To say that I'm disappointed by the new Factory Update would be an understatement. As you can no doubt tell, it's taken me a while to stew over the details and try to see the issue from all sides. I can see the benefit of having a rudimentary and binary system regarding Hyperdrives. However, I believe what's now in place doesn't jive with the Star Wars universe, or any conventional engineering logic. I'll be the first to admit, I'm no engineer. Some may think that because I make overly detailed submissions and do my best to balance things out to make my submissions fair and in keeping with the spirit of Star Wars. But, I'm just a devoted fan who's spent far longer than they should've arguing about pretty starships - when I could've spent all that time doing something else. It's fun for me to take what's already been established in Star Wars and see how far the Galaxy's come in Eight Hundred years.
What irks me the most about this, is that there are Canon sources as to why not every ship has a Hyperdrive. Sure, you could cite that since Chaos has no economic system, that such things like expenses shouldn't be considered when building starships. I call Bull on that, as such factors should be considered when crafting a submission. They don't have to be considered at all, and I'm not seeking to force my opinion as a standard, but it's something that adds a bit of "realistic flavour" to the description section of that submission. However, going back to the In-Canon reasoning - Hyperdrives were expensive to add to smaller starships. It's why many of them relied on Carriers to get them to the battlefield, or external systems like Hyperdrive Rings. What's common amongst most of these articles however, is that the Starfighter exceptionally benefited from the lack of systems - which included the Hyperdrive. The TIE/LN Starfighter is one of these Canon Sources.
As some have pointed out in other threads already, or could tell by watching the various SW Media pieces - being stuck in a hostile Star System without a Hyperdrive isn't a pleasant experience. In fact, it's worthy of being considered a significant weakness in any modern starfighter's design. Not only do you have to contend with the fact that you're stuck In-System and unable to escape to Hyperspace, but you're no longer able to use the plethora of Hyperspace-based tactics that would typically be available to other Starfighters. Ala, the Micro/NanoJumps, Hit and Fade tactics, etc. As a Pilot - you're forced to turn into the enemy and engage, or hopefully outrun them in a vain attempt of losing them in whatever astro-navigational hazards exist within that sector of space.
Adding onto that, if a Starfighter is forced to rely on a Carrier of sorts - if that Vessel is taken out, it becomes a turkey shoot for the opposition, as those Starfighters have nowhere to go. They're stuck.
Everything I've written here is just the peak of the proverbial iceberg. Yes, you could argue that Hyperspace is an arbitrary method of arriving and exiting a thread; therefore, it shouldn't place any bearing on the balance of a submission. I'd agree with you there - as I've said it in the original idea that I proposed to the Factory before this update, which was seemingly swept under the rug in favour of this Binary System we have now. Regardless of the Class, people will still arrive in the thread and leave it whenever they damn well please. I'm not disputing that, and want to make it crystal clear. What I'm challenging - and passionately I might add - is that having No Hyperdrive shouldn't just be a free weakness, but offer a potential rating boost as well - since you'd be taking out a critical system, and receive no tangible benefit in return.
Sure, you could argue that you'd have every right to claim a boost in your submission's ratings since it's a critical weakness.
Having covered a portion of my thoughts on the matter, I think it’d be fitting to offer up a technical example - so that this accounts for the Factory side of things. As the T-65 X-wing is considered to be the Average amongst Starfighters, if you removed its Hyperdrive - you would significantly cripple its effectiveness on the Spatial Battlefield. From there, you’d also have a bunch of empty space in the central fuselage of the Starfighter. If the Factory was in any way shape or form like the Loadout System from the Battletech Universe - you’d be removing a critical system that affected the entirety of the Starfighter’s tonnage. If the T-65 was a Battle Mech - someone could add more armour plating in its place, slap on another weapon system, or even integrate a few more heat sinks.Balance Guideline
Lengths are applied as per an Adjusted Anaxes War College System. For technical ratings, start with all values at Average for a Mass-Produced piece of technology. For every increase you should either:
- Reduce the Production value.
- Reduce another rating (e.g. increase Increase Speed while decreasing Defensive rating).
- Provide balance with genuine and significant weaknesses.
- The factory will always round down, never round up. Please keep this in mind when approaching submissions.
The Factory, in many respects, is very similar to that Loadout System. Anyone can tinker with their ratings to ‘engineer’ what they believe to be something worthy of their faction, or of the piece of art they’ve collected, or a snippet of repurposed canon lore. If they take out an integral part of a Starfighter’s design - don’t you think they should get something back to replace it?
Having No Hyperdrive is a genuine and significant weakness. However, in the end, I suppose I’m looking for a sort of enforced consistency in the judgement of Starships with No Hyperdrive. I say this because the discussion thread that initially sparked this change of rulings saw a Member encounter difficulties with a Factory Judge because they were told that having No Hyperdrive isn't a weakness. Several submissions encountered similar issues with the presiding Judges, but several others - including many of my own - skated through with said weakness without any problems. It's not fair that we're all being held to different standards, and Judges are allowed to hold submissions to unwritten standards. Balance is ideally achieved by holding everyone's submissions to the same blasted standard, or else what's the point of having Judges to make sure that we're all ‘playing’ somewhat fair?
With all of this said and done - I would like to redirect the Factory's attention to my initial suggestion hyperlinked at the top of this post regarding Hyperdrives, and in turn ask that the Administration reconsider their recently implemented ruleset.