• 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:

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
It won't be in the new one either, because it's already been tried elsewhere with consistent results.

The thing is, you are most likely right. I highly suspect we wont get a solution to the problems with warfare as it is.

The problem as I saw it however, was that while multiple warp types was great and there are so many ways they could be used to really open up warfare and the game in general, the basic infrastructure of the game lacked the ability to do this. Choosing a single type at the start was boring, and made very little dent in the general tactics of the game other than very occasionally in warfare. The different movement types were for almost all purposes, the same.

A system that utilized such asymmetry effectively would have a single empire being able to use multiple (configurable), using them based on tactical need, ship type and more. And while I would have loved to see this in Stellaris, the game engine isnt designed for that kind of depth.
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
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.

^^This! The devs are deserving of praise if they work hard to successfully and cleverly crack a difficult problem, not if they just give up in frustration and completely scrap major popular game features because its all too hard. The only ones paying for that decision are us.
 
Last edited:

Summin Cool

Lt. General
28 Badges
May 25, 2015
1.562
1.327
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka 2
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • War of the Roses
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Series of recent purchases, perhaps less budget so now the cost cutting. Stellaris changes and now the up selling that somehow removing features from the game offers more choice ~ as it would be expensive dev time to accommodate already existing systems.
I have already paid £70 in DLC + the Preorder. Why am I getting such severe cutbacks?
 
D

DiegoAFGamer

Guest
Hey paradox i have a suggestion why don't the same with the weapons remove kinetic and missiles, and keep lasers, and with the ethics too, and with the traits, and with the civics and governments, you know how the customization like that make more restrictions whe should the same with all.

PD: there is a actual mode that do that you want to do that is called "hiperlyne only", please don't fuck the rest the players, make that as a mode to the hyperline only.
 

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
The problem as I saw it however, was that while multiple warp types was great and there are so many ways they could be used to really open up warfare and the game in general, the basic infrastructure of the game lacked the ability to do this. Choosing a single type at the start was boring, and made very little dent in the general tactics of the game other than very occasionally in warfare. The different movement types were for almost all purposes, the same.
No they weren't. Especially on spiral galaxies.
I do agree that chosing a single type at the start wasn't ideal.
Good solution : allows each type of FTL to be discovered through technology, and increase their differences.
Bad solution : remove them all but one LOL
 

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
^^This! The devs are deserving of praise if they work hard to successfully and cleverly crack a difficult problem, not if they just give up in frustration and completely scrap major popular game features because its all too hard. The only ones paying for that decision are us.
Aye. Purchasing the game was an investment making a deal; I'll give you my money if you give me this game.

"This game" is a game with these features and plays like so.

I didn't pay for a game with hyerplanes only. I hate hyperlanes - but never mind that and how they betray the feeling of space for me and I find them ridiculous and immersion-breakingly silly, having only 1 kind of FTL at all removes a really fun and lively dynamic from the game, to boot.

I did my share of work - making that money, and sending whatever portion of it to the devs that goes to them. Now they need to live up to their end of the deal - to provide me with the game I paid for, and not cut out core features that got me to pay for it because it's too difficult to improve the game without cutting them out.


The company pays them, the company gets money to pay them from us, the consumers, who paid them to have this game. We're paying them for this game. We literally pay their bosses, and them, albeit indirectly. Not to cut out core beloved features, but to add to the game, without removing what we love about it. As that wonderful analogy put it, yes, it would've been a lot easier to program Starcraft if there was only 1 race, and it might've been more resource-efficient and all that - but we didn't buy a 1-race game, or a game that has land combat rules and only 1 method of FTL rather than the current dynamic variety.


And don't tell me just to stay on 1.8.3 - I expected when I bought the game that being able to reap the bounty of the modding community and talk about it with other players playing the same game, and to have the bugs all fixed (even if I have to wait for patches, though ideally they should be fixed on release, long gone as that dream may be in the modern game development world), and having a whole, lively multiplayer community on my same version (ie, that I can play with) and all of that were part of the package.


I mean, it's simple. I did my work with the money. So they should do theirs, with dealing with the difficulty of working with 3 FTL methods. I've mentioned a few times some conceivable ways all of the features listed in this update could work with 3 FTL methods - even the choke points and such could be done, but honestly I'm really not a fan of that style of warfare, so that can and should be left to the "hyperlane only" games, IMO.

At least if the mod used new stations or something that had ranged inhibitors to create those chokepoints, we could just mod them out. But given what I've heard so far, that's really questionable if modding the game back to 3 FTL types will even be possible (this thread, early pages seem to indicate it won't be possible to get it back the way it was with mods, and other rumors hint it may be, so it's unclear).
 
Last edited:

Cirrus Light

Sergeant
8 Badges
Sep 10, 2017
86
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
The problem as I saw it however, was that while multiple warp types was great and there are so many ways they could be used to really open up warfare and the game in general, the basic infrastructure of the game lacked the ability to do this. Choosing a single type at the start
It's always really fun and interesting to see how my warping friends do playing the game as opposed to my wormhole self.

One I did recently, she ended up stuck on her spiral arm until she researches better warp tech, but my wormhole stations provided me enough range to go to other arms, but of course I had to build those stations, and explored slowly but more thoroughly because there was no reason to pay for a new station and its upkeep until I'd explored all of the stars currently in range of my stations.

To say nothing of how interesting warfare ends up being between a hyperdrive and wormhole or warp player - or between wormhole and warp players. It's all very dynamic and creates different situations.

Warp is probably the most entertaining, heh, since the long cooldowns make chasing fleets a lot harder. 2 warp fleets will have a very hard time catching one that's running. And wormhole fleets probably have the best deal with both running and catching, but of course their stations are vulnerable and they need to negotiate deals to have them in other empires' borders.

But, more to the point, even outside of warfare, on Spiral Galaxies in particular it makes a very big difference, where hyperdrives at any tech level can be cut off by losing border control to inter-arm link points, and where wormhole stations can go to other arms sooner than warp drives can - wormhole especially drastically changes exploration. My science ships can't go on grand expeditions to the other side of the galaxy when I only have a few wormhole stations.

Haha, sometimes, it makes the Baldarak / gas giant lifeforms event chain pretty much impossible. But you know what? That's fine - go ahead and make it that way, it's part of the cost of my empire having a better FTL system but one that's more difficult to manage. That's a perfectly okay part of the gameplay. My kind, xenophilic empire learns an important lesson - that sometimes, being more aggressive and expanding your reach into space - giving yourself more power - can be a virtuous thing since it gives you better abilities to save exotic species stranded in a radiated gas giant, or whatever future events the galaxy may throw at them.

See? Even being "unbalanced" in that sometimes the event chain screws wormhole players over but is a lot easier for warping players, is actually just a dynamic difference in gameplay that keeps the game fresh and replayable. The experience would be rather different if I had warp, or if I had hyperspace and really needed to have some hyperlane point that reaches across the galaxy (I don't like that play style, so I don't often do it unless I'm doing something a bit different for fun to mix things up - like playing the "Irken" or something).


EDIT: hah, apologize on the double-post. It's late and I got typing and forgot I'd already posted the message immediately prior and that this wasn't an edit or something.
 
Last edited:

tanny

Major
Dec 9, 2016
578
188
Does wormhole change the distance for influence cost? How does this thing actually calculate? Shortest distance that player can reach with exploration and technology right?
 

Napean

Second Lieutenant
101 Badges
Apr 20, 2006
104
45
  • Sword of the Stars
  • King Arthur II
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Lost Empire - Immortals
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • East India Company
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • 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
  • Deus Vult
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
Not psyched about losing warp, but there had been hints for a while now.
  • I play (almost exclusively) as warp civs. I do leave all other forms of FTL on. I usually play in a four arm spiral galaxy. Early on, this is more or less a hyperlane game, as you don't have the warp range to jump to another arm, and most of your expansion happens along the arm. I enjoy the race to boost warp range and make that first jump to another arm.
  • I do like the change to system ownership; the arbitrary circles were hard to plan for:
    • gaining/losing systems at the edge of your influence...actually, that wasn't so bad. For systems that you absolutely wanted, you'd drop a frontier base as close to - if not in - the system you wanted. The noise at the edges....hmmm, now I'm ambivalent. From a gameplay perspective, the new system is a good choice, it's clearer to the player what's going on, but the existing system - for better and worse - adds a little drama at the edge of your space. Would've been cool to have gotten casus belli around taking back systems that were previously in your space and lost due to border flux.
  • I do agree that space stations need changes (the previous dev diary).
  • Finally, space terrain! More of this, please!
  • Warfare is my least-liked aspect of the game, and alot of these changes appear to be driven by their impact on warmaking. Would much rather the economic, scientific, and diplomatic aspects of the game see love.

While not a fan of losing warp and all the focus on changes around warmaking, I try to be empirical, and will try out the new build. I expect it will still be a good game, just not the game I've enjoyed so far.
 
Last edited:

tanny

Major
Dec 9, 2016
578
188
Stellaris is not a hard sci-fi game.
You can simply say that the radius of the system is small and it's just a void outside since black hole lost all it's mass. And yes, hawking radiation might actually interfere with the FTL if hyperlane is based on quantum entanglement.
 

lilsaihah

First Lieutenant
47 Badges
Jan 27, 2017
229
445
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Empire of Sin
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • 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
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
Does wormhole change the distance for influence cost? How does this thing actually calculate? Shortest distance that player can reach with exploration and technology right?

As I understand, all range calculations are now based on the number of jumps. If you go through a wormhole or gateway, that's one jump. It'll likely be very practical to have one half of your empire on one side of the galaxy, and another half through the wormhole.
 

tanny

Major
Dec 9, 2016
578
188
You normally don't use that interface, you just tell your ship to go to a system as normal and pathfinding will use gateways if it means a shorter route. We showed this off in the stream.
You still need this interface for strategic defense positioning.
 

MisadventuresVG

Private
2 Badges
May 15, 2016
19
0
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
First time poster.

After reading the Stellaris dev blog coverage by rock paper shotgun.com I felt I had to post my opinion.

* Excuse the rushed nature of this post, it was a brain dump as I am trying to get ready to go out lol*

First of all, I have supported this game since before its release (preordered) and after its release (DLC), I have brought all but one of the DLC packs, helped support the game via mods and promoted the game to my friends. I did all this because I 100% believe the game was worth it.

In my opinion is that this game broken the long string of mediocre space strategy games that had been release over the last decade and a half, everything from the poop show that was Masters of Orion 3 to the broken and poorly implemented Sword of the Stars 2. No single game other than Distant Worlds (cult classic) or perhaps Galactic Civilizations 2 (genius underdog) had offered since freeform approach and depth to strategic gaming in a space setting with ample amounts of fun. Then Stellaris came along and I felt that finally after since a long wait a finalised and polished space strategy game had arrived that deserved my full attention and respect. Even after release with it numerous short comings I felt Stellaris was the game we space strategy fans deserved. Its freeform approach to game play from the start was about allowing the player to decided EXACTLY how their civilisations should interact with the universe and the other races, the customisation of weapons, ethics, governments, FTL methods, etc, all added to the unique feel of your race and added a sense of wonder to each race you would encounter in the game.

This is why I felt I had to reply to this dev blog, to me, personally, I understand the "design" needs to simplify the FTL methods, but to me, personally, I will tell you now this is an ENORMOUS mistake! The idea that removing a core gameplay element and effectively redesigning the gameplay in such a massive way post release seems like a game killer to me. I have seen this happen more than once, I have Beta Tested for quite a few games, and I can tell you that this type of gameplay change especially this late into a games development with such a dedicated fan base will be problematic if not fatal, it is already clear from a community view point that this is upsetting people and dividing them, myself included, very much. But to just announce this is happening without as much as a community poll or asking the community, especially post release just speaks volumes about what the developers think of the very people of have spent quite a considerable sum of money on supporting this game. While I agree with the reasoning behind why a change is needed, I completely disagree with what needs to be done. It seems funny to me that one of the reasons for the changes is to improve exploration, but the suggested changes in fact runs counter to this by restricting, limiting and slowing exploration down to a crawl. This there is the argument this this will help with warfare, I call BS on that too. Instead the suggested changes will restrict warfare to hard sloggs across a string of systems daisy chained together via lines, with little to no options to "flank" your enemies empire. Then there is the sensor changes.... FFS this is just silly. So far the only part of the dev blog I didn't dislike was the new stations implementation, everything else was a step backwards and not forward.

While I respect and always appreciate the efforts and work done by the developers I want to point them to one of the games I have recently walked away from and highlight how sometimes making too many changes or just making the wrong changes can effectively brick a developments future. Go and see take a look a StarMade, that games been in permanent development for nearly half a decade and is still no where near completion, instead the development team keep making promises to build on the core gameplay elements of the game but instead keep messing around redeveloping existing and established features. The game is now effectively dead on the water with the development team hiding from the community since their recently series of changes were needed and took far to much developments time that could of been used to add real user content instead of breaking and remaking existing features.

I sincerely hope that the developers take their time, read some of this threads "constructive" feedback and think hard before continuing down this path, I will support their decision regardless but I may not support their product, at the end of the day, I must ultimately feel that I want to play this game, if I no longer feel that the game offers what I want, I will simply move onto the next game.

As always, I wish the community well and look forward to reading everyones opinions on this most interesting of blogs.

J
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
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.

The most obvious difference being that Murray and Molyneux released buggy, half finished games which lacked features and then - at least in Murray's case - worked hard over the next year to add as many promised features back in as he could. And regained much of his lost respect in the process.

But with Stellaris, people paid for a game that already had 3 different asymmetric stardrives as a MAJOR selling point and years after already collecting the player's money, the devs have decided to scrap all but one stardrive because it makes things much easier for them. So they're kind of like Sean Murray in reverse, In 5 more years we can probably expect to have lasers as the only weapons system and Physics as the only tech area as they continue to steadily remove more and more core features to make their lives just a little easier. Lucky for them they already got our money first.
 

Mercurious

Private
36 Badges
Mar 8, 2017
18
0
  • Dungeonland
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
I don't see how Warp serves the game more than Hyperdrive does.
Both methods have a fleet starting in one system, then make x number of jumps to get to the destination; but the only difference of consequence is that Warp drive has an easier time bypassing undesirable stopping points along the path, while Hyperdrive might have no option in the case of choke points.
In a game that wants things like Leviathans and defence platforms to be of consequence, giving players the freedom to 'just go around' cheapens the things that I delight in, like space monsters and fortresses.

I agree with the people who feel that warfare is currently too much of catching-the-enemy-fleet-then-bombarding-planets without a lot of considerations otherwise, so giving players the option to custom-build obstacles and supply lines (as the Gateways might well end up doing) is very welcome.

Also, we need fewer posts that say 'this can't work because of x that's currently in the game' - well of course it won't, that's why so much is getting picked apart and overhauled. It's not like they're putting in FTL changes now and leaving everything else untouched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.