Base masslock of ships on final mass after adding modules and engineering

Simple really- the heavier the ship the higher the masslock factor.

It means hull tanks would act as anchors, while light shield hulks would be pinned. Smaller ships could become harder to pin in this way if they sacrifice internal space / jump range for weight.

It would give B rated modules, HRP / MRPs and weight gaining engineering a positive side.

As said earlier it would give hulltanks a purpose, and diminish large shield builds without fiddling directly with them.

It would add an extra dimension to outfitting, as you then balance a potentially higher mass lock with agility and jump range.
 
Last edited:
Not much difference in mass between shield and hull focused vessels of the same type. Things like prismatic generators, HD boosters, and A or B rated SCBs do not make a ship lighter.

Anyway, I'm not keen on either the nomenclature used, nor the seeming arbitrariness of, mass lock factors. However, I'd rather see the idea of masslock scrapped entirely and replaced with some other mechanism to impair FSD functionality.
 
Not much difference in mass between shield and hull focused vessels of the same type. Things like prismatic generators, HD boosters, and A or B rated SCBs do not make a ship lighter.

Anyway, I'm not keen on either the nomenclature used, nor the seeming arbitrariness of, mass lock factors. However, I'd rather see the idea of masslock scrapped entirely and replaced with some other mechanism to impair FSD functionality.

Good point. I had in my head things like cargo ships being less able to be pinned when full in comparison to when they are empty. At the same time you could alter the mass of SCBs to be lighter, make fuel scoops and AFMUs weigh something but make chunky things chunky.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
.... make fuel scoops and AFMUs weigh something but make chunky things chunky.
I expect that Frontier are rather aware of how this might affect a not insignificant subset of the player-base - especially those who have been out in the black for months (or longer). I seem to remember Michael Brookes saying that there was no prospect of AFMUs having mass some years ago (even if them being zero mass was an oversight at that time) as they were already intrinsic elements of players' builds back then.
 
I expect that Frontier are rather aware of how this might affect a not insignificant subset of the player-base - especially those who have been out in the black for months (or longer). I seem to remember Michael Brookes saying that there was no prospect of AFMUs having mass some years ago (even if them being zero mass was an oversight at that time) as they were already intrinsic elements of players' builds back then.

Thats a shame.
 
+1 to the MLF per 100t of total ship mass, cargo included. That's how I would do it. And yes, that would also mean that a loaded freighter would be harder to masslock than an empty one. Everything is better than the current arbitrary system though.
 
Not much difference in mass between shield and hull focused vessels of the same type. Things like prismatic generators, HD boosters, and A or B rated SCBs do not make a ship lighter.

Anyway, I'm not keen on either the nomenclature used, nor the seeming arbitrariness of, mass lock factors. However, I'd rather see the idea of masslock scrapped entirely and replaced with some other mechanism to impair FSD functionality.
The next most logical option would be a distance based mass lock. You have to be 1km (or whatever) from anything of significant mass. The distance could be based on the size of the FSD, with bigger ships requiring a bigger "void bubble" around them to jump.

There really needs to be two types of mass lock, one based around stations, planets, moons, and asteroids locking you up, and a revamped system for ship-to-ship locking.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom