Originally Posted by Arthur Shappey View Post (Source)
Your observations are nearly all spot on, but it doesn't sway me to support the OP. That will only create more dull and less balanced play.

The argument that it is against "immersion" implies that we need to know precisely how a frame-shift drive works - which we don't. And because we do not understand that or many other ship modules we somehow suddenly do think we need to understand mass lock factor (MLF). That argument makes no sense.

There are much more jarring, immersion breaking mechanics in the game, such as you being blown up in a ship and instantly able to buy a new ship at the last station you docked [even if that station is over 200 LY away];

I'm not saying MLF couldn't be improved, but it would be way down my list of mechanics to address and improve first.

Oh, immersion isin't my only pet peeve, nor is it my most severe. After all, we are playing a game where ships can move thousands of times faster than causality itself...

My beef is that currently, we've got one (or two, counting the PP missiles) way of slowing our prey, and that way is extremely inconsistent.

- We litterally could see Yuri Grom's missiles become a standard engineer modification...

- We could have "Frameshift-mass-projector" internals that massively increase everyone's FSD boot time in a radius (including the user's) when active, at the cost of power usage...

And so on and so forth. The reason for things to be this way is that it was easy to implement and didn't require the addition of more content. Like any easy way out, it's overall inconsistent and less and less satisfactory the more you try to make sense of it. I probably should've added that other things need to change to keep a semblant of balance.

I think that all ship's MLF should be made to at least make sense (make it a function of FSD size), but give more active means of slowing down people.