• 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:

Deadcommand

Sergeant
Nov 3, 2017
68
0
As others have said, the proposed changes will either make the game or break the game. They're too extensive to be a "meh, whatever" change.

But assuming that the many complaints are not enough to break the devs and they proceed, here's something I'd like to see:

The current Hyperlane system is completely illogical, especially if it's going to be forced now. Why do we have the whole map at onset? Did whatever precursor make it live long enough to give a map to each empire before offing themselves? I would propose a dynamic hyperlane map. With a ship in system, you can see the hyperlanes off that system. Once that system is surveyed, the hyperlanes are permanently added to our maps, even without anything in system. Our own personal maps, if you will. Would make the early game exploration a lot more engaging with something to do other than wait for our scientists to level and do anomalies if we had to take estimated guesses on where to survey next.

I'm not the best multi-tasker so if I can write essays while simultaneously starting a new Stellaris game, the early game should be have something done. The more complicated decisions we have to make, which in turn makes it feel more like running an empire, the better.
 

brifbates

Field Marshal
93 Badges
Mar 4, 2004
10.889
2.841
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • 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
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
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.

Well, the obvious answer to this is fixing war score so beating up all those backwaters doesn't do anything much for you...
 

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
How much you want to bet all these "i'm not going to play or buy anymore dlc because of this!" are going to have a new little badge next to their name in a few months.

if were talikng about bets ive got a pot going on how many more pages this will go before it gets locked, the patch drops, or people realize that this discussion is going in circles and stop posting.

PLACE YER BETS PLACE YER BETS!
 

Stormhawke

Corporal
5 Badges
Jul 16, 2016
37
2
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Lead and Gold
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.
This is why I said 'if the war mechanics are balanced as such to require it'. I mean, we already know they're rebalancing the war mechanics. I feel like the vast majority of the problems with warfare are being addressed by everything else in the patch, and can conceivably be independent of at least some of the FTL changes. The main reasons that I see for limiting starting FTLs deal with exploration and the expected development costs of future patches.
Edit: I'll also point out that I've also previously highlighted how the exploration reason doesn't really require limiting FTL types, either- like you could have the proposed 'pockets' of space that would be hidden behind natural wormholes or gateways also hidden behind a bit of stellar terrain that forbids non-hyperspace FTL to the stars inside, possibly even hide from sensors (basically both FTL and sensor jamming).
 
Last edited:

Leraje_

Second Lieutenant
16 Badges
Oct 24, 2016
143
16
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH - Initiate of the Order
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Ancient Space
  • Impire
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Not too happy about the direction the game is heading now. Instead of improvement on the sandbox empire-building aspect of the game (adding WORKING diplomacy, trade, espionage, etc.) which is its strongest suit, we'll be getting a bargain-basement version of Sins or ES with the contrived warscore mechanics.

TLDR: In my opinion, the proposed FTL change is a major downgrade.
 
Last edited:

thedarkendstar

General
20 Badges
Mar 13, 2012
1.975
3.614
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
I always the thought the best way to handle it would be a supply status the deeper you go into enemy territory without capturing the border regions the worse your ships preform this way you cant bypass the fortress worlds.
 

LambTaco

Second Lieutenant
6 Badges
Aug 27, 2016
103
35
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
Combat is not the only thing that will be improved by this change, this may also lead to more meaningful exploration. I don't know how anyone can consider warp/wormhole by itself leading to better exploration. You're still just jumping from star to star hitting research on anomolies. It may be more convenient in some instances, like crossing a spiral arm, but in itself that's not a critical mechanic (for starting out, that is). If you play on spirals you should be good at diplomacy or conquering. For all we know, with max sliders there could be lanes between every arm of the spiral on every star. With a unified FTL system now we can have truly gated systems with treasures that can't be plundered until later in the game. There will be mysteries left in the universe so the late-game isn't just spamming science ships with auto-explore to scan the last few systems that you haven't checkboxed. That is not meaningful exploration, in fact it's very tedious and I wouldn't do it if I didn't have the Discovery tradition in most of my games. I am a person that loves the RP aspect of this game, and for that I am always sad to see creation diversity go, but I think this is a necessary change to build upon a system that will deliver a better experience. Mind you, I am only addressing your concerns about exploration, as Wiz and others have pointed out this can lead to improvement in many other areas of the game. I am more than willing to give the devs a chance and see how this turns out.

Warp and wormhole lead to better exploration by letting the player choose where to explore immediately without needing to take a round about route. Hyperlanes restrict this by creating chokepoints, especially if we need to survey every system before moving onto the next.
We shouldn't have to be forced to conquer, and since fanatic pacifist is an option the devs didn't think so either.
There are ways to prevent the player from skipping across the entire galaxy at the start that don't force hyperlanes on us. Powrerful space monsters, an actual logistics system, nebula that can't be safely FTL'd without advanced tech.
In summary I disagree.
 

Xydonus

Second Lieutenant
76 Badges
Feb 20, 2010
179
21
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
WHAT.... THE... HELL....

All I hear, is excuses by the devs as to why they are slashing this. Once again, we have a studio making a decision that they think is more 'interesting' for players.

This is a MAJOR feature cut that makes no sense!
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.453
38.873
  • 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
How much you want to bet all these "i'm not going to play or buy anymore dlc because of this!" are going to have a new little badge next to their name in a few months.
Everyone who bets all of them will do that is going to lose :)

I have plenty of other games to spend my time on, and I've already removed Stellaris from my PC.
 

Vikådin

Corporal
9 Badges
Nov 3, 2017
26
3
  • Magicka 2
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
How does that "not-jump-around-them" work? Warp makes most sense, big field that pulls nearby fleets into the system, but will it pull Hyperdrive out of their hyperlanes, possibly several jumps deeper into enemy territory than they had planned? or do you have to make sure the stations can be at places that are both Hyperlane chokepoints AND cover your empire's borders completely? And how do you inform the player about that? And what about Wormhole, which A.) makes no scene to be pulled out of wormholes and B.) could be pulled out of their empire's Wormhole network, meaning they even if they utterly destroy everything there, the defender still basically wins because that fleet (which, thanks to meaningfully powerful defenses are almost certainly a significant part of the empire's navy) are stuck unless they Emergency FTL and the other guy has free reign until they show up again? And before you think "that would happen maybe 5% of the time" that may be true... if you restrict the ability to overlap such fields, 'cause then I can set a string of stations to draw the wormhole/hyperspace guy further and further back until they've no choice but to E-FTL, (or just force warp/Jump empires to fight each and every one of my stations unless they are willing to E-FTL despite winning at all of these) which can create the gimmick problem of Warp/Jump/Wormhole travels being able to "thread" between these fields, which considering the regular EU4 threads about every time wonky stuff with the fort system happens, would not be seen as a good or okay thing.

So, you have to set your limited Defensive systems so they can cover your entire borders AND sit at all the hyperlane chokepoints into your systems while at the same time following any rules that are there to prevent any exploits that keep people from deliberately dragging Wormhole (or Hyperdrive, if you don't insist on the chokepoint thing) fleets out of their networks... at least, assuming PDX has the time, money and smarts to make all of this work for you relatively bug free to try it, of course.

You either haven't read the dev diaries, you didn't read his comment, or you didn't read mine. Regardless, you didn't read and I'm not going to bother responding because nothing you've said is even remotely related to anything that was said before, regardless of your quotes.... Thanks for quoting me though
 

Jervaise

Corporal
32 Badges
May 27, 2016
38
18
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
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.


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.
This was by far the best counter developer argument post. Thank you.
 

methegrate

General
27 Badges
Jun 20, 2016
2.410
3.564
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
If they can just go around them, they weren't placed well in the first place. Defenses being weak is the lion's share of the problem.

Defenses being weak and strategic imperatives being weak.

It's not just that there's nothing you can build to hold a system, it's that there aren't any systems uniquely worth holding. If there were, players could choose which systems need their attention and where to commit scarce resources on their own. The game wouldn't need to arbitrarily force that choice on you through pre-assigned starlanes.

This will just create a few random chokepoints over which every war will be fought. Players will stack all their resources there, because focused firepower is always better than distributed units. They will keep their fleet in one blob, because there's no reason to spread forces out when you know where the enemy will be. Then whoever wins in that border system will break through and win the war.

It happens in every game designed like this because it's a dominant strategy.

Competing strategic imperatives can't even happen under this design. Sure they could put in supply centers or operating bases, the new starbases will have shipyard specialization, but it won't matter. If you're in their empire to hit those targets, you've gotten past the border and are in undefended space. Otherwise, they're not relevant because you can't reach them through the chokepoint. So we're back throwing everything you've got at that one system and either losing or winning the war right there.

To be honest, I assume that the corollary to this change will be fleet caps. Once you've cemented a system where each player knows where the other will be, and where all of the combat happens in a small number of pre-assigned locations with limited (if any) mobility, concentrated forces will win every time. Certainly I can't think of an example otherwise. So the only way to get people to split up their fleets will be to arbitrarily force them to do so.
 

Vikådin

Corporal
9 Badges
Nov 3, 2017
26
3
  • Magicka 2
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
I'm honestly okay with wormhole going the way it's currently going, to be honest. I never used them in the first place- found them too constraining in other aspects. And systems already have value based on what resources they produce for you, either with orbital platforms or colonies - don't need choke points for that, as such my point is not undermined by what I'm defending.
Yes it is.
 

Deadcommand

Sergeant
Nov 3, 2017
68
0
Everyone who bets all of them will do that is going to lose :)

I have plenty of other games to spend my time on, and I've already removed Stellaris from my PC.

Really? This update is still in testing and months away at best. They're just giving us a notice on what stuff they have in mind. But to each their own I suppose. I'm the type of person to at least wait to see how it goes live before making a decision.
 

brifbates

Field Marshal
93 Badges
Mar 4, 2004
10.889
2.841
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • 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
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
I always the thought the best way to handle it would be a supply status the deeper you go into enemy territory without capturing the border regions the worse your ships preform this way you cant bypass the fortress worlds.

You still could if they give proper tools and you plan for it (support/replenishment ships that carry supplies but are slower/less defensible and such that we've seen in other titles immediately spring to mind) which would be a good thing, especially if the defending fleets also need to draw/ship supply as raiding their supply lines before running head on into their fleet would be a viable option and add strategic decisions.
 

ORCACommander

Herald At The Gates
85 Badges
Jul 24, 2014
190
203
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • BATTLETECH - Initiate of the Order
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
This is a 128 page threadnaught and Not sure if i could add anything worthwhile on the subject.
I will Just say this: You have just made this game like every other 4x game.
If i wanted choke points and restricted movement I would be playing a ground based game instead of space.
I have no desire to update or buy DLC beyond this date
 

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
Really? This update is still in testing and months away at best. They're just giving us a notice on what stuff they have in mind. But to each their own I suppose. I'm the type of person to at least wait to see how it goes live before making a decision.

The problem is that I have play more than a dozen of hyperlane 4X and I am not too fond of many for various reason including but not limited to hyperlane restricted movement system.

Having a mid/late-game jump drive/gateway/nautural wormhole doesn't fix the inherit fundemental flaw of being trapped by hyperlane (Fallen Empire blocking your only existing hyperlane exit here comes to mind).
 

Foefaller

General
71 Badges
Apr 22, 2016
1.953
499
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Majesty 2
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
You either haven't read the dev diaries, you didn't read his comment, or you didn't read mine. Regardless, you didn't read and I'm not going to bother responding because nothing you've said is even remotely related to anything that was said before, regardless of your quotes.... Thanks for quoting me though

I'm sorry, I only saw that post, and misinterpreted it in part because I was not paying attention to the other posts you've made that better fleshed out what you were saying. my bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.