• 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:

Darehus

Corporal
33 Badges
Oct 24, 2013
43
102
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sengoku
  • March of the Eagles
  • Magicka
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • King Arthur II
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Impire
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Darkest Hour
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Prison Architect
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • War of the Roses
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Victoria 2
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
If the key is legitimate it means PDX was paid for it. If the Key was illegitimately obtained then that means I supported a credit card thief. neither of which to me would be ethically acceptable
Not quite.
You see, most of times when you buy at grey markets like that, you buy key that was already bought from shop, like of, GameBillet, or Indie Gala. And while most of times it depends on publishers, these stores usually can get keys 40% 60% and even sometimes 80% cheaper compared to normal price, when they buy in bulk.
And usualy, *again, not always.* cash isn't shared with publisher, only goes to the store.
And imo, if store gets 100% of your cash, and has 40% profit on sold game, It can hurts publisher.
*This is reason why some games, like ARK, you can find only on steam or HB.*
 

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
And I'm the supreme commander of allied forces europe.

Are you calling me a liar? That seems...rude. Berkeley, MBA, 1984. Printing industry (3 companies), 1985-2007. Sales managment. The $5 Billion employer I was talking about was RR Donnelley and Sons (at the time; I think it has changed its name since). Do you want me to post a suitably redacted image of one of my pay stubs to prove it? Internet business development, 2010 (some retraining involved) to present. And I know I mentioned before that I worked in the wargaming industry -- that was 1976-1977. No pay stubs available for that one.

Seeing all your posts these last 2 days, I really want to see you like PM Wiz himself or write a letter or something...

I will assume that you mean that sincerely, but let me tell you that, from my own past experience, (1) people only want to hear what they want to hear. He would just ignore me or write me off as another crank. So I post here, because I know the posts are read, and if they want to take the free advice they are welcome to. Although (2) I have also been told in the past that free advice is worth what you pay for it (see point #1 above), so I think the odds on that are small.
 
Last edited:

Mrakvampire

Captain
88 Badges
Oct 19, 2009
406
248
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
For land based combat this is very true. But for Naval and Aerial combat, this goes out the window fairly quickly beyond the most drastic measure of blockading ports and removing airstrips.

Oh wow. Naval combat doesn't have restrictions? :)
Tell this to Russians in 18-19 centuries, as they desperately wanted to conquer Constantinople to gain control over Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Or tell this to Germans during WW1, and their mine warfare in Baltics.
 

meto30

Captain-Major
97 Badges
Feb 5, 2012
21
46
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • March of the Eagles
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
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.
View attachment 311251

Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.
 

Kreliann

Sergeant
80 Badges
Jan 15, 2009
96
0
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Victoria 2
Also, this is all of those changes. Someone may love the gates and natural wormholes (they look pretty neat) - but it's entirely possible for those to exist in the current 3-FTL system. 74% like all those changes, as a whole, in that package. Some unknown, larger portion will dislike the FTL change but tolerate it for all the new stuff they're trumpeting.

You are absolutely right, I totally forgot about that posibility. Of the 229 negatives, an important chuck probably is disagreeing with something else besides the change to FTL mechanics. Surely the way Black holes now will interfere with the time to charge the FTL system. Thats bollocks, everyone knows a black hole gravity well loses influence to the square of distance. In practical terms that make them indiferent from regular stars, as ships will be at the edges of the systems.

So we can safely asume of the 20% that disagrees with the dev diary, only a fraction is actually disagreeing with the actual change to FTW mechanics.
Thanks for the eye opener.
 

Clockro4ch

Second Lieutenant
106 Badges
Jul 20, 2010
116
70
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • War of the Roses
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
Are you honestly saying that you'd boycott all Paradox products just because you don't like Stellaris?

I for one would. But not because I don't like Stellaris, but because when they operate in a way that makes it so that certain features which were advertised before the release of the game can get cut after about one year... I'm not capable of trusting them with anything.

Why would I buy Victora III - for example - if they could basically be lying about it's features in upcoming Dev Diaries?
 

S.C. Watson

Captain
29 Badges
Apr 7, 2016
372
859
www.scwatsonart.com
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Rome Gold
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Rome: Vae Victis
Movement, and restricting movement has always been one of the most improtant parts of warfare. Its difficult to make combat compelling on a stategic level if there are basically no restrictions on movement.

This line of argument shows that you, and the devs, fundamentally do not understand the environment in which a space game is set - the fact that you continually apply ground based tactics and methodologies to a three dimensional environment is why this hasn't worked from the get go.

I leave with a touch of snark

Anyway, I'm out.
Cheers all.
 

Sibericus

Technocratic Sociocapitalist
26 Badges
Jun 14, 2016
529
91
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Just so we are clear, I want everything we've seen that comes with this patch so far, except for one thing. I want the border outposts, the starbase systems, the wormholes and the stargates. What I don't want is to be locked into hyperlanes. I don't hate hyperlanes, and play hyperlane only games on occasion, but I like player choice. I understand wormhole stations needing to be removed with the addition of stargates, but please at least leave an option for warp only/hyperlane only games and the classic jump drive. It would be useful for testing, as people would be able to compare military tactics and fortification strategies between the two, providing actual data on which would be better for the game in tandem with the other new features. Multiple variables are changing in this next patch, so controlled variables should be set up for a more comprehensive analysis.
 
Last edited:

ORCACommander

Herald At The Gates
85 Badges
Jul 24, 2014
190
203
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • BATTLETECH - Initiate of the Order
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
Next time compare Stellaris to Tetris.
My point was homewolrd has 6 axis of movement for your fleets. these lack of restrictions do not inherently make the game boring. Further the ships are coaded for directional armor values. Nothing Says oh shit when someoen hyperspaces in a flight of ion frigates behind your phalanx of capital ships while they are engaged with your main fleet.

Or you are trying being an elitist and saying other games are inferior to the concept of grand strategy.
Right now we have a game that is trying to be both grand strategy and a 4x and succeeding at neither.
 

Mrakvampire

Captain
88 Badges
Oct 19, 2009
406
248
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
This line of argument shows that you, and the devs, fundamentally do not understand the environment in which a space game is set

And it seems that you do not understand the realities that the goal of the game is not to simulate reality (cause let's face it, in reality there will never be space combat at all, as shown in Stellaris or any other space game/film) but to create interesting and engaging strategic gameplay.
 

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
You are absolutely right, I totally forgot about that posibility. Of the 229 negatives, an important chuck probably is disagreeing with something else besides the change to FTL mechanics. Surely the way Black holes now will interfere with the time to charge the FTL system. Thats bollocks, everyone knows a black hole gravity well loses influence to the square of distance. In practical terms that make them indiferent from regular stars, as ships will be at the edges of the systems.

So we can safely asume of the 20% that disagrees with the dev diary, only a fraction is actually disagreeing with the actual change to FTW mechanics.
Thanks for the eye opener.

Safely? That's called "whistling past the graveyard". Also doesn't explain why the negative reviews exceed the average of all prior dev diaries by approximately 4000%. In all of the comments objecting to the changes, show me any that have not specifically cited FTL as the problem. Again, unless you can show why only FTL objectors would hang around to comment, while others would just quietly drift away, the preponderance of evidence is that the issue is FTL.
 

ashbery76

Field Marshal
106 Badges
Oct 31, 2000
3.395
2.721
Visit site
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Stellaris
This line of argument shows that you, and the devs, fundamentally do not understand the environment in which a space game is set - the fact that you continually apply ground based tactics and methodologies to a three dimensional environment is why this hasn't worked from the get go.

I leave with a touch of snark

Anyway, I'm out.
Cheers all.

You seem to BE mistaking real space with a 2d flat plane that space 4x games have,apart from SOTS..
 

Orffen

Corporal
139 Badges
Feb 14, 2010
45
16
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • BATTLETECH
  • 500k Club
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Magicka
  • Magicka 2
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Darkest Hour
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Sengoku
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
I wanted to present some alternate thoughts on this change for consideration.

The FTL change seems to me to be an attempt to do 2 things:
  1. Make static defences great again
  2. Emphasise Galactic Terrain effects
It does this by changing how we get to battles, not by the actual battles themselves. There may be other changes planned that will alter that but I want to stick to discussing FTL and Starbases (the changes we already know about).

The thinking from the design team appears to be that borders are important and there should be a way to defend your territory. Seems pretty reasonable; it's intuitive and with the changes to resource distribution among systems making every system roughly valuable it's obvious to see why they think this is needed.

From the Starbase diary:

We've also made it so that there are no entirely 'empty' systems (systems with no resources at all), as we discovered during playtesting that spending influence to claim such a system felt extremely unrewarding.

From this one:

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.

I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy, and it's exacerbated by the fact that there will be many valuable systems due to the above resource change.

Systems can be valuable for different reasons. In a Hyperlane game, a system with no resources becomes valuable because it serves as a chokepoint. In a warp/wormhole game, such chokepoints aren't so much a concern - the strategic decisions are which systems must be heavily defended, which can be sacrificed and which can be lost to be regained later. This means that system resources are more valuable rather than the "geography" of the galaxy.

The thinking I've got is that Galactic Terrain is a great idea, one that can really emphasise star types and their relation to resource abundance.

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).

What if each star type was known to provide certain resources? Then these start types become more valuable to your empire, regardless of travel method. The particularly valuable ones should be the ones you reinforce because if the enemy attacks them they cripple your economy, or take away those Strategic Resource buffs you rely on for your fleets. These systems become more valuable to you as you expand, but they also become natural places to fight over because your enemies will find it valuable to deny them to you or to take them for themselves (even temporarily under the new Starbase mechanics).

Anyway, I'm just throwing ideas out. I'll be sad to see other FTL types go in favour of Hyperlanes only, and I think there are more interesting design choices that could and should be explored around system value, static defence and galactic terrain. And your strategy should in many cases be a trade-off - an advantage in one sense for a disadvantage in another. FTL travel mode could be one of those trade-offs.
 

Kreliann

Sergeant
80 Badges
Jan 15, 2009
96
0
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Victoria 2
Safely? That's called "whistling past the graveyard". Also doesn't explain why the negative reviews exceed the average of all prior dev diaries by approximately 4000%. In all of the comments objecting to the changes, show me any that have not specifically cited FTL as the problem. Again, unless you can show why only FTL objectors would hang around to comment, while others would just quietly drift away, the preponderance of evidence is that the issue is FTL.
Just using the same logic behind the claim that from the 820+ positives, quite a few actually disagree with the changes, and only agreed with the OP because of some other minor change.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Oh wow. Naval combat doesn't have restrictions? :)
Tell this to Russians in 18-19 centuries, as they desperately wanted to conquer Constantinople to gain control over Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Or tell this to Germans during WW1, and their mine warfare in Baltics.

For the Russians and the Black sea, its a matter of scale, and that also involves a straight. Which is more or less what the FTL change is going to cause, as instead of the option to use the nigh infinite vastness of space to potentially go around things like that, all the game deciding fighting is going to happen at those locations.

For the Germans, deploying a minefield is essentially the same in principle as a blockade, but with the additional drawback and/or risk of making the area unusable to yourself as well. Its just denying the option of going through there. Though adapting minefields for Stellaris outside of being a military station aura would be a worth considering, and/or terrain such as asteroid fields with a similar effect.
 

stargazer1235

Recruit
72 Badges
Apr 23, 2016
5
0
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
Hi Guys

One of my first official posts here. Ultimately I think this is the right choice. While I am a bit sad that player choice is being removed, while having only played HyperDrive and Star Lanes, those two options were very similar to me. I have never played wormholes (although I should definitely now) but having been, in some games, allied to wormhole empires, I have seen many times how it is difficult for them to send a fleet and help out since they need first to build a wormhole network. This change should also hopefully fix the problem when in a Federation, your Federation fleet is using the wrong technology to your civilization.

However I was having a think last night about how to incorporate Hyperdrives into this new Star-Lane system (I believe wormholes have been susceptible addressed in the new system.)

The New HyperDrive
Essentially in my new vision, Hyperdrives will be a brute force, last resort, measure, similar to an Emergancy FTL in concept. In this idea, a player with HyperDrive unlocked but it is like a special ability on Science ships only. The restriction on distance of HyperDrive is lifted, thus at the beginning (or very early one) a science ship can jump from one end of the galaxy to to the other. But it is a risky thing based on several factors (such as shield levels, a jump will drain shields for energy and extra energy a ship has, thus encouraging players to overload energy on their ships in they want to do fequent long distance jumps). If the jump fails the ship and crew are lost. Futhermore jumps are slow travelling (like now) and also do not give vision in space that is travelling through. Thus you only see the system you left and the system you jumped to.

Ultimatly, jumps cannot be used by large fleets, only smaller (covetts and transports). Empires would favour opening up star lanes for large scale fleets, trading (if such a system is implemented) and exploration. I foresee that in a war, the major fleets of Empries will be fighting system to system over Star Lanes, however Empires might have smaller fleets that can engage in Gurrilla warefare, jump into enermy terriroy, make a quick strike and jump out again.

Star Lane Engineering
Another interesting idea that I could believe make star lanes more interesting and make the game map more dynamic is the idea of Star Lane Engineering. Essentially a mid-game tech, this would allow Empires to build StarLanes over stars and connect to disitantly points with what is essentially a highway for transport. While natural Star Lanes would exist, after this point the Player can modify (either close or open) new star Lanes to make military movement and trade (again if such a system is ever implemented) more efficient. It would be like how the road system in Civ is dynamically created by either workers or trade units but cost a lot of resources to do (especially over long distance).

There is even a possiblity if a proper civilian economy is implemented for private entities to come forward to build new star lanes on behalf of the empire for the purposes of speed and trade.

What you guys thing?
 
Last edited:

Mrakvampire

Captain
88 Badges
Oct 19, 2009
406
248
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
SAlso doesn't explain why the negative reviews exceed the average of all prior dev diaries by approximately 4000%.

Can you please share a link to calculated average amount of negative reviews for all prior dev diaries, and obviously how you came up with 4000%? You've stated that you are very educated and competent person (compared to us, serfs), so it won't be difficult, yes?
 

RedGeneral

Private
26 Badges
May 27, 2016
18
35
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
At least keep wormhole stations as a means of creating an artificial hyperlane bridge between systems. Incur a high maintenance for the stations to balance, but at least allow us the use of that.
 

Cirrus Light

Sergeant
8 Badges
Sep 10, 2017
86
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
You are absolutely right, I totally forgot about that posibility. Of the 229 negatives, an important chuck probably is disagreeing with something else besides the change to FTL mechanics. Surely the way Black holes now will interfere with the time to charge the FTL system. Thats bollocks, everyone knows a black hole gravity well loses influence to the square of distance. In practical terms that make them indiferent from regular stars, as ships will be at the edges of the systems.

So we can safely asume of the 20% that disagrees with the dev diary, only a fraction is actually disagreeing with the actual change to FTW mechanics.
Thanks for the eye opener.
Actually, you'll want to use general relativistic formula for that. I'd suggest Eddington-Finklestein coordinates, as the Schwarzchild coordinates can be somewhat misleading since the radial coordinate in Schwarzchild refers to the "reduced circumference", not the actual proper distance to the horizon - though you can find that proper distance with an integration, then use a shell frame at the same radial coordinate to find the "gravitational acceleration". But it's not exactly true to Newton's inverse-square law, though Newton is a fantastic approximation at about 1,000 Schwarzchild radii or further, or even a hundred or further it's a pretty good approximation.

Safely? That's called "whistling past the graveyard". Also doesn't explain why the negative reviews exceed the average of all prior dev diaries by approximately 4000%. In all of the comments objecting to the changes, show me any that have not specifically cited FTL as the problem. Again, unless you can show why only FTL objectors would hang around to comment, while others would just quietly drift away, the preponderance of evidence is that the issue is FTL.
"negative reviews exceed average of all prior by appx. 4,000%"

That should say something. Something very big. As if it wasn't obvious enough already, this is not "just a few people will always be unhappy at changes - they're just a vocal minority, disregard them!"



How about this being like an opt-in free DLC or something? Wouldn't that be a nice win-win for everyone? Of course, development should continue for a game with all 3 methods, but they can even make those changes compatible with the hyperlanes-only DLC very easily, since any content for the base game needs to be compatible with hyperlanes, anyways.

This is even better than the "just stick with 1.8.3" bullcrap we keep getting, because they would still get all the cool new features and DLCs and patches and such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.