Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: [PROPOSAL] New Masslock Scale And or Masslock renewal

  1. #1

    [PROPOSAL] New Masslock Scale And or Masslock renewal

    So... Masslock makes no sense. at all in any kind of idea you might want to try... The thing is it's not balanced, it's not "realistic", it's not logical... it's just there and it's bad right now...

    Right now as it stand Mass lock factor is this.




    But alas complicated and also not much common sense... it is a bit of a mess in my opinion. a lot of ships dont make any sense... for example the t-9 being mass locked by way smaller and lighter ships like the python. (that is almost 3 times lighter than the t-9 , and have a smaller FSD).



    SO here is My idea to SIMPLIFY and make it more common sense and make the game a little more BALANCED in this matter.

    Make the MLF factor EQUAL to the FSD size. (MLF would be 3x the FSD size)

    This would make the game MLF look like this.



    A lot of ships with similar sizes means a small extra charge but nothing too major.
    Greedy Raider Channel , Piracy , PvP , Tutorials, Tests , Stupid stuff and more!
    "These days any man who can sew a black flag and get ten fools to follow him can take a prize.
    They can take it because of the fear that I and men like me have instilled in their prey.
    But they can't do what I can do. They're not built for it. And sooner or later, they'll be exposed." Capt'n Flint

  2. #2
    Decent proposal, makes more sense than the current method.

    I dunno though, what does it look like if you use mass instead? (I mean, I know it sounds nuts to use mass, for something called mass lock factor but hey, call me crazy...)

    Could even make it based off of the total current mass (which would include cargo held), versus the total mass of the other ship(s) though I know that's a lot more complex to be implemented as it's currently just a variable assigned to each ship type.

  3. #3
    Shouldn't the MLF of a ship just vary with it's mass?

    i.e. be MLF = Mass * X?

    And when I say vary I mean vary as in when you're fully loaded with cargo your ships MLF is greater than at empty etc...

    I would have thought the game applying a coefficient to work out MLF dependent on the ships mass would have been simple ?

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Novo Mundus View Post (Source)
    Decent proposal, makes more sense than the current method.

    I dunno though, what does it look like if you use mass instead? (I mean, I know it sounds nuts to use mass, for something called mass lock factor but hey, call me crazy...)

    Could even make it based off of the total current mass (which would include cargo held), versus the total mass of the other ship(s) though I know that's a lot more complex to be implemented as it's currently just a variable assigned to each ship type.
    I had this also... I even make a image about it.. but the thing is how to make it reliable? I think having to calculate it mnight be a good thing... something about the total mass of the ship m,ight also sounds good. and make heavier hull tanks better for masslocking....
    Greedy Raider Channel , Piracy , PvP , Tutorials, Tests , Stupid stuff and more!
    "These days any man who can sew a black flag and get ten fools to follow him can take a prize.
    They can take it because of the fear that I and men like me have instilled in their prey.
    But they can't do what I can do. They're not built for it. And sooner or later, they'll be exposed." Capt'n Flint

  5. #5
    Too much sense.. Should i continue?
    [IMG][/IMG]

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Insane4un View Post (Source)
    Too much sense.. Should i continue?
    Guess I would be very curious what FDev was thinking when assigning Mass Lock numbers and what criteria they had in the heads when doing so.

    Seems like a straight-forward concept easily implemented.

  7. #7
    FYI
    Since this has been an ongoing forum topic for over 2 years and because I couldn't find one, I submitted a Bug Report for the Python's MLF: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...61#post5905061
    "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos." - Albert Einstein, on the randomness of quantum mechanics

    Elite Dangerous Lead Designer's most recent games:
    Kinect Star Wars (2012) (Senior Designer)
    Haze (2008) (Lead Designer)

  8. #8
    Mass lock should match the ship's mass. Done. Simple and makes sense.

    This is one of those things I can't possibly comprehend in this game's design decisions. Why make stuff up that doesn't make any sense, when there is already a perfectly natural and logic way of doing it?

    Things that are logic, coherent and make sense: good.
    Things that make no sense, illogical, incoherent: bad.

    It would be even better if mass lock matched the ships mass including modules and cargo.

  9. #9
    Not a trick question, can someone point out where in game the term Mass lock is used for ships.


    Cheers
    Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream...

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by 777Driver View Post (Source)
    Not a trick question, can someone point out where in game the term Mass lock is used for ships.


    Cheers
    It should appear as a warning when trying to low-wake while mass locked and the Mass Lock Factor appears in the shipyard menu when buying a ship.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by NascentChemist View Post (Source)
    It should appear as a warning when trying to low-wake while mass locked and the Mass Lock Factor appears in the shipyard menu when buying a ship.

    Onboard the ship it says mass inhibition. I'll try to find a screenshot of the shipyard menu (No access to the game) Just always been curious as to why people call it mass lock.

    @Op - The devs said they based the calculations on a typical loadout for each ship, nothing to do with hull mass.

    The Anacondas hull mass is ridiculous, I really don't understand how that got past the initial beta.
    Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream...

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Novo Mundus View Post (Source)
    Decent proposal, makes more sense than the current method.

    I dunno though, what does it look like if you use mass instead? (I mean, I know it sounds nuts to use mass, for something called mass lock factor but hey, call me crazy...)

    Could even make it based off of the total current mass (which would include cargo held), versus the total mass of the other ship(s) though I know that's a lot more complex to be implemented as it's currently just a variable assigned to each ship type.
    I'd love this. The Cutter would still masslock pretty much everything, but a lot of the other ships would get shuffled quite a bit.


  13. #13
    Originally Posted by askavir View Post (Source)
    Mass lock should match the ship's mass. Done. Simple and makes sense.

    This is one of those things I can't possibly comprehend in this game's design decisions. Why make stuff up that doesn't make any sense, when there is already a perfectly natural and logic way of doing it?

    Things that are logic, coherent and make sense: good.
    Things that make no sense, illogical, incoherent: bad.

    It would be even better if mass lock matched the ships mass including modules and cargo.
    On point. Keep things easy and logic. If there will be a change, this is the only way to go.
    Payload should be included as well, to add a little finesse.
    "Foxtrott-Romeo-Alpha" - CMDR Francis G. Blackly - Soldier of Fortune since 3270
    Pilot of the Asp Explorer
    "DSE Cayetano Valdès" <- Click for Coriolis Data
    Be a commander, fly a spaceship, live the adventure.

  14. #14
    For those who were asking :

    The current MLF system is based on the notion that "Mass locking" has nothing to do about mass... For some reason.

    The devs use it just as another way of balancing ships, and it is agressively tuned so as to prevent even much larger non-combat vessels from easily escaping piracy attempts, among other things.

    Why does the Python give the T-9 a hard time? Because FD decided so. They litterally want it to be possible for lower-tier ships to harass the T-9s and belugas of this world.

    I guess, from the perspective of a pirate, this reasoning is somewhat enjoyable... but it just makes no sense in practice... I mean, in a universe plagued by piracy, the first thing a ship manufacturer would try to ensure is that their ships would have little trouble escaping the smaller, more nimble craft that usually try to pirate them...

    Worst of all, why is it that combat ships, with comparatively very weak FSDs, get to flee from anyone unhindered, but everyone gets to pick on the more "peaceful" guys?

    It's "good" for the game's mechanics, and very bad for immersion and consistency... That's the very definition of ludo-narrative dissonance.

    I do support the OP's proposition.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Allchemyst View Post (Source)
    For those who were asking :

    The current MLF system is based on the notion that "Mass locking" has nothing to do about mass... For some reason.

    The devs use it just as another way of balancing ships...

    It's "good" for the game's mechanics, and very bad for immersion and consistency... That's the very definition of ludo-narrative dissonance.

    I do support the OP's proposition.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast