• 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:

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
"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!"

Some thing else to keep in mind. Since this is a forum, and not all players of a game will ever go to said forum, you are looking at a subset of your more vocal minority as well. So Vocal minority of a vocal minority, which means when these changes do go live, the complaints and problems will likely go up as well. And ~20% being upset, or 1 in 5 can be a pretty big hit when extrapolate out beyond the small portion of forum goers. So you are dealing with approximately 1/5 of your playerbase that enjoy the game enough to not only play the game, but also devote their spare time to also go out and research and talk about the game, saying "Hey, this could be a very bad idea, would you reconsider trying some other options first?", it just might warrant taking a step back and being cautious with these changes before unleashing them on the full playerbase.

These are the kinds of changes that before they go live really do need extensive player testing in addition to developer testing before being released due to the number and scope of the changes. At the very least, leave the other FTL's in for play in a less supported and unbalanced mode for a while. Have the hyperlane only one be its own and default mode, and the others in accessed from a different point on the title screen. Its not like you are restricted to one game mode only in a game. Surprisingly, League of Legends, which is a different game type all together, shows just how well even a E-sports game benefits from having multiple game modes to play.

*edited to correct quote formating*
 
Last edited:

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
Some thing else to keep in mind. Since this is a forum, and not all players of a game will ever go to said forum, you are looking at a subset of your more vocal minority as well. So Vocal minority of a vocal minority, which means when these changes do go live, the complaints and problems will likely go up as well. And ~20% being upset, or 1 in 5 can be a pretty big hit when extrapolate out beyond the small portion of forum goers. So you are dealing with approximately 1/5 of your playerbase that enjoy the game enough to not only play the game, but also devote their spare time to also go out and research and talk about the game, saying "Hey, this could be a very bad idea, would you reconsider trying some other options first?", it just might warrant taking a step back and being cautious with these changes before unleashing them on the full playerbase.

These are the kinds of changes that before they go live really do need extensive player testing in addition to developer testing before being released due to the number and scope of the changes. At the very least, leave the other FTL's in for play in a less supported and unbalanced mode for a while. Have the hyperlane only one be its own and default mode, and the others in accessed from a different point on the title screen. Its not like you are restricted to one game mode only in a game. Surprisingly, League of Legends, which is a different game type all together, shows just how well even a E-sports game benefits from having multiple game modes to play.

It's really frustrating to have someone argue a point I explicitly talked about just a post or two before, if not in the very post they're quoting...

Yes, it's a sample from the forums. But the way it changes over time seems to indicate the huge flux of disagrees are coming from the general players who are hearing about this late because they don't normally follow the DDs, but this is such a big change, us vocal people are telling others about it, so you're getting more data from the actual playerbase now, instead of just the forums.

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.
This makes me very hopeful.
 

Nippleworthy

First Lieutenant
Jun 1, 2017
257
0
I see only one solution with which everyone can be happy:

Maybe the developers should remove hyperlanes completely and instead introduce warping lanes. Areas where warp speed is not affected by space debris or pathes of asteroids. For security and physics reasons, a warp lane should not be too close to planets.
 

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'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.

You do realize Stellaris is an RTS? It's also a 4x and a grand strategy game although I can see the argument that the current versions are all grand strategy lite.
 

bmt17

Major
20 Badges
Apr 13, 2017
523
0
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
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.
Like polls and online reviews responses on a product's forum are going to bring in primarily those who are the most happy or the most angry, and those who have a reason to be the most engaged are those upset about the subject. Typically the biggest group represented disproportionately high are those who are unhappy, with the happy people a fairly distant second and no real way to gauge the number of people who might be in the middle of the road. Going off of that theory and looking at the results I would say that this is being received well enough.

On the other hand there are also a lot of people who will automatically upvote any official statement on a forum as a matter of habit simply because of who it is coming from and that it is news. So I would agree that there is little point in trying to analyze those numbers.
 
Last edited:

ZomgK3tchup

Into the Future
128 Badges
Dec 25, 2009
4.995
4.717
  • 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
It's 28% now. It has been climbing steadily for a day at least.
There are currently 1,112 votes on the development diary, 230 of which are downvotes.

230/1112 = 20.68%

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.

[...]

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).
This is all fairly anecdotal.

If we're insistent on talking about "statistics" then we might as well do it right. Unfortunately, doing it right would involve something like downvotes over time and then a fancy regression table.

As much as I'd like to wipe the dust off my copy of SPSS, everything that isn't the current upvote-downvote count is anecdotal and defeats the point of bringing numbers into it in the first place.
 

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
I think that it is you who tries to defend lack of competence and argument by invoking authority argument. I would also like to remind you that science do not take authority or experience as arguments, only facts.
You're not actually replying to me, though. You're replying like, sideways to what I'm saying. I don't have a degree, I'm just saying I know that someone making a rough estimate instead of working on something for hours doesn't mean they're a fraud. I've worked with experts before and they often make rough estimates like this.
 

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
Seriously? I went back through the last 10 diaries or so, and the negatives were always 5 or 6.

You continue to feed us wrong information, that is either indication that you are lying about fact that you actually gathered information about previous dev diaries OR... I don't have another explanation, but I really do not like to accuse anybody in lies.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ry-79-ship-component-balance-changes.1036466/

Take this DD for example and compare it to your statement of "always 5 or 6". It has 2.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...laris-dev-diary-81-machine-uprisings.1039034/

Or this one. It has 4.

I think forum users can already make some conclusions whether they should or should not trust your statements after this.
 

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
There are currently 1,112 votes on the development diary, 230 of which are downvotes.

230/1112 = 20.68%


This is all fairly anecdotal.

If we're insistent on talking about "statistics" then we might as well do it right. Unfortunately, doing it right would involve something like downvotes over time and then a fancy regression table.

As much as I'd like to wipe the dust off my copy of SPSS, everything that isn't the current upvote-downvote count is anecdotal and defeats the point of bringing numbers into it in the first place.
Great Blorg, people, this isn't some guassian distribution where we're computing the standard deviation and characterizing all the data - we're just saying,

"Most of the development diaries only have 5-6 disagrees, up to a high of 12 for the last one. So having hundreds - more than 200, now - is very significant."

This isn't rocket science. I don't need to do hours of hard technical work to make the above statement in quotations.
 

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
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.

Be careful what you wish for. For example, for a 99% confidence level on a +/- confidence interval of 4%, the required sample size for a population of 1.4 million (which was somebody else's guess at the total userbase), the number required is...1039. And that's an exact number. We are already past that point in the likes or dislikes on the OP, so I think we can take that 20% as statistically reliable within the parameters mentioned above (higher than used for most presidential polling, by the way, which uses a 95% confidence level and a +/- of 5%).

Now, if you want me to make that Excel spreadsheet to nail down the percentage increase in negative votes over previous dev diaries, let's get your PayPal info and I'll have you your results by tomorrow pm at the latest.
 

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 continue to feed us wrong information, that is either indication that you are lying about fact that you actually gathered information about previous dev diaries OR... I don't have another explanation, but I really do not like to accuse anybody in lies.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ry-79-ship-component-balance-changes.1036466/

Take this DD for example and compare it to your statement of "always 5 or 6". It has 2.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...laris-dev-diary-81-machine-uprisings.1039034/

Or this one. It has 4.

I think forum users can already make some conclusions whether they should or should not trust your statements after this.
Freaking groundbreaking!

This totally changes everything!

"Most of the development diaries only have 5-6 disagrees, up to a high of 12 for the last one. So having hundreds - more than 200, now - is very significant." was completely wrong! Oh my heck!

Time to fix that immediately!

"Most of the development diaries only have 2-6 disagrees, up to a high of 12 for the last one. So having hundreds - more than 200, now - is very significant."
 

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
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.

Unfortunately I don't think that would work. Also this is pretty much already there with the ability to choose hyperspace only as a galaxy option. You're essentially suggesting they should do what all the people who don't like the FTL travel changes want.

One of the biggest reasons I see for this change is the ability to simplify what the AI has to handle not the player. Basically this would significantly increase the work they would have to do on the game.
 

ProZocK

Recruit
84 Badges
Jul 23, 2012
5
0
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Magicka
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Pride of Nations
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • 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
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
Just came in to say @Wiz that this is probably the most awesome thing I could have expected. Thanks for the willingness to change whatever is necessary to get the game better.

But wow, I had not expected to see so many people freaking out so hard about this. This is starting to look even funnier then the Sunset invasion situation. Lol at Paypal
 

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
Unfortunately I don't think that would work. One of the biggest reasons I see for this change is the ability to simplify what the AI has to handle not the player. Basically this would significantly increase the work they would have to do on the game.
Yes. Making it pac-man also significantly decreases the work they have to do on the game.

But I don't want to play pac-man. I didn't buy Stellaris for pac-man and medieval castles in land warfare.

At least a realistic medieval game wouldn't have you able to wall off your entire kingdom's borders, though - but this update says you should be able to fortify your borders, so... Apparently we're in an even smaller and more clausterphobic space now than medieval castles in the Ardennes.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
It's really frustrating to have someone argue a point I explicitly talked about just a post or two before, if not in the very post they're quoting....

Sorry, that forums don't nearly instantly update like a chatroom does ;) Not all of us are super fast typists or reload the new posts constantly. Your 2nd post that mentioned that happend while I was typing mine out.

But yeah, either way I really hope the Devs do take a bit of a step back to re-evaluate some of this. I should go and find some certain videos on the Extra Credits youtube channel that go into aspects of game design that would really apply both to the feedback Paradox is getting, and ones that also help illustrate some of the nature of whats causing this problem, but there are quite a few of them to go through. I do highly recommend watching a few if one is interested in learning more about or getting an insight into game design.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.