• 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:

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
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.

Well, that's an interesting point. Offhand, I'd say that the inclination to "like" a post by Wiz might generate more casual upvotes (and thus less commitment) than a downvote with all the grief that entails, but I admit I have no statistical evidence to support that thought. Although I guess we could track through the EIGHTY MILLION comments so far and see how many of the positive ones mentioned FTL, vs. ones that talked about...er, something else. Yikes.

In the absence of an actual count, however, I would tend to think that both the upvotes and downvotes were talking about FTL in equal proportions, i.e. about 110%. Although, to be fair, there are a few people who have been commenting against the changes who actually like them personally, but just don't like (1) the attitude of the majority or (2) the idea that it's an all-or-nothing-at-all proposition.
 

Hunter41

Recruit
19 Badges
Nov 4, 2017
1
0
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • BATTLETECH
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
I find the rationale about wishing to create chokepoints and increase the effectiveness of space empire fixed defences and borders in order to improve combat rather weak. I like the current dynamic with warp drives that forces the use of well positioned mobile fleets for defence. The whole idea of fixed defences in the vastness of interstellar space other than for point defence of planets and installations is absurd. If the developers want to re-create tactics required for 2-D littoral naval combat, then perhaps they can use their game engine to create new game about Pirates of the Caribbean.
 

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
I currently boycott all electronic arts products Because I did not like how the changed the Lore of command and conquer.

At the very least I am not purchasing anything stellaris until we get a New full priced base game or PDX backtracks on the gutting of ftl mechanics. If your wondering why I have not purchased synthetic Dawn: its at a crossroads in my mind that this should of been a free expansion because AI rebellion never worked right and the base game, and having enough content not related to that to justify its purchase, thus I am waiting for a deep discount sale.

Oh my god, someone who actually agrees with me about the AI rebellion. The same reason I haven't and won't buy synthetic dawn.
 

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
I'm trying to be a reasonable person and do not try to compare RTS with 4X. So my advice is still adequate it seems - if you don't like Tetris, start comparing Stellaris to Wolfenstein.
Sorry I got a little defensive there since you were not offering advice, you were being dismissive. I am technically comparing games in related genres. real time strategy vs real time tactics. Both tactics and strategy involve maneuver.

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.
Except in this case, Wiz and Co are taking the easy way out. They had a good foundation with different ftl types. Was refinement needed? certainly. And there were wide avenues available to address the problems that kept all three around. While it would be a large undertaking, writing in a supplies and logistics system that would make deep strikes expensive and trying to control isolated pockets of hostile space difficult would be a hell of a lot more interesting than reverting to the system that the majority of games int the 4x genre have paddled to for decades.
As for their claims it would make future features too difficult to implement?, tell me what those features are, why we should have them, and Explicitly why warp and wormhole are anathema to it. Don't waive your hands and tell me to trust you. Justify you actions.
 

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
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.

I feel so ashamed of my example now...
Great info Cirrus.
 

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
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?

Well not a link, but I will share my calculations. Off the cuff as they were. For prior dev diaries involving changes (except for the prior one about starbases), they seemed to get around 5-6 negative votes. This one, 223 (so far). 223/6 = 37.16 223/5 = 44.6, so I kind of split the difference. 40-to-1 is 4000%. OK?
 

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
Except in this case, Wiz and Co are taking the easy way out. They had a good foundation with different ftl types. Was refinement needed? certainly. And there were wide avenues available to address the problems that kept all three around. While it would be a large undertaking, writing in a supplies and logistics system that would make deep strikes expensive and trying to control isolated pockets of hostile space difficult would be a hell of a lot more interesting than reverting to the system that the majority of games int the 4x genre have paddled to for decades.
As for their claims it would make future features too difficult to implement?, tell me what those features are, why we should have them, and Explicitly why warp and wormhole are anathema to it. Don't waive your hands and tell me to trust you. Justify you actions.

Features:
1. Working static defenses
2. Meaningful maneuvers and strategic positioning
3. Late-game exploration of isolated/protected areas of galaxy

Now as for "complex supply system" etc. It's a wishful thinking. It is a pain is the ass to make AI understand SIMPLE concepts and you dream about AI that could potentially handle complex systems that will involve not one, but 3 different types of FTL?
Be reasonable! Those 4x games you are referring to have used simplified FTLs for a reason, not because devs were evil and don't want you to have options. Because options are ok only when there is a viable choice and interesting mechanic behind every choice.
With current 3 FTL system it's absolutely unrealistic to have interesting war mechanic gameplay-wise. Devs are trying to tell you that, a lot of people here try to tell you that, but you still don't even try to view current situation from different point of view.
 

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
Well not a link, but I will share my calculations. Off the cuff as they were. For prior dev diaries involving changes (except for the prior one about starbases), they seemed to get around 5-6 negative votes. This one, 223 (so far). 223/6 = 37.16 223/5 = 44.6, so I kind of split the difference. 40-to-1 is 4000%. OK?

"Seemed to get"? :)
Are you sure that you had extensive education with math statistics? :)

I expected to get carefully gathered statistical data, and instead of it, all I get is "seemed to get"? Lol
 

ZomgK3tchup

Into the Future
128 Badges
Dec 25, 2009
4.995
4.716
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Lead and Gold
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Pirates of Black Cove
  • Gettysburg
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Deus Vult
  • Cities in Motion
  • 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
  • Commander: Conquest of the Americas
  • Darkest Hour
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
I'd be wary of drawing any conclusions from upvotes-downvotes beyond "80% of voters upvoted while 20% downvoted." When you start coming up with explanations for why that might be without having concrete evidence or expert opinion to back it up, you might as well not even be talking about statistics in the first place.

All we really know is that this development diary got a significant amount of attention and a large minority disagreed.

What really throws this into a loop is that forum posts (such as development diaries) aren't representative of the player base. They're representative of the player base that has a forum account. I'd be extremely wary of drawing drawing conclusions based on a sample that probably isn't representative of the population.
 

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
I'd be wary of drawing any conclusions from upvotes-downvotes beyond "80% of voters upvoted while 20% downvoted." When you start coming up with explanations for why that might be without having concrete evidence or expert opinion to back it up, you might as well not even be talking about statistics in the first place.

All we really know is that this development diary got a significant amount of attention and a large minority disagreed.

What really throws this into a loop is that forum posts (such as development diaries) aren't representative of the player base. They're representative of the player base that has a forum account. I'd be extremely wary of drawing drawing conclusions based on a sample that probably isn't representative of the population.

Voice of reason in ocean of... chaos.
 

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
I'd be wary of drawing any conclusions from upvotes-downvotes beyond "80% of voters upvoted while 20% downvoted." When you start coming up with explanations for why that might be without having concrete evidence or expert opinion to back it up, you might as well not even be talking about statistics in the first place.

All we really know is that this development diary got a significant amount of attention and a large minority disagreed.

What really throws this into a loop is that forum posts (such as development diaries) aren't representative of the player base. They're representative of the player base that has a forum account. I'd be extremely wary of drawing drawing conclusions based on a sample that probably isn't representative of the population.

It's 28% now. It has been climbing steadily for a day at least.
 

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
"Seemed to get"? :)
Are you sure that you had extensive education with math statistics? :)

I expected to get carefully gathered statistical data, and instead of it, all I get is "seemed to get"? Lol
Studying physics, having known people who do it for a living - if you're an expert in something you can still just as often make back-of-the-envelope estimates to get a quick number that's going to be close enough to get the general feel of the message.

In astrophysics, "within an order of magnitude" is usually good enough for these kinds of things, haha.

Obviously if you're spending weeks or months or years on a publication you'll be way more thorough, but little things like this are perfectly fine with a rough estimate. I mean, whether it's 3800% or 4200%, does it really make that big of a difference to the message? Perhaps to human bias, but you shouldn't refine the number just hoping to make it make your point, you should refine the number either because you're bored and like doing that or the situation actually requires greater precision and accuracy.

I'd be wary of drawing any conclusions from upvotes-downvotes beyond "80% of voters upvoted while 20% downvoted." When you start coming up with explanations for why that might be without having concrete evidence or expert opinion to back it up, you might as well not even be talking about statistics in the first place.

All we really know is that this development diary got a significant amount of attention and a large minority disagreed.

What really throws this into a loop is that forum posts (such as development diaries) aren't representative of the player base. They're representative of the player base that has a forum account. I'd be extremely wary of drawing drawing conclusions based on a sample that probably isn't representative of the population.
I'd add - it started with a much higher agree fraction, but I heard about this DD from a friend who follows the DDs - I don't usually do that or visit the forums, so I came and dropped by as "a regular player who doesn't frequent the forums" - and I was quite upset.

The disagree fraction rapidly grew as hours carried on - I think it's a good guess, a fairly reasonable and likely one - that "regular players" started hearing about this update through word-of-mouth and that's why the disagree fraction exploded over a night, a good many hours after it was released.

Yes, fewer people saw it at first, but that should effect only the numbers, not the fraction. A change in the fraction indicates you're now taking a different sampling group - in my hypothesis, people who heard about it by word-of-mouth from regular forum users, so they showed up late to the party.

As a further note, the number we get, then, is some weighted average of the two sampling groups - presumably it's most, if not all of the forum-goers, but only a tiny fraction of the regular players who aren't forum-users - and since the word-of-mouth latecomers (not usual forum-users) caused the disagree fraction to increase, then it's likely the group as a whole actually has a higher disagree fraction than we're seeing here in the OP, because the OP is an average with a group with a much lower disagree fraction (regular forum users).
 

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
Features:
1. Working static defenses
2. Meaningful maneuvers and strategic positioning
3. Late-game exploration of isolated/protected areas of galaxy

The problem is that most systems in the game are worth the same to your empire. With the upcoming resource distribution changes, they become even more homogenised. That means the only differentiation for the value of a system is where it is located, and for that you have to be able to control movement within your borders, which can only be done through Hyperlanes.

1. Static defences should be important to defending strategically important systems - not be used as a way to prevent enemies from entering your space. If all systems are worth the same, then you get the latter. If systems are truly strategically important (i.e. certain systems are more valuable than others) then it doesn't matter if the enemy is in your territory, what matters is which system they attack - probably the one you've got statically fortified
2. I'm still not clear on how hyperlanes accomplish this by locking you into a network vs. the free-form movement; but maybe future dev diaries will explain
3. This can be accomplished in many ways - for example, an event which spawns a new star cluster ("Our scientists have identified a number of new destinations for exploration!"). The proposed implementation is basically to put a gate/guardian on a chokepoint which you have to smash through to get to the exploration content on the other side. That means I need a strong fleet even if I'm focused on exploration and diplomacy - which means I have to invest time/effort in that side of the game even if I don't want to.
 

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
Studying physics, having known people who do it for a living - if you're an expert in something you can still just as often make back-of-the-envelope estimates to get a quick number that's going to be close enough to get the general feel of the message.

Now we have cool stories about 'people that do physics for living'. What's next? Cool stories about magic?
Math statistics, I would like to remind you, is precise field of science. Key word - precise. And if you dare state that you have some "statistical" data, you'd be better have it.
 

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
Now we have cool stories about 'people that do physics for living'. What's next? Cool stories about magic?
Math statistics, I would like to remind you, is precise field of science. Key word - precise. And if you dare state that you have some "statistical" data, you'd be better have it.
I think you're missing the point, here...

Point is, you can't discredit him on the basis of a rough estimate. Everyone does those. That, and we still have something like 4000% above-average disagreement +/- 1000%, maybe 2000%, tops, as rough guesses.
 

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
"Seemed to get"? :)
Are you sure that you had extensive education with math statistics? :)

I expected to get carefully gathered statistical data, and instead of it, all I get is "seemed to get"? Lol

Seriously? I went back through the last 10 diaries or so, and the negatives were always 5 or 6. Except for starbases, where they were 27. That's pretty careful, for a casual conversation. What do you want, an Excel spreadsheet? Because I'll be happy to do the work for you and calculate things out to three decimal places, but will expect my standard consulting fees. Do you have a PayPal account?

Or will you just take 4000% as a general approximation? Would it really make some important point for you if it was only 3000% (although it is almost certainly not that low), or would you be chagrined if it were 5000%? BTW, the number of negatives is now up to 231, so if I were re-calculating on the fly my new estimate would be 4200%. Because, remember, the old numbers are now basically static, while the new statistic keeps on increasing with each passing hour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.