• 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:

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
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.

Distant Worlds is pausable RT with up to 1500 stars and has full free movement. You can even send ships to some random point in the middle of deep-space if you want. DW has fully working diplomacy, economy, commodities, trade and espionage, so it CAN be done. The Stellaris devs have just given up and taken the easy way out, which is both sad and disappointing.
 
Last edited:

Cat_Fuzz

General
May 10, 2016
1.772
2.365
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.

Cool. I'm also sceptical, but I'm curious to see how the changes pan out.
 

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
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?


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.

The burden of evidence is on you. Show us where the devs have said they have been trying for 2 years.

It is reasonable. It just has to be done right.
 

Ur-Quan Lord 13

General
20 Badges
Oct 30, 2016
1.765
211
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Magicka
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
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.

Well... Obviously that's not true.

If the way they implemented it, is that they use the word hyperlane and hyperdrive, but your ships create their own hyperlanes as they move so it is essentially warp travel in all but name... Would you not play it just because of its name? Clearly you would, that would be a ridiculous reason not to.

So, if the new game, with the hyperlane slider turned to max, guarantees you essentially the same freedom of movement as current warp travel, and I mean like no substantial limitations, would you refuse to play it then? That seems more like a decision based on petulance than anything. If you flip off the display of hyperlanes, so you can completely forget they're there, would that help?

Anyway, if you're a wormhole lover, then of course the argument has less bearing in reality, since there's no way a max-hyperlane galaxy will let you pretend you're using wormholes. But if you're just a hyperlane-hater, and max hyperlanes plays more like warp drives... What's the issue? And, if you specifically wanted the game with 3 types of FTL at the same time... Well, that's just mean! You hate hyperlanes but you want to force 1/3 of your AI opponents to suffer with them??
 

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
Distant Worlds is pausable RT with up to 1500 stars and has full free movement. You can even send ships to some random point in the middle of deep-space if you want. DW has fully working diplomacy and trade and espionage, so it CAN be done. The Stellaris devs have just given up and taken the easy way out, which is both sad and disappointing.
I like a lot of the mechanics in Distant worlds. Like the mining bases, pirates, civilian ships/economy, luxury liners and what not. I also like how ships jump in (a bit like in star wars), and doesn't just teleport. But I personally felt the full free movement led to a lot of "fly swatting" scenarios, where ships appear somewhere, you would have to chase them off, etc. etc.
A human player would also be much better at positioning ships right outside a system than the AI.

I don't know, I felt it made warfare unfocused. But we'll probably never agree on this part.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.441
38.788
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
So, if the new game, with the hyperlane slider turned to max, guarantees you essentially the same freedom of movement as current warp travel,
Four-arm-spiralist here.

That would require every system to have a direct hyperlane to every other system within 100 distance units... but any lane longer than 40 units would require a tech upgrade to use.
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
Well... Obviously that's not true.

Oh yes it is, hyperlane connections turned up to maximum means that you have to pass through every single system to arrive at your destination and cross each one at sub light (how tedious will that be?). With free movement on the other hand you only need to travel through empty space from system A to system B. Even with connections maxed out it will still feel like you're traveling along a rail-network and that's not what I signed up for.

And, if you specifically wanted the game with 3 types of FTL at the same time... Well, that's just mean! You hate hyperlanes but you want to force 1/3 of your AI opponents to suffer with them??

I have to admit I did secretly enjoy it when other races (especially my enemies) were forced to suffer by using starlanes. They were so clearly inferior it was ridiculously easy to run rings around them. But no, if the devs had cut out everything but warp I would have been disappointed but would still give 2.0 it a try. But not starlanes, no way.
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
I don't know, I felt it made warfare unfocused. But we'll probably never agree on this part.

I do think I actually agree with that, warfare can be pretty chaotic in DW. The difference is I like it that way, it feels more like the way warfare would happen in space. No borders, no chokepoints, no front lines.
 
Last edited:

~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
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.
Gateways cannot be adapted to be wormholes as we know them. They're just linear connections from point A to point B, i.e. a different flavor of hyperlane.

Most of the people ITT and elsewhere I've seen leaving comments along the lines of "don't worry mod authors will just fix it!" don't seem to be familiar with how modding Stellaris works. The code for the current travel system is being removed, and will no longer be accessible to mod authors. Without a system for warp and wormhole being left with accessible hooks, mod authors cannot make mods that restore that functionality. It's not a matter of figuring it out, it will be an impossibility unless the developers specifically make efforts to enable that kind of modding, which they have stated they will not do.
 

Ur-Quan Lord 13

General
20 Badges
Oct 30, 2016
1.765
211
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Magicka
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Oh yes it is, hyperlane connections turned up to maximum means that you have to pass through every single system to arrive at your destination. With free movement on the other hand you only need to travel through empty space from system A to system B. Even with connections maxed out it will still feel like you're traveling along a rail-network and that's not what I signed up for.

The sentence you quoted here referred to a hypothetical system where your ships could literally "create a hyperlane" to any star within a certain distance, truly the same as warp in all but name. No "rail-network" or even an illusion of one. You would play that despite its name right?

Similarly, what if turning hyperlanes to max on the slider, actually connects stars beyond other stars? I don't know that it will... But you don't know that it won't. And in that case, it could be arbitrarily close to warp in feel and gameplay. There's no point at which it would be close enough?

4-arm-spiralist here
... Yah, I'd thought about that. Just like wormhole gens, no real hope it'll feel the same as before, at least without mods.
 

methegrate

General
27 Badges
Jun 20, 2016
2.408
3.559
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
it's not that defenses per se only matter if you can't avoid them, it's that a game's geography only matters if you are forced to interact with it.

I think this is where we disagree.

A game's geography only matters if you don't ignore it, true, but there are many ways to build that system.

Forcing the players to interact with the geography is one option. It's what the developers discussed in the dev diary and why they appear to have felt that starlanes are necessary. Players can't ignore geography because the mechanics force you to interact with it in a very certain way.

But there are many ways to build a game where players don't ignore geography because they shouldn't do so. Under this system geography matters because of the options it opens up and the choices players make. Players don't ignore geography because the other players make it impossible for them to do so.

Just to take one example from the dd, pulsars which completely drain shields. A player with one of those in his territory could build a key installation specifically designed with no shields and tons of armor. Now an attacker has an interesting choice: fight a station optimally designed for this environment, or leave it in place. Nothing mechanically forced me to engage that pulsar, I may never even click on it, but it still became important to my play, either because I engaged it or because it caused me to leave a major enemy asset standing. You can see this with hills in Civ, terrain types in AoW, hard unit counters in Starcraft, on and on.

But... there are no key strategic or economic elements in Stellaris, and that's the concern I have with this entire philosophy. You don't have to force players into anything that the game makes indispensable. The players (or AI) will do that for you. In Stellaris if Procyon A is a tough nut to crack, I just fly on over to Procyon B because there are no consequences for doing so. Nothing in any system is uniquely worth attacking, and no advantage is gained by clever placement of something in one system vs. the other.

Forcing players to interact with geography feels like just papering over this fundamental problem. It changes player behavior by imposing a new rule and eliminating choice (now I don't skip Procyon A because I can't). It's what worries me the most about everything I've seen from this dev diary and the video dev log. Their discussion focuses exclusively on how mechanics will force players to engage with defenses and geography instead of discussing how strategy and the metagame will incentivize them to do so.

Play in a strategy game should be emergent from the options available. Give players a set of viable, interesting tools and they will find a way to use them. Forcing players to interact with one of your systems feels close to admitting "we don't know how to make this interesting or important enough for you to use on your own, so we're just gonna make you."

It's an engineer's solution, to make sure players don't ignore something by making sure they can't. A game designer's solution, however, should be to make sure players don't ignore something by making sure they won't. If ignoring defenses and geography made someone a worse player and caused them to lose, they'd start interacting with it no matter how their ships get around.
 
Last edited:

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
Similarly, what if turning hyperlanes to max on the slider, actually connects stars beyond other stars? I don't know that it will... But you don't know that it won't. And in that case, it could be arbitrarily close to warp in feel and gameplay. There's no point at which it would be close enough?

No that would do the trick. The lane map would look ghastly, but if I could turn it off I could just forget about it. If they do something like that I'll definitely give it a try but honestly I wont be holding my breath.

The most likely thing is that maxing out the lane density slider will just increase the # of connections to nearby stars which means you'd have to travel through every single system on your path, traveling sub light across each one. No thanks.
 

S.C. Watson

Captain
29 Badges
Apr 7, 2016
372
859
www.scwatsonart.com
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Rome Gold
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Rome: Vae Victis
Well... Obviously that's not true.

So, if the new game, with the hyperlane slider turned to max, guarantees you essentially the same freedom of movement as current warp travel, and I mean like no substantial limitations, would you refuse to play it then?

Let me stop you right there. (and pardon my butting in).

It doesn't guarantee essentially the same movement though.

Space Empires V had a similar setting - you could connect all systems via hyperlanes. It was done for exactly the same reason it's being done now.

With Stellaris, you will get something akin to this:
HD6pRhY.png


It's not the same. Please stop telling us it is, because it is not.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.441
38.788
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
Similarly, what if turning hyperlanes to max on the slider, actually connects stars beyond other stars? I don't know that it will... But you don't know that it won't. And in that case, it could be arbitrarily close to warp in feel and gameplay. There's no point at which it would be close enough?
To feel like warp:
  • Inter-system transit time must be non-zero.
  • Cooldown must increase with the length of the hop.
  • Longer hyperlanes must require tech upgrades to use.
  • Sensor range must be Euclidean.
  • (EDIT) And you must not need to slowboat across the system between hops.
 

Lucian667

First Lieutenant
May 17, 2016
250
64
Sublight speed has been increased to compensate so it should be better than it is now.

But slow-boat transit time is currently really horrible, so unless they increase it drastically "slightly-less-horrible" still wont be particularly good. Especially if you'll have to slow-boat across every single system in the lane network - and it looks like you will.

The reason I say that is that MOO-Cts did something similar where they forced starlanes and each ship had to slowboat across every system to get to the next lane in the web. And it MASSIVELY killed the pace of the game, I've never seen such a horrible implementation of starlanes and I've seen many.
 
Last edited:

~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
Let me stop you right there. (and pardon my butting in).

It doesn't guarantee essentially the same movement though.

Space Empires V had a similar setting - you could connect all systems via hyperlanes. It was done for exactly the same reason it's being done now.

With Stellaris, you will get something akin to this:
HD6pRhY.png


It's not the same. Please stop telling us it is, because it is not.
But ironically, even though it will not restore previous functionality, it will still break any semblance of choke points/being forced to engage with the "geography" of the hyperlanes.

Which is the exact reason given for the removal of the other two. The slider will allow you to break balance in exchange for freedom of movement, but they will not let you do the same thing by using old FTL methods to break balance in exchange for that same freedom.
 

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
Gateways cannot be adapted to be wormholes as we know them. They're just linear connections from point A to point B, i.e. a different flavor of hyperlane.

Most of the people ITT and elsewhere I've seen leaving comments along the lines of "don't worry mod authors will just fix it!" don't seem to be familiar with how modding Stellaris works. The code for the current travel system is being removed, and will no longer be accessible to mod authors. Without a system for warp and wormhole being left with accessible hooks, mod authors cannot make mods that restore that functionality. It's not a matter of figuring it out, it will be an impossibility unless the developers specifically make efforts to enable that kind of modding, which they have stated they will not do.

I'm well aware of what Gateways are.
Again I'm not talking about the current travel system. I'm talking about taking the travel systems they've shown us and changing them a little bit.
The new psi-jump can be easily turned to warp by just reducing the default cooldown. Just that change alone is warp. It does sound like, you'd have to "warp" to each system you wanted to pass through though so I doubt that single stat change would be enough. Regardless, that is warp and I'm sure there are ways to make it more 'user friendly.'

As for gateways, I'm sure there's a line in the code somewhere that limits travel destination to other gateways. If you just change that limitation to be within a certain distance of the current gateway, you would have a one-way wormhole in practice. Going back to the gateway would probably require a bit more work but I'm sure it's doable.
 

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
But ironically, even though it will not restore previous functionality, it will still break any semblance of choke points/being forced to engage with the "geography" of the hyperlanes.

Which is the exact reason given for the removal of the other two. The slider will allow you to break balance in exchange for freedom of movement, but they will not let you do the same thing by using old FTL methods to break balance in exchange for that same freedom.
I think if they were to keep the 3 FTL types, they shouldn't intersect in games. So you would choose between either "warp only", "black hole only" or "hyperlane only" when starting a new game. That way it wouldn't be a fricking mess when playing while still offering the diversity of playstyles. But it would mean pdx would have to create 3 times the amount of content. So probably not happening any time soon.
 

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
The burden of evidence is on you. Show us where the devs have said they have been trying for 2 years.

It is reasonable. It just has to be done right.
It is a improovement of the game. Literally their job.
They admitted that they expect this *blepp*storm.
Yet you still are convinced "they decided that haphazardly without considering all the other Options"? Where is your Proof for that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.