• 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:

Jerkops

Sergeant
43 Badges
Jul 17, 2012
90
8
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
I refuse to believe that anyone, even the people who are so fanatically defending the current state of FTL in the game, bought Stellaris just because they could create empires with three different FTL types instead of one.

This thread has absolutely gone off the rails.
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
It was also a deciding factor for alot of us to get this game because it is what separated this game from others such as Endless Space, Sins of a Solar Empire, and Masters of Orion.

Which Master of Orion ?
I must admit i kinda liked 1 and 2 (please don't mention 3 or 4)
 

krios41

General
65 Badges
May 14, 2016
2.494
728
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • War of the Roses
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • BATTLETECH
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
Neighter of us has any numbers who is minority or majority.
those where sherrry's numbers not mine
depends on the profits. plus you wont stop playing if warp and wh stay. we however would if they go. its about profits
i think they'd rather lose 25% of their community then 75% as those 75% contain a higher person count and thus consequentionaly have a higher chance of containing more people that would buy DLC
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
I refuse to believe that anyone, even the people who are so fanatically defending the current state of FTL in the game, bought Stellaris just because they could create empires with three different FTL types instead of one.

This thread has absolutely gone off the rails.

I did
 

Sherry Fox

Captain
18 Badges
Nov 4, 2017
302
233
  • 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
Well after quickly checking all the threads on the forum, I think this thread has just broken the previous record of 170 pages for any single topic.

Clearly, people have much to say on this topic and I for one am likely some of the intelligent, reasonable and non-flaming thoughts that are being expressed.

Let keep it up hey guys.

J
careful, your head might not fit into the doorframe:D
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
I refuse to believe that anyone, even the people who are so fanatically defending the current state of FTL in the game, bought Stellaris just because they could create empires with three different FTL types instead of one.

This thread has absolutely gone off the rails.

No but I did purchase it only after carefully checking that I could turn off the bloody starlanes and play my space strategy game like it was actually set in space rather than a dungeon. So much for that now.
 

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
I refuse to believe that anyone, even the people who are so fanatically defending the current state of FTL in the game, bought Stellaris just because they could create empires with three different FTL types instead of one.

This thread has absolutely gone off the rails.
People bought it because they thought they would build on it, not strip it down.
 

MisadventuresVG

Private
2 Badges
May 15, 2016
19
0
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
i own both SoaSE(R) and ES and i do not think that they're similar.
They're all fruits, true
But there is where the comparrison ends in my opinion

Agree, all these games share some similarities but the core game play and how it is structured is vastly different. In fact the only thing I see that they have in common is that they use hyperlanes or spacelanes. One is Real Time and one is Turn Based strategy, well both allow building of empires, they do it in very different environments and in very different ways. And combats in very different between the two as one is card based and the other direct control in real time.
 

Dunmur

Sergeant
86 Badges
Apr 24, 2013
94
0
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
I refuse to believe that anyone, even the people who are so fanatically defending the current state of FTL in the game, bought Stellaris just because they could create empires with three different FTL types instead of one.

This thread has absolutely gone off the rails.
You can refuse to believe what you want, we could even bring the Roswell and Tinfoil hats into this if you want.

We are saying that it is for a lot of us the primary reason we grabbed the game and if you don't believe that, that's your own problem.
 

Jerkops

Sergeant
43 Badges
Jul 17, 2012
90
8
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
You can refuse to believe what you want, we could even bring the Roswell and Tinfoil hats into this if you want.

We are saying that it is for a lot of us the primary reason we grabbed the game and if you don't believe that, that's your own problem.
It's definitely not a problem for me, lol
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
as i said i don't have any statistics, and i doubt that someone even made a statistic for this case.

But please lets keep in mind

Throu the course of the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle, they called the people wo didn't like the ending the "vocal minority".
I think we all know how that turned out.

What i want to say is there is no certainty XX% this and XX% that.
 

krios41

General
65 Badges
May 14, 2016
2.494
728
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • War of the Roses
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • BATTLETECH
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
as i said i don't have any statistics, and i doubt that someone even made a statistic for this case.

But please lets keep in mind

Throu the course of the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle, they called the people wo didn't like the ending the "vocal minority".
I think we all know how that turned out.

What i want to say is there is no certainty XX% this and XX% that.
true
so true.
The only thing we have right now are the (dis)agree's on the OP.
it's not representative, but it's
upload_2017-11-5_14-6-11.jpeg
 

MisadventuresVG

Private
2 Badges
May 15, 2016
19
0
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
Let us aim for 200 ye?

I think that thread might realistically hit 300 at this rate. Its growing at an incredibly fast rate. That is not necessarily a bad thing as there are some very valid points being made from both sides and some very good ideas being floated. I just hope the development team are paying attention to it all. After all, we are their player base and ultimately their paying customers, our opinions matter a great deal. After all, if this change ends up dividing the community and creates a PR backlash it won't look good to any future potential buyers of the game.
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
"Star Trek: New Horizons" is hardly affected because of the Stellaris moddability. It's an incredible opportunity for their developers. Maybe the chance to earn money "mano a mano" in the future. ST:NH would deserve that. They have a reliable and modifiable framework in stellaris, certainly also good contacts and any amount of support from paradox. I am very relaxed, everything will be fine.

Are you a Star Trek New Horizons Developer ?
 

Ardept

Recruit
69 Badges
Jun 9, 2016
5
0
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Commander: Conquest of the Americas
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
I have not been playing Stellaris long and tbh am only just finding my feet after a few failed empires that I thought were doing quite well until I went to war. I have been playing on Warp and I do find chasing fleets takes a bit of work when one flies right past your border fleet blows up your shipyard and stations before you arrive. however once you fight that one important battle the winner takes all and wins the war. I have played other games that use lanes and have no real issue with it though it is not a lot faster than warp at the moment. However...

If I were to make changes I would have given the players the ability to build lanes themselves, have none to begin with, make Warp a lot slower than it is now so that it is easier to have a fleet waiting to meet them, if you have good scanners you can more easily predict their intended destination. That way you can fast move down hyperlanes within your empire all lanes lead to Rome after all. Lanes would cost to build and maintain and that would be dependant on distance, so you could have every system linked to the homeworld but that might be to much, so you would build hubs so the new station system could be that and important system is not one with a good planet but in the centre of a cluster of systems you could build shorter cheaper lanes

Offensively initially you would have to warp to inside an enemy empire and build staging posts and lanes to better reinforce your invasion. Once there if they have been building lanes you could allow their use or as with gates close them down so that advancement relies on warp giving smaller empire a chance to out maneuverer a single doomstack and destroy the staging post which could have a similar effect as running out of credits and reducing fleet power. Obviously closing down a lane isolates that system from the rest of your empire but sacrifices sometimes need to be made.

You wont have chokepoints but you could still have time to prepare defences and as super stations are apparently also coming I don't see why invasions wouldn't be as large as an undertaking as they should be both in recourses and time. You could strike right for the homeworld but given how long it would take to get that deep into another empires space you had better expect everything and the sink to be waiting for you.
 
Last edited:

Dunmur

Sergeant
86 Badges
Apr 24, 2013
94
0
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
as i said i don't have any statistics, and i doubt that someone even made a statistic for this case.

But please lets keep in mind

Throu the course of the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle, they called the people wo didn't like the ending the "vocal minority".
I think we all know how that turned out.

What i want to say is there is no certainty XX% this and XX% that.
Yeah and because of that Andromeda had depressed sales numbers at launch. When you combine that with the other "issues" Andromeda had it was a commercial flop. Its the games successors that reap the rewards both good and bad.
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
Personally I hope this bites them in the hip pocket big time, it probably wont but it would be awesome karma if it did. What they've done might not be technically illegal but its certainly ethically and morally bankrupt to be scrapping such an iconic and well-loved core feature on a fully mature product. If they get hit in the pocket it will at least wake them up, and lets face it, its really the only thing they understand. Words will be useless.
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
Yeah and because of that Andromeda had depressed sales numbers at launch. When you combine that with the other "issues" Andromeda had it was a commercial flop. Its the games successors that reap the rewards both good and bad.

Correct,
it prooves what you wrote erlier about thrust.
 

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
25% sure is a lot, but pales against 75%
The problem I see there is that many people simply mindlessly buy the crap the dev say without any critical thinking.
"removing FTL methods" is not a good point in itself. It's not the reason people upvote. People upvote because Wiz said "we need to remove two FTL methods to MAKE THE GAME BETTER !", and they just think "I prefer to have a better game even if it means sacrificing the FTL methods !".

But it entirely rests on the assumption that this removal was necessary to make the game better, which is precisely what is wrong (even many of the people who support the change recognize that hyperlanes have absolutely nothing to do with the warfare problem in Stellaris, which is the doomstack).
So basically, we have plenty of people who support the change, but have nothing that justify the support. It means believing what the dev claim and taking their words for it, even if it flies in front of logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.