Disruptive mass should be based on mass

Tigga

T
An inspired suggestion, I know. Right now it seems to be implemented as a table. Ie. a Type-6 slows a Cobra by 14x, a Cobra doens't slow a Type-6. A Cobra slows another Cobra by 12x. Etc.

Surely it should be based on the ships' relative masses? I did a test with a ~190t Type-6 and a ~290t Cobra. Guess who suffered the disruptive mass penalty? That's right the Cobra. Type-6 could jump just fine.

It doesn't seem like it'd be too complicated to sum the mass of ships within 3km (if we're going for on-off disruptive mass), and using a clever formula thingamy, calculate a disruptive mass ratio. Right now things feel pretty shallow.
 

norcus

N
Tigga said:
An inspired suggestion, I know. Right now it seems to be implemented as a table. Ie. a Type-6 slows a Cobra by 14x, a Cobra doens't slow a Type-6. A Cobra slows another Cobra by 12x. Etc.

Surely it should be based on the ships' relative masses? I did a test with a ~190t Type-6 and a ~290t Cobra. Guess who suffered the disruptive mass penalty? That's right the Cobra. Type-6 could jump just fine.

It doesn't seem like it'd be too complicated to sum the mass of ships within 3km (if we're going for on-off disruptive mass), and using a clever formula thingamy, calculate a disruptive mass ratio. Right now things feel pretty shallow.
Click to expand...
If your numbers are correct I agree. Actual mass (and distance from mass centre of course) should be used. I suppose things like these are simplified to make it faster for the server to look up values.
 

Erraticus

E
The server should know the exact mass of all ships including mods and cargo in a given area, this should be easy from a tech standpoint and have the advantage of adding cargo mass to the mix. The extra processing might slow things down a bit though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom