• 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:

mario94

Sergeant
Nov 2, 2017
73
0
To be fair, aren't we adapting to this new situation with FTL? :cool:

Not me at least. As i said i already played this game and it quickly turns into a grind.
Of course i can't see into the future and i hope they can do something about it, but honestly how do you think war is going to play out?

1 Invade system
2 shatter defences
3 rinse and repeat

It's not strategy, it's a chore.
 

brifbates

Field Marshal
93 Badges
Mar 4, 2004
10.889
2.841
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
Not me at least. As i said i already played this game and it quickly turns into a grind.
Of course i can't see into the future and i hope they can do something about it, but honestly how do you think war is going to play out?

1 Invade system
2 shatter defences
3 rinse and repeat

It's not strategy, it's a chore.

0: restart half dozen times due to being boxed into an unwinnable situation by the map
1: invade a predictable location having to fight the entire enemy force plus defenses
2: shatter defenses
3: rinse, repeat

ftfy...
 

Molikroth

First Lieutenant
85 Badges
Apr 22, 2016
251
233
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Empire of Sin
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
Not me at least. As i said i already played this game and it quickly turns into a grind.
Of course i can't see into the future and i hope they can do something about it, but honestly how do you think war is going to play out?

1 Invade system
2 shatter defences
3 rinse and repeat

It's not strategy, it's a chore.

Yeah, but right now all we have is
1 Invade system
2 Chase down enemy doomstack
or
2 Play chase down enemy fleet that has no chance against you
3 invade planets

It's not much better right now. They're trying to add more depth to this, they are also changing the way Hyperlanes are generated, which means we're likely going to end up with less chokepoints to defend not more. We also have a limit to our starports, starting at 3, there's no way you're going to have every single way into your empire blocked with a doom fortress. Maybe it's going to suck, maybe not but I want to at least see what they have for us before I decide one way or the other.

Also, as much as people hate when someone says this, mods will likely fix this issue. They may not exactly replicate the warp mechanics, but they'll likely emulate them to the point you won't notice much of a difference. Where they are unlikely to suddenly change their minds about this, that's probably the best people looking for a warp-only game are going to need to go. Remember though Jump Drives are still a thing mid to late game that will be able to bypass those fortresses people are worried about.
 

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
What if, hypothetically they've decided that they've bitten off more than they can chew. The reason they are removing them is because they feel they can't properly balance them. I know people here think that they're ignoring suggestions that would "Totally fix the game" but isn't it also possible they've tried those ideas or similar ideas in prototypes and they simply did not work from a gameplay perspective?
No, I don't buy that "if". For two reasons.

First, the one I'm repeating again : the whole description of the problems they have with asymmetric FTL showcase tunnel vision. They tried several ways of doing exactly the same thing, without ever questioning if the thing in question (chokepoint) was actually logical or desirable. They are captive of a mindset and seem unable to take a more global view.

Second, the track of changes from other patches reinforce this first point. A lot of the trivially easy to implement suggestions from day one that finally made it to the game, took more than a year to finally be implemented (for example, being able to build directly in sectors, or assigning a single governor for all core system). We are talking about OBVIOUS and TRIVIAL fixes. That still took more than one year to finally make it to the game. Year during which they just said "yeah, well, we know that sectors need refining, we're thinking about it". Basically, they didn't knew (and probably still don't know) what to do with sectors, and couldn't take some distance and get a real vision about it.
If that's an example of the extent with which they try to find solutions, so no I don't buy this hypothetical "they really tried to find a way to make it work".

I don't see anything showing they actually tried to fix the actual problem. I see plenty of signs that they tried to apply a pattern from their previous games and this patterns didn't work. And when faced with this, instead of thinking of a pattern which would fit Stellaris, they just broke the basics of the game to make it fits their darling pattern.
 
Last edited:

BlackUmbrellas

Field Marshal
33 Badges
Nov 22, 2016
9.311
3.678
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Island Bound
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Crusader Kings II
Content creators routinely remove elements of a work in progress when going from one revision to another. Sometimes, part of a work doesn't fit, and the only way to make it fit is either (a) redesign everything else about the work or (b) remove the offending element.

Paradox decided that the asymmetric starting FTL setup was one of those things, and I can understand why.
"KIll your darlings" is sound advice for a reason, yeah. Some ideas seem great at the beginning, but they don't end up working and it's better to bite the bullet and get rid of them for a more cohesive and refined finished product than to struggle to incorporate them.
 

mario94

Sergeant
Nov 2, 2017
73
0
Yeah, but right now all we have is
1 Invade system
2 Chase down enemy doomstack
or
2 Play chase down enemy fleet that has no chance against you
3 invade planets

It's not much better right now. They're trying to add more depth to this, they are also changing the way Hyperlanes are generated, which means we're likely going to end up with less chokepoints to defend not more. We also have a limit to our starports, starting at 3, there's no way you're going to have every single way into your empire blocked with a doom fortress. Maybe it's going to suck, maybe not but I want to at least see what they have for us before I decide one way or the other.

Also, as much as people hate when someone says this, mods will likely fix this issue. They may not exactly replicate the warp mechanics, but they'll likely emulate them to the point you won't notice much of a difference. Where they are unlikely to suddenly change their minds about this, that's probably the best people looking for a warp-only game are going to need to go. Remember though Jump Drives are still a thing mid to late game that will be able to bypass those fortresses people are worried about.

I agree the current system isn't good mind you, but at least fleet positioning and movement still meant something. I can see how the only thing to do to make it better was restricting ftl, but they went with the most boring tired option of the three.
Frankly though i am a wormhole player, i would have prefered if they kept warp. At least fleet movement would have still accounted for something and guerrilla would still be possible.
Though i don't believe it i am willing to consider that they couldn't do it for technical reasons, however if that is the case don't say it's because of 'strategy'.
 

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 with that though, is that they've decided they cannot balance the three forms of FTL. They clearly picked hyperspace lanes for a reason, and I don't think it's because they want to play a "ground strategy game" in space, I think it was probably because from the game they're making they've decided it's the best path to take.
The problem being, it seems that the game they're making has changed from "Stellaris" to "Groundwar in space".
Again, while I am a supporter of these changes, I'm also a bit leary of such a massive rework, but we're not going to know how it plays or how it "feels" until we actually get to play it or at least see some gameplay from the rework. Change is scary, but it can also be good. Also, wormholes aren't being fully removed, rather reworked into naturally occuring wormholes and sweet Stargate-esque "gateways".
Sorry, but the "we can't know until we have the game on hand" is just excuses. A major point making the game interesting is the feeling of being in space, and if you remove it, you can claim "but wait until the game is in your hands", it's just hot air. It's a CONCEPTUAL problem, not an implementation one.
At the end though, no matter which FTL method they picked to go with, this backlash was going to happen. If it wasn't going to be the angry Warp players it was going to be the angry Hyperlane or Wormhole players. It feels like ripping the bandaid off and getting it over with is probably the best choice in this situation.
The fact that they chose to restrict to a single FTL method is the biggest problem. They have been intellectually lazy and destroying one of the pillar of the game, OF COURSE there will be backlash. Duh. The good way would have been to get their fingers out of their ass and actually TRY to find ACTUAL solutions instead of just mindlessly applying EU warfare to the game (and not even the good parts of EU, considering the Fort system is still horrible and controversial, years after its implementation ; they could have gone with the supply concept instead, it's like they only take the worst parts and forget the good ones).
 

Molikroth

First Lieutenant
85 Badges
Apr 22, 2016
251
233
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Empire of Sin
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
No, I don't buy that "if". For two reasons.

First, the one I'm repeating again : the whole description of the problems they have with asymmetric FTL showcase tunnel vision. They tried several ways of doing exactly the same thing, without ever questioning if the thing in question (chokepoint) was actually logical or desirable. They are captive of a mindset and seem unable to take a more global view.

Second, the track of changes from other patches reinforce this first point. A lot of the trivially easy to implement suggestions from day one that finally made it to the game, took more than a year to finally be implemented (for example, being able to build directly in sectors, or assigning a single governor for all core system). We are talking about OBVIOUS and TRIVIAL fixes. That still took more than one year to finally make it to the game. Year during which they just said "yeah, well, we know that sectors need refining, we're thinking about it". Basically, they didn't knew (and probably still don't know) what to do with sectors, and couldn't take some distance and get a real vision about it.
If that's an example of the extent with which they try to find solutions, so no I don't buy this hypothetical "they really tried to find a way to make it work".

I don't see anything showing they actually tried to fix the actual problem. I see plenty of signs that they tried to apply a pattern from their previous games and this patterns didn't work. And when faced with this, instead of thinking of a pattern which would fit Stellaris, they just broke it instead to make it fits the existing pattern.

While I do disagree with you, I don't have any direct evidence of what Wiz or the rest of PDX to make this decision, so I won't try trying to convince you they're not trying to be lazy. I don't think they are, but I can see why you think they may be.

I agree the current system isn't good mind you, but at least fleet positioning and movement still meant something. I can see how the only thing to do to make it better was restricting ftl, but they went with the most boring tired option of the three.
Frankly though i am a wormhole player, i would have prefered if they kept warp. At least fleet movement would have still accounted for something and guerrilla would still be possible.
Though i don't believe it i am willing to consider that they couldn't do it for technical reasons, however if that is the case don't say it's because of 'strategy'.

To be fair, I've never said it was for "strategy" I do feel it's a good step to add some additional depth though. Not by itself of course, but by the addition of other things that require at least some predictability. I like the space terrain idea for instance because it makes space feel more alive. That would be a lot harder to do with warp users just bypassing systems like that entirely. Again, I do think this is going to be an adjustment for all of us, and I won't say it's all for just strategy's sake but from a gameplay perspective I think we'll walk away with a better system than what we had.

I must say however, I'm both happy and impressed with the actual arguments happening that aren't all just personal attacks or hyperbole. (I realize there's still plenty of that in this thread, but as time goes on we seem to be veering back towards game discussion, so kudos guys)
 

Sherry Fox

Captain
18 Badges
Nov 4, 2017
303
245
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
No, I don't buy that "if". For two reasons.

First, the one I'm repeating again : the whole description of the problems they have with asymmetric FTL showcase tunnel vision. They tried several ways of doing exactly the same thing, without ever questioning if the thing in question (chokepoint) was actually logical or desirable. They are captive of a mindset and seem unable to take a more global view.

Second, the track of changes from other patches reinforce this first point. A lot of the trivially easy to implement suggestions from day one that finally made it to the game, took more than a year to finally be implemented (for example, being able to build directly in sectors, or assigning a single governor for all core system). We are talking about OBVIOUS and TRIVIAL fixes. That still took more than one year to finally make it to the game. Year during which they just said "yeah, well, we know that sectors need refining, we're thinking about it". Basically, they didn't knew (and probably still don't know) what to do with sectors, and couldn't take some distance and get a real vision about it.
If that's an example of the extent with which they try to find solutions, so no I don't buy this hypothetical "they really tried to find a way to make it work".

I don't see anything showing they actually tried to fix the actual problem. I see plenty of signs that they tried to apply a pattern from their previous games and this patterns didn't work. And when faced with this, instead of thinking of a pattern which would fit Stellaris, they just broke it instead to make it fits the existing pattern.
This SO much. You can just SEE the uniqueness of Stellaris being taken away. Lets play a game, okay? A productive one that would not be just empty words. I will propose a possible change to ftl systems, you will critisize or build upon it. Like a mini dev diary. Lets try to fix this mess? Here we go:

Wormhole start - you will start with a wormhole station in your system. It will be placed on the Sun. It is a semi megustructure that costs 5k minerals to build and should be fairly tough It has to be build near a sun as it will otherwise be a huge energy drain on your empire to be powered.
Hyperlane start - same stuff, nothing to fix nothing to change
Warp start - warp drives stay the same except that during the cooldown time your shields and fire rate are reduced say 50%
Jump drives stay the same
Except for wormhole, where you will be ported from the center of the system to the relevant edge, all the drives will require your ships to move to the part that is closest from the system of start to the finish system.
You are allowed to research all the FTL technologies

Rip it or build upon it, let the game start

I will be keeping track of all the criticisms and changes
 

BlackUmbrellas

Field Marshal
33 Badges
Nov 22, 2016
9.311
3.678
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Island Bound
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Crusader Kings II
The problem being, it seems that the game they're making has changed from "Stellaris" to "Groundwar in space".

Sorry, but the "we can't know until we have the game on hand" is just excuses. A major point making the game interesting is the feeling of being in space, and if you remove it, you can claim "but wait until the game is in your hands", it's just hot air. It's a CONCEPTUAL problem, not an implementation one.

The fact that they chose to restrict to a single FTL method is the biggest problem. They have been intellectually lazy and destroying one of the pillar of the game, OF COURSE there will be backlash. Duh. The good way would have been to get their fingers out of their ass and actually TRY to find ACTUAL solutions instead of just mindlessly applying EU warfare to the game (and not even the good parts of EU, considering the Fort system is still horrible and controversial, years after its implementation ; they could have gone with the supply concept instead, it's like they only take the worst parts and forget the good ones).
I'm really not sure how credible the oft-repeated claim that multiple FTL types was a "core pillar of the game" is, honestly.

It was interesting, sure, but it wasn't ever something terribly elaborated on or integrated into the rest of the game. FTL types never really "interacted", and allowing for multiple types just created clusterfuck situations of confusion or frustration. I have a whole lot of custom civilizations that use Warp or Wormhole, and basically none that use Hyperlanes... but I prefer playing Hyperlane-only games. Why? Because Hyperlanes are absolutely worthless against Warp or Wormhole civilizations and it's not fun to play that way.
 

Sherry Fox

Captain
18 Badges
Nov 4, 2017
303
245
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
Sherry, its already likely they've gone too far into coding to change things. ..We can voice criticism at least, but I don't think it'd accomplish anything.
Indulge me, id like to see if there is really oh so nothing that could be done to fix 3 ftl. I disagree. I think paradox needs to steer away from the path of mediocrity. A solid and not too bad mediocrity, but still boring.
 

NexusCron

Sergeant
120 Badges
Oct 30, 2011
50
5
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
Thats not what I said. I ment they probably already started coding the changes and its too late to stop in the middle of it. THATS what I ment. I never said they couldn't fix 3 FTL, i said they are probably already doing stuff with theirs and the momentum is too great to just scrap it
 

brifbates

Field Marshal
93 Badges
Mar 4, 2004
10.889
2.841
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
Indulge me, id like to see if there is really oh so nothing that could be done to fix 3 ftl. I disagree. I think paradox needs to steer away from the path of mediocrity. A solid and not too bad mediocrity, but still boring.

There's not "oh so nothing" that could be done to fix 3 ftl, they just decided it's not worth the time/effort it would take.

eta: They've been given pages of suggestions and other games have handled multi-ftl methods so they can look at them as well, instead they are taking the easy route and going to one. Fair enough, it's a business and time/effort is money, I could live with that. Choosing the worst in pretty much every way I can think of is why I'll be out...
 

Sherry Fox

Captain
18 Badges
Nov 4, 2017
303
245
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
I'm really not sure how credible the oft-repeated claim that multiple FTL types was a "core pillar of the game" is, honestly.

It was interesting, sure, but it wasn't ever something terribly elaborated on or integrated into the rest of the game. FTL types never really "interacted", and allowing for multiple types just created clusterfuck situations of confusion or frustration. I have a whole lot of custom civilizations that use Warp or Wormhole, and basically none that use Hyperlanes... but I prefer playing Hyperlane-only games. Why? Because Hyperlanes are absolutely worthless against Warp or Wormhole civilizations and it's not fun to play that way.
Thats wrong. FTL method aside from just roleplaying bore a good strategy importance. Going for wormhole sttations of your enemy was a pretty decent way of crippling them and boxing them in. fortyfying a hyperlane was a choice for the hyper enemy. Outrunning warpers too. Now we have 1 choice. No pros, no cons - just one.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.451
38.865
  • 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
Indulge me, id like to see if there is really oh so nothing that could be done to fix 3 ftl. I disagree. I think paradox needs to steer away from the path of mediocrity. A solid and not too bad mediocrity, but still boring.
Based on the track record up to 1.8, there is nothing that could be done on time and under budget.

If that bothers you, your gripe is with commercial proprietary software development.
 

Drakonn

Major
45 Badges
May 27, 2016
685
59
  • Ancient Space
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
This SO much. You can just SEE the uniqueness of Stellaris being taken away. Lets play a game, okay? A productive one that would not be just empty words. I will propose a possible change to ftl systems, you will critisize or build upon it. Like a mini dev diary. Lets try to fix this mess? Here we go:

Wormhole start - you will start with a wormhole station in your system. It will be placed on the Sun. It is a semi megustructure that costs 5k minerals to build and should be fairly tough It has to be build near a sun as it will otherwise be a huge energy drain on your empire to be powered.
Hyperlane start - same stuff, nothing to fix nothing to change
Warp start - warp drives stay the same except that during the cooldown time your shields and fire rate are reduced say 50%
Jump drives stay the same
Except for wormhole, where you will be ported from the center of the system to the relevant edge, all the drives will require your ships to move to the part that is closest from the system of start to the finish system.
You are allowed to research all the FTL technologies

Rip it or build upon it, let the game start

I will be keeping track of all the criticisms and changes

Err, doesn't this lead to the exact same problem we have in the game right now with bypassing static defenses? Sure, each FTL is a little more unique now but the problem with having all three still exists.

I'm really not sure how credible the oft-repeated claim that multiple FTL types was a "core pillar of the game" is, honestly.

Agreeing with this. For me, it's more of a flavor option for my empires. There's so much more to the game than FTL choice. While it's not fun to lose that choice, frankly, it's needed. I actually prefer wormholes myself but having to chase down a Warp player without clicking the enemy fleet to predict their movement is a right pain. I've never preferred hyperlanes because it was always so restrictive and I got bottled in easily. That said I still believe that the change up is a needed one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.