• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #92: FTL Rework and Galactic Terrain

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is about Faster than Light travel in the Cherryh update, and it's likely to be a controversial one. When discussing, please remember to keep things civil, and I would kindly ask that you read the entire dev diary before rushing to post, as it's going to cover some of the questions and concerns we expect to see from the playerbase. Also, as posted last week, all of these changes are currently far away, and we cannot give more details on ETAs or the exact nature of the Cherryh update than we already have. Thank you!

FTL Rework
The single biggest design issue we have had to tackle in the Stellaris team since release is the asymmetrical FTL. While it's a cool and interesting idea on paper, the honest truth is that the feature just does not fit well into the game in practice, and blocks numerous improvements on a myriad of other features such as warfare and exploration, as well as solutions to fundamental design problems like the weakness of static defenses. After a lot of debate among the designers, we finally decided that if we were ever going to be able to tackle these issues and turn Stellaris into a game with truly engrossing and interesting warfare, we would have to bite the bullet and take a controversial decision: Consolidating FTL from the current three types down into a primarily hyperlane-based game, with more advanced forms of FTL unlocked through technology.

However, as I have said on the previous occasions when discussing this issue, one thing we would never consider doing is just slashing FTL types from the game without adding in something else to compensate their loss. That is what most of this dev diary is going to be about. However, before continuing with the details on the additions and changes we're making to FTL, I want to cover a couple of the questions I expect will arise from this:

Why are you removing FTL choices instead of building on them?
A lot of people have asked this question when we have brought up consolidating FTL types before, suggesting that problems such as static defenses can be solved by just adding more mechanics to handle each special case. I think the problem with this is best illustrated with defense stations and FTL inhibitors. One of the aims of the Starbase system is to give empires the ability to 'lock down' their borders, building fortresses that enemy fleets cannot simply skip past to strike at their core worlds, instead of having to create static defenses in every single valuable system.

With hyperlanes, this is a pretty simple affair: As hyperlanes create natural choke points, the only thing a hyperlane-stopping FTL inhibitor needs to do is to prevent enemy fleets from leaving the system once they enter it. The fleet can enter, it can retreat (via emergency FTL) and it can bring down the source of the FTL inhibitor (which might be a Starbase or even a planet) to be able to continue. This is quite easy to understand, both in terms of which system you need to defend to lock down your borders, and how it works when you are on the offensive.

Now let's add Warp to the mix. In this case, the single-system FTL inhibitor is useless because Warp fleets can just go over it, so we'll invent another mechanic: A warp interdiction bubble, stretching a certain distance around the system, that pull in any hostile Warp fleets traveling there to the system containing the FTL inhibitor, and force them to battle it or retreat. This is immediately a lot more messy: First of all, this bubble can't possibly affect Hyperlane fleets, because it could potentially pull them dozens of jumps away from their current location. This means that when fortifying your borders, you now need to not just make sure that every important chokepoint is covered, but also that your entire border is covered in warp interdiction bubbles.

But there's more: Add Wormholes as well, and you now have an FTL type where not only the 'bubble' type interdictor doesn't make intuitive sense (because Wormhole fleets make point-to-point jumps rather than traveling over the map) but if said interdictor works to pull Wormhole fleets out of position regardless of what makes intuitive sense, you end up with the same probem as with hyperlanes, where the fleet can get pulled out of range of its wormhole network and end up stranded even if it brings down the defenses. This means you pretty much have to invent a third type of interdiction type for Wormhole on top of what is already an overengineered and hard to understand system.

Finally, add the problem of displaying all these different types of inhibitors and interdictors on the map, in a way that the player can even remotely start to understand, and you end up with nothing short of a complete mess, where it's far better to just have static defenses protecting single valuable systems... and so we come full circle.

This is the fundamental problem that we have been grappling with when it comes to asymmetrical FTL: What works in a game such as Sword of the Stars, with its turn-based gameplay, small maps of usually no more than 3-6 empires, and 1-on-1 wars breaks down completely in a Stellaris game with real-time gameplay and wars potentially containing a dozen actors, all with their own form of FTL. The complexity collapses into what is for the player just a mess of fleets appearing and disappearing with no discernible logic to them.

Why Hyperlanes?
When discussing this, we essentially boiled down the consolidation into three possibilities: Hyperlanes only, Warp-only, and Warp+Hyperlanes. Wormhole is simply too different a FTL type to ever really work with the others, and not intuitive enough to work as the sole starting FTL for everyone playing the game. Keeping both Warp and Hyperlanes would be an improvement, but would still keep many of the issues we currently have in regards to user experience and fleet coordination. Warp-only was considered as an alternative, but ultimately Hyperlanes won out because of the possibilities it opens up for galactic geography, static defenses and enhancements to exploration.

Here are the some of the possibilities that consolidation of FTL into Hyperlanes creates for Stellaris:
  • Unified distance, sensor and border systems that make sense for everyone (for example, cost of claiming a system not being based on euclidean distance but rather the actual distance for ships to travel there)
  • Galactic 'geography', systems that are strategically and tactically important due to location and 'terrain' (more on this below) rather than just resources
  • More possibilities for galaxy generation and exploration (for example, entire regions of space accessible only through a wormhole or a single guarded hyperlane, containing special locations and events to discover)
  • Better performance through caching and unified code (Wormhole FTL in particular is a massive resource hog in the late game)
  • Warfare with a distinct sense of 'theatres', advancing/retreating fronts and border skirmishes (more on this in future dev diaries)
Are all new forms of FTL free patch content?
Yes. Naturally we're not going to charge for any form of content meant to replace the loss of old FTL types.

Hyperlane and Sublight Travel
As mentioned, in the Cherryh update. all empires will now start the game with Hyperlanes as their only mode of FTL. By default, hyperlane generation is going to be changed to create more 'islands' and 'choke points', to make for more interesting galactic geography. However, as we know some players do not enjoy the idea of constricted space, we are going to add a slider that controls the general frequency and connectivity of hyperlanes. Turning this up will create a more connected galaxy and make it harder to protect all your systems with static defenses, for players who prefer something closer to the current game's Warp-style movement.

Sublight travel is also being changed somewhat, in the sense that you need to actually travel to the entry point to a particular hyperlane (the arrow inside a system) to enter it, rather than being able to enter any hyperlane from any point outside's a system's gravity well. This means that fleets will move in a more predictable fashion, and interdictions will frequently happen inside systems instead of nearly always being at the edge of them, in particular allowing for fleets to 'guard' important hyperlane entry/exit points. To compensate for the need to move across systems, sublight travel has been sped up, especially with more advanced forms of thrusters.
2017_11_02_2.png


FTL Sensors
Along with the change to FTL, we are also changing the way sensors work. Instead of simply being a circle radiating an arbitrary distance from a ship, station or planet, each level of sensors can now see a certain distance in FTL connections. For example, a ship with level 1 sensors (Radar) will only give sensor coverage of the same system that it is currently in, while a ship with level 2 (Gravitic) sensors will give sensor coverage of that system and all systems connected to it through a Hyperlane or explored Wormhole (more on that below), a ship with level 3 sensors will be able to see systems connected to those systems, and so on. Sensor coverage can be 'blocked' by certain galactic features (more on that below), which will also block propagation into further connected systems. We are currently discussing the implementation of sensor blockers as a potential Starbase component.
2017_11_02_1.png


Wormholes
While Wormhole as a full-fledged FTL type is gone, Wormholes are not. Instead they have been changed into a natural formation that can be encountered while exploring the galaxy. Wormholes come in pairs, essentially functioning as very long hyperlanes that can potentially take a ship across the entire galaxy near-instantly. Natural Wormholes are unstable, and when first encountered, you will not be able to explore them. To explore a Wormhole, you need the Wormhole Stabilization technology, after which a science ship can be sent to stabilize and chart the Wormhole to find out what lies on the other side. If you're lucky, this may be unclaimed space full of valuable systems, but it could just as well be a Devouring Swarm eager to come over for dinner. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of wormhole pairs in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_4.png


Gateways
Gateways is an advanced form of FTL most closely resembling the Wormhole FTL in the live version of the game. While exploring the galaxy, you can find abandoned Gateways that were once part of a massive, galaxy-spanning network. These Gateways are disabled and unusable, but with the Gateway Reactivation mid-game technology and a hefty investment of minerals, they can be restored to working order. Like Wormholes, Gateways allow for near-instant travel to other Gateways, but the difference is that any activated Gateway can be used to travel to any other activated Gateway, and late-game technology allows for the construction of more Gateways to expand the network. Also unlike Wormholes, which cannot be 'closed', Gateways also have the advantage of allowing any empire controlling the system they're in to control who goes through said Gateway - hostile empires and empires to whom you have closed your borders will not be able to use 'your' Gateways to just appear inside of your systems.

When the first Gateway is re-activated, another random Gateway will also be re-activated along with it, so that there is never a situation where you just have a single active Gateway going nowhere. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of abandoned gateways in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_8.png


Jump Drives
Jump Drives and Psi Jump Drives have been changed, and is now an advanced form of FTL that mixes Hyperdrive with some functionality from the old Warp FTL. They allow for a ship to travel normally and very quickly along hyperlanes, but also come equipped with a tactical 'jump' functionality that allows a fleet to make a point-to-point jump ignoring the normal hyperlane limitations. This is done with a special fleet order where you select a target system for the jump (within a certain pre-defined range, with Psi Jump Drives having longer range than regular Jump Drives), after which the fleet charges up its jump drive and creates a temporary wormhole leading to the system. After the fleet makes its 'jump', the Jump Drive will need to recharge, with a significant cooldown before it can be used again, and also applies a debuff to the fleet that reduces its combat effectiveness while the cooldown is in effect. This allows for fleets with Jump Drives to ignore the usual FTL restrictions and skip straight past enemy fleets and stations, but at the cost of leaving themselves vulnerable and potentially stranded for a time afterwards. This design is highly experimental, and may change during the development of Cherryh, but we wanted Jump Drives to not just be 'Hyperdrive IV' but rather to unlock new tactical and strategic possibilities for warfare.

Galactic Terrain
With the switch to Hyperlanes and the creation of strategically important systems and chokepoints, we've also decided to implement something we had always thought was a really interesting idea, but which made little sense without such chokepoints: Galactic Terrain. Specifically, systems with environmental effects and hazards that have profound tactical and strategic effects on ships and empires. This is still something we are in the middle of testing and prototyping, but so far we have created the following forms of Galactic Terrain:
Nebulas block all sensor coverage originating from other systems, meaning that it's impossible for an empire to see what ships and stations are inside a system in a nebula without having a ship or station stationed there, allowing empires to hide their fleets and set up ambushes.
Pulsars interfere with deflector technology, nullifying all ship and station shields in a system with a Pulsar.
Neutron Stars interfere with navigation and ship systems, significantly slowing down sublight travel in a system with a Neutron Star.
Black Holes interfere with FTL, increasing the time it takes for a fleet to charge its emergency FTL and making it more difficult to ships to individually disengage from combat (more on this in a later dev diary).

The above is just a first iteration, and it's something we're likely to tweak and build on more for both the Cherryh update and other updates beyond it, so stay tuned for more information on this.
2017_11_02_3.png

2017_11_02_5.png


That's all for today! I will finish this dev diary by saying that we do not expect everyone to be happy with these changes, but we truly believe that they are necessary to give Stellaris truly great warfare, and that we think you will find the game better for it once you get a chance to try them. We will be doing a Design Corner feature on today's Extraterrestial Thursday stream, where me and Game Designer Daniel Moregård (grekulf) will be discussing the changes, fielding questions and showing off some gameplay in the internal development build. If you want a look at some of these changes in a live game environment, be sure to tune to the Paradox Interactive twitch channel at 4pm CET.

Next week, we're going to talk about war and peace, including the complete rework of the current wargoal system that was made possible by the changes to FTL and system control discussed in this and last week's dev diary. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

treb

unbeatable loser
85 Badges
Oct 2, 2011
1.721
1.432
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
Well, if turning up hyperlane connectivity means that every system will be connected to every other system near it, then it will be kind of close. Then we just need to be able to make the damn lines invisible. I hate seeing those all over my maps.

wont being able to turn up the hyperlane connections to the point everything's interconnected defeat the purpose of the whole hyperlanes only update? Namely adding strategy via choke points?
 

Harle

Major
104 Badges
Nov 2, 2007
784
793
  • Deus Vult
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Prison Architect
Hey, I was on the beta team, and have been stating pretty much from that point that I thought hyperlanes made for the richest play-throughs. It made a lot of the existing content like defense stations make more sense, even back then. I still mooostly play Hyperlane restricted games, so this is an easy change for me to jump on board with.

I genuinely think that longterm, the game can only benefit from this. Systems that allow you to bypass huge swaths of the galaxy at a whim, inherently render much of the galaxy moot point. It's hard to build a galaxy that has character and is topographically interesting if you can skip it all. Hyperlanes will provide a lot of focus that will make it so much easier to implement new systems and meaningful changes to how stars and travel works.

I'm honestly very excited for this, and I'm glad I've continued to support the game. I've always respected Paradox for their willingness to go back and scrap/rework core mechanics, rather than shrugging and saying 'maybe next game.' Obviously not everyone is happy, but I think the game will benefit incalculably from this change, especially as we see more content coming out to build on this restriction.

Kudos, Wiz et al.
 

Tavior

Field Marshal
65 Badges
May 25, 2012
3.157
319
  • 500k Club
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
Well, if turning up hyperlane connectivity means that every system will be connected to every other system near it, then it will be kind of close. Then we just need to be able to make the damn lines invisible. I hate seeing those all over my maps.

Even if I did indeed turn up hyperlane way way up enough to ensure 100% connectivity. It won't solve the balancing around hyperlane only vs "pretend warp-drive" design philosophy.

It is like saying you only can move troop over flat terrain and nowhere, namely ocean tiles, else in EU 4. Then say that is indeed the goal by remove transport boat. Then player will go how will I take 100% over Norway when there is a -1000 reasons to fully annex iceland part of Norway?!

TD;LR: You can't really cover up the flaw of hyperlane by using the slider to ensure 100% connectivity.
 

Stormhawke

Corporal
5 Badges
Jul 16, 2016
37
2
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Lead and Gold
With free moving FTL you can go anywhere and everywhere. Unless you are able to erect super strong defenses on the vast majority of your border worlds for cheap, defenses are useless. But that would create a new problem.

In order to make defenses viable with the current method. Defenses would have to be both strong AND numerous. And that sounds frustrating beyond belief. Defenses become vastly overpowered in such a situation.
They don't have to be numerous- they just have to protect the most important resources of your empire - generally your largest colony systems. How many of your colonies you can cover is based on some starbase cap that's already in consideration for the patch. Anything else is vulnerable, but, so long as the worlds that ARE defended are valuable enough, the enemy will have to attack them to actually win a war, if the war mechanics are balanced as such to require it. We must shift our thinking away from archaic land warfare concepts.
 

Stormhawke

Corporal
5 Badges
Jul 16, 2016
37
2
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Lead and Gold
Well, if turning up hyperlane connectivity means that every system will be connected to every other system near it, then it will be kind of close. Then we just need to be able to make the damn lines invisible. I hate seeing those all over my maps.
There's a setting for that, actually, in the lower-right corner. There's eight little buttons that can adjust what you see with the map view.
 

ERS92

Second Lieutenant
57 Badges
Dec 10, 2012
137
93
  • Cities in Motion
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Sengoku
So, you just thinked:
"Hey! What we can do do break the game and one of best naked mods (yes New Horizons) ?"
And put it in action.

I ALWAYS play as warp based custom Civ. And you just fucked up or my fun from this game.
 

Hype

Major
54 Badges
Apr 21, 2017
536
0
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Lead and Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Surviving Mars
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
Hey, I was on the beta team, and have been stating pretty much from that point that I thought hyperlanes made for the richest play-throughs. It made a lot of the existing content like defense stations make more sense, even back then. I still mooostly play Hyperlane restricted games, so this is an easy change for me to jump on board with.

I genuinely think that longterm, the game can only benefit from this. Systems that allow you to bypass huge swaths of the galaxy at a whim, inherently render much of the galaxy moot point. It's hard to build a galaxy that has character and is topographically interesting if you can skip it all. Hyperlanes will provide a lot of focus that will make it so much easier to implement new systems and meaningful changes to how stars and travel works.

I'm honestly very excited for this, and I'm glad I've continued to support the game. I've always respected Paradox for their willingness to go back and scrap/rework core mechanics, rather than shrugging and saying 'maybe next game.' Obviously not everyone is happy, but I think the game will benefit incalculably from this change, especially as we see more content coming out to build on this restriction.

Kudos, Wiz et al.

I agree with this completely. That said I also understand why so many people are upset about this. It's too late for them to make this kind of change to the game without guaranteeing support for the current version of the game including bug fixes for the people who don't want this change. The time to make drastic changes to a game like this is before you start selling it to customers or during an early access release.
 

Zeelilus

First Lieutenant
35 Badges
May 25, 2016
219
74
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
So someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there's two options here?

This goes through, most people are fine with it but a minority is forced to either leave, or mod their game (Nobody's going to sit and play on an old version, c'mon). Obviously not an ideal outcome.

Option two is they listen to the vocal minority and decide to keep warp (and potentially wormholes if they wanna scrap their new stuff), and just shoulder the extra money/man hours required in balancing and creating new features for more than one FTL. Downside of this would be future updates either take longer or just outright have less content.

While I'm personally fine getting slower/smaller updates to Stellaris in order to keep a minority happy, I can't really speak for the vast majority who may not want to wait 2+ years for Paradox to finally touch trading/diplomacy.

Am I missing anything here? It's hard to find the actual points being made among folks just expressing anger and other folks expressing anger at folks expressing anger.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.453
38.874
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
There are a variety of things going on.

Some people are respecting the decision and walking away from the game. Some people are enthused about the decision. Some people are reserving judgement. Some people are belittling one or other of the aforementioned categories, etc.
 

Garetstorm

Private
58 Badges
May 10, 2016
12
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Wiz did mention that having three FTL types made it difficult and time consuming to code, balance, and QA new features and updates and that this change would make it easier in the future to release new content. Maybe PDX came to Wiz and said "hey, so, in 6 months we're going to pull 75% of your team off of Stellaris to work on Victoria III, so be prepared for that." And they're preparing.

Edit: Just offering up a different scenario than what's been speculated on so far. Since we all know next to nothing about why this decision was made, this theory is just as valid as all the others. Dev resources get shuffled around software companies all the time.
 

Mr Thursday

Major
53 Badges
Feb 8, 2017
544
408
  • Divine Wind
  • Stellaris
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
I agree with this completely. That said I also understand why so many people are upset about this. It's too late for them to make this kind of change to the game without guaranteeing support for the current version of the game including bug fixes for the people who don't want this change. The time to make drastic changes to a game like this is before you start selling it to customers or during an early access release.

Except that the cost of providing support for two versions is uneconomic. It could be argued that a sub optimal product was sold initially and this change is a fix for that.
 

Mathias Rex

Second Lieutenant
71 Badges
Jun 2, 2004
134
76
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
So someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there's two options here?

This goes through, most people are fine with it but a minority is forced to either leave, or mod their game (Nobody's going to sit and play on an old version, c'mon). Obviously not an ideal outcome.

Option two is they listen to the vocal minority and decide to keep warp (and potentially wormholes if they wanna scrap their new stuff), and just shoulder the extra money/man hours required in balancing and creating new features for more than one FTL. Downside of this would be future updates either take longer or just outright have less content.

While I'm personally fine getting slower/smaller updates to Stellaris in order to keep a minority happy, I can't really speak for the vast majority who may not want to wait 2+ years for Paradox to finally touch trading/diplomacy.

Am I missing anything here? It's hard to find the actual points being made among folks just expressing anger and other folks expressing anger at folks expressing anger.

No. There will be only one option. They will cut FTL and wormehole drive, no matter how many players don't wana it. So be calm, you will get this new "fantastic, awsome " system, and those whom don't want it (for example me) can't do nothing against it. Thats the reality.
 

Akka le Vil

Major
12 Badges
Nov 9, 2004
754
1.315
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
This dev diary is not about enforcing hyperlane-only in the current form. This is a rework on the entire FTL system as a base to improve many other aspects of the game. Wiz gave several reasons why it was not practical to keep all 3 starting FTL in order to accomplish this, and I think he has made a good argument.
Actually, I found his argument pretty terrible. He basically aimed one a single, precise "solution" (making a chokepoint) and explained how this very restricted point was a headache with three different FTL concepts. But that's reasoning backward : you take a problem and look for solutions, you don't start with a solution and consider the problem isn't valid.
The problem was "how to be able to defend your territory", and the only approach he had was "how to make a chokepoint". Seems he completely ignored that space simply isn't about chokepoints, and that another design would be required.
Static defenses being able to slow down fleet and jam/slow down their FTL cooldown (and survive long enough for it to be actually relevant) works for all sort of FTL, without this "magnet" effect he shown as impossible to solve. Colonized systems increasing your own fleet speed/FTL cooldown would also work. Planet-based defenses that can only be silenced by occupying the planet could also act as very effective defenses.

The problem is this stupid focus on ground-based tactics ("frontlines", "chokepoints", etc.). It's having a hammer and then saying "screws are crap, let's make them into nails" instead of dropping the hammer and taking a screwdriver.

His arguments are basically shit because they are just pretext to bring back EU-like ground combat, instead of actually looking for real solutions to a situation that is different from ground-based campaigns.

Doomstacks and defense in depth could have been fixed a long time ago with many suggestions offered (like for example supply lines, limiting the size of a fleet in a sector, and/or limiting the amount of time it can run before having to come back to a friendly spaceport). It's an idea that was suggested from day one, and yet one year and a half later, it's not applied and instead they break the basics of the game to shoehorn a "solution" that fixes nothing.

Wiz didn't convince me that there was no solution. He convinced me he lacks imagination to find one, and isn't even able to sort through the forum to find them even after they have been made.
There is a whole quarantine thread for sectors, which they stubbornly insist on using, but they are "bold" when it's about wrecking one of the pillar of the game ? They didn't convince me they have no choice, they convinced me they have their priorities fucked up.

Even if you make defenses better, it doesnt matter because people can just go around them anyway. Defenses being weak is only half the problem.
That's the very point of space. Good design : design the game around this fact. Bad design : ignore this fact and make space like ground.
 
Last edited:

mario94

Sergeant
Nov 2, 2017
73
0
wont being able to turn up the hyperlane connections to the point everything's interconnected defeat the purpose of the whole hyperlanes only update? Namely adding strategy via choke points?
This update is not about strategy.

Covering chokepoints is not a strategy it's the obvious thing to to do, you are meant to do that in order to use defences effectively.
Forcing hyperlanes on everyone means making war predictable because you know exactly where the enemy is coming from and where you are going to attack said enemy. In fact a quick look at the map will tell you all you need to know about their defensive layout.
If you know exactly what is going to happen in advance, than you can't make the wrong call unless you want to. Wich is exactly what happens in every other game with forced hyperlanes.

This update is about simplifying the game because they simply can't keep expanding it while keeping all the ftl systems. So maybe we are getting some cool stuff, but war will definetly not be interesting, it will just be longer because now you have trenches to clear. We know this because other games already use this system, in particoular sins of a solar empire of which this next update will make stellaris into basically a clone.
 

Clocknova

Recruit
Nov 3, 2017
5
0
wont being able to turn up the hyperlane connections to the point everything's interconnected defeat the purpose of the whole hyperlanes only update? Namely adding strategy via choke points?
Maybe. But I don't want more strategy. I want to be free to explore the galaxy in any way I want. I'm fine with combat just the way it is.
 

Hype

Major
54 Badges
Apr 21, 2017
536
0
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Lead and Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Surviving Mars
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
So someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there's two options here?

This goes through, most people are fine with it but a minority is forced to either leave, or mod their game (Nobody's going to sit and play on an old version, c'mon). Obviously not an ideal outcome.

Option two is they listen to the vocal minority and decide to keep warp (and potentially wormholes if they wanna scrap their new stuff), and just shoulder the extra money/man hours required in balancing and creating new features for more than one FTL. Downside of this would be future updates either take longer or just outright have less content.

While I'm personally fine getting slower/smaller updates to Stellaris in order to keep a minority happy, I can't really speak for the vast majority who may not want to wait 2+ years for Paradox to finally touch trading/diplomacy.

Am I missing anything here? It's hard to find the actual points being made among folks just expressing anger and other folks expressing anger at folks expressing anger.

I think this is why it's important to have design plans for how you want systems to work if they're not all going to be fleshed out on release. Unfortunately far too much of the development of this game has been implementing a rudimentary but function version of a system designed on the fly that takes several patches to be fleshed out. One of the downsides of developing games like this is you occasionally back yourself into a corner with earlier designs making new ideas hard or impossible to implement without completely scraping older systems.

Paradox has essentially backed themselves into a corner with multiple warp styles that has no good way out.
 

Creamu

Captain
53 Badges
Jan 22, 2016
498
697
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
They don't have to be numerous- they just have to protect the most important resources of your empire - generally your largest colony systems. How many of your colonies you can cover is based on some starbase cap that's already in consideration for the patch. Anything else is vulnerable, but, so long as the worlds that ARE defended are valuable enough, the enemy will have to attack them to actually win a war, if the war mechanics are balanced as such to require it. We must shift our thinking away from archaic land warfare concepts.
I typically don't have much "valuable systems" that would justify spending tons of resources to build up defenses in a single area. And the most crucial thing. It doesnt have to be invaded! Simple ignore the valuable systems and go after the less defended planets for warscore.

Its pretty damn hard to determine what systems are "valuable" and they probably aren't worth spending 20,000 minerals to build up defenses there when it doesnt even require for them to invade that area.

If Stellaris had a Hearts of Iron "Victory points" mechanic, where certain planets (regional capitals?) accounted for lots of warscore, then THAT would be something worth defending.

Defending valuable areas sounds logical. But its absolutely useless in practice. Simply ignore them and invade some backwater for warscore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.