• 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:

MisadventuresVG

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

LOL thank for you for rising this very valid point, I was one of the few that didn't complain about the ending, but was pleasantly surprised by the additions they made to improve the ending. Ultimately this was kind of the point of my previous post, if people, even a small minority feel so passionately that what they have been given is unfair, they can campaign to have it changed, or not changed. IN the case of Mass Effect the developers didn't change the ending, they just fleshed it out, making the ending fair more complete. This in my opinion was the right decision, as it maintained the original theme of the ending, making previous play-throughs still relevant but just including additional context to explain the meaning being each ending.

That was genius, it keep both sides happy and gave us all the endings we deserved.

So yeah, as with my previous comments, change isn't always definite, it is fluid and can be altered at any point, I don't care (meaning I accept no excuses that minds can't be changed) how far down the development branch this patch is, if people aren't happy with its content and that is made clear enough, the branch can be altered to suit the entirety of the community and not some of the community.

Ultimately, isn't that what we all want, a solution that we can all rally behind and support instead of some of us?
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
from a programming point of view, i even understand the dev's.
Hyperlane only is AI-Programmer friendlier than 3 differnt types of FTL.
 

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
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 upvotes. People upvote because Wiz said "we need to remove two FTL methods to MAKE THE GAME BETTER !", and people just think "I prefer to have a better game even if it means sacrificing the FTL methods !".

But it entirely rest 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's entirely on believing what the dev say and taking their words for it.
Yes and we have a situation where the devs are robbing us of 2 features we like and we have no say in, In return the devs saying "its ok we will pay you back with interest later TRUST ME ;)"

Sorry but Ive seen too many devs pull the trust me routine and it doesn't work out well in the end.
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
LOL thank for you for rising this very valid point, I was one of the few that didn't complain about the ending, but was pleasantly surprised by the additions they made to improve the ending. Ultimately this was kind of the point of my previous post, if people, even a small minority feel so passionately that what they have been given is unfair, they can campaign to have it changed, or not changed. IN the case of Mass Effect the developers didn't change the ending, they just fleshed it out, making the ending fair more complete. This in my opinion was the right decision, as it maintained the original theme of the ending, making previous play-throughs still relevant but just including additional context to explain the meaning being each ending.

That was genius, it keep both sides happy and gave us all the endings we deserved.

So yeah, as with my previous comments, change isn't always definite, it is fluid and can be altered at any point, I don't care (meaning I accept no excuses that minds can't be changed) how far down the development branch this patch is, if people aren't happy with its content and that is made clear enough, the branch can be altered to suit the entirety of the community and not some of the community.

Ultimately, isn't that what we all want, a solution that we can all rally behind and support instead of some of us?

You Sir just made my day.
I fully agree with you
 

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
LOL thank for you for rising this very valid point, I was one of the few that didn't complain about the ending, but was pleasantly surprised by the additions they made to improve the ending. Ultimately this was kind of the point of my previous post, if people, even a small minority feel so passionately that what they have been given is unfair, they can campaign to have it changed, or not changed. IN the case of Mass Effect the developers didn't change the ending, they just fleshed it out, making the ending fair more complete. This in my opinion was the right decision, as it maintained the original theme of the ending, making previous play-throughs still relevant but just including additional context to explain the meaning being each ending.

That was genius, it keep both sides happy and gave us all the endings we deserved.

So yeah, as with my previous comments, change isn't always definite, it is fluid and can be altered at any point, I don't care (meaning I accept no excuses that minds can't be changed) how far down the development branch this patch is, if people aren't happy with its content and that is made clear enough, the branch can be altered to suit the entirety of the community and not some of the community.

Ultimately, isn't that what we all want, a solution that we can all rally behind and support instead of some of us?

You do realize even after that free update to the ending it was still crap.
 

TheAtreides84

General
137 Badges
Jan 13, 2010
1.729
1.497
  • Island Bound
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • 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
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
Hmm, wait. like it was before 2000AD - You get a FINISHED game. You buy something you know - and this will be alltimes the same in it's core. Maybe there is an expasion which ADDS something, but yes, basically A game with only bugfixes.

That was because distributing updates was way more difficult, budgets and the market were smaller, devs were much less exposed to feedback, DLCs weren't a thing and there was no concept of sustained development. You say finished, I say abandoned. Both terms can fit.
 

MisadventuresVG

Private
2 Badges
May 15, 2016
19
0
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
from a programming point of view, i even understand the dev's.
Hyperlane only is AI-Programmer friendlier than 3 differnt types of FTL.

Yes it is and I've also said something similar, as have a number of others. This is why some many space strategy games use space lanes to control the flow of action. Problem is it is too similar to everyone elses space games, Stellaris isn't everyone else's strategy game, it set its own path that was fair more difficult but ultimately original, which is why I think we can all agree is what makes it some applicable to every one of us. Remove some part of that uniqueness is counter to the original appeal of the game to the community base.

Its like releasing a new version of Dungeons and Dragons but deciding that Wizards are too damn annoying and removing them from the player classes, yeah only a minority play that classes, but f00k me they would be peed off and the PR backlash against the reasoning for the removal would be epic!
 

TheAtreides84

General
137 Badges
Jan 13, 2010
1.729
1.497
  • Island Bound
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • 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
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
I'm pages and pages behind, but... Master of Orion 1 and 2 ere not space lane games- they featured open travel limited by fuel range anchored to your colony locations- it was kind of like a cross between Warp and Wormhole in the current Stellaris system. The only space lane-like parts were naturally-occurring wormholes that could link distant systems with an instantaneous tunnel that allowed traversal even if the endpoint of the wormhole was outside of your fuel range.

They also have very poor strategic AI. Great games, some of the greatest ever, but as far as challenge goes, you can basically say it doesn't exist.
 

Ecu

Corporal
23 Badges
Nov 5, 2017
33
0
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
Bug fixes and technical patches are part of what every customer pays for, they are entitled to that along with any future content or substantive updates to the game. Turning a game into something completely different and then telling those customers that their remedy is to skip all future patches and updates is not acceptable. They're entitled to both the game they paid for and all future updates to it. In this case, I would have argued that the refund crowd would probably have a point on Madden Football 2317.

This is incorrect. You aren't entitled to anything that did not exist at the time you purchased the game. Bug fixes and technical patches are a developer supporting their community for supporting them by purchasing the game. When purchasing the game you are not entitled to them fixing anything. Instead, it is a mutual understanding that as long as they keep supporting the game in a way that benefits you, you will continue to support the game through the community and additional content. That's all.

So... this is a distinct issue, but it also feels subjective to me. People are right to say that they're not happy about the scope of changes, and that they paid money in reliance on features that have now been changed. Personally I think the devs owe it to them to leave warp and wormholes in as a moddable feature. This is a major part of Stellaris and people did pay money for that feature, and any given player is perfectly free to say that this was what was most important to them about the game. No one's getting a refund, but this isn't a trivial argument and it does deserve at least respect for that.

They paid money for an experience they were already given. The developers already stated (from what I recall) that a Steam branch would exist for the current game prior to the changes for those that do not with to update. Players are not entitled to future updates. Once again, this mentality just bothers me.

---

I honestly applaud PDX for being willing to scrap entire aspects of their game and rework them in the name of better gameplay. Sure, it might not even be better gameplay (can only truly say once we get our hands on it). However, the very idea that they are willing to make such an overhaul to the experience shows that they truly want to create the best experience for their players, even at the cost of losing some of them.

This kind of design pattern is something Blizzard is known for and it remains the king of game development pretty much. World of Warcraft changes substantially every expansion (and sometimes via patches within expansions). They try new ideas for one expansion and then throw them out completely the next when they don't like how they played out. I applaud developers like this as it shows a dedication to making the best game they can envision at all times, even if that sometimes means the game won't be for me anymore.
 

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
This is incorrect. You aren't entitled to anything that did not exist at the time you purchased the game. Bug fixes and technical patches are a developer supporting their community for supporting them by purchasing the game. When purchasing the game you are not entitled to them fixing anything. Instead, it is a mutual understanding that as long as they keep supporting the game in a way that benefits you, you will continue to support the game through the community and additional content. That's all.



They paid money for an experience they were already given. The developers already stated (from what I recall) that a Steam branch would exist for the current game prior to the changes for those that do not with to update. Players are not entitled to future updates. Once again, this mentality just bothers me.

---

I honestly applaud PDX for being willing to scrap entire aspects of their game and rework them in the name of better gameplay. Sure, it might not even be better gameplay (can only truly say once we get our hands on it). However, the very idea that they are willing to make such an overhaul to the experience shows that they truly want to create the best experience for their players, even at the cost of losing some of them.

This kind of design pattern is something Blizzard is known for and it remains the king of game development pretty much. World of Warcraft changes substantially every expansion (and sometimes via patches within expansions). They try new ideas for one expansion and then throw them out completely the next when they don't like how they played out. I applaud developers like this as it shows a dedication to making the best game they can envision at all times, even if that sometimes means the game won't be for me anymore.
That is how it worked before. Not how it works now. Constant updates are a thing. Unfinished games getting finished after realease are a thing.
 

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
This is incorrect. You aren't entitled to anything that did not exist at the time you purchased the game. Bug fixes and technical patches are a developer supporting their community for supporting them by purchasing the game. When purchasing the game you are not entitled to them fixing anything. Instead, it is a mutual understanding that as long as they keep supporting the game in a way that benefits you, you will continue to support the game through the community and additional content. That's all.



They paid money for an experience they were already given. The developers already stated (from what I recall) that a Steam branch would exist for the current game prior to the changes for those that do not with to update. Players are not entitled to future updates. Once again, this mentality just bothers me.

---

I honestly applaud PDX for being willing to scrap entire aspects of their game and rework them in the name of better gameplay. Sure, it might not even be better gameplay (can only truly say once we get our hands on it). However, the very idea that they are willing to make such an overhaul to the experience shows that they truly want to create the best experience for their players, even at the cost of losing some of them.

This kind of design pattern is something Blizzard is known for and it remains the king of game development pretty much. World of Warcraft changes substantially every expansion (and sometimes via patches within expansions). They try new ideas for one expansion and then throw them out completely the next when they don't like how they played out. I applaud developers like this as it shows a dedication to making the best game they can envision at all times, even if that sometimes means the game won't be for me anymore.

So this game is early access, darn if I had read that I wouldn't have bought it. Shame on me for not reading the early access tag.
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
This is incorrect. You aren't entitled to anything that did not exist at the time you purchased the game. Bug fixes and technical patches are a developer supporting their community for supporting them by purchasing the game. When purchasing the game you are not entitled to them fixing anything. Instead, it is a mutual understanding that as long as they keep supporting the game in a way that benefits you, you will continue to support the game through the community and additional content. That's all.



They paid money for an experience they were already given. The developers already stated (from what I recall) that a Steam branch would exist for the current game prior to the changes for those that do not with to update. Players are not entitled to future updates. Once again, this mentality just bothers me.

---

I honestly applaud PDX for being willing to scrap entire aspects of their game and rework them in the name of better gameplay. Sure, it might not even be better gameplay (can only truly say once we get our hands on it). However, the very idea that they are willing to make such an overhaul to the experience shows that they truly want to create the best experience for their players, even at the cost of losing some of them.

This kind of design pattern is something Blizzard is known for and it remains the king of game development pretty much. World of Warcraft changes substantially every expansion (and sometimes via patches within expansions). They try new ideas for one expansion and then throw them out completely the next when they don't like how they played out. I applaud developers like this as it shows a dedication to making the best game they can envision at all times, even if that sometimes means the game won't be for me anymore.

If PDX want to do that, fine by me.
but there are other ways if they dont want to alienate a part of theire playerbase

and btw Stellaris is not a MMO
 

TheAtreides84

General
137 Badges
Jan 13, 2010
1.729
1.497
  • Island Bound
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • 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
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
So this game is early access, darn if I had read that I wouldn't have bought it. Shame on me for not reading the early access tag.

Thing here is: a game is allowed to change after release, or it isn't allowed to. If it's allowed to change, some changes are bound to displease some players, it's inevitable. Many balance fixes, which can be considered normal maintenance, are met with criticism by fans of the older balance in lots of game. If you want an unchanging game, you already have it in the form of older Steam branches.
 

emperror0815

Second Lieutenant
Nov 5, 2017
162
0
Thing here is: a game is allowed to change after release, or it isn't allowed to. If it's allowed to change, some changes are bound to displease some players, it's inevitable. If you want an unchanging game, you already have it in the form of older Steam branches.

we already had this specific argument a couple of pages ago
 

MisadventuresVG

Private
2 Badges
May 15, 2016
19
0
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
You do realize even after that free update to the ending it was still crap.

It was an ending that could be no other, this was understood by everyone, the Alliance and the Council could never beat the Reapers, they were set up from the beginning as being WAY too overpowered. The fact they had slaughtered the races of the galaxy repeatedly for billions of year made it so. So the story writers had to inventory a Deus Ex Machina in the final game to get round their OP problem, the crucible was created in order to resolve that issue and help end the story. This lead to the ending and how the main character Shephard had to make a choice in the ending scenes of the game. Ultimately it was bad story writing and poor foresight on the story writers part from the very beginning of the Mass Effect series, had the writers decided to create a more traditional enemy the ending could of been much better and been more dramatic.

All in all it was the best they could do after literately writing themselves into a very tight corner, the backlash was about how the choice of the main character always lead to death, they somehow thought that all good heroes should survive the horrors of war (FFS they were REAPERS!), those of us that understood that war rarely has heroes appreciate the meaning of Shephards choice and how he clearly didn't mean to appear in ME4 if their was ever to be one.

But I understand some people didn't like the ending regardless...
 

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
Thing here is: a game is allowed to change after release, or it isn't allowed to. If it's allowed to change, some changes are bound to displease some players, it's inevitable. If you want an unchanging game, you already have it in the form of older Steam branches.
Thing is yes they are allowed to change, but radical changes like this that flip the entire game on its head are almost exclusively found in early access games and MMOs.

I refuse to play ether MMOs or Early Access games. If this is Paradox's idea of continued expansion then both myself and Paradox are at a permanent impasse because I cannot trust that this definition of continued expansion will not extend to other Paradox games of which as you can see I own quite a few.
 

TheAtreides84

General
137 Badges
Jan 13, 2010
1.729
1.497
  • Island Bound
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • 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
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
we already had this specific argument a couple of pages ago

Well, what's the problem then? You can't sustain an argument about the magnitude of the changes, because that is subjective. Nerfing even a single unit in a RTS is often met by criticism by fans who see that change as very important for the overall balance. If devs are allowed to tinker with their games after release, then the limit is their wisdom, not our different opinions as players.
 

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
It was an ending that could be no other, this was understood by everyone, the Alliance and the Council could never beat the Reapers, they were set up from the beginning as being WAY too overpowered. The fact they had slaughtered the races of the galaxy repeatedly for billions of year made it so. So the story writers had to inventory a Deus Ex Machina in the final game to get round their OP problem, the crucible was created in order to resolve that issue and help end the story. This lead to the ending and how the main character Shephard had to make a choice in the ending scenes of the game. Ultimately it was bad story writing and poor foresight on the story writers part from the very beginning of the Mass Effect series, had the writers decided to create a more traditional enemy the ending could of been much better and been more dramatic.

All in all it was the best they could do after literately writing themselves into a very tight corner, the backlash was about how the choice of the main character always lead to death, they somehow thought that all good heroes should survive the horrors of war (FFS they were REAPERS!), those of us that understood that war rarely has heroes appreciate the meaning of Shephards choice and how he clearly didn't mean to appear in ME4 if their was ever to be one.

But I understand some people didn't like the ending regardless...
It was a Deus Ex Machina ending that paid no mind to any decisions you made up to that point.
 

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, what's the problem then? You can't sustain an argument about the magnitude of the changes, because that is subjective. Nerfing even a single unit in a RTS is often met by criticism by fans who see that change as very important for the overall balance. If devs are allowed to tinker with their games after release, then the limit is their wisdom, not our different opinions as players.
Its not a balance thing. Not primarily. Its a concept thing and the amount of content thing and variety thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.