• 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:

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
It's funny how you've managed to change "always" to "most". Level of discussion/arguments is downgrading with FTL speed, for sure.
Because you're not even arguing our points. You're nitpicking and insulting with things that are irrelevant. I don't need to do finite element analysis to tell you that smashing an egg with a hammer will destroy it, or hitting a brick wall with a truck at 60mph will break the wall. Sometimes a rough guess is all you need.

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.
That's called being "Ninja'd" :p

And yeah, as unhappy as I am with the change, I don't exactly envy the devs, either. Here they thought they were adding this awesome new feature, and it looks like they've put a ton of work into it already, and then they get this reaction.

To be fair, though, they did say they expected it to be controversial. I hope they didn't expect this, though.

I really hope it's enough to get them to reconsider despite all the hard work already put it into it.

After all, that's just the sunken costs fallacy. "We've already put so much work into laying these explosives against the hull of our ship under the waterline - we can't not set them off, now!"

But it must kinda suck, still, which is why I suggested making it a DLC so it's not all for waste, and the people who are so excited about it can be satisfied without it being a crippledate that either ruins or really badly hurts it for a lot of us.

Honestly, I have a tiny sampling so perhaps it's not fair, but extrapolating from what little data I have, it seems to be about a 3/2 split from the 6 or so regular players I know, with 3 adamantly upset at it, and of the other 2, 1 is willing to at least give it a try though seems wary, and the other just thinks we're all salty who don't like the change and is laughing at the chaos more than anything.

This makes me somewhat hopeful that the sampling bias here is actually a huge favor for "agree", and maybe enough people will cry havoc enough that the devs will steer clear of the sunken costs fallacy...

I certainly won't be hurt by them releasing this as an optional DLC, though.

...it'd be a bit karmatically sweet to see all the "stick with a dead branch of the game!" people get a taste of their own medicine... but really, a win-win situation is still ideal. Maybe a more base part of me wants to see them eat their own words but as a whole, I'd really like to see win-win be possible, even if it means a slightly smaller dev focus on my branch of the game as a few work with the "hyperlanes only" branch.
 
Last edited:

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
It's funny how you've managed to change "always" to "most". Level of discussion/arguments is downgrading with FTL speed, for sure.

I'm really sorry. If I had known I would be under oath, I would have been more careful with my language. By the way, don't forget that Quantas has never had a crash, you're a very good driver, and Wapner is on at four. I also note that you want back around 14 diaries to get your "2" outlier...so what were the numbers for the rest of the dev diaries? I'll be happy to revise my estimates for free if you provide the numbers.
 
Last edited:

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
This isn't rocket science. I don't need to do hours of hard technical work to make the above statement in quotations.
You're right. It's statistics. If somebody starts throwing around math to justify their argument, they should be ready for others to scrutinize that math.

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%).
This is true if your sample is actually random.

Considering you need a forum account to even vote, it probably isn't.
 

HAL.9000.1

Captain
9 Badges
Apr 19, 2017
422
0
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
You're right. It's statistics. If somebody starts throwing around math to justify their argument, they should be ready for others to scrutinize that math.

This is true if your sample is actually random.

Considering you need a forum account to even vote, it probably isn't.

In order to reject the sample as random, you would have to offer some reason (other than a hunch) to hypothesize sample bias in the forum users vs. the general userbase. I thought about that, and could not see any clear indications either way, which lead me to stick with this as an acceptable proxy for an actual survey. Casual users might not care at all, or they might be horrified to find the game completely changed and their game in progress made non-compatible without warning. And forum users might be inclined to be argumentative and cranky, or they might be fanbois, or all of the above. Having no data on that, I think 20% +/- is still a reasonable estimate. Anyway, that was my reasoning. YMMV.
 

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
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.

1: working static defenses are not mutually exclusive to non hyperlane ftl
2. Reducing movement types harms this
3, ummm? access treaties? Conquering those in your way? hyperlanes force you deal with the obstacle instead of letting you manouver around it

Oh I understand AI development is Difficult. But we have hardware orders of magnitude more efficient and powerful than what was around decades before. the biggest problem would be synchronization overhead from distributing across multiple cores. Perhaps PDX increasing the AI team staff since its my understanding they work on multiple PDX projects. Frankly I have higher Expectations for stellaris than I do the 90's gilded age of 4x and Sins of Solar Empire. the war mechanics and fleet vs fleet mechanics are more broken in ways other than how get from place to place. I remember outlining it when version 1.0 was still newly downloaded on my hard drive.

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.

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.

I'm interested. What's your customary rate?
 

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're right. It's statistics. If somebody starts throwing around math to justify their argument, they should be ready for others to scrutinize that math.


This is true if your sample is actually random.

Considering you need a forum account to even vote, it probably isn't.
But scrutinizing the math is completely besides the point. And we're working with the "random" assumption because that's all we have - aside from: I did, however, offer some hypothesizing to counter that assumption. Take it or leave it, but I made an argument for why I think the general base gamers have a much higher disagree fraction. Others cited that people come to get involved if they're upset more than if they're happy. But unless someone quantifies these two factors, we're left with nothing to make a solid argument on.

I can only provide the reasons why I think the disagreements aren't large enough to reflect how many dislike the FTL changes, and you can provide your reasons, but if you have something solid and quantifiable, I'd be happy to hear. The closest I have to a true sampling of the base gamers is my own social circle, which is a tiny data pool of those I've heard from, so it's not at all very good data, but it is likely to have a general reflection of the group as a whole. Even with a huge standard deviation, picking a sample of N from the pool, you still are statistically more likely to get samples that reflect the pool's whole position.

Granted, high standard deviation, but still slightly more likely to get samples that reflect the group as a whole than not to, especially when you boil down the data to boolean form (like/dislike). Giving y'all the benefit of the doubt, my sampling of 5 yields a 3-2 split in favor of disagreeing. Being more generous to myself, I could call it a 4-1 split, or even a 5 unanimous disapproval (details in my previous post).

But, yeah, it's not compelling because it's a tiny sample size, but as I said, you should know that if you're working with a bilinear data set then taking N samples is still more likely to reflect the data set than it is not to, and my numbers from my tiny sample seem to indicate that this change isn't as popular as forum-goers say it is.



As for scrutinizing the math being besides the point - the point wasn't to make a precise statement about the disagreements because we all already agree the agree/disagree/helpful numbers on the OP are only a vague indicator at best. The point was just to highlight that the levels of disagree fraction are the highest they've ever been - which is completely true - and that they're significant in how much they exceed what has previously been the norm with a relatively low standard deviation - which is also true. If I'm taking data with the kind of standard deviation that the DD's have had in their disagree count, I would absolutely not expect to see a data point like this one jumping up to 230+. This is very exceptional.

If I'm taking radiation counts in my lab class and I'm normally getting 2, 5, or 12 a minute, I might find that odd that it varies that much, but I'm definitely going to notice if it suddenly jumps to 230, and start wondering if someone brought something radioactive by my table. 230 is very significant for this data set (disagrees on DDs).

Also worth note - I haven't checked this "data" myself, but he claimed that the previous high was 12, and previously it fluctuated from 5-6, and someone argued against him it fluctuated 2-6.

2-6 counts per minute would be an unusually high standard deviation, then it bumps up to 12 - which would raise an eyebrow - then it rockets up to 230. I would think someone entered the room with something radioactive - near the end of my next-to-last sampling.

Personally, the border changes in the previous DD were quite radical but also agreed that we needed them. 12 was a significant increase in the number of disagrees, but still acceptable.

230... this is literally a whole different order of magnitude, and 2 orders of magnitude off from our former 2-6 range.

How's that for scrutinizing data?
 
Last edited:

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
In order to reject the sample as random, you would have to offer some reason (other than a hunch) to hypothesize sample bias in the forum users vs. the general userbase. I thought about that, and could not see any clear indications either way, which lead me to stick with this as an acceptable proxy for an actual survey. Casual users might not care at all, or they might be horrified to find the game completely changed and their game in progress made non-compatible without warning. And forum users might be inclined to be argumentative and cranky, or they might be fanbois, or all of the above. Having no data on that, I think 20% +/- is still a reasonable estimate. Anyway, that was my reasoning. YMMV.
The people who voted are all people who have a forum account, which is essentially the same problem with polling people on Reddit and Twitter. You're only collecting data from people who have accounts with these places.

I'm wary of equating the people who have accounts on the forum with the general population of players, and even then, how are we defining player? Anyone who owns the game? Anyone who plays once a week? Once a month?

Using upvotes/downvotes is better than nothing, yeah, but at the same time... not very good science. In fact, it's quite bad science.

BI can only provide the reasons why I think the disagreements aren't large enough to reflect how many dislike the FTL changes, and you can provide your reasons, but if you have something solid and quantifiable, I'd be happy to hear. The closest I have to a true sampling of the base gamers is my own social circle, which is a tiny data pool of those I've heard from, so it's not at all very good data, but it is likely to have a general reflection of the group as a whole. Even with a huge standard deviation, picking a sample of N from the pool, you still are statistically more likely to get samples that reflect the pool's whole position.
As mentioned above, I don't think it's a good sample by virtue of only polling individuals who have forum accounts.

In the real world, this would be similar to polling people in front of a particular grocery store and only that grocery store. Your sample now consists of individuals who happen to be at that particular grocery store at that particular time, and of that, agreed to take your survey.
 

RELee

A stranger in a strange land.
89 Badges
Apr 28, 2003
12.437
3.736
69
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Victoria 2 Beta
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2 A House Divided Beta
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
Only 139 pages of posts so far? People must not have a lot to say about these changes...
They don't. They have 1 of a possible 2 opinions and keep repeating. ;)
 

LambTaco

Second Lieutenant
6 Badges
Aug 27, 2016
103
35
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
Broken exploration? Broken general movement? Because of usage of hyperlanes??? Are you serious now??? You call it BROKEN???

Dead serious. Hyperlanes are restrictive and gamey. The make sense for something like he new MoO where it's more like a boardgame than a sim. Hyperlanes are like if someone made a realtime (well, not real time, but you know what I mean) version of Civ that still used the hex tiles for unit movement. It doesn't feel right in that context and breaks the game.

Movement, and restricting movement has always been one of the most improtant parts of warfare. Its difficult to make combat compelling on a stategic level if there are basically no restrictions on movement.

There are still restrictions. Speed is one. You don't teleport around the universe instantaneously. Maximum jump distance is another limitation. I have a lot of fun cat and mousing in Warp only games, and it would only get better if you had to move to the proper side of the solar system to jump like in the next version. You have to predict your opponent's next move, as opposed to just fortifying a chokepoint because it's the default solution. And that's just limitations on FTL, there's still STL warfare which I think is where Stellaris' combat problems really lie. And maybe what the devs are doing will game hyperlane only more interesting for combat than it is now, but no matter how much better it is, it won't be worth the cost of losing warp and wormhole generators.

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

Although that's not totally accurate, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets that high. People who don't keep up with the latest on the game are going to be trickling in, and you can be damned sure the people opposing the change will be the most vocal.

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.

Just spitballin' here, but it might actually be a much larger portion than 1/5. The people who know about it already are the forum regulars and people who keep themselves up to date with everything Stellaris. Those people are typically the more hardcore players who are more likely to be in it for the combat and multiplayer people, who are most likely to approve of the changes. The more casual player who likes RP and treats the game like more of a sim than an RTS hasn't heard about the changes yet, and that could potentially be most of the playerbase. (I read somewhere that only 75% of RTS players do multiplayer, and I believe it. A significantly larger portion of total playtime is likely multiplayer due to the hardcore players, but Stellaris isn't on a subscripton model)

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.

I think this genre confusion is a big reason why opinions are so mixed on the changes. I don't consider Stellaris an RTS at all since you have so little control over the actual fighting. If I want an RTS there's starcraft or the old Westwood CnC games. I consider Stellaris a 4X and play it as such.
 

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
The people who voted are all people who have a forum account, which is essentially the same problem with polling people on Reddit and Twitter. You're only collecting data from people who have accounts with these places.

I'm wary of equating the people who have accounts on the forum with the general population of players, and even then, how are we defining player? Anyone who owns the game? Anyone who plays once a week? Once a month?

Using upvotes/downvotes is better than nothing, yeah, but at the same time... not very good science. In fact, it's quite bad science.


As mentioned above, I don't think it's a good sample by virtue of only polling individuals who have forum accounts.

In the real world, this would be similar to polling people in front of a particular grocery store and only that grocery store. Your sample now consists of individuals who happen to be at that particular grocery store at that particular time, and of that, agreed to take your survey.
That's actually why I cite my 5 friends figure - because only 1 of them actually has/uses a forum account regularly - and note, he's the one that is most likely on the "likes the changes" camp - the rest are just casual players who don't drop by reddit or here, afaik. Just friends/acquantinces I know other ways - 2 of them are more acquantince than friend.

So, tiny sample size of course can be all over the place, but, as I said, is more likely to reflect the base population than it is not to - and since they're not a sampling just from reddit/PDX forums, I think that tiny sample group is worth mentioning since they're far less likely to be biased than people here.

And using that less-likely-to-be-biased group... It looks like people who don't like the changes are actually in the majority. While I don't know the more advanced statistical techniques to know how likely I am to be correct, I would guess - and feel somewhat confident doing so - that the group that dislikes the changes could be anywhere from 60-30%, since what I have seems to suggest that reddit and PDX forums samples a strongly biased in favor, and despite that we still have ~21% disagree (which is also, again, a more committal answer than "agree" or "informative").

But in light of that bias, and the arguments for and against how the 21% figure here may reflect the actual figure, I think the lowest you could reasonably go is to guess 20%. But personally I wouldn't think that's likely. I, myself, would guess closer to 40%, and I hope with all I've presented, that at least seems reasonable, and you could agree that going much below 20% isn't very reasonable.
 

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
The people who voted are all people who have a forum account, which is essentially the same problem with polling people on Reddit and Twitter. You're only collecting data from people who have accounts with these places.

I'm wary of equating the people who have accounts on the forum with the general population of players, and even then, how are we defining player? Anyone who owns the game? Anyone who plays once a week? Once a month?

Using upvotes/downvotes is better than nothing, yeah, but at the same time... not very good science. In fact, it's quite bad science.


As mentioned above, I don't think it's a good sample by virtue of only polling individuals who have forum accounts.

In the real world, this would be similar to polling people in front of a particular grocery store and only that grocery store. Your sample now consists of individuals who happen to be at that particular grocery store at that particular time, and of that, agreed to take your survey.

We could always ask paradox to release 1.8.4 with data collection about how many hours and how many unique games are made with each ftl type and the mixed back ftl type
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
Forcing starlanes just turns space strategy into land-based strategy (roads, mountains, chokepoints). If I want land-based strategy I'll just play Civ. This announcement is Stellaris's death rattle for me. I'm moving on to find a space strategy game where space actually feels like space and not like a bunch of land cities connected by roads. Distant worlds 2 cant come fast enough.
 

calen

Second Lieutenant
26 Badges
Oct 9, 2014
115
61
  • Darkest Hour
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
I'm sad to see warp and wormhole go, but after 500 hours of play I can easily understand why they did this. I'm looking forward to this update, and I can't wait until the dev diary for the doomstacking fix comes out.
 

brifbates

Field Marshal
93 Badges
Mar 4, 2004
10.889
2.841
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
Oh I understand AI development is Difficult. But we have hardware orders of magnitude more efficient and powerful than what was around decades before. the biggest problem would be synchronization overhead from distributing across multiple cores. Perhaps PDX increasing the AI team staff since its my understanding they work on multiple PDX projects. Frankly I have higher Expectations for stellaris than I do the 90's gilded age of 4x and Sins of Solar Empire. the war mechanics and fleet vs fleet mechanics are more broken in ways other than how get from place to place. I remember outlining it when version 1.0 was still newly downloaded on my hard drive.

They've been working on the EU ai for coming up on 20 years and it still relies on bonuses to provide a significant challenge within the constraints of real-ish ground-bound movement. Sacrificing gameplay (which this change does) and ****ing off a chunk of your player base in the vain hope that it will allow a more challenging ai is just silly. The ai isn't all that challenging and won't be any time soon on anything like a level footing with the player.
 

Rip Off Productions

Colonel
91 Badges
Jun 27, 2015
873
320
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Prison Architect
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Victoria 2
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
This is more than an unpopular decision, its one you don't have the right to make. My friend and I have been searching for a space game both of us can get into and picked this one because it let you "pick" your FTL. it was advertised on the steam webpage that it was a space game that let you "pick" your FTL. now a few days after I pay for it I don't get the option? that would be like building a game where you can fight with a knife or a bow then saying nvm you can only fight with a knife after someone paid me for it. I like the idea of playing a game the way you propose, however, I should still have the option of using wormholes if I want. after all, you promised that I would have the choice when selling it to me.

The Developers have every right to do whatever they want with their game, and you can always turn off updates and/or roll back to the previous/current patch once this change comes around.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/281990/discussions/0/351660338715630667/

and I'm sure there will also be Mods that add additional FTL methods similar to what we have now back in as well.

To the people saying they are happy with hyperlanes as the only option, you already have this option now. You can go into the settings and change the FTL type for everyone in the game to be hyperlanes if that's your preferred style.

More disagreeing with what they like being forced on everyone else, since you can already choose to do hyperlane-only games. No need to remove everyone else's fun.

except Hyperlane only in the current game still has massive issues: many space creatures and Guardians still use warp, and Fallen empires have Jump Drives(which are basically warp, but better and more Bull-Sh*t) and eventually in the late game so does everyone else, thus making it pointless to have bothered with the restriction in the first place, as all the defenses you built around Hyperlane choke points become useless and you might as well have selected "Warp Only" instead, though that is an issue with the game over all.

this rework makes it so what I actually wanted from the "Hyperlanes only" setting, and the new Jump Drives now having a drawback in exchange for it's advantages is great(and it might have a shorter range sense it doesn't have a Warp drive or Wormhole generator to compete with, though that's just my hope), as well as these changes to galaxy generation and borders being optimized for it as well.
 

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
They've been working on the EU ai for coming up on 20 years and it still relies on bonuses to provide a significant challenge within the constraints of real-ish ground-bound movement. Sacrificing gameplay (which this change does) and ****ing off a chunk of your player base in the vain hope that it will allow a more challenging ai is just silly. The ai isn't all that challenging and won't be any time soon on anything like a level footing with the player.
...or they could just allow it to branch off its fleets, and give maybe like 1-3 weeks of delay in how it decides to do that to make it more reasonable, and have "normal" difficulty be how it is now (or even a new "easy" difficulty...), and only on higher difficulties have it do that...
 

schimwyr

Recruit
75 Badges
Apr 17, 2016
7
10
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
Can't say I'm excited about this. Warp player myself, although I can't say I've ever given the other two much of a chance. I know I only ever played one wormhole game and that lasted for about 15 minutes before I had to call quits. Only played hyperlanes a few times. The fix lane thing, to me always felt to simplistic. I willing to give this change a shot, but it doesn't seem like something I would be interested in. I don't like simple games. <-- see what I did there :)

@Wiz Seriously though, huge balls! This could not have been an easy decision to make. Best of luck to Stellaris.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.