What effect would this have on shields and jump range and so forth? I know it would be even more ungodly fast than it is now. But can anybody show me actual numbers? I have no idea how to work this out.
Minimal. Issue isn't hull mass (alone); it's hull mass vs FSD class. There's essentially a ratio that means as weight is reduced, range considerably increases. The hull mass versus FSD class for Anaconda is a little, uh, broken compared to actually anything else. It's the only ship around 400t that has a class 6 FSD, everything else has class 5 or lower, until you get to type-9 and above, which is massively heavier.
That ratio becomes highly evident, the less extra mass is added. Which is why DBX, although better on paper at highest potential jump range, doesn't have the same usable ratio when like-for-like modules are fitted. Anaconda is 400t hull mass, vs class 6 FSD. So to match the ratio, either clipper would need to have a class 6 FSD, with the same hull mass; or half the hull mass (200t) to match the existing class 5 FSD for a similar ratio.
However, at 400/6 versus 200/5, the anaconda will be still have better jump range potential, because only half as much mass can be added to clipper for the same range. At least, I believe this is the case, assuming the base multiplier for Anaconda and Clipper is
the same in that scenario.
So, it would take something as extreme as the Orca change; virtually halving the hull mass, to get the FSD class vs hull mass in the same ballpark as Anaconda. 100t would be interesting, but a fairly pointless change imho as it's somewhere a little below Asp (which is a medium). Would make more sense to just drop a class 6 FSD in it. But then we'd have endless circular arguments that combat ships shouldn't be able to jump more than 10ly at a time and so on and so forth.
On a slightly unrelated and lighter note (geddit?!) if you reduce hull mass, I have less mass to shoulder charge with, and I am not sure that's a good change.
But I think the entire thing sort of highlights how inconsistent jump potential across the entire fleet of ships has become; and that a fairly disproportionally large number of ships have quite low FSD ratio vs hull mass. To be fair, I think Frontier have probably added a lot more 'long range' content than perhaps was originally expected. Particularly in the light of 'long range' missions, and the location of the many legged thargoids.
So FSD potential has become far more relevant than it might have otherwise been. Things have changed. I'm hoping at some point, they'll do a bit of a pass over
every ship to make sure there's a more consistent range, and that ships are still able to do today, or tomorrow, what they did months ago without being unduly compromised due to mechanics changes. Which some, arguably, now are.
Frontier shouldn't be terrified of periodic,
minor shifts to ship stats as the game matures. A few tons here, ratio shift there, small tweak to capacity or whatever maintains a reasonably consistent outcome across the fleet. They tend to favour dramatic change, and this is where things tend to get unstuck, causing a bit of a ruckus. I tend to think smaller, incremental changes to ship stats would create a lot less aberrations, and would ensure things like Anaconda don't happen again, yet still keep the remaining fleet relevant.
