• 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:

minke19104

Lame Duck
77 Badges
Oct 17, 2012
1.326
0
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
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 fillets 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 of another wide empire (which will have less supplies for their fleet)

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 different types of hyperlane drive can use. 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)

For gateways please consider:

*different gateways systems – not compatible with each other. Some ancient gateways – whole galaxy and empire build gateways used only by that empire.


Behold for I am King and Lord of empty Spaces.
 

Primarch Victus

Major
19 Badges
Feb 10, 2017
632
651
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition

Baron Jukaga

Loyalist Commander
77 Badges
Dec 27, 2001
3.662
4.688
Visit site
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
I've decided to shelve Stellaris for now and get my space 4x fix from DWU again (TNG mod). I'll keep an eye on the development and I will try the new patch once it's out but I don't care for the direction the game is taking. Good luck and I genuinely hope Stellaris grows into a great game.
 

TheDeadlyShoe

Lt. General
44 Badges
Aug 22, 2008
1.304
161
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Magicka 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2: Ice, Death and Fury
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
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.
it's a mystery how someone would get the impression, given the dozens and maybe even hundreds of posts in this insanely long thread are complaining about how the game will be dull and shitty because choke points.
 

Nippleworthy

First Lieutenant
Jun 1, 2017
257
0
it's a mystery how someone would get the impression, given the dozens and maybe even hundreds of posts in this insanely long thread are complaining about how the game will be dull and shitty because choke points.

Insane? One should not allow me to use this forum useless, drunk and my guitar:

Yackety-yak about Hyperlane get on nerves and drives me insane. Because I think they are really cool. But what do I know, was at a "special needs" school. So it remains to be seen, this also applies to every Drama-Queen.
 

primem0ver

Major
16 Badges
Jul 15, 2015
563
70
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
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:
LOL. Well it is pretty obvious why... you like hyperlanes. I played Ascendency, one of the first games to introduce hyperlanes (called star lanes in most of the earlier games) and Master Of Orion (yes.. the original as well as II and III). Those were among the games that pioneered this genre (along with Space Empires). I loved many things about Ascendency that were missing from MOO, but for space travel, star lanes felt like a step down genre wise. Sure... I liked it from the "choke point" strategy standpoint but star lanes are far more restrictive in other ways. Once again, the issue with me is mostly because it makes a space game not feel like a space game. If you had read my previous posts, you would also understand that I like a bit of realism my games; or at least scientific "plausibility". Go back and read my previous posts if you are curious. about my perspective I am not going to keep repeating myself here. One thing I will say though is that since the books you mentioned are based on a game, rather than hard SF, I put very little stock in them being representative of SF theories about space travel. Give me some real SF using the same concept of star/hyperlanes as they exist in games, and I will be more willing to take them seriously.
 
Last edited:

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Thinking about some of the things brought up in here again, and looking at the combat side of this the main arguments are boiling down to doomstacks in chokepoints, or playing doomstack whack a mole. And the more I think about this, the problem comes back to there are no meaningful points of interest(POI) in the game besides planets and hyperlane choke points currently, which means next to no reason to split up ones fleet.

Though this post isn't to focus about the POIs in game or lack there of, but more on the choke point vs whack a mole combat. The pro hyperlane only side, seems to favor chokepoint combat instead of whack a mole, while those who want all 3 FTL's to stay are perfectly fine with the whack a mole, and dislike forced chokepoint combat. And the big arguments I keep seeing against the whack a mole, is the moment of surprise when you are like how did that ship get there, and then the problem of forcing an engagement if desired due being unable to tell where the enemy is going to go. One major thing I feel that needs to be pointed out, is it not part of a 4x/grand strategy to have to figure out what your opponent is wanting to do and how to stop it or beat them to it, and by extension figuring out where their forces are heading and why? You have to be able to think ahead of your opponent and try and predict what they are up to. This whole predicting the plans of your opponents is something that most AI's used it games can't handle yet, which is why the AI gets cheats like extra resources or not hindered by fog of war, as there is no way for them to predict a human player, and they become very predictable to a human after a number of games. So its not going to make the AI any more or less of a challenge in the long run by making these changes if that is one of the goals here. And an overall rush/defend chokepoint early game meta gets stale even with human vs human.

So now back to the POIs, what can be done to create areas that would be worth fighting over besides a planet or hyperlane chokepoint? What kind of resources would be needed there? As a number of strategic resources either spawn in large numbers, or the bonuses are not enough to warrant severely going out of the way for. How many Energy or Minerals in one system on a small number of nodes is enough to fight over?(20 minerals on 10 nodes, is not much of a reason for one system but 20 on 2 could be for example, though with the influence cost to claim changes just 20 in a system might start mattering more) Same for research. What kind of non-chokepoint system bonuses would be enough to warrant conflict over instead of working on conquest? If we can get some POI's that are significant enough to swing the course of the game in the same manner planets do currently, there might be some headway on breaking up the doomstacks.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
So you want choke points but no restricted movement?

Its possible to have choke points and freedom to move how one wants. To use the modern concept of cars and roads, Hyperlanes would be the roads, and thanks to traffic and poor design you end up with choke points and congestion, while warp is more akin to driving offroad, where your choke points are things your vehicle can't maneuver around easily such as the Grand Canyon for example.
 

Jervaise

Corporal
32 Badges
May 27, 2016
38
18
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
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.

Devs, listen to this guy. Please.
 

Crusader Vanguard

Corporal
7 Badges
Sep 12, 2016
35
1
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
We're in frequent communication with modders, including the New Horizons team. If there is functionality they feel they need to be able to continue with the mod, they can absolutely ask for it.

I know a few modders who don't feel that there is anything close to frequent communication, including myself. Increased activity from PDS staff in relevant threads in the modding forum for Stellaris would at least be a good start in changing that sir.

I agree with AlphaAsh. I've worked with CaptainX3 on New Ship Classes & More for over a year and the only time I ever had any experience with any Paradox dev was silence at the end of a posted question. If we had been in contact with Paradox staff, we would have asked that triggered modifiers (removed with the Adams patch) remain in the coding, as we have had to resort to less efficient methods to support our mod coding with this change. We've tried to help Paradox find and solve a few coding errors in the past as well, but never heard anything from Paradox. We know that Patch 1.9 will create the need to completely overhaul certain mods, yet without any idea as to the new coding or any word from Paradox, we are completely blind until release date without any support. I realize Patch 1.9 coding isn't finalized, but even help leading up to release would be most appreciated.

I know a few other authors of top subscribed mods on the workshop that feel similarly. I don't know what "modders" you are talking to sir, but it isn't anyone we know, Star Trek New Horizons not withstanding.

I just ask that if Paradox is not willing to release upcoming patches early to modders, which I understand, that a support system is setup so modders can ask more specific questions about coding changes to prepare for major Paradox patches, especially given the size of the upcoming one. Thank you.
 

Jervaise

Corporal
32 Badges
May 27, 2016
38
18
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Thinking about some of the things brought up in here again, and looking at the combat side of this the main arguments are boiling down to doomstacks in chokepoints, or playing doomstack whack a mole. And the more I think about this, the problem comes back to there are no meaningful points of interest(POI) in the game besides planets and hyperlane choke points currently, which means next to no reason to split up ones fleet.

Though this post isn't to focus about the POIs in game or lack there of, but more on the choke point vs whack a mole combat. The pro hyperlane only side, seems to favor chokepoint combat instead of whack a mole, while those who want all 3 FTL's to stay are perfectly fine with the whack a mole, and dislike forced chokepoint combat. And the big arguments I keep seeing against the whack a mole, is the moment of surprise when you are like how did that ship get there, and then the problem of forcing an engagement if desired due being unable to tell where the enemy is going to go. One major thing I feel that needs to be pointed out, is it not part of a 4x/grand strategy to have to figure out what your opponent is wanting to do and how to stop it or beat them to it, and by extension figuring out where their forces are heading and why? You have to be able to think ahead of your opponent and try and predict what they are up to. This whole predicting the plans of your opponents is something that most AI's used it games can't handle yet, which is why the AI gets cheats like extra resources or not hindered by fog of war, as there is no way for them to predict a human player, and they become very predictable to a human after a number of games. So its not going to make the AI any more or less of a challenge in the long run by making these changes if that is one of the goals here. And an overall rush/defend chokepoint early game meta gets stale even with human vs human.

So now back to the POIs, what can be done to create areas that would be worth fighting over besides a planet or hyperlane chokepoint? What kind of resources would be needed there? As a number of strategic resources either spawn in large numbers, or the bonuses are not enough to warrant severely going out of the way for. How many Energy or Minerals in one system on a small number of nodes is enough to fight over?(20 minerals on 10 nodes, is not much of a reason for one system but 20 on 2 could be for example, though with the influence cost to claim changes just 20 in a system might start mattering more) Same for research. What kind of non-chokepoint system bonuses would be enough to warrant conflict over instead of working on conquest? If we can get some POI's that are significant enough to swing the course of the game in the same manner planets do currently, there might be some headway on breaking up the doomstacks.

Minerals and energy shouldn't matter in the proposed important systems. Add something like very a significant resource that is very very actively affecting fleet strength and you can have 14 FTL drives but still the fights will incline to be there.

Now add more of these and build oh the idea. See where it's going instead of trench warfare?
 

primem0ver

Major
16 Badges
Jul 15, 2015
563
70
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Its possible to have choke points and freedom to move how one wants. To use the modern concept of cars and roads, Hyperlanes would be the roads, and thanks to traffic and poor design you end up with choke points and congestion, while warp is more akin to driving offroad, where your choke points are things your vehicle can't maneuver around easily such as the Grand Canyon for example.
LOL because space is SO full of things that get in the way of flying a space ship. Master of Orion III tried this approach and it was still very restrictive. Not at all what space is really like.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
LOL because space is SO full of things that get in the way of flying a space ship. Master of Orion III tried this approach and it was still very restrictive. Not at all what space is really like.

While space is indeed expansive, there could very well be a wide variety of things that make travel through certain areas extremely dangerous if not outright impossible. I don't know of anyone that has traveled or surveyed space enough to make claims as to what sorts of things could occupy some of that supposedly empty space. It would make more sense to come up with something that works for that, then just saying "You must always drive on the roads". Give us some kind of reason why path A is better than Path B, instead of the arbitrary "I said so". So in an in game example, those areas hyperlanes deviate around, and warp can cross them, if you don't want warp to be crossing them frequently, give us a reason why instead of just saying you have to go the hyperlane route, after all there is likely something there that caused the hyperlane to go around it.
 

Jon Rich

Second Lieutenant
62 Badges
Dec 5, 2013
179
9
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Necroids
Ok. Point taken. However, as someone else mentioned above, there still isn't any physical basis for the existence of star lanes (at least without equating them to wormholes). Every description I have gotten, including yours, that tries to argue against my original point sounds like a "natural" wormhole explanation that is very narrow in scope: i.e.e it is applied to a specific, short range, non-temporary, naturally existing network of point to point shortcuts through space time. Again... you are reaching beyond technology for a convoluted set of circumstances to support a natural occurrence, none of which have any basis in science. While still fictional, warp drives and the original "wormhole" concept don't rely on anything so convoluted and extravagant because they are artificial in nature and make use of ideas that are already consistent with established theory (with the exception of violating the speed of light and whether or not wormholes actually exist). Again it is an issue of (fictional) technology based travel versus naturally based travel that relies on a convoluted, fictional, theory.

Are you familiar with the difference between "hard" and "soft" science fiction? If you're not, it basically works like this: The "harder" the work (in this case, the game), the more scientifically accurate it is, or rather, the more in line with established theories it is. That distinction is mostly important in older works that rely on things which have been overturned. Either way, "soft" science fiction is a lot lighter on scientific accuracy. It's a sliding scale, helpfully summarized in this TVTropes link ("Mohs" refers to the scientist who devised the scale of mineral hardness) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

On that scale, Stellaris is located at the very "soft" end of the scale, along with Star Wars, which also uses hyperlanes---in fact, it is hands-down the most famous work to use hyperlanes. You're trying to apply science to a work that simply does not care, and never has. Welcome to Space Opera: The Game. You don't have to like it, but Paradox was pretty open about that from the start. If you came here looking for hard science fiction, you bought the wrong game. Research it better next time.
 

Infinipede

Recruit
28 Badges
Apr 10, 2017
3
0
infinipede.deviantart.com
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Magicka
I'd say Star Wars is much more Sci-Fantasy than Stellaris's Soft-sci, but that's just my personal opinion. That and I think the idea of areas of space that affect space travel are perfectly viable, considering things like asteroid belts and other regions of rock and "ice" like the oort cloud and kuiper belt, different regions of density from nebulas and massive objects, large amounts of EM radiation, CMEs from stars, etc. Ofc a lot of it is going to be fictionalized or theoretical, because soft-sci of this sort has to be - FTL travel is just a twinkle in our species' eye in real life atm. Moving along...

So, the good of this for me: Terrain sounds fun, naturally appearing wormholes and still being able to use my fave FTL tech through gateways sound fun, and I'm glad the jump drive's still in the game too; and thank god you can actually adjust the amount of hyperlanes available.

Bad news for me... as a primarily pacifist player who likes to aim for the win through exploration and politics, I tend to avoid species that use hyperlanes like the plague - I know sometimes I've just wanted play a really fun AI game only to have some militaristic xenophobe empire block every possible early route out into the greater universe.

I know as I'm essentially playing a "3"X strategy game given the lack of extermination I typically find myself doing and I'm probably in the minority here, but I worry that after Utopia and subsequent updates made my favorite playstyle much more viable, it's going to be a lot less viable.

Just my 2c as a flower-picking Blorg weenie. I'm looking forward to the improvements and I'll be hoping that I can either adjust my own personal settings in vs AI games or get more comfortable with early-game warfare, as I probably should have a long time ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.