but am happy to sit on my hands and wait for more news, rather than writing a 217 page "dreams.txt" that will meet Ray Bradbury's Fireman later...
 
I think it looks nice, and a mark 2 of an existing ship i wouldnt expect a radically different use case (despite the tease from FD) the whole point of a mark 2 of a product is an evolution not a revolution.

dont get me wrong i would love to see new ships with new purpose. the obvious ones for me would be SLFs with mining option on it (imagine if i could fly my SLF and tag / filter out rocks and maybe even fire off a mining laser, allowing my npc pilot to fly the big ship and control the limpets following a route that i created in my SLF. It would then have a defensive weapon as well (tho less than dedicated combat SLF) to help out incase any pirate got too nosey

(i say that deliberately as something achievable rather than something totally from left field )
 
Last edited:
I think it looks nice, and a mark 2 of an existing ship i wouldnt expect a radically different use case (despite the tease from FD) the whole point of a mark 2 of a product is an evolution not a revolution.
Even if the only major difference was a 'military slot' tag on half of the optional slots, that change in itself would already justify calling the Mk2 "functionally different" (dedicated combat ship instead of multirole).
 
Isn't it compulsory on this forum to fabricate a complete construct from the slightest whisper or hint?
I love speculation and extrapolation too, don't get me wrong, but am happy to sit on my hands and wait for more news, rather than writing a 217 page "dreams.txt" that will meet Ray Bradbury's Fireman later...
Overhyping and overly speculating leads to disappointment - every single time in this forum.
Whatever a game studio announces, whether it is only some bits or a detailed description, big fractions of the user base want to a) have the feature differently b) are disappointed that their specific wish won't be fulfilled c) are raging because they have to wait d) are raging because "it will be buggy" e) will claim that the game isn't the same any more f) hope that the game entirely changes from its foundations.
A minuscule fraction is just happy that ANYTHING moves forward.
I would not want to lead a game studio or be a community manager for them.
 
Overhyping and overly speculating leads to disappointment - every single time in this forum.
Whatever a game studio announces, whether it is only some bits or a detailed description, big fractions of the user base want to a) have the feature differently b) are disappointed that their specific wish won't be fulfilled c) are raging because they have to wait d) are raging because "it will be buggy" e) will claim that the game isn't the same any more f) hope that the game entirely changes from its foundations.
A minuscule fraction is just happy that ANYTHING moves forward.
I would not want to lead a game studio or be a community manager for them.
This is how it is.
"Functionally different" should mean it naturally does different things to the original Python. I suspect that was just word-fill though, and the description should have been just "different" - which is what we'll get. Probably a different arrangement of internal slots adding up to about the same total capacity.
It will be fun trying out the new ship in various roles, but all the dramatic ideas here are probably unrealistic.
 
So, to elaborate on one of my previous posts:

The ~perfect~ AX ship would
  • feature anti-caustic armor (which should be a new module available for every ship)
  • be immune to the anti-guardian field
  • possess at least 5 medium hardpoints, with good convergence
  • possess many size 4 and 5 optional slots, instead of size 6 or greater, because it needs mostly HRPs and MRPs,
  • be able to boost at least ~520m/s with 2 pips in ENG
  • be agile enough for cold orbit "tethering" with a TV beam
  • have at least 6 utility slots, for a mixture of heat sinks, caustic sink, xeno scanner, SFN
  • have a large enough PP and PD to supply all those hardpoints

The first two points are apparently currently being worked on, thanks to the recent CGs.
No ship currently combines all the other points. The FAS is one hardpoint short, the Chieftain has all the wrong hardpoint sizes, the Krait is not agile enough (needs to be flogged into turns with boost, I absolutely hate it), only the FDL has 6 utilities, but also has bad convergence and too few Optionals, and so forth. (The big 3 are too slow and/or sluggish anyway).

So, we'll see if any of the new ones will tick all those boxes.
 
So, to elaborate on one of my previous posts:

The ~perfect~ AX ship would
  • feature anti-caustic armor (which should be a new module available for every ship)
  • be immune to the anti-guardian field
  • possess at least 5 medium hardpoints, with good convergence
  • possess many size 4 and 5 optional slots, instead of size 6 or greater, because it needs mostly HRPs and MRPs,
  • be able to boost at least ~520m/s with 2 pips in ENG
  • be agile enough for cold orbit "tethering" with a TV beam
  • have at least 6 utility slots, for a mixture of heat sinks, caustic sink, xeno scanner, SFN
  • have a large enough PP and PD to supply all those hardpoints

The first two points are apparently currently being worked on, thanks to the recent CGs.
No ship currently combines all the other points. The FAS is one hardpoint short, the Chieftain has all the wrong hardpoint sizes, the Krait is not agile enough (needs to be flogged into turns with boost, I absolutely hate it), only the FDL has 6 utilities, but also has bad convergence and too few Optionals, and so forth. (The big 3 are too slow and/or sluggish anyway).

So, we'll see if any of the new ones will tick all those boxes.
it won't.
And the reason is simple: An overpowered ship is boring - it will kill variety and isn't a challenge any longer for the player and the gameplay. This is why ships received buffs and nerfs. Imagine if there's a small size ship with 28 monster hard points, agile as hell and has a jump rate of 130 ly (unengineered). Not to forget 27 internal compartments (size 13), massive hull, a bar, a gym and a night club next to the bridge. What would happen? Everyone goes for that ship, other ships won't be used any longer and the player base will cry "Where is the 14th compartment! This is not balanced! And... I want to have my Cobra MK IV, my Asp Scout and my Conda with the same buffs!"

As Brrokk wrote above: "It will be different" = perhaps a bit more agile, perhaps another hardpoint more or at a different place. Perhaps more or less boost. Whatever, it is what it is. I am happy enough that FDev keeps working on Elite and maybe one day or not I will get some features which I am longing for (DX 12 device support, better lighting, more exploration variety, other side/main stories).
Speculation is fine but firing the hype train becomes a disappointment for sure.
 
it won't.
And the reason is simple: An overpowered ship is boring - it will kill variety and isn't a challenge any longer for the player and the gameplay. This is why ships received buffs and nerfs. Imagine if there's a small size ship with 28 monster hard points, agile as hell and has a jump rate of 130 ly (unengineered). Not to forget 27 internal compartments (size 13), massive hull, a bar, a gym and a night club next to the bridge. What would happen? Everyone goes for that ship, other ships won't be used any longer and the player base will cry "Where is the 14th compartment! This is not balanced! And... I want to have my Cobra MK IV, my Asp Scout and my Conda with the same buffs!"

As Brrokk wrote above: "It will be different" = perhaps a bit more agile, perhaps another hardpoint more or at a different place. Perhaps more or less boost. Whatever, it is what it is. I am happy enough that FDev keeps working on Elite and maybe one day or not I will get some features which I am longing for (DX 12 device support, better lighting, more exploration variety, other side/main stories).
Speculation is fine but firing the hype train becomes a disappointment for sure.
I certainly can't speak for other people posting, but I personally just enjoy some speculation, and agree the general wont for most posters here is to generate an enormously unreasonable expectation given the smallest tidbit.

I'd call more attention to the part of Brokk's comment of "It will be different" was based on the idea that the use of "functionally different" was just wordfill, and that "just different" was the intent. That could very much be the case, but I'd defer back to my comment on the first page; if that's the case, it's not just that term, it's large swaths of the whole presentation that comes off as clunky and awkward, especially with the comments about there being "...reasons they are different..." and "... for players to discover (those reasons)..."... which if we take that entirely as "wordfill" is basically just:

"Hey, we're releasing four MK2 variants (functionally different) of existing ships, and we're intending for them to have different roles to their predecessors (reasons they are different), and we'll be looking forward to see how players use them (... players to discover that)"

Sure, that's definitely a speculative view... and I definitely don't think it's anything as wild as suggestions like "we're getting thicker atmospheres/gas giants" or "this means ship boarding!" or other things like that.... I find that a huge deviation from the original meanings of the words, where something like what I wrote above is much more concise and to the point and, in my opinion, would generate much more excitement and keep people on the rails with their speculation. In other words, I find it harder to believe that these would be "just variants" based on the words used, than there actually being some at least low-key functional difference that actually puts these ships in a class of their own much like the luxury liners, or ships with military slots.

Bottom line for me is; if it really is "just variants", then the script to announce that is beyond amateurish and completely misappropriates basic words. But I genuinely think FD is better than that (with regard to their livestream scripts). But equally, what'll happen is what'll happen, and I personally won't be upset regardless of what happens when the updates land... others opinions may vary here.
 
So, to elaborate on one of my previous posts:

The ~perfect~ AX ship would
  • feature anti-caustic armor (which should be a new module available for every ship)
  • be immune to the anti-guardian field
  • possess at least 5 medium hardpoints, with good convergence
  • possess many size 4 and 5 optional slots, instead of size 6 or greater, because it needs mostly HRPs and MRPs,
  • be able to boost at least ~520m/s with 2 pips in ENG
  • be agile enough for cold orbit "tethering" with a TV beam
  • have at least 6 utility slots, for a mixture of heat sinks, caustic sink, xeno scanner, SFN
  • have a large enough PP and PD to supply all those hardpoints

The first two points are apparently currently being worked on, thanks to the recent CGs.
No ship currently combines all the other points. The FAS is one hardpoint short, the Chieftain has all the wrong hardpoint sizes, the Krait is not agile enough (needs to be flogged into turns with boost, I absolutely hate it), only the FDL has 6 utilities, but also has bad convergence and too few Optionals, and so forth. (The big 3 are too slow and/or sluggish anyway).

So, we'll see if any of the new ones will tick all those boxes.
They wont imo make a ship that does all these things, modules maybe but theres no point having a ship for a specific role, it goes against the ED ethos.
All ships have good and bad points, some are jack of all trades etc...

O7
 
Cobra III > Cobra IV.
the cobra IV was a huge dissapointment almost like it was made by developers who took zero interest in the game lore and to how important to the elite story a cobra mk IV should be imo. (i had hoped that at some point in the horizons life span we would have found derelict cobra mk1 ships crashed on planets etc and maybe even a super rare experimental cobra mk2 ship found crashed somewhere or floating in an asteroid belt with some story to it - a bit like jamesons cobra iii .. but i digress..................

Back to the Cobra Mk IV........... sure its slower than the III but it is probably the most versatile small ship in the game. had credit inflation not meant that you could get to an asp within a few hrs the cobra IV would have been a very useful ship to have in your starter fleet.
 
Last edited:
Neither of which is a mark 2.

Didn’t the Cobra mark 2 fail pretty much on the drawing board or just after launch?
3 were made, 1 blew up on launch, 1 was scrapped just after launch and the other......... i think that blew up too but i cant remember for sure.

story has it iirc that the 2nd one wasnt scrapped but was bought by an eccentric billionaire who kept it in a secret collection of rare and unique ships in an asteroid belt somewhere.....**** Obviously none on that was in the original game, it was just fluff lore, but that was the cool thing in the original game. i lost loads of time looking for generation ships and space dredgers on my spectrum (I think by the time i got it on the amiga i realised it was all nonsense and not in game - tho the amiga did have the constrictor i think it was called, experimental ship that you could get in a unique mission late in the game ....... didnt that even have a cloaking device? (i may be making that up) but either way it was tough as nails.

So much cool lore in the old games... i would dearly love to have tionisla grave yard in elite dangerous


***maybe not totally accurate, i could cheat and google but where is the fun in that :D
 
Last edited:
This.
The only meaningful "functional difference".
Of course, not making an optional slot 7 when the largest existing is 5, but splitting 4 into two 2 etc. Now that would be great.

It would be amazing if that could be an option on all ships, splitting internals into 2 or more of smaller sizes which total the size of the original. That would really open up customization for ship roles.
 
From the original Elite manual's note on the Cobra III
"(the Mk 2 only reached prototype stage and was abandoned due to a design fault in the hull)"

The FFE manual expands on this slightly further
"This led to the development of the ill-fated Cobra Mk II, withdrawn immediately after launch due to the fact that the first prototype melted with the heat of acceleration."

Plenty of room for the details to be filled in further there.

(Interestingly, in FFE, Faulcon de Lacy were a Federal shipyard who had also manufactured the FDL. In the original Elite, as in Elite Dangerous, the FDL was a Zorgon Peterson design - though of course, in the original Elite the Cobra III was Cowell+Mgrath and the Cobra I was Paynou, Prossett and Salem. It's clearly not an area where consistency has been a priority...)
 
Speaking some more about "functionally different", the thing is that ship hulls come in various forms with with their own features. If, say, there was a hull made from meta-alloys to have caustic resistance then there is no reason not to have that option available to all ships. I would also question whether it would fit the general scheme of things to have a ship that is for one purpose, which would likely be to attack the Titans, and then what after that? It would be the same for ship interiors, that wouldn't fit the fact that all ships technically have interiors, we just don't see them (yet). And again for atmospheric flight, the implementation of that would be a significant addition that would likely be beyond the scope of Odyssey and into the realms of a whole new expansion.


I agree that the Python Mk II is likely functionally different in hardpoints/internals. Things like running cooler could all be implemented via specialized engineering/tech broker unlocks as with the Guardian stuff. In other words, anything that is built for a role against Thargoids probably will be module based as has been historically the case, though it's fair to say that the new set of ships may have been designed by their manufacturers to be better at cooling or x y other thing, just as ships are currently balanced. The only functional difference I can imagine that might be tied to the ship itself is what was suggested above; the FSD being of the type that Carriers use, maybe that would be a way to directly target the Titans and arrive as wing right on its doorstep. Though again, modules could fulfill that role just as easily without compromising the effectiveness of other ships.


My feeling is that the main functional difference might be a huge hardpoint right there on top, behold:

Python_MkII_concept_front copy.png
 
Back
Top Bottom