• 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:

Penthros

Recruit
38 Badges
May 10, 2016
1
0
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
Man, this is the first Dev Diary that's made me feel incredibly disappointed. I get that it's a minority opinion, but I don't like hyperlanes and very rarely play with them. For me they make the galaxy feel contrived and a huge selling point of stellaris was that it didn't have them. The idea of increasing/decreasing the frequency seems a bit weird if the whole point is to artificially create space terrain with "chokepoints". If the warfare is being balanced around that then is a game with a dense hypernetwork going to work?

I'm glad most people enjoy it and hopefully the rest of the changes will make up for it. But for me it's sad free flying FTL is disappearing.

I agree I have never played a single game with other than worm hole drives. Hyper lanes seem horribly contrived and not Si Fi at all they make playing what should be a 3D space game into a just another flat 2D game.
 

Hype

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

These are the exact arguments I made about the removal of the AI uprising in 1.8 and the reason I haven't and won't buy synthetic dawn. To me it was even worse as they added a thematically similar local crisis in the DLC. Nobody else really seemed to care about that though.
 

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
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.

Paradox goal is also to make the game better and attract new players. If they feel that making these changes will add more to the game and attract more people than they think they will "lose" then they will go for it. They literally mention the current FTL system makes it problematic for ideas they have in the future. Its dead weight and holding them back. Plain and simple. Not doing this change might hurt them even more.

Quite frankly, most of people who would "quit" stellaris because of this probably aren't the dedicate type who would sink money into expansion after expansion anyway. But that's just my 2 cents.
 

BlackUmbrellas

Field Marshal
33 Badges
Nov 22, 2016
9.311
3.678
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Island Bound
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Crusader Kings II
I agree I have never played a single game with other than worm hole drives. Hyper lanes seem horribly contrived and not Si Fi at all they make playing what should be a 3D space game into a just another flat 2D game.
Hyperlanes are a scifi tradition going back quite a ways. A Mote In God's Eye is a classic novel that has a plot hinging heavily on a "Hyperlane"-type FTL.
 

Hype

Major
54 Badges
Apr 21, 2017
536
0
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Lead and Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Surviving Mars
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
Quite frankly, most of people who would "quit" stellaris because of this probably aren't the dedicate type who would sink money into expansion after expansion anyway. But that's just my 2 cents.

You realize you're replying to someone who has the Stellaris pre-order badge and every single DLC right?
 

Admiral Howe

Paleoforumgoer
119 Badges
Dec 4, 2000
1.151
3.232
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Divine Wind
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • King Arthur II
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2 Collection
It doesn't work
Your not wanting it to work - easily inferred by your response - and it not being workable aren't anyways related. It works just fine actually in theory and in practice. If the coding is robust enough to allow for it, that I don't know.

If you do that the shroud would have to be massive
How can this be, I thought it didn't work? More seriously this claim is without basis as you don't need a very large circle around a star to cast a very broad shadow.
or you'd have to have enough stations that you could cover your whole border.
Which you still have to with the proposed system. Having to lock down a border against a warp or wormhole neighbor is only a problem if a) they're hostile and b) you actually have those tech-style neighbors.
If the shroud is massive how does it affect borders? (does it stop at yours or can you stop people travelling in their own systems)
As there's no need for a massive shroud the rest of your question here isn't answerable.
If you allow a large number of stations then people who play tall get a massive advantage and the game turns into fortress creep.
If the shroud is massive, as you've somehow taken from another source then why would you need a large number of stations? My initial thumbnail of an idea wouldn't need more than a few along hostile borders...kinda like you'd expect in a grand strategy game (or quality scifi).

The UI has to show you the shroud of all engines since you need to be able to see which areas you've protected.
No, it doesn't. You need to see 1) the ones you've built and 2) the ones that affect you. That's two overlays. Use three colors (blue for yours, red for ones that affect you (enemies/neutrals) and green for ones that might but don't currently (allies, negotiated access, etc). That's all you need.
Remember it's not your engines that concern you it's the engines of your neighbours. So you need to show all the combinations of warp, wormhole, fog of war + jump drive (unless they can't be shrouded)
Fog of war isn't relevant, nor would jump drives. And as I said, your attempted complexity is two (heck just one with the color scheme above). It'd be far less clutter than the current on-map resource Jackson Pollock tribute.

There is no choice on the modules - if the enemy can just go past your fortress there is no point having a fortress. Therefore every fortress will need both shroud inhibiters and it will just become a newbie trap not to build them.
Of course there's a choice...on borders with vassals, protectorates, allies, federation members, hyperlane nations, and jump-drive equipped nations you have free reign. It's only on borders with hostiles or potential hostiles where you can use this. It's forcing choices like this that makes a good strategy game. And major spoiler here, if @Wiz and crew incorporated this (or brought it back in later when the engineering allowed) you could still get your Endless Stellaris experience by simply using Allowed FTL Method.

Everything you suggested was discussed by Wiz at the beginning of his post.
No, it really wasn't but, as is evidenced my post wasn't really read, I can understand that confusion. I understand the Devs see a problem and wish to fix it but I don't think they really, fully considered what I've suggested. Wiz, for example, talked exclusively of the FTL trap mechanic. That's not at all what I'm suggesting.

In short, Beau, I think mine is a far more elegant solution for this than the outright dismissal I'm rebuking here or even Wiz's explanation of their potential fixes. Could they implement it? Absolutely. Would it be easy? I have no idea, I'm not one of their coders. Are there intangibles at play, like a real strong internal preference for hyperlanes that precludes alternate ideas? Again, I have no idea, I'm not on their staff. But, then again, they can't be perfect. :)

But, as an example, three friendly bases with shrouds visible looking to attack an empty system (don't ask why). The one hostile shroud is disrupting routes B and C leaving only A for this invading Warp and/or Wormhole empire. A starbase built at Cougantu would block off A or an early strike against assembling ships in A's origin would allow the red empire here to protect the ominously empty star system.
Hyperspace_Shrouds.jpg
 

Merari

Recruit
13 Badges
Nov 4, 2017
4
0
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
I don't want this. I want wormholes. I would have thought twice about buying the game, I bought it because it featured different techs for different civs from the start.
 

erneiz_hyde

Captain
94 Badges
Mar 19, 2014
482
130
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Heir to the Throne
  • King Arthur II
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Sengoku
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Knights of Honor
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Victoria 2
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
I looked away for a few days and was surprised when I found this dev diary. Honestly I don't really mind the change despite me playing almost exclusively wormholes (I welcome it in fact), but the attitudes of some of those defending the change is absolutely disgusting.
 

Syncronis9

Private
61 Badges
May 6, 2016
15
3
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Impire
  • 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
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Magicka
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
I have to admit, I'm a bit angry and sad right now...

I absolutely HATE the removal of warp. I only ever roleplay STAR TREK games in Stellaris (using base game graphics and a couple name list mods) and now the game won't have warp drive... I have logged over 1350 hours in this game and this is such a fundamental change TO THE WAY I PLAY, I'm actually angry right now... Adding geography is nice and all, but this is a SPACE simulator... with space, you're supposed to be able to go anywhere and not be limited. Uggh... will seriously make me reconsider playing Stellaris as I WILL NO LONGER GET MY STAR TREK ROLEPLAY FIX (and I can't stand STO) and that makes me sad.

I've also played some hyperlane and hyperlane-only games, and I'm not a fan. I don't like the restrictions on where you can go. Chokepoints don't make sense in a SPACE game. And I could go on with why I don't like them, but I've already tried them in an environment where everyone was forced to use them, and still didn't like using them from a ROLEPLAY or GAMEPLAY perspective.

Why not simply force combat engagements when two enemy fleets are within 2 systems of each other; no sublight chase to an engagement area, just put them into combat and let us see the result. That would have solved more problems with warfare than this FTL re-work will, and it wouldn't have angered this former Stellaris fan (and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way).

TLDR; won't play without warp as I can't roleplay Star Trek. Thanks for fundamentally altering a great game into something I no longer have any desire to play. Find a better solution to problematic warfare.

I feel the forced change in travel is driven by the larger issue - complete lack of fleet actions. The forced down a pipe for travel will somehow resolve the stack of doom problem? Can't figure how do solve it so we will limit where the fleet can go and build the rest of the game around that?

Removal of fleet maneuvers because they are in combat except emergency FTL, now locked down space travel. These decisions are stepping away from the problem vs even trying solve it for a core game system in Stellaris.

ST: New Horizons Mod, I have logged a lot of hours and have garnered much enjoyment from it. Based on how popular it is with the community - top rated all time, I certainly hope that mods can keep the space travel options available. If multiple travel options are removed from the game, then this dev driven decision with cause another Paradox purchase blocker.
 

Emperor of Potatoland

Private
66 Badges
Sep 19, 2017
12
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
To everyone saying this adds more tactics, I have this for you. The devs want to FORCE static defenses to be relevant again. By removing the other FTL types, it removes the planning about where to place your defenses. "Oh, there's a chokepoint there, let's dump a bunch of minerals and construction ships over there!" Versus "I need to decide whether I should defend this planet, this planet, or this planet? Hmm...". This also removes the need to decide about avoiding the planet, or going through the planet. "I have a big fleet, so I can maybe attack the planet's defenses and win, but I might take heavy losses." Versus "I can't do anything about this chokepoint, so I'm just going to sit here until I can spam enough fleets."

This will also worsen the doomstack problem. If you have a bunch of forts and fleets in a single system, you'll NEED a doomstack to defeat them. This also makes attacking the enemy economy MUCH harder, removing the advantages of splitting fleets we already had.
 

Admiral Howe

Paleoforumgoer
119 Badges
Dec 4, 2000
1.151
3.232
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Divine Wind
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • King Arthur II
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2 Collection
I feel the forced change in travel is driven by the larger issue - complete lack of fleet actions. The forced down a pipe for travel will somehow resolve the stack of doom problem? Can't figure how do solve it so we will limit where the fleet can go and build the rest of the game around that?
Well the stack of doom is exacerbated by (in no order):
  1. No logistics of any sort, supply infinite ships in one system.
  2. Still more no logistics - fleets have no fuel range so can roam the galaxy freely...on day one. Made worse in later game.
  3. No need to patrol your trade and supply routes because...wait for it...no trade and supply routes.
  4. No actually tactics or strategy in battles...just EU4..IN SPACE!
(please note, I'm generalizing. If specific generalizations are generally unspecific please specify the generality generated specifically.)
So the hyperspace straitjacket will at least give us focused doomstacks. Connect Four instead of Chess.

Sadly, I know what we say here won't avert the bad decision part of this Dev Diary. I remember seeing this back when I worked on Moo3...and, well, if Bethesda will forgive me war isn't the only thing never changing.
 

Gimboid

Private
14 Badges
Apr 24, 2017
10
0
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
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.

Where on earth are you getting "a large portion"? let me introduce you to the big scary world out there

  • Stellaris sold over 200,000 copies in it's first 24 hours of the original games launch, whilst no public information, Steam data indicates there's over 1.4m unique users who have played the game at some point.
  • When someone stops using a service (that is, something that continues to generate revenue, which stellaris does via DLC), it is called Churning. Out of that 1.4m (probably more) people that have purchased the game at some point, some will already have churned, be it due to lost interest, having 'finished' the game, or simply moved onto other things or not have time to anymore
  • Out of that 1.4m people, there's probably only 1-2% that are registered on Paradoxs forums (hi everyone!), those that make a lot of fuss about changes (either ranting about how great or how terrible they are) are what is called a 'vocal minority'
  • In all honesty, a large chunk of people that actively play Stellaris have never been on this forum and have never read a dev-blog about the game, they'll be surprised when this patch eventually hits and either like the changes or not
  • The people, such as you posting on here about how terrible this change is are a super-minority, and also, for a thread with 132 pages at my time of writing, lets divide that by 10 and say... there's probably only a dozen people in this whole thread going on significantly about how much they hate this change (Feel free to count and prove me wrong)

At the end of the day, you're judging something you have very little information about, which is in-flux mid-development with nothing more than a sneak-peak of the direction they are going, yes, the direction is definitely only 1 type of FTL, but how that eventually shapes up may be very, very different than the blog and video just released.

Please, amongst all else remember and understand one thing, whilst Paradox is a company out there to make a profit, a significant number of employees in the gaming industry are in that industry because gaming is a passion, you don't tend to work for a studio on a video game you don't have a vested interest in, their reasons, justifications and ideas behind these changes are all being made in the best interest of the game and at some point in the past, those ideas and justifications produced the game that you are very clearly so very passionate about. Have some faith and some trust in them, that, whilst this change may be shocking for you, it might, just, possibly be a good change and you may even like it when it's all done, finished and live.
 

Nippleworthy

First Lieutenant
Jun 1, 2017
257
0
We already did, and don't like dumping the two other FTLs effectively from the game anyway.

Ja in principle it is always nice to have more choices. But I also see a far better game in future with more strategic decisions, more pleasure in discovering and so on. I for myself have full confidence in the people developing/designing.
 

Syncronis9

Private
61 Badges
May 6, 2016
15
3
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Impire
  • 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
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Magicka
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
Yeah, I hear what you are saying. I just wish those issues would be addressed, better fleet actions would lead to more defense actions etc. Honestly I feel after Wiz played Moo2 he pined for the 4x days of wonder as a kid and by darn it they only had space lanes, they liked it, they loved it! heh. It is 2017 let's have some designs for the future, not building backwards into the past. If we want retro, we can head over to GoG and fire up some old games no problem : )
 

HAL.9000.1

Captain
9 Badges
Apr 19, 2017
422
0
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
I just did a quick check back at previous dev diaries, and the number of "respectfully disagrees", even on major changes, was in the 5-9 range, or 2-5%. For the starbase announcement it jumped up to 27 disagrees (around 10%), and now we have...223, or over 20%. This is beginning to look like a New Coke moment, where the problem was not so much that Coca-Cola innovated with a new product, but that it simultaneously cancelled the old signature formulation. And we all know how that turned out. As to whether this will translate into a significant reduction in content pack sales (and DLC downloads) is anybody's guess, but these should be worrying signs for anyone involved in making the business decisions for the newly-public corporation that is PDX. Shareholders don't care if you are making a better, nobler game...they care about the bottom line. And the sudden loss of a significant chunk of an anticipated revenue stream (because they are projected in advance; that's how resources are allocated) will cause some very pointed questions to be asked. And the answer cannot be..."but we made the game better, even if we lost 20% of our customers -- those guys just didn't understand our vision!"
 

Syncronis9

Private
61 Badges
May 6, 2016
15
3
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Impire
  • 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
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Magicka
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
Well the stack of doom is exacerbated by (in no order):
  1. No logistics of any sort, supply infinite ships in one system.
  2. Still more no logistics - fleets have no fuel range so can roam the galaxy freely...on day one. Made worse in later game.
  3. No need to patrol your trade and supply routes because...wait for it...no trade and supply routes.
  4. No actually tactics or strategy in battles...just EU4..IN SPACE!
(please note, I'm generalizing. If specific generalizations are generally unspecific please specify the generality generated specifically.)
So the hyperspace straitjacket will at least give us focused doomstacks. Connect Four instead of Chess.

Sadly, I know what we say here won't avert the bad decision part of this Dev Diary. I remember seeing this back when I worked on Moo3...and, well, if Bethesda will forgive me war isn't the only thing never changing.

Yeah, I hear what you are saying. I just wish those issues would be addressed, better fleet actions would lead to more defense actions etc. Honestly I feel after Wiz played Moo2 he pined for the 4x days of wonder as a kid and by darn it they only had space lanes, they liked it, they loved it! heh. It is 2017 let's have some designs for the future, not building backwards into the past. If we want retro, we can head over to GoG and fire up some old games no problem : )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.