• 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:

JulienJaden

Corporal
87 Badges
Dec 24, 2010
37
4
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka 2
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • 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
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
I, for one, welcome this decision. Hyperlanes-only is my default playstyle for the exact reasons named in the dev diary:
It makes for a game where static defense (after upgrading it with mods to actually do more than take up space) can suddenly have value, where waging war over galactic terrain and pushing out your borders to two or three choke points becomes something worth pursuing because you can fortify them and hold them against hostile empires until murderous robots or extradimensional invaders or some other dick with a Jump Drive can bypass them - so, hyperlane-only games actually make Jump Drives an even more strategically valuable technology.

If offering this kind of diversity from the start would come at the sacrifice of blocking development in directions that would make it a better game, then I can understand why they took this decision; I do understand, however, that people are upset about this. There are plenty of other issues with the game that should be addressed that might have been seen as (or simply are) a bigger issue than the FTL methods, but in the end, all we can do is wait and see what the developers come up with (and see if the modders cater to what wishes or needs the developers are not).

I like the idea of the Wormhole drive, the idea of having a network you have to maintain that you can strategically damage, where positioning and smart, well-timed attacks from the right angle can cripple an opponent's war effort, but I would argue that, ultimately, the hyperlane option offers this level of strategy and more, and while the wormhole and gate network idea might not be to everybody's liking, I think they are good alternatives to diversify the endgame.

Maybe wormhole stations could be kept in the game, though, as really expensive endgame installations with limited range, to be used (exclusively or mostly) within your own borders so you can slingshot fleets quickly around your core territories. Whether that would be worthwhile or redundant when combined with the gate network depends entirely on the cost of maintaining the latter - if those gates are cheap enough to build one in every important system, then the wormhole stations probably wouldn't bring that much to the table.
 
Last edited:

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
I'll be honest, citing reddit seems about as flawed as people using the agree/disagrees on the OP as their barometer for popular support. I have no idea how much of the Reddit community represents the actual playerbase.
It might not be terribly accurate. But i doubt its terribly inaccurate.
 

anomanderus

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Jan 26, 2010
3.719
562
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Lost Empire - Immortals
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
And that 13% might turn into just 5% after people get over their knee jerk reaction phase buddy.

So you're saying that people who like choice and people who dislike hyperlanes-only will "get over" being forced into a singular gameplay style because.... they just will? Seems incredibly doubtful friendo.
 

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
So you're saying that people who like choice and people who dislike hyperlanes-only will "get over" being forced into a singular gameplay style because.... they just will? Seems incredibly doubtful friendo.
If the following dev diaries are convincing. Yep.

Again, I trust the devs far more than I ever will the player base. And that's coming from someone who plays exclusively wormholes for the past 8 months or so. The following statement might trigger some people so ill leave you a trigger warning. Ready?

The playerbase doesnt always know whats best for the game.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.452
38.871
  • 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
Doesn't matter how nice the icing is. The new cake still has walnuts in it.
 

KDB

Recruit
54 Badges
May 15, 2016
6
0
  • Cities in Motion
  • Stellaris
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Magicka
  • Impire
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Pride of Nations
  • Cities: Skylines
It's sad that people are crying and complaining without having tested the new system. Why should it force player into a "singular gameplay style". It could also give the player more variety (and I'm sure it will). So just calm down and wait for the next patch. I'm quite optimistic that the devs will make the game experience richer.
 

Gwayne

The last of his Dynasty
114 Badges
Feb 24, 2010
440
764
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Lead and Gold
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Magicka 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • 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
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • King Arthur II
Well the reality is that the game can always be played as it is now. Just use the beta version.

I personally mostly played warp, but I can see what @Wiz tries to achieve.
So I am glad that the team is brave enough to take a risk. So I wait until I see the results and then I will judge that. I am actually not very worried.
It was never easy to have multiple ways of movement and to balance them all. But I hope that for modders the warp option stays.
 

Kinkness

Banned
82 Badges
Mar 21, 2010
1.595
2.367
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
This isn't progression. Progression is when you develope something further. In this case the devs will remove major elements from the game. By the way if you dont like the warp or wormhole than why don't you just turn off at the begining of the game in the setting menu? More over im curious if you let just the hyper drive technology in the game, the whole problem is gone? If yes, than why must this change? If it's annoying for anyone why not just switching it off at the beginning?

Taking 1 step back from a wall, so you can take a big step around it, and 10 steps after that IS progression.

Beating your head against a wall and trying it different ways is NOT progression.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
1: Using your definition of a planet as a "choke point" instead of an "objective" or a "capture point" is like saying putting your back against the wall is a "choke point" because you have nowhere else to go, and just proves to me you have absolutely no idea what a choke point or a bottle neck even is, have no idea about how to fight from fall-back points or what the purpose of choke-points, bottle necks, and any other such 'point' is. So let me explain it to you very simply. It is a point in space that is SEPARATE from the objective, where you force your enemy to FUNNEL IN (IE CANNOT GO AROUND FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER) so you can face them on your terms.

2: your method results in what we have now, deathstack VS deathstack = outcome. That's it. No strategy outside did you put rock, paper or scissors on your ships, and who has the higher number. If you have a big deathstack you warp in to any system, destroy the station, bombard it, and land armies. Just leap around, like a frog, boing boing boing, taking all these "chokepoint" planets of yours.

Actually I was going to keep going on and on but t'd medicine for the dead, you're incapable of making use of the logic I am trying to give you. Maybe Leonidas and his Spartans should have fought the Persians on open ground at Sparta. I'm sure he would have loved your definition of bottle neck. "If the invader takes the city then you lose! Nevermind the countryside that is supposedly yours, let them reave and pillage with impunity, they have failed so long as they don't take this particular city!"

Maybe he would have had better luck explaining to you the tactical advantages of terrain and bottlenecks and what it can mean for the outcome of the battle. Or maybe Xerses had a spaceship he used to fly over the cliffs (tiny hills, really) or Thermopolae to just land his armies in Sparta while Leonidas was still marching his way across Greece and the whole point would have been moot, what do I know

I wonder how long you could pay maintanence on your fleet if you literally just sat over one planet as a "choke point" while the enemy destroyed all your fleet capacity, minerals and energy creation. I suppose not having a fleet would lower your expenses considerably. Or maybe you think you can have enough of a fleet capacity right off the hop to spread it out and defend all your planets at the same time from the single consolidated force of your enemies invasion. Or maybe you think you could just move your one consolidated fleet around quickly enough to catch up to your enemies. Which as a wormhole player, I'd be really impressed to see because even I can't keep up sometimes. Maybe I'm wasting my time with all these words when what you really need is somebody to take you into the game and beat you senseless with the facts and reality of the existing system for you to really comprehend it. Give you a hard, unarguable lesson in the form of swift butt-kickings. Regardless, I look forward to the new system, and learning how to strategically outflank my enemies instead of depending on 2 or 4 death stacks blinking around playing "who has the bigger number". I look forward to "I need to take THAT system because of ..." and I look forward to "I need to defend this system because of..." and all the strategy and thought that will go into that. I look forward to the depth these changes will give this game.

First off, trying to apply concepts of a two dimensional war (ground only) to what should be a three dimensional war (space) doesn't really work. Stellar chokepoints would not work the same way as ground based ones. Forcing the game to mirror a space themed Risk so it can have meaningful terrain and conventional choke points doesn't really work for the space theme. The changes to starbases and outposts alone would do a good deal to alleviate hyperlanes getting cut off by enemy boarders, the other issue with hyperlanes is they are too predictable even without being able to see the lines, and even more so if one watches fleet movement. The main reason the other FTL methods dont really hit chokepoints often is the systems are a little too dense outside of crossing between spiral arms. I have had a game as a wormhole ftl where I had major choke points due to star distances being enough where there were only a couple of spots I could jump until improved the tech and there is no gaurentee when that will happen.

Another option to making choke points for non hyperlanes would be having things like nebulas affect different FTLs differently. And introducing something like space weather (plasma storms for instance) that also affect the FTLs differently. This with making systems less dense and clustered would go a long way to creating space terrain without the need to restrict to one FTL.

Did you read the whole diary? Did you watch the vids? Did you pay attention to all the problems they came up with from trying to add more and more and more to try and fix the problem?

Your metaphor doesn't fit. What we have is boat, and it has some leaks we can all agree on that need to be fixed. And what you are suggesting is just tacking on more and more shit, more shit more shit. Tack this on to stop the water coming in. Oh now it's too bulky so tack this on to make up for that. okay now it's too heavy tack this on so we can float more. okay now I can't see tack this on.. okay tack this one..

It's the rule of unintended consequences but it's simpler in the game than it is in real life. You can't just keep adding bandaids to fix problems that need reconstructive surgery. have you ever had a bone heal the wrong way and it needs to be broken and set back straight, so you can stop walking with a limp? That's what this is like. We have a system that functions and limps along and we all love it for it's quirks (or we wouldn't play it let alone be argueing endlessly with one another on this forum) and you guys want to keep giving it crutches and keep giving it a wheelchair and make wheelchair ramps and make more handicap accessible bathrooms and then make handicap transgender only bathrooms and then you'll want to start anti bullying programs because all the other kids will see how much attention you've been putting into that crooked limb and they'll get jealous and mad and demand attention too because it's only fair and then..... Get my point? You snowball totally out of control trying to add more and more and more when what you need to do is rip out the problem, rebuild it so it isn't a problem, and put it back in. Instead of those programs and bathrooms and wheelchair ramps and crutches, all you need to do is rebreak that limb, set it PROPERLY, give it time to heal (ie allow the initial shock of something new to wear off) and that kid can run and play and jump and do all sorts of things that NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE NO MATTER HOW MANY WHEELCHAIR RAMPS YOU MADE!

Pulsars should affect shields. Black holes should affect warp drives. This isn't ground based combat it's a fundamental fact of ALL warfare. Sun Tzu has a great book you should read called "The Art of War" that might be able to better impress upon you the universal constant of "terrain" in warfare. Being aware of your surroundings and using them to your advantage is fundamental, on the ground, in the air, in the water, or in space. And the broken leg of the situation is that existing FTL systems prevent our little game from making those slam dunks, and unless you're trying to build an exo skeleton suit (and don't forget, then all the kids would want one) there's no solution of "adding more stuff" that will fix that. But simply getting over the momentary, initial discomfort of breaking something we have all become accustomed to, no matter how crippling it is and how it makes us limp, and resetting it properly WILL allow us to make those slam dunks.

The Art of War is a good read, though not all aspects of it apply in modern warfare thanks to the invention of airplanes. 2d techniques don't all cross over to 3d well. But agree that putting band-aid over band-aid won't fix this problem, but this feels more like amputation than breaking a bone to reset it with the current information to me.
 

mario94

Sergeant
Nov 2, 2017
73
0
It's sad that people are crying and complaining without having tested the new system. Why should it force player into a "singular gameplay style". It could also give the player more variety (and I'm sure it will). So just calm down and wait for the next patch. I'm quite optimistic that the devs will make the game experience richer.
Because it's already been done in other games. Sins of a solar empire especially has features identic to the ones showed in this upgrade.
 

anomanderus

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Jan 26, 2010
3.719
562
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Lost Empire - Immortals
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
If the following dev diaries are convincing. Yep.

Again, I trust the devs far more than I ever will the player base. And that's coming from someone who plays exclusively wormholes for the past 8 months or so. The following statement might trigger some people so ill leave you a trigger warning. Ready?

The playerbase doesnt always know whats best for the game.

The playerbase are the customers and if a large portion of the customers are upset then the devs are clearly making a mistake. The fact you think that we should be held hostage to the whims of developers shows you misunderstand the relationship here. I am the customer, I paid for three kinds of FTL when I bought the base game. Even going beyond the fact that I enjoy a varied game with varied opponents, even if it results in doomstack based combat, the fact is I already paid for three kinds of FTL. This goes into an issue where the seller is trying to take back something that the buyer already paid for with the claim that "you will enjoy it better this way". It would be like if Kinetic and Missile weapons were removed on the basis that balancing for three kinds of weaponry is difficult and the game will benefit if everyone uses the same weapons- I paid for three kinds of weaponry, not one.
 

Baron Jukaga

Loyalist Commander
77 Badges
Dec 27, 2001
3.662
4.703
Visit site
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 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: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
Personally I'm not happy about such a drastic change this long after release. Is Stellaris to be considered early access now? I hate hyperlanes and part of Stellaris' appeal to me was the freedom in navigation choices it gave me. This is change for the sake of change. If I wanted to play Space Empires IV with it's hyperlane fortification game I'd still be playing that.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.452
38.871
  • 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
Well the reality is that the game can always be played as it is now. Just use the beta version.
Sure, we can stay at a known-problematic version which could, but won't, be substantially improved even without the changes so far advertised for 2.0.

But why would we, when there are other games to play?
 

anomanderus

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Jan 26, 2010
3.719
562
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Lost Empire - Immortals
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Well the reality is that the game can always be played as it is now. Just use the beta version.

I personally mostly played warp, but I can see what @Wiz tries to achieve.
So I am glad that the team is brave enough to take a risk. So I wait until I see the results and then I will judge that. I am actually not very worried.
It was never easy to have multiple ways of movement and to balance them all. But I hope that for modders the warp option stays.

You are also making the mistake of not understanding how this works. Paradox is a corporation, their goal is not to create a situation where a portion of the playerbase chooses to never buy another DLC because they enjoyed a specific version of the game- they want you to buy every DLC so they can maximize their profits. In this case in particular there is literally no reason to remove warp and wormhole- the synthetic ascension wasn't removed just because they changed the game so you could start a a synth. There is no reason to remove features.
 

anomanderus

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Jan 26, 2010
3.719
562
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Lost Empire - Immortals
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Then keep your three FTL. No one is stopping you. Theyre not taking anything back from you.

Dont update. Dont buy Cherryh. Simple.

It is amazing that I explained to you the buyer-seller relationship and you seem to willfully ignore that. Paradox's goal is to sell me stuff, to sell you stuff. If paradox takes away the stuff I bought then they lose a customer which means they lose money. Now there are some who would argue "but more customers will come in time" and that may be so- but losing a customer and gaining a customer creates a zero-sum in terms of profit when they could just not remove the features which I paid for and then they would keep me as a customer and an additional customer would be a net gain. This is a no brainer to any business- keep the customers you have while expanding your customerbase, alienation of the existing buyers in an attempt to appeal to an unknown "new buyer" is foolish in a business-sense.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.452
38.871
  • 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
You are also making the mistake of not understanding how this works. Paradox is a corporation, their goal is not to create a situation where a portion of the playerbase chooses to never buy another DLC because they enjoyed a specific version of the game
Any business person worth their salt will tell you some customers are not worth keeping.

There is no reason to remove features.
Speaking as someone who's ditching the game: Nonsense. Sometimes, the best way to improve a game really is to remove a feature, because preserving that feature while adding new ones is not cost-effective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.