• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #92: FTL Rework and Galactic Terrain

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is about Faster than Light travel in the Cherryh update, and it's likely to be a controversial one. When discussing, please remember to keep things civil, and I would kindly ask that you read the entire dev diary before rushing to post, as it's going to cover some of the questions and concerns we expect to see from the playerbase. Also, as posted last week, all of these changes are currently far away, and we cannot give more details on ETAs or the exact nature of the Cherryh update than we already have. Thank you!

FTL Rework
The single biggest design issue we have had to tackle in the Stellaris team since release is the asymmetrical FTL. While it's a cool and interesting idea on paper, the honest truth is that the feature just does not fit well into the game in practice, and blocks numerous improvements on a myriad of other features such as warfare and exploration, as well as solutions to fundamental design problems like the weakness of static defenses. After a lot of debate among the designers, we finally decided that if we were ever going to be able to tackle these issues and turn Stellaris into a game with truly engrossing and interesting warfare, we would have to bite the bullet and take a controversial decision: Consolidating FTL from the current three types down into a primarily hyperlane-based game, with more advanced forms of FTL unlocked through technology.

However, as I have said on the previous occasions when discussing this issue, one thing we would never consider doing is just slashing FTL types from the game without adding in something else to compensate their loss. That is what most of this dev diary is going to be about. However, before continuing with the details on the additions and changes we're making to FTL, I want to cover a couple of the questions I expect will arise from this:

Why are you removing FTL choices instead of building on them?
A lot of people have asked this question when we have brought up consolidating FTL types before, suggesting that problems such as static defenses can be solved by just adding more mechanics to handle each special case. I think the problem with this is best illustrated with defense stations and FTL inhibitors. One of the aims of the Starbase system is to give empires the ability to 'lock down' their borders, building fortresses that enemy fleets cannot simply skip past to strike at their core worlds, instead of having to create static defenses in every single valuable system.

With hyperlanes, this is a pretty simple affair: As hyperlanes create natural choke points, the only thing a hyperlane-stopping FTL inhibitor needs to do is to prevent enemy fleets from leaving the system once they enter it. The fleet can enter, it can retreat (via emergency FTL) and it can bring down the source of the FTL inhibitor (which might be a Starbase or even a planet) to be able to continue. This is quite easy to understand, both in terms of which system you need to defend to lock down your borders, and how it works when you are on the offensive.

Now let's add Warp to the mix. In this case, the single-system FTL inhibitor is useless because Warp fleets can just go over it, so we'll invent another mechanic: A warp interdiction bubble, stretching a certain distance around the system, that pull in any hostile Warp fleets traveling there to the system containing the FTL inhibitor, and force them to battle it or retreat. This is immediately a lot more messy: First of all, this bubble can't possibly affect Hyperlane fleets, because it could potentially pull them dozens of jumps away from their current location. This means that when fortifying your borders, you now need to not just make sure that every important chokepoint is covered, but also that your entire border is covered in warp interdiction bubbles.

But there's more: Add Wormholes as well, and you now have an FTL type where not only the 'bubble' type interdictor doesn't make intuitive sense (because Wormhole fleets make point-to-point jumps rather than traveling over the map) but if said interdictor works to pull Wormhole fleets out of position regardless of what makes intuitive sense, you end up with the same probem as with hyperlanes, where the fleet can get pulled out of range of its wormhole network and end up stranded even if it brings down the defenses. This means you pretty much have to invent a third type of interdiction type for Wormhole on top of what is already an overengineered and hard to understand system.

Finally, add the problem of displaying all these different types of inhibitors and interdictors on the map, in a way that the player can even remotely start to understand, and you end up with nothing short of a complete mess, where it's far better to just have static defenses protecting single valuable systems... and so we come full circle.

This is the fundamental problem that we have been grappling with when it comes to asymmetrical FTL: What works in a game such as Sword of the Stars, with its turn-based gameplay, small maps of usually no more than 3-6 empires, and 1-on-1 wars breaks down completely in a Stellaris game with real-time gameplay and wars potentially containing a dozen actors, all with their own form of FTL. The complexity collapses into what is for the player just a mess of fleets appearing and disappearing with no discernible logic to them.

Why Hyperlanes?
When discussing this, we essentially boiled down the consolidation into three possibilities: Hyperlanes only, Warp-only, and Warp+Hyperlanes. Wormhole is simply too different a FTL type to ever really work with the others, and not intuitive enough to work as the sole starting FTL for everyone playing the game. Keeping both Warp and Hyperlanes would be an improvement, but would still keep many of the issues we currently have in regards to user experience and fleet coordination. Warp-only was considered as an alternative, but ultimately Hyperlanes won out because of the possibilities it opens up for galactic geography, static defenses and enhancements to exploration.

Here are the some of the possibilities that consolidation of FTL into Hyperlanes creates for Stellaris:
  • Unified distance, sensor and border systems that make sense for everyone (for example, cost of claiming a system not being based on euclidean distance but rather the actual distance for ships to travel there)
  • Galactic 'geography', systems that are strategically and tactically important due to location and 'terrain' (more on this below) rather than just resources
  • More possibilities for galaxy generation and exploration (for example, entire regions of space accessible only through a wormhole or a single guarded hyperlane, containing special locations and events to discover)
  • Better performance through caching and unified code (Wormhole FTL in particular is a massive resource hog in the late game)
  • Warfare with a distinct sense of 'theatres', advancing/retreating fronts and border skirmishes (more on this in future dev diaries)
Are all new forms of FTL free patch content?
Yes. Naturally we're not going to charge for any form of content meant to replace the loss of old FTL types.

Hyperlane and Sublight Travel
As mentioned, in the Cherryh update. all empires will now start the game with Hyperlanes as their only mode of FTL. By default, hyperlane generation is going to be changed to create more 'islands' and 'choke points', to make for more interesting galactic geography. However, as we know some players do not enjoy the idea of constricted space, we are going to add a slider that controls the general frequency and connectivity of hyperlanes. Turning this up will create a more connected galaxy and make it harder to protect all your systems with static defenses, for players who prefer something closer to the current game's Warp-style movement.

Sublight travel is also being changed somewhat, in the sense that you need to actually travel to the entry point to a particular hyperlane (the arrow inside a system) to enter it, rather than being able to enter any hyperlane from any point outside's a system's gravity well. This means that fleets will move in a more predictable fashion, and interdictions will frequently happen inside systems instead of nearly always being at the edge of them, in particular allowing for fleets to 'guard' important hyperlane entry/exit points. To compensate for the need to move across systems, sublight travel has been sped up, especially with more advanced forms of thrusters.
2017_11_02_2.png


FTL Sensors
Along with the change to FTL, we are also changing the way sensors work. Instead of simply being a circle radiating an arbitrary distance from a ship, station or planet, each level of sensors can now see a certain distance in FTL connections. For example, a ship with level 1 sensors (Radar) will only give sensor coverage of the same system that it is currently in, while a ship with level 2 (Gravitic) sensors will give sensor coverage of that system and all systems connected to it through a Hyperlane or explored Wormhole (more on that below), a ship with level 3 sensors will be able to see systems connected to those systems, and so on. Sensor coverage can be 'blocked' by certain galactic features (more on that below), which will also block propagation into further connected systems. We are currently discussing the implementation of sensor blockers as a potential Starbase component.
2017_11_02_1.png


Wormholes
While Wormhole as a full-fledged FTL type is gone, Wormholes are not. Instead they have been changed into a natural formation that can be encountered while exploring the galaxy. Wormholes come in pairs, essentially functioning as very long hyperlanes that can potentially take a ship across the entire galaxy near-instantly. Natural Wormholes are unstable, and when first encountered, you will not be able to explore them. To explore a Wormhole, you need the Wormhole Stabilization technology, after which a science ship can be sent to stabilize and chart the Wormhole to find out what lies on the other side. If you're lucky, this may be unclaimed space full of valuable systems, but it could just as well be a Devouring Swarm eager to come over for dinner. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of wormhole pairs in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_4.png


Gateways
Gateways is an advanced form of FTL most closely resembling the Wormhole FTL in the live version of the game. While exploring the galaxy, you can find abandoned Gateways that were once part of a massive, galaxy-spanning network. These Gateways are disabled and unusable, but with the Gateway Reactivation mid-game technology and a hefty investment of minerals, they can be restored to working order. Like Wormholes, Gateways allow for near-instant travel to other Gateways, but the difference is that any activated Gateway can be used to travel to any other activated Gateway, and late-game technology allows for the construction of more Gateways to expand the network. Also unlike Wormholes, which cannot be 'closed', Gateways also have the advantage of allowing any empire controlling the system they're in to control who goes through said Gateway - hostile empires and empires to whom you have closed your borders will not be able to use 'your' Gateways to just appear inside of your systems.

When the first Gateway is re-activated, another random Gateway will also be re-activated along with it, so that there is never a situation where you just have a single active Gateway going nowhere. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of abandoned gateways in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_8.png


Jump Drives
Jump Drives and Psi Jump Drives have been changed, and is now an advanced form of FTL that mixes Hyperdrive with some functionality from the old Warp FTL. They allow for a ship to travel normally and very quickly along hyperlanes, but also come equipped with a tactical 'jump' functionality that allows a fleet to make a point-to-point jump ignoring the normal hyperlane limitations. This is done with a special fleet order where you select a target system for the jump (within a certain pre-defined range, with Psi Jump Drives having longer range than regular Jump Drives), after which the fleet charges up its jump drive and creates a temporary wormhole leading to the system. After the fleet makes its 'jump', the Jump Drive will need to recharge, with a significant cooldown before it can be used again, and also applies a debuff to the fleet that reduces its combat effectiveness while the cooldown is in effect. This allows for fleets with Jump Drives to ignore the usual FTL restrictions and skip straight past enemy fleets and stations, but at the cost of leaving themselves vulnerable and potentially stranded for a time afterwards. This design is highly experimental, and may change during the development of Cherryh, but we wanted Jump Drives to not just be 'Hyperdrive IV' but rather to unlock new tactical and strategic possibilities for warfare.

Galactic Terrain
With the switch to Hyperlanes and the creation of strategically important systems and chokepoints, we've also decided to implement something we had always thought was a really interesting idea, but which made little sense without such chokepoints: Galactic Terrain. Specifically, systems with environmental effects and hazards that have profound tactical and strategic effects on ships and empires. This is still something we are in the middle of testing and prototyping, but so far we have created the following forms of Galactic Terrain:
Nebulas block all sensor coverage originating from other systems, meaning that it's impossible for an empire to see what ships and stations are inside a system in a nebula without having a ship or station stationed there, allowing empires to hide their fleets and set up ambushes.
Pulsars interfere with deflector technology, nullifying all ship and station shields in a system with a Pulsar.
Neutron Stars interfere with navigation and ship systems, significantly slowing down sublight travel in a system with a Neutron Star.
Black Holes interfere with FTL, increasing the time it takes for a fleet to charge its emergency FTL and making it more difficult to ships to individually disengage from combat (more on this in a later dev diary).

The above is just a first iteration, and it's something we're likely to tweak and build on more for both the Cherryh update and other updates beyond it, so stay tuned for more information on this.
2017_11_02_3.png

2017_11_02_5.png


That's all for today! I will finish this dev diary by saying that we do not expect everyone to be happy with these changes, but we truly believe that they are necessary to give Stellaris truly great warfare, and that we think you will find the game better for it once you get a chance to try them. We will be doing a Design Corner feature on today's Extraterrestial Thursday stream, where me and Game Designer Daniel Moregård (grekulf) will be discussing the changes, fielding questions and showing off some gameplay in the internal development build. If you want a look at some of these changes in a live game environment, be sure to tune to the Paradox Interactive twitch channel at 4pm CET.

Next week, we're going to talk about war and peace, including the complete rework of the current wargoal system that was made possible by the changes to FTL and system control discussed in this and last week's dev diary. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

The Founder

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Mar 13, 2013
13.052
3.159
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Major Wiki Contributor
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Imperator: Rome
I think that this argument to make the game hyperlane only is flawed.
What a luck that there are many arguments to cut it down to one FTL only. And additional ones to pick hyperlane as the one.
 

Nick_Nefarious

Recruit
Nov 8, 2017
1
0
As someone who played hyperlanes twice and was greatly underwhelmed both times and has played Wormhole since, I can say this will be my last update with Stellaris. It was a lot of fun while it lasted but the reasoning makes little sense.

How does static defenses in space make any sense? If you build a Maginot Line in Space there is infinite Belgium to go around it! You don't bring 2 dimension tactics to a 3 dimensional battlefield. Did we learn nothing from the Battle of the Mutara Nebula?

And isn't there already an option to allow Hyperlanes only? So the best reason I can think of for this is that people were having too much fun with Stellaris and the police told them they needed to tone it back some.
 

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
If there is one thing even remotely close to a general view on the mater, it is the Opening Post. On all the later posts it is likely that just the same 10 guys up/downvoted every time. On the Opening Post everyone only voted once. Current tally is:
  • clear.png
    Agree x 973
  • clear.png
    Respectfully Disagree x 300
  • clear.png
    Helpful x 77
1350 Votes total
72.07% Agree
22.22% Respectfully Disagree
about 5.70% Helpfull
(all with normal amount of rounding issues).

So we only have around 22% of Forum goes even disagreeing with this change. And I doubt the bulk of them will be "I disagree so heavily, I will stop playing". That says a lot about the overall acceptance of the change.
 

ORCACommander

Herald At The Gates
85 Badges
Jul 24, 2014
190
203
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • BATTLETECH - Initiate of the Order
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
actually those 77 helpful posts should not be tallied. they show no relevance to the query. Just Null data. they may as well just say thank you for keeping me informed.

Still the data is only marginally useful. We have a subset of subset reporting to us data. Only thing useful about it is that it shows that there is a greater than expected deviation in feedback compared to previous dev blogs.

Just wait until this patch goes live and the steam forums asphyxiates itself in apoplectic rage.

and as for arguments for killing the ftl methods? I have not heard a single one that could bare weight. Even the performance citation has a counter. The counter being, How many different pathfinding algorithms did you try
 

DCParry

Sergeant
39 Badges
May 14, 2012
55
39
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
If there is one thing even remotely close to a general view on the mater, it is the Opening Post. On all the later posts it is likely that just the same 10 guys up/downvoted every time. On the Opening Post everyone only voted once. Current tally is:
  • clear.png
    Agree x 973
  • clear.png
    Respectfully Disagree x 300
  • clear.png
    Helpful x 77
1350 Votes total
72.07% Agree
22.22% Respectfully Disagree
about 5.70% Helpfull
(all with normal amount of rounding issues).

So we only have around 22% of Forum goes even disagreeing with this change. And I doubt the bulk of them will be "I disagree so heavily, I will stop playing". That says a lot about the overall acceptance of the change.

Well, I think it says something, but "a lot" is a pretty big leap. You work off a couple pretty dubious assumptions, first of them being that everyone clicks the little boxes, and second that forum is a useful metric for anything besides forum opinion (especially about something like 'overall acceptance'). While I have no doubt, if they keep the FTL changes, they will be "overall" accepted (lacking any mod recourse), because those still commenting will be the ones hanging around after the change. Now, I doubt there will be any mass exodus, and I am a firm believer that devs should generally not listen to players because we are selfish, loud, love to fight, and are incapable of being satisfied (much like my 3 year old twins), even though I personally disagree with the change. Trying to pass off likes and dislikes as any sort of statistically relevant information is, for a lack of a better word, naughty.
 

Da'Bawesome

Recruit
39 Badges
Nov 8, 2017
6
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
Hi! I have played Stellaris for well since release, and this is killing the thing that i most loved about this game. The multiple forms of FTL . This was a game changer for me. Im a space 4x vet since i was learning to read. No joke i learned to read playing the og Master Of Orion. Try being my parents trying to explain genocide to a 3rd grader in 94 ( When MOO first hit my dads PC) The point is I'm a vet of galactic conquest. So this wonderful game we have been playing comes and does something ground breaking and strategy shattering, three forms of movement! WOW three ways to to expand my empires power. once more three was to invade each needing a different answer for defense. Im sad to see the thing i found most compelling being reduced to generic.
 

Lavo

Corporal
27 Badges
Apr 23, 2008
25
2
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Semper Fi
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Darkest Hour
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II
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.
Seconding this; WRT Stellaris I have not felt that there has been much, if any, meaningful conversation with Stellaris modders as a whole. If there was, things such as the portrait mod debacle of 1.8.0 would not have happened, amongst other tidbits, such as the triggered modifiers situation mentioned by Crusader Vanguard.
 

Taciturn Scot

Major
103 Badges
Jun 10, 2007
538
760
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Divine Wind
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
It's funny how folks are really quick to point to statistics when they favour their particular viewpoint and others try to dismiss them when they don't.

People trying to dismiss the relevance of the number of agrees and helpful votes for the OP would very likely be clamouring for the devs and the rest of us to pay attention to them, and rightfully so, were they to favour the disgrees.

Statistics only seem to matter when they back your viewpoint up. Otherwise, they're to be attacked or ignored.
 

Sopbucket

Captain
81 Badges
Feb 27, 2012
462
276
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Magicka 2
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Rome Gold
  • March of the Eagles
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • King Arthur II
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
As a long time wormhole player, I understand why you guys are doing this, and I appreciate the work you've done to preserve some elements of the old system.

Having three concurrent systems of movement just makes it too difficult to take in the strategic map at a glance, your brain can't really tell what is at risk or what another player might be trying to do. It's too much to process, espeically when you can't tell at a glance which rules a particular fleet follows. Imagine how confusing EU4 would be if half the nations moved by jumping over adjacent provinces instead of passing through them, and there wasn't any kind of indicator on the map to tell you which rules each army adheres to. It totally makes sense that you would need to fix this foundational issue before you could get a decent wargame experience.

Additionally, it makes it impossible to be able to rely on your allies, because you don't know if they can stick with your fleet when it counts. Too often they will arrive at a system too early, or too late, or be intercepted along the way. And yes,static defenses make the game better. If there's a way to make them viable, I say go for it.
 

LordInsane

Lt. General
91 Badges
Nov 1, 2007
1.282
108
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • For The Glory
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • VtM - Bloodlines 2 Blood Moon Edition
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
Gal Civ II has had free warp forever and there is Trade route and Espionage in that game.

So I dont see how limiting FTL is a must.
The answer will be 'GC II is turn-based'. I am, as previous comments might have indicated, not entirely convinced by that argument, but it is the one that has been cited throughout the thread as to why (most) games with free warp are too different to count.
 

Dominiek

Corporal
28 Badges
May 12, 2014
34
112
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Impire
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • War of the Roses
  • Victoria 2
If there is one thing even remotely close to a general view on the mater, it is the Opening Post. On all the later posts it is likely that just the same 10 guys up/downvoted every time. On the Opening Post everyone only voted once. Current tally is:
  • clear.png
    Agree x 973
  • clear.png
    Respectfully Disagree x 300
  • clear.png
    Helpful x 77
1350 Votes total
72.07% Agree
22.22% Respectfully Disagree
about 5.70% Helpfull
(all with normal amount of rounding issues).

So we only have around 22% of Forum goes even disagreeing with this change. And I doubt the bulk of them will be "I disagree so heavily, I will stop playing". That says a lot about the overall acceptance of the change.
It means nothing at all either way. There's zero guarantee that the voters are a representative sample of the Stellaris customer base. The only way to properly poll is to make a selection of the entire customer base according to all sorts of parameters with proper methodology and then to specifically poll those people. It can only be done by Paradox themselves and has to be based on the entire customer base and not just those who frequent the forum.
 

RisenStar

Recruit
36 Badges
Jul 5, 2016
4
0
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
The answer will be 'GC II is turn-based'. I am, as previous comments might have indicated, not entirely convinced by that argument, but it is the one that has been cited throughout the thread as to why (most) games with free warp are too different to count.

Imperium Galactica II. Have not seen that mentioned here but that'd be one I'd cite.

I don't usually post on game forums. I logged in here to say these changes make me very sad. I'm not convinced by the arguments "for" and find several of them to be variations on either non sequiturs or proof-by-assertion. It doesn't solve the primary issues I have with Stellaris and takes away things I really enjoy. I'd give examples but at this point it feels done to death as others have already argued as I would have.

There was never any part of me that wanted to play another game of choke points/forts in space. I thought Sins of a Solar empire was a tedious, if mostly polished, RTS with little to any replay value long term because every game was essentially the same trench-warfare experience. Also, for those who dislike the cat-and-mouse of chasing fleets via different FTL methods, Sins of a Solar Empire absolutely suffered from this even though it had one FTL method. I don't see how this change solves that issue either, except in concert with other changes which, frankly, could be applied to inhibiting any FTL method with a little creativity. (IMO)

If this goes through, I can't see myself enjoying it. "But please try it first" is a noble thing to say, but I've been playing Space 4x games going back to Ascendancy. I'm very familiar with how the starlane mechanic feels and plays out. I simply cannot abide a mechanic that forces me to arbitrarily travel to Hawaii from Boston when I want to go to Orlando. I don't see that as providing more strategic options, but considerably less. It's letting the map make most of the choices for me.

As an aside. This was my first Paradox grand strategy title. The others just didn't interest me much - I place a high value on freedom of movement and do not enjoy turtling as a strategy in a space game. My ideal game would be a mix of MoO 2, Imperium Galactica 2 (real time), and GalCiv. I thought Stellaris would be that. I was really drawn to the possibilities offered by the asymmetry and by this being the game in which Paradox would branch out from what they'd previously done. Was really excited. If this had been billed as yet another node-and-lane game experience... I wouldn't have bothered. It's great if you enjoy that. I can't imagine I will.

I can anticipate the "but mods..." rebuttal. But this seems to fail to understand that if they are going to balance everything around this limited movement mechanic, that any mod that tries to re-engineer that will be extremely hard pressed to make that experience a rewarding one. If the AI now struggles with it, I can't imagine a retooled AI which doesn't even consider asymmetry will function well in such a modded environment.

I'm not really a forum warrior with games. I don't find it to be generally fruitful. I can't say I'll respond much, especially if it's a rehash of everything already being argued. But I did want to express this somewhere that someone who matters in these decisions would be able to see it since I was a customer Paradox got because of their efforts to branch out with Stellaris.
 

mork77

Captain
69 Badges
Dec 23, 2013
339
243
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • 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
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 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
If there is a bug fix in 1.9+ for an issue that existed before 1.9 then I have lost that bug fix.



Then Maybe Just Maybe instead of doing their trickle news cycle they should of just layed everything bare from the outset. it should of not been a one page newsletter. Instead they should of pulled back the curtain a little bit and show us what they have worked on that did not work. Show us their analytics data. Invite several community members onto a closed beta or try an open beta.


I am one of the people who will not be buying future stellaris dlc. I am one of those people who will not play a game post 1.8.3


To everyone saying: Mods will Save it for you! the Mods will Fix it for you!
It is not the responsibility of modders to make up for the failings and shortcomings of developers. The fact they have to do so is a source of recrimination.

Well, since you quoted me.
I of course respect your firm position, but don´t you think it is a little bit early to say, NO, i won´t buy it. NO!

They had 18 dev diaries before Synthetic Dawn came out. From June up to October, That is 4 months.

we now have only 2 diaries. I still advice to be patient and see where this is going to.

If you still feel like this 4-5 months from now, ok. But at this time, there is just not enough information available to make a decision, at least in my opinion
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.441
38.788
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
I'd say Star Wars is much more Sci-Fantasy than Stellaris's Soft-sci, but that's just my personal opinion.
You don't play Spiritualists, do you? :)
 

Praetori

High-Command Scapegoat
81 Badges
Aug 6, 2009
2.869
2.100
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
LOL because space is SO full of things that get in the way of flying a space ship.
At relativistic speeds yes. It's like driving offroad through the forest at night at full speed. A FTL concept wouldn't even survive from Earth through the Oort-cloud (without a cleared and calculated lane).

____________________________________________________________________________

While I'm a big fan of Kirk (peter pan) "Second star to the right" travel it's utterly and completely ridiculous to make any form of statement in regard to "realism" and point to such modes of travel. It's reminiscent of maritime novels in narrative.
ST is all fine and dandy as fiction but ships with shields that get blown away by a photon torpedo or two would have a hard time surviving whats equivalent to planet-destroying energy levels while colliding with any sized object at FTL speeds.

Introduce any type of wand-waving fluff to remedy the issues and we're off into fantasy-land in any case (and any mode of travel from Babylon5, 40K, ST, Stargate or "enter trope here" goes). "Realistic" FTL doesn't exist. It might be theoretically possible to have some specific sets of FTL travel between distant points without violating causality but uninhibited warp isn't one of them (or something fundamental in how we understand the universe is wrong).

People should really try to refrain from using the word "Realistic" in the same sense as FTL travel and no, space is not "empty" at the scale of FTL speeds but rather a shooting gallery (the same can be said for relativistic speeds within a star-system, one unmapped lost wrench (or space pebble or whatnot) being hit at 0.9c by a ship and they're both atoms, or rather plasma).
 
Last edited:

Praetori

High-Command Scapegoat
81 Badges
Aug 6, 2009
2.869
2.100
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
How does static defenses in space make any sense? If you build a Maginot Line in Space there is infinite Belgium to go around it!

And here's the problem (static defenses or not). Stellaris as it currently works makes it possible to NOT go through Belgium (in the political sense) while at the same time going through Belgium (not only making the Maginot folly even more folly but ALSO making Belgium useless).
They're never drawn into the war out of necessity (the aggressor doesn't need to use their space to get to their opponent by outflanking the Maginot) which greatly diminishes the possibilities of political improvements in the game. The same argument can be made for trade, espionage and whatnot.

To get to where the devs are aiming at they would've had to cut Warp and WH down to either extremely short ranges (and then we're basically down to very short hyperlanes but with a tad more freedom) or limited them to only work between certain systems (which is basically the same as hyperlanes). While lowering range might have worked with the concept of borders, terrain, inhibitors and jammers (as in not dragging warp or WH-fleets out of their own range and getting them stuck) it's hard to see that it would've been any less controversial than what they're now looking to implement. Jump-drives, WHs and other modes of travel aren't removed from the game entirely. It's not like we're stuck with sucky hyperlanes for eternity but the more efficient modes of travel have been reworked and moved up in the tech-tree.
 
Last edited:

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
Are you familiar with the difference between "hard" and "soft" science fiction... 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.
Yes. I am familiar with everything you have mentioned here except for the "tvtropes" scale itself. Honestly I debated removing the "hard" term from my post because I wasn't necessarily speaking in such specific terms. BTW Star Wars doesn't use hyerlanes. At least not the movies. They use hyperspace. Han's dialog about having to navigate hyperspace (coming out into an asteroid collision etc...) with precision navigation is completley contrary to the concept of star lanes.

Your statement, while informative, is based on a failed attempt at visiting my intentions. You have no idea who I am, what I know, or why I do things. My reasons for buying this game has nothing to do with their view of scientific accuracy. I don't expect that of games unless it is part of the game to begin with. My reasons for loving this game is because it is so moddable. I can make it scientifically accurate if I want to. My reasons for loving this game is because of all of the choices I have and those choices make it fun. I chose this game partly because I wasn't stuck with star lanes (I am not a fan). Now they want to take some of those critical choices away; so pardon me if I use my freedom of speech to express my opinion and my reasons for disliking their decision.
 
Last edited:

Jerkops

Sergeant
43 Badges
Jul 17, 2012
90
8
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
If there is one thing even remotely close to a general view on the mater, it is the Opening Post. On all the later posts it is likely that just the same 10 guys up/downvoted every time. On the Opening Post everyone only voted once. Current tally is:
  • clear.png
    Agree x 973
  • clear.png
    Respectfully Disagree x 300
  • clear.png
    Helpful x 77
1350 Votes total
72.07% Agree
22.22% Respectfully Disagree
about 5.70% Helpfull
(all with normal amount of rounding issues).

So we only have around 22% of Forum goes even disagreeing with this change. And I doubt the bulk of them will be "I disagree so heavily, I will stop playing". That says a lot about the overall acceptance of the change.
Most people agree with Wiz that these changes are good for the game and have moved on from this thread. The ones who aren't happy about it are still posting here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.