• 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:

unmerged(67912)

Recruit
Feb 9, 2007
1
0
It's the disaster.
Different FTLs are one of the corner stones of the Stellaris (and one one of the main differencies from antother 4x) and I hoped that Paradox will add a few others.
My main mode is playing with all FTLs and when I want to play different Stellaris I just lock the game to one FTL type.
And I will not accept that change.
I will just ignore that patch and that means that there will be no sense to buy new DLCs
The game a lot of other problems but yeah - let's crush that not broken and ignore real problems, good move devs.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.451
38.867
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
The game a lot of other problems but yeah - let's crush that not broken and ignore real problems, good move devs.
I don't like this patch either, but the dev diary makes a very important true statement, though: having to take three (ok, technically four, but one of those is pretty much the "cheaty FTL for cheating elder bastards" engine) completely different FTL systems into account when designing new game mechanics (to, for example, fix whatever else you think has problems) makes the job much harder.

So, y'know. It's the right project management decision, and it's probably a viable business decision even if it might annoy 20% of the customer base into ditching the product, and it's a valid game design decision even though I violently disagree with it and am one of the aforementioned 20%.
 

systemchalk

Private
106 Badges
May 7, 2014
14
0
www.twitch.tv
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars
  • War of the Roses
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • BATTLETECH
Only posting to say that I love the explanation of the thought process and the decision to collapse FTL types completely makes sense in light of what you are trying to achieve. I am looking forward to seeing what comes of this. Excellent dev diary!
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
I don't like this patch either, but the dev diary makes a very important true statement, though: having to take three (ok, technically four, but one of those is pretty much the "cheaty FTL for cheating elder bastards" engine) completely different FTL systems into account when designing new game mechanics (to, for example, fix whatever else you think has problems) makes the job much harder.

So, y'know. It's the right project management decision, and it's probably a viable business decision even if it might annoy 20% of the customer base into ditching the product, and it's a valid game design decision even though I violently disagree with it and am one of the aforementioned 20%.

Hmm, I'm not sure that "it makes it much easier for us" qualifies as a particularly sympathetic reason for scrapping a core game feature which has been around right from the beginning and was the sole reason that many people - myself included - bought the game in the first place. I'd much rather that through hard work, perseverance, game-design talent and creativity they found a way to solve the game's many problems, all without sacrificing any of the asymmetric stardrives and perhaps introducing even more.

If Stellaris had forced starlanes as its only option on launch, I would most certainly never have bought it and I strongly suspect I'm not alone in that.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.451
38.867
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
Hmm, I'm not sure that "it makes it much easier for us" qualifies as a particularly sympathetic reason for scrapping a core game feature
This may be a matter of perspective. I have written video games (of no particular significance) and thus I appreciate that an attractive feature can turn out to be a terrible burden when trying to subsequently improve the game.
I'd much rather that through hard work, perseverance, game-design talent and creativity they found a way to solve the game's many problems,
So would I! I also want a number of other things I cannot reasonably expect to get.

I fully expect this change to help make Stellaris a better game. It just happens to also make it a game I no longer want to play. (Liking punk music is a very good way to rid oneself of the notion that "good" and "what I like" are usefully correlated.)
 

mario94

Sergeant
Nov 2, 2017
73
0
I don't like this patch either, but the dev diary makes a very important true statement, though: having to take three (ok, technically four, but one of those is pretty much the "cheaty FTL for cheating elder bastards" engine) completely different FTL systems into account when designing new game mechanics (to, for example, fix whatever else you think has problems) makes the job much harder.

So, y'know. It's the right project management decision, and it's probably a viable business decision even if it might annoy 20% of the customer base into ditching the product, and it's a valid game design decision even though I violently disagree with it and am one of the aforementioned 20%.

Yes but why keep the most boring an stupid one of the three?

I have played 4x games with hyperlanes extensively, in particoula SoaSE (which the new stellaris uncannily resembles) and at the end the game always reduces itself to a chore: you take a system, you lock it down under defences, you move on.
War likewise is not fun nor strategic, it's again a chore: you conquer a system, you lock it down with defences, you replenish your fleet, you move on. And battles are always a matter of who has more units all the time. Fleet position and movements don't matter because hyperlanes remove that from the game.
Nothing interesting ever happens because chokepoints make all the strategic decision for you.

If you have a problem with playing a strategic game without turtling i understand, just please give the rest of us an option not to have to engage in that mind numbing chore.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.451
38.867
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
Yes but why keep the most boring an stupid one of the three?
Because it's the one they like, and the only way to deliberately write a good game is to write a game that you yourself want to play.
 

Akka le Vil

Major
12 Badges
Nov 9, 2004
754
1.315
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
There are two very obvious biases in the users voting on this dev diary.

One, as has been pointed out, is that it's only users who have forum accounts. That's "users who are active enough in the Stellaris community to make a Paradox forum account". That's definitely a subgroup of Stellaris players. We could imagine that it's people who are 'more engaged' with Stellaris. We could also imagine that it's people who are more engaged with the current version of Stellaris. But whatever the actual makeup of this group - it's not a random sampling; it's a self-selecting sample.

But we have a far more important bias (as bmt17 highlighted earlier) in that it's only forum users who care enough about the dev diary to vote on it. And in that case we're definitely skewed far more towards negative responders than positive ones - because that's how human nature (and customer satisfaction) works: people who hate something are almost guaranteed to tell you; people who like it might tell you.

Paradox are, I'm sure, already aware of this point - but there are quite a few amateur statisticians who don't seem to be.

Those of us responding on this forum thread are not a random sample of the userbase, and it's silly to pretend or assume otherwise. You don't have to be much of a statistician to appreciate that these are not particularly useful data.

(that doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion - but it does mean acknowledging that negative opinions are very likely to be overrepresented in this dataset and, more broadly, that you can't use 'reaction on a fan forum' to gauge the wider reaction of a much larger userbase)
The most obvious bias in the diary are people who vote without having read it all.
Most people will only read the title and maybe the first paragraph of a post before voting (just make a parody post which reveal the joke toward the end, and notice how many people didn't get the joke and voted opposite of what they support when you discuss it).
And when it comes to dev diaries, I'd say it's massively biasing it in favour of "agree", because lots of people just agree with whatever the dev post.

You can also notice how the first post has an order of magnitude more votes than any others, for the same reason : "drive-by" voting.
 

Taciturn Scot

Major
103 Badges
Jun 10, 2007
541
766
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Divine Wind
  • 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: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
There's likely a very good reason why most Space games feature one FTL method at the start and it's not hard to fathom. So if a dev has the bottle to tell this community that this was a mistake and that they need to remove two and focus on one to move the game forward the way they want to and tell us that they did not arrive at this decision easily, I'm going to respect those devs decision and move on with my life one way or the other.

In the end, I'm glad they decided Hyperlanes-only but I'd have been equally happy with Warp-only too. Wormhole-only and I'd be out quietly. I gave it a fair shot but I didn't enjoy Wormhole FTL Stellaris games very much at all.
 

Gimboid

Private
14 Badges
Apr 24, 2017
10
0
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Judging by the 'respectfully disagrees' there are at least 223 people who have seen this thread and disagree with the changes. Still a minority, as you've pointed out but I feel that's a fairly significant portion of the player base compared to responses in other dev diaries. The 3 separate FTL travel types was one of the big things that made Stellaris unique when it was shown off before the game came out in dev diary #4. This does pre-date Wiz as game directory though.

I honestly do think this will make the game better if for no other reason than Paradox won't put enough resources into the game to make all travel types work. That said I completly understand and sympathize with the people who are upset with this change.

Again, vocal minority. Lets say for one moment, that there is 100 times as many people upset about this change (so, 2,330) that still would be less than 0.2% of the playerbase.

No game dev can ever make a change that pleases everyone, whilst this may be the most controversial change to date, causing a lot of discussion and a giant forum post, that doesn't automatically mean it is a bad and wrong decision. You're kind of contradicting yourself that you agree it's a minority, but then state "fairly significant portion", those are complete opposites.

Sorry but that is the first Dev note that i absolute hate, Space Lanes in every space game so far make movements tedious and time consuming and Stellaris isnt much different in this. Space Lanes already getting the worst end of the stick when it comes to starting positions. Have a big Monster,Pirat,FA or whatever you cant beat in the first couple of years just means restart already.

They are not just removing the other two travel types, t hey are making a lot of changes to make them better too.
 

minke19104

Lame Duck
77 Badges
Oct 17, 2012
1.326
0
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Sins of a Solar Empire is a very good comparison. And also a very boring game to follow, with respect to the FTL method...

I hope they look at the community and not do anything rash like the Online patch a couple months ago that broke single player game.
 

mario94

Sergeant
Nov 2, 2017
73
0
Because it's the one they like, and the only way to deliberately write a good game is to write a game that you yourself want to play.
I wish i knew one year ago. But it's my fault, i bought the game because i like 4x and though i saw that there were problems, i honestly thought it was innovative compared to what already existed and that they would always expand along those lines. For a while they did, for instance the features introduced in utopia were fantastic. Now they are downgrading this game to a clone of something we already have tons of.
I'll keep this in mind for the future.
 

Akka le Vil

Major
12 Badges
Nov 9, 2004
754
1.315
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
I don't like this patch either, but the dev diary makes a very important true statement, though: having to take three (ok, technically four, but one of those is pretty much the "cheaty FTL for cheating elder bastards" engine) completely different FTL systems into account when designing new game mechanics (to, for example, fix whatever else you think has problems) makes the job much harder.
Only if you approach it badly, by looking at how you want to force a pre-determined solution in instead of trying to understand the problem and adapt the solution to the context. It's space, it's basically all void with tiny points of interest. You need to forget the concept of "borders" and "frontline" and "chokepoint", and THEN think about "what kind of defense can be set up in this expanse ?".
Solutions are multiples regardless of FTL methods : supply lines, system-based defense (that actually last), ability to bring reinforcement faster for the defending player, slowing down the attacking player. All these can work without altering anything (and could even ALSO fix the doomstack problem if thought about with a bit of imagination).

Narrowing FTL methods to "roads" only fix the "space is not ground" aspect (which was NOT a problem to begin with). It's just promoting lack of vision and misplaced paragdim, it doesn't in any way actually solve the real problems of the game (which are : little to no "builder" aspect, boring economy, barebone diplomacy, doomstacks).
They literally butcher the game for nothing but make it works like ground-based warfare. Yay progress !

It's an absolutely terrible decision from a design point of view. I'm nearly as distressed that people are so blind to this and convinced by the smokescreen of disguised incompetence.
 

BeauNiddle

Lt. General
78 Badges
Oct 5, 2011
1.395
2.967
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • 500k Club
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
But, as an example, three friendly bases with shrouds visible looking to attack an empty system (don't ask why). The one hostile shroud is disrupting routes B and C leaving only A for this invading Warp and/or Wormhole empire. A starbase built at Cougantu would block off A or an early strike against assembling ships in A's origin would allow the red empire here to protect the ominously empty star system.
View attachment 311535

But that image is precisely my point. Your station at Tediss barely covers 2 attack patterns. Any warp player will be able to jump to Caugauntu or Gilprim 1st and then invade freely. If I was playing a warp empire in that game the only time I would worry about the starbase in Tediss is when I attacked Tediss itself. You specifically mention having to build a starbase in Cougantu presumably then followed by ones in Gilprum and Tiamat and then damn near every star you own.

With just that one zoomed in picture could you place only 2 starbases with the shroud effect you designed and consider your stars protected? I would argue no. Your only solution is to allow so many starbases that you can have one in pretty much every star or to have the shroud affect a much larger area.


With space stations there are 4 possibilities.

1) weak / few
2) weak / many
3) strong / few
4) strong / many

1 is useless. 4 leads to fortress creep. 2 is what they have already tried and found doesn't work so that leaves option 3. This is why I asked can you defend the stars in that picture with only 2 starbases. If they are going to be more than a mild roadbump the stations need to be strong and thus few in number. If your solution is still based on the idea of 2 - many weak stations then yes it's doable but it doesn't seem to be solving anything.
 

monsterfurby

Not really a fascist brony
122 Badges
Jul 5, 2005
2.285
888
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • King Arthur II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Impire
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Magicka 2
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
Hmm, I'm not sure that "it makes it much easier for us" qualifies as a particularly sympathetic reason for scrapping a core game feature which has been around right from the beginning and was the sole reason that many people - myself included - bought the game in the first place. I'd much rather that through hard work, perseverance, game-design talent and creativity they found a way to solve the game's many problems, all without sacrificing any of the asymmetric stardrives and perhaps introducing even more.

So did Peter Molyneux and Sean Murray when confronted with the decision of either trimming sprawling game concepts or trying to make a smorgasbord of a game that's everything to everyone.

With... well-known results.
 

wthree

Major
77 Badges
Oct 12, 2011
659
844
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
Im going to come right out and say I am very very happy with this choice.

My interest in Stellaris has been steadily dwindling, and a large part of this is down to warfare. Its fare too 'messy' at the moment, with combat essentially becoming a game of cat and mouse and massively asymmetrical when using multiple warp types.

To me, the game vastly needs topography, meaning empires spread out along said galactic geography rather than just blobbing out in a ring. This is also who spiral galaxies are more fun. While I get the anger at removing the starting asymmetrical warp types at game-start, I think if people were really honest with themselves they would find it wasnt actually a good idea to start with, and they themselves most likely use a particular warp type they prefer.

The anger is more of an anger against hyperlanes, which I personally think are the most strategically interesting when using a hyperlane-only map. The new changes make the galaxy far more dimensional, and add levels of tactics that are simply impossible in the current system.


I'd much rather that through hard work, perseverance, game-design talent and creativity they found a way to solve the game's many problems, all without sacrificing any of the asymmetric stardrives and perhaps introducing even more.

Do you think maybe they already tried this, and simply failed to come up with an adequate solution? Its all well and good to say "they should have tried harder" but if something is not possible, its not possible.

I do agree that more methods of movement within the new system would be welcome. Particularly in the form of rare technologies or events.

Yes but why keep the most boring an stupid one of the three?

I have played 4x games with hyperlanes extensively, in particoula SoaSE (which the new stellaris uncannily resembles) and at the end the game always reduces itself to a chore: you take a system, you lock it down under defences, you move on.

The bore comes from very fundamental issues with the whole warfare and combat system in Stellaris. I dont think this ever would have been solved in the current system.
 

Keltosh

Second Lieutenant
47 Badges
Jul 9, 2013
118
0
  • 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
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Now, I like the proposed changes personally. I am a fan of hyperlanes. I very much look forward to the next update. Right now you don't even have to fight the enemy, you just go for his planets and win the war like that. Hyperlanes will change that. That said...


Do you people understand how business works? Do you really think they just decided to change things without considering the possible effects on sales?

The devs evidently decided that the current model limited the way they could develop the game too much, and that they could not produce enough future content while trying to juggle around three different FTL systems. And yes, that means payed DLCs too, since this is a business.

So, even assuming a small part of the userbase quits over this, they must have calculated it will still be worth it in terms of future DLCs they can sell, because evidently the current way of 3 FTLs, hard to balance etc was a serious problem in producing new content.

I actually think that they are probably happy, that the people disagreeing are just 20% over here and 13% over at reddit. It's not a high number by any means, and a lot of those won't even quit over this. They just have to get it right, so that the rest of the userbase stays glued to the screen.


And once again, wait for the final product before deciding you don't like it.
 
Last edited:

Akka le Vil

Major
12 Badges
Nov 9, 2004
754
1.315
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
All this talk about playerbase is like the talk about refunding and so on : it's not the main problem.
The main problem is that it's a shitty design decision. We would not need to waste time about refunding or the effect on playerbase if it were a good design decision.

Starcraft had three completely asymmetric races, with different construction methods, different units not two of them even similar, different everything (but for resource collection). It was a beast to balance, but it was a core feature, and they managed to balance it without saying "hu well, we can't really be bothered to make it work, so in the interest of the game we'll cut out two races, BUT TRUST US THE LAST ONE WILL BE FUN !".
Paradox is doing that to their game, and the sad thing is that people are gullible and lacking vision/imagination enough to buy it.

"can't make it work" my ass. It's not even that hard of a shell to crack, there has been countless suggestions from day one on the forums.
 

Mackus

General
53 Badges
Aug 5, 2008
1.732
2.653
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
I agree with most of changes, other than with warp being completely removed.
Warp-gameplay could remain as sort of "arcade mode". So it'd not affect "proper", hyperlane-only playthroughs.
Other than having warp instead of hyperdrive, warp mode would also need to have sensors work like they do now, instead of new hyperlane based, same for distance calculation.
I am not proposing retaining 3-ftls at the same time, because after trying it never use it myself anymore. I play with hyper-only and with warp-only settings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.