• 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:

OverthinkingThis

Second Lieutenant
18 Badges
May 17, 2017
143
0
  • Magicka
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
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 but it still became important to my play, either because I engaged it or because it forced 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.

I applaud a well reasoned and generally good point. This is an understandable concern and even though I like this change I am inclined to agree with your worry. I believe we will be able to get to more meat to this subject once we know how they're handling system 'claims'. We've gotten a few hints wth the war/peace declaration screen but I don't think we have enough confident info to really say we know how that works just yet.

[SPECULATION] Personally in my imaginings we will have mechanics that punish claims being 'cut-off' as well as during wartime needing an occupying force of ships in claimed enemy systems. This would allow for a defender to cut-off a larger claim 'chain' and effectively generate actual strategic targets. Granted this would only mitigate yout (valid) stated issue with the game as it stands now but it's a step.
 

PitrTong0001

Recruit
71 Badges
Jul 1, 2016
7
0
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
one thing for sure, this update reeks of catering to multiplayer/esports/hoping on the multiplayer wagon.

to remove so much core game mechanics just so is "balanced" for multiplayer.
trying to make this into sins of the solar empire or master of orion ... well, I already got both. and both have something that is unqiue to it that makes it stand out....Stellaris? well, the war mechanic I guess (woot, real exciting in a multiplayer match).

seriously, I am salty cause this was released as a finished product. not early access by some junk studio.

Also: from the looks of things, ground combat is next to be "reworked" since it won't "fit" into the system capture mechanic they are proposing.

 
Last edited:

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
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.

You (and others) seem to be operating under the misconception that we are worried about choke points. We're concerned about freedom of movement, which hyperlanes do not allow, slider or no.
 

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
What else is limiting your Travel abilities? Does this scale up anywhere near the scale of Stellaris (1000 Stars)?
What about the fact that MoO 2 is turnbased?
 

Drakonn

Major
45 Badges
May 27, 2016
685
59
  • Ancient Space
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
But slow-boat transit time is currently really horrible, so unless they increase it really drastically "slightly-less-horrible" still wont be particularly good. Especially if you'll have to cross 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.

Yea, until we see the new sublight speed (I'm betting tech upgrades also increase this) there's no way to tell.
 

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
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?
There is only so many times you can bang your head against a brick wall.
 

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
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 but it still became important to my play, either because I engaged it or because it forced 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.
I think making systems worth having because they are part of the starlane is an ok solution (they would have strategic value then, right?)

But I think you bring up some very good points. I would very much like to see some strategic resources that actually mean something significant (other than betharian stone). Resources you need to construct stuff. It always opened up some interesting dilemmas in Civ. "Do I try to get by without iron/coal? Do I attack this civilization to get it? Do I try to become buddies with someone else and trade it?"
 

~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
You (and others) seem to be operating under the misconception that we are worried about choke points. We're concerned about freedom of movement, which hyperlanes do not allow, slider or no.
No, I'm completely with you. I'm saying that the slider busts balance in the interest of providing additional freedom, and this has been deemed an acceptable exchange.

And yet the justification for the removal of the other types is "they allow too much freedom". This means to me that the justification is no longer valid, if they are willing to let players exchange balance for freedom in one way (with the slider) and not in the other (by leaving in the other FTL types as an option).
 

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
I applaud a well reasoned and generally good point. This is an understandable concern and even though I like this change I am inclined to agree with your worry. I believe we will be able to get to more meat to this subject once we know how they're handling system 'claims'. We've gotten a few hints wth the war/peace declaration screen but I don't think we have enough confident info to really say we know how that works just yet.

[SPECULATION] Personally in my imaginings we will have mechanics that punish claims being 'cut-off' as well as during wartime needing an occupying force of ships in claimed enemy systems. This would allow for a defender to cut-off a larger claim 'chain' and effectively generate actual strategic targets. Granted this would only mitigate yout (valid) stated issue with the game as it stands now but it's a step.

Thanks for the kind words OT!

Yes, I'm definitely somewhere on the spectrum of concern/strong disagreement with this decision, but I'm also definitely all ears. I'm interested in what they say next, and if they come out with a DD that addresses all of these issues in an interesting, clever way, I'll be the first to admit that they nailed it.

But... as a threshold matter I'm concerned. And what we've seen suggests (I think) that some sort of fleet cap/battle width solution is the next step, which is another mechanical solution that solves a problem (doomstacks) by imposing rules instead of options.

I'm engaged with Stellaris because there's just so much potential under the hood here. I mentioned once in another thread that this feels like the way I edit people's work; someone who gets tons of red ink is someone in whom I see potential. It's worth my time to try and improve their skills. Same here. Stellaris is worth improving upon. This design direction overall, however, deeply concerns me, less for the decisions themselves than the mechanical, rule-focused perspective that seems to surround them.
 

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
I think making systems worth having because they are part of the starlane is an ok solution (they would have strategic value then, right?)

But I think you bring up some very good points. I would very much like to see some strategic resources that actually mean something significant (other than betharian stone). Resources you need to construct stuff. It always opened up some interesting dilemmas in Civ. "Do I try to get by without iron/coal? Do I attack this civilization to get it? Do I try to become buddies with someone else and trade it?"

Thanks! And no argument from me that it does make systems individually important, the same way that a wormhole does.

What worries me, I think, is that systems like this have a way of making roads-and-nodes the only issue of importance. If A leads to B leads to C, what you've built in C often doesn't matter. I need to blast through B to get there anyway, so we fight for B and winner takes all.

At least, that's been my experience in other strategy games. Not saying it's inevitable, just an issue.
 

OverthinkingThis

Second Lieutenant
18 Badges
May 17, 2017
143
0
  • Magicka
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
Thanks for the kind words OT!

Yes, I'm definitely somewhere on the spectrum of concern/strong disagreement with this decision, but I'm also definitely all ears. I'm interested in what they say next, and if they come out with a DD that addresses all of these issues in an interesting, clever way, I'll be the first to admit that they nailed it.

But... as a threshold matter I'm concerned. And what we've seen suggests (I think) that some sort of fleet cap/battle width solution is the next step, which is another mechanical solution that solves a problem (doomstacks) by imposing rules instead of options.

I'm engaged with Stellaris because there's just so much potential under the hood here. I mentioned once in another thread that this feels like the way I edit people's work; someone who gets tons of red ink is someone in whom I see potential. It's worth my time to try and improve their skills. Same here. Stellaris is worth improving upon. This design direction overall, however, deeply concerns me, less for the decisions themselves than the mechanical, rule-focused perspective that seems to surround them.

I'd personally disagree that the end result is less options but I can easily see where you're coming from.

No matter what I think everyone here is going to have something they're not going to like about Cherryh, and I won't be surprised if a good number of rules/restrictions (like local fleet cap) are taken out or altered in the next few patches as other systems are brought up to date (looking at you diplomacy).
 

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
No, I'm completely with you. I'm saying that the slider busts balance in the interest of providing additional freedom, and this has been deemed an acceptable exchange.

And yet the justification for the removal of the other types is "they allow too much freedom". This means to me that the justification is no longer valid, if they are willing to let players exchange balance for freedom in one way (with the slider) and not in the other (by leaving in the other FTL types as an option).

Ah, okay. I gotcha. And, yeah. Total agreement there. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 

Markus Marius

Civilized Barbarian
81 Badges
Sep 3, 2009
230
16
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Rome Gold
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
I have already spoken up on this thread once about the planned move being a de-evolving back to MOO3 travel and the real solution to keeping things the way they are is to not interfere with space travel at all using things to slow it down. However, I want to address a more important fact/issue here.

From the perspective of science, or even science fiction, If you really must boil things down to a single form of space travel at the beginning, please do not use star/hyper lanes. Make it warp technology or wormhole technology (honestly the more realistic of the two). Star/hyper lanes are a farce; a forced convention coming out of a desire to make a space travel game like a land travel game. I know that people enjoy choke points and the strategic devices that star lanes afford but these are not something that space travel would ever allow; at least not naturally. Stellaris is not a land based game.

Please explain the theory behind hyperlane travel! No one in any science fiction that I have read (which includes hundreds of books) has ever come up with this convention of space travel. Why? Because there is no scientific logic for it whatsoever. Naturally occurring "lanes" between stars is strictly a space game device used to make space based game-play more like land based game-play. If you want to do that... go play Civilization (and as a side note... I have been hoping recently that Paradox would bring the Civilization style game back to life) .

The closest thing in any work of fiction to a hyper-lane (star-lane) that I have ever come across is Voyager's transwarp conduits, but even those are artificially created and their creation does not begin and end with stars unless that is what is decided by the builders.

Try reading the Starfire series of books by David Weber & Steve White ( start with 'Crusade' ). The method of space travel is very close to Hyperlanes. The books are based on an old board game called 'Starfire Empires'. There was also a tactical spaceship combat game ( Starfire ) you could use in conjunction with 'Empires'. Steve White has another series which starts with 'The Disinherited' that also has something close to Hyperlanes.
I have played umpteen hours of Space Empires 2, 3 and 4 and again umpteen hours of Sword of the Stars and enjoyed them both. Both have what are basically Hyperlanes. I have about 270 hours on Stellaris, mostly with Warp Drive and I have only tried Hyperlanes since reading this DD. Enjoying the game just as much as with Warp Drive. Not seeing anything to get upset about. :rolleyes:
 

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
There is only so many times you can bang your head against a brick wall.
Thus far you are claiming Wiz and his Team are comitting Fraud towards Paradox Entertainment by not doing their job. In particular that they choose to go Hyperlaen only without going through all alternatives dilligently.
Where is your proof for that?
 

Praetori

High-Command Scapegoat
81 Badges
Aug 6, 2009
2.869
2.100
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
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.
Ironically I completely disagree. Slowboating and not being able to go everywhere at once is one of the tough decisions that I enjoyed. It makes space feel huge and forces dispersion of power and limits the power projection (and should in theory make having friends more important).

The emerging mechanics of vastness of space is one thing that the developers CCP (Eve Online) failed to understand when they reduced jump scattering and all of a sudden the galaxy shrunk considerably (timewise) resulting in other emergent meta such as the doomstack blob. Other new mechanics had to be introduced later on in attempts to remedy the problem but it still never came close to the good old days when local knowledge and preparation enabled raiding and dispersed engagements without capital ship blobs converging within a bell from across the galaxy.

It's just one example but after playing virtually every space game there is I'm quite adamant that artificial limitations (like command points, system hardcaps or whatnot) can never replace vastness of space and travel-time. In a game like Stellaris with variable time settings it's even less of a problem.
 
Last edited:

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
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.

I think that this argument to make the game hyperlane only is flawed.

In space nothing is locked.

Borders exist only to visualize how much space is under control of empires. If an empire has a way to move through space on long distances and can bypass borderline defences it is good for them, bad for stupid defenders.

Defences should not be placed on borders, but they should defend strategic planets/outposts/resources. Defences should be build on all area of the empire not only on borderlines. The same situation is in reality – now we have aircrafts/continental missiles which can bypass borders and attack any target within range.

If devs want to make a good game, they should focus on finding why warfare in stellaris is bad and redesign the game to cure the game not patch it with removing cornerstone futures (2 of 3 FTL types). To be honest that was the very first thing I noticed when I read about the game.

In my opinion there is a way to have 3 FTL drives and have a good game.

All you need is provide a way for fleets to “use” supplies (maybe it could be energy). Each planet/starbase/starport (supply providers “SP”) should provide some supply amount. Fleets in close proximity should store to certain amount and consume those resources. When a fleet is out of range of a supply providers or SP provide not enough (more than 1 star systems for hyperlanes, 1x warp range for warp, 1/2 range of wormhole range) it starts to consume fleet stored supplies. When they are used up the fleet receives severe penalties like slower windup/down/fire rate/shield/hull regen/damage to ship/destroy ships etc.

This will usually prevent an attack deep inside enemy territory bcs of the fast consumed supplies (so similar effect like choke points with hyperlanes). (there could be even special ship component that could improve ship storage for the supply). It will be also a way to slowly move borders deeper into enemy bcs you have to build supply providers. It will also give time for a defeated empire to recover bcs 1 lost battle do not mean lost war – enemy will have hard time destroying defences far from his supply lines.

With supplies provided by SP, you can solve another problem of this game: DOOMSTACKS. How? It is very simple. If a player have one big fleet or even several smaller ones in close proximity to each other (the same star system, or several close star systems) they consume more supplies than surrounding SP can provide. This way a player will be encouraged to divide his fleets into smaller ones and in effect cover more space. Smaller/tall empires will have an advantage over big/wide bcs all their fleet can be in one place consuming all supplies of the empire and their one fleet will be big enough to withstand an attack of 1/3 fleet power of another stronger wide empire (which will have less supplies for their fleet in that region of space)

I understand that pathfinding is easier when you have static hyperlanes map bcs of calculations and distances, but you have it now and for sure with some effort it could consume less processor power.

Other benefits from hyperlane only game are tiny and can be solved with little effort.
*Sensors – they currently work, and blocking sensors should be easy
*galactic terrain – it is system specific so has no connection to FTL types


But if you really want to make hyperlane only game here are some ideas to consider:
*create a type of hyperlanes that is one way – so from star A to B but not the other way
*add parameter to hyperlane drives “range” to simulate Warp – this way, some hyperlanes could be used later in the game by empires and it would open new possibilities making initial chokepoint defences obsolete later in the game.
*ad a way to “create” artificial hyperlane to another star system (after creation all empires can use it)
*add special parameters to hyperlanes that boost ftl speed of ships travelling through it (like your new wormholes but not instantly but 2x 3x normal speed)
*unstable hyperlanes – that periodically show up on the map , or may cause some damage to travelling ships
*add types of hyperlanes – so that hyperlane drive can use a list of hyperlane types. E.g basic hyperlane drive can use type 1, but advanced drive can use type 1 and 2. (if hyperlane drive range is too much to ask)
*and one last request - please do something with hyperlanes limit - I remember that maps with 5k or 6k predefined hyperlanes makes the game crash to desktop.

For gateways please consider:
*different gateways systems – not compatible with each other. Some ancient gateways – sparse but cover whole galaxy and empire built gateways used only by that empire.
 
Last edited:

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
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.

Sorry, wrong term. Gateways are the new wormhole tech. A little bit different, yes, but they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.