• 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:

The Founder

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Mar 13, 2013
13.052
3.159
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Major Wiki Contributor
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Imperator: Rome
therwise no. I'm dropping Stellaris for good.
You said that approximately 20 times in this thread already.
You think your repitition will make it any more likely for the developers to go back on this very important decision?
 

Shachza

Captain
21 Badges
Oct 13, 2016
382
113
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
Players are (imho) right to ask how the devs will keep the game distinctive after cementing such a well-worn play style.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. We should be wary and ask questions! These are big changes.

Is Paradox's intent to include the other two styles of travel as later-game techs? Or maybe some other method of accessing modes of travel similar to the ones we all know and love? Because it looks like wormholes will still be in the game, just slightly differently than they are now.

Unfortunately there's an awful lot of this going around:

So there's no need to wait and see because I know with 100% certainty I wont like it, I wont be downgrading to 2.0 and I wont be spending another penny on Paradox. Simple as that.

Some very vocal people aren't asking questions, they're just tossing out anger and threatening to pitch in the towel.
 

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
They tried. For amlost 2 years. They failed. Who expected that something the games indsutry has no managed for 40 years was impossible to do? Who expected them to give up after "only" 2 years of trying, when it was no their job to find the solution?

(And do not come with SotS. They literally explained why that could not be translated to Stellaris in teh Developer Diary).
Please show us where exactly the Devs have said they have been trying for 2 years? Particularly when we have had Utopia, Synthetic Dawn et al. It's hard but not impossible.

I've already said before but I strongly disagree with Wiz's explanation on the Dev diary. Just because somebody else says anything doesn't make them right.

You said that approximately 20 times in this thread already.
You think your repitition will make it any more likely for the developers to go back on this very important decision?
Just three, and no I don't. What I am expecting is to be given modding support to return Warp and wormholes. Otherwise as I have said before I'm splitting.
 

~Robbie

Captain
26 Badges
Nov 6, 2017
342
417
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
I wholeheartedly agree with this. We should be wary and ask questions! These are big changes.

Is Paradox's intent to include the other two styles of travel as later-game techs? Or maybe some other method of accessing modes of travel similar to the ones we all know and love? Because it looks like wormholes will still be in the game, just slightly differently than they are now.
New wormholes are just long hyperlanes. They are not at all mechanically similar to current wormholes. They're one-way paths from point to point.
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
By that definition it is impossible to get people to like it, why try?

You're asking a question that was never posed, not by me anyway. My comment was in response to somebody trotting out the standard "try it, you might like it" gem. The whole reason I bought Stellaris was because it advertised - as a major selling point - the ability to play with multiple optional FTL methods, particularly without starlanes. I would never have gone near it with a 10ft barge-pole if it were released as just another starlane-only 4x and there's no way I'm going to enjoy having starlanes forcibly shoved down my throat no matter how they exactly decide to implement it.
 

Whousthat

Recruit
31 Badges
May 12, 2017
9
0
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Magicka
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Magicka 2
One of the best use of hyper lanes was Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain. Tech was needed to develop "range" that would let you determine how far from your planets or outposts you could jump to before having to return and refuel. This made a lot of sense and was a great form of interdiction. It did slow the growth of empires a bit, but being able to "claim" systems was a great way of stopping others from checking your systems. So a tech 4 would let you jump up to 4 systems before having to refuel.
 

Cat_Fuzz

General
May 10, 2016
1.772
2.365
Forgive the huge missive coming below:

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that forcing people to play with starlanes when they absolutely hate starlanes has no chance of getting them to like it? Its really not that hard.

No I can picture it, but that's not what I was saying. I mentioned that disagreeing with the changes is fine, what I disagree with is the speculation that you have played the new, as yet unreleased version of the game and think it's a dud.

You can base your opinion on other titles that are similar, but as yet it may (or may not) improve the game. You don't have to like it, but at least they are trying something with an aim to improve the game overall.

Then you misunderstood. What I meant was that all starlanes are the same as Stellaris's starlanes. There's nothing different about them at all. They are implemented the same way and they behave the same way. That's why I know I'm going to hate them.

Again, if the game remains the same, yes - but it's not so this is a moot point.

And I'm referring to this

Because why would a game designer intentionally design their game to be worse?! I'm obviously not saying they are better with that statement, I'm saying that is the devs intention. I can't help but feel you're being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument.

Yeah right. I take it you don't know that too don't you? Half the reasons they gave was because it was too complicated and that there is too much information overflow. That's hardly a decent argument which indicates to me that they have wanted to do this for a while because it's easier to work with.

1. I never stated I do know either, hence why I'm happy to take the lead from someone who is making the game to make a call on a design decision, then waiting until the release is out to see if that was the right one. I'm not just dismissing their decision withou basis because of an experience with another game

2. Well, again if its too complicated and you don't have the time and resources to make it work (something you yourself have admitted a familiarity with) then you go to the next best thing. I'd rather they try for something to break up the boring mid-late game than have another year of story pack dlc's. Besides others have stated (but I admit I'm unfamiliar with) that it's not beyond paradox to re-introduce mechanics at a later stage. As a business you need to keep things fresh, or you lose your audience and then no ones happy.

@methegrate , @Owlfriend - Good points well made. I'm not saying it's the best decision, nor am I super stoked for HLO games as I'm personally a warp user, but I have a problem with those who can only see the game as it stands plus the two recent DD entries as what 1.9 will finally become. Can we not just hold off til a few more have come around before we write the obituary for Stellaris?
 

The Founder

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Mar 13, 2013
13.052
3.159
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Major Wiki Contributor
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Imperator: Rome
Please show us where exactly the Devs have said they have been trying for 2 years? Particularly when we have had Utopia, Synthetic Dawn et al.
Why do you think they did not?
Why do you have to talk yourself into thinking they decided that in one month?
Is you anger really so fragile that if they actualyl tried, it would not survive?

What I am expecting is to be given modding support to return Warp and wormholes. Otherwise as I have said before I'm splitting.
Asking for modding support for 3 totally different FTL Methods is not reasonable. Especially if it needs to be a exact copy of your idea (even if it happens to be the previous code).
So much of the future codebase will be dependant on measuring the distance via Hyperdrive Points and it's in-System Travel requirement, that would just result in you asking for even more changes down the line.
As I said before: They are not stupid enough to open that Box of Pandora.
 

Joppeius

Sergeant
68 Badges
Jun 4, 2004
69
0
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • East India Company
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
Intresting to see that so many is posting on this thread, and that so many is actually saying more about their feeling than the usual "Keep up th good work" meassages.

This show that people really have a opinion about the planned major FTL change.
I hope that this intrest is getting the dev team to reconsider and keep a option of warp. If only in "warp only" games? I´ll be fine with that!

I hope that more players a pressing the thumbs down and make the dev team think twice!
And, yes, I´m one of the players that probobly will leave Stellaris since I really hate lazy "higway and defence tower" space game type of playing. (Moo3 anyone?)


And, yes, I still have Moo2 installed (look, NO space higways)!
mapgen.jpg
 

Tyrannical Prince

Captain
14 Badges
Nov 15, 2016
403
153
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
Guys don't worry about it.

Modders will find a way to make the 3 FTL's playable.
Hell, wiz has already shown us what the modders will likely use.
the new psi-jump thing will become warp with some fancy modding
and the gateway thing will likely become wormhole with some fancy modding
A mod will be out within a week of the beta coming out.

I guarantee it.
So I think people are blowing this out of proportion.


What interests me is how the 3 ftl's are going to be furthur diversified in this mod
I'm liking the way the new hyperlane stuff is shaping up.
could the other FTL's be improved as well?
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
Guys don't worry about it.

Modders will find a way to make the 3 FTL's playable.
Hell, wiz has already shown us what the modders will likely use.
the new psi-jump thing will become warp with some fancy modding
and the gateway thing will likely become wormhole with some fancy modding
A mod will be out within a week of the beta coming out.

But will an AI optimized for only starlanes know how to use it for standard gameplay? There's not much point modding in free movement if the AI is completely lobotomized in the process.
 

atlangonozal

Corporal
Nov 7, 2017
36
0
Guys don't worry about it.

Modders will find a way to make the 3 FTL's playable.
Hell, wiz has already shown us what the modders will likely use.
the new psi-jump thing will become warp with some fancy modding
and the gateway thing will likely become wormhole with some fancy modding
A mod will be out within a week of the beta coming out.

I guarantee it.
So I think people are blowing this out of proportion.


What interests me is how the 3 ftl's are going to be furthur diversified in this mod
I'm liking the way the new hyperlane stuff is shaping up.
could the other FTL's be improved as well?

Cough,cough...
other FTL-code will be removed from game compleatly.
Something about not leaving dead code in game
 

sillyrobot

General
Jul 18, 2015
1.857
3.578
<snip>



Because why would a game designer intentionally design their game to be worse?! I'm obviously not saying they are better with that statement, I'm saying that is the devs intention. I can't help but feel you're being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument.

<snip>

I wouldn't expect a designer to deliberately attempt to sabotage the game, but since enjoyment is subjective, I have experienced designers making changes to games that are not to my taste. This looks like one of those cases.

Will the change make the game better from the designers' perspective, possibly; I suspect that result is quite likely. Will I enjoy a star lane experience? Unlikely. I have a fair amount of experience with similar systems in other 4X games with a strong clustering of "I don't like this" results. Will I give the new system a trial? Probably, starting one or two games with the new system is a minimal investment of my time. Will a spend a dime on additional DLC or other items for the game until I have tried the new system and found the changes to be surprisingly acceptable? Of course not.
 

Praetori

High-Command Scapegoat
81 Badges
Aug 6, 2009
2.869
2.100
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
Cough,cough...
other FTL-code will be removed from game compleatly.
Something about not leaving dead code in game
Trust in sloppy coding and Agile development. :D
 

Kjelle

Corporal
42 Badges
Jan 20, 2017
35
35
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Island Bound
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
Intresting to see that so many is posting on this thread, and that so many is actually saying more about their feeling than the usual "Keep up th good work" meassages.

This show that people really have a opinion about the planned major FTL change.
I hope that this intrest is getting the dev team to reconsider and keep a option of warp. If only in "warp only" games? I´ll be fine with that!

I hope that more players a pressing the thumbs down and make the dev team think twice!
And, yes, I´m one of the players that probobly will leave Stellaris since I really hate lazy "higway and defence tower" space game type of playing. (Moo3 anyone?)


And, yes, I still have Moo2 installed (look, NO space higways)!
mapgen.jpg
They did mention they'll include a slider for increasing the connectivity between systems though. Boost it to the max and I would guess you'll have enough connections.

The problem with comparing with MOO2: It is a turn-based game. It has fewer stars in its maximum size than Stellaris has in its tiniest. When you have incoming fleets to one of your systems, you'll usually see that they'll arrive in a couple of turns and you have time to react. It doesn't quite work that way in Stellaris. But maybe it could have, I don't know. If they had slowed down warp even more.
 

FrozenLiquidity

Recruit
Nov 7, 2017
1
0
Another Stellaris player here, registered to add my thoughts to the discussion.

As a fairly casual Stellaris player but a fan of the 4x space genre, I can't help but to be immensely disappointed by this announcement. Upon release, Stellaris showcased 3 unique methods of travel that provided a variety and freedom of choice that I appreciated. It was a breath of fresh air coming from SoaSE which while fun, had constantly frustrated me with the restricted travel methods it relied on. It was akin to playing a corridor shooter, or an on-rails RPG, and then being introduced to open-world environments (Skyrim, Arma 3). Suffice to say, I greatly appreciated and enjoyed the opportunitues that the latter style of games opened up. That's part of the appeal that Stellaris held for me, taking queues from classics like SotS which sorely needed a proper follow-up.

Granted, with this freedom of choice came a variety of other issues, and I can definitely appreciate the plethora of issues that these travel methods added to the game. I share in the frustration of trying to chase down a fleet that has few, if any restrictions on mobility. I can appreciate the depth of the other problems that these initial design choices added to an already complex game. However, like Robbie and others here, I disagree with the direction that these changes take the game in. Removing features that are distinctive to the game and help differentiate the species we play erodes the things that makes Stellaris unique and enjoyable for some of us.

There have been dozens of suggestions (and I apologize for not slogging through 200+ pages here and other communities to read them all) that might have addressed many of the issues that have arisen from the variety of FTL-travel options that Stellaris currently provides. Finding ways to force a confrontation or increase the viability of defensive strongpoints are surely problems that could have been addressed without resorting to a controversial removal of FTL-travel methods and the resulting restriction of gameplay mechanics. Granted, the solution to some of these issues may not have been simple, but to eschew from complexity in a 4x game is peculiar.

The changes that have been proposed have been called "bold" by devs and supportive players alike. Indeed, it does run the risk of alienating current players who enjoy the very features that are now slated for removal. But there is nothing courageous or brave about it. To me, the bold move would have been daring to make it all work together without removing valued features and respecting the wishes of the entire playerbase in order to produce a truly unique gaming experience that would further push the boundaries of the genre. Personally, I would label the outlined changes as the "safe" choice, that while riling some feathers, returns to the familiar and conventional methods of 4x galactic locomotion that have been tried, tested, and proven in many of the genres predecessors.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan. I'd prefer to see 4x's pushing new ideas and broadening the genre rather than falling back on the cliche. But that's just my $0.02.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.