• 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:

Malecord

Graf
66 Badges
May 13, 2016
802
937
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II
That cooldown was done so that the devs beloved Hyperlanes were at least somewhat competitive with a clearly superior concept of movement. Which Warp and WH both are ;)

Yeah... well. They were trying to harmonize a little the long distance speeds. Maybe.

But in reality it was hyperlanes that was nerfed the most soon after release. The whole idea behind them was to give less mobility and speed on longer distances, but superior short distance speed and combat flexibility. They were infact the only FTL available inside a system gravity well. This combined with their superior short range speed made them the most versatile once on the battlefront. They were the last to arrive to the war, but once there they were the nastier to avoid or escape from.

It was much easier to send a fleet in an unprotected system, make pandemonium and then FTL out from the very center of the star system when the enemy fleet finally arrived. You couldn't possibly remain "trapped" inside a system after or during a chase.

I played and enjoyed this hyperlane unique feature when Stellaris was released. I never understood why it was removed immediately after (I guess people was complaining that they were to op?). Once their peculiarity was removed they became neatly inferior to the other 2 under all aspects. This is something everyone agrees on.
 

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
Casuals are infact the first to leave when things stop being interesting or when the game changes and they don't like it anymore. See Pokémon go for instance.

If anything grand strategy and 4x are niches so the mindset of the players here is much less casual than f2p.

Well, I am (or at least, I regard myself as) a casual player, and I am very interested in Stellaris -- and the fact that I won't need to waste my time micromanagement my defenses in a way that allow me to fight against oponents that use other FTL techs beyond Hyperlanes is a very welcome change! I am anxious for this Cherry update and any change that it can bring. :)
 

Fason

Recruit
17 Badges
Nov 9, 2017
3
0
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris
  • Magicka 2
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Crusader Kings II
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Magicka
theory craft, but this might take a bit of coding to work, is to have warp drives but you can make a sort of "net" to force hostile fleets to the space fort. Have a part for the fort that creates a sphere of influence, then you need to put beacons in other systems so when a hostile fleet goes to, or between, the beacon and star fort, the hostile fleet is redirected to the fort. This would solve the "hyper lane is restrictive" complaint as well as allowing for defensive lines to be set. sorry if this idea has already been pitched, but I am not looking through over 4,000 other messages to find out QQ
 

Melfice_Cyrum

Sergeant
16 Badges
Jun 26, 2016
55
26
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
Like I said. The burden of proof is on the devs to convince us that they have tried alternatives. So far all they have done is say Trust Us and hand waiving the question away.

If you read the dev diary, they did. They discussed the issue at length. He even talked about how things like trying to create multiple means to disrupt all three forms of FTL travel would've been a giant mess. They did look into alternatives. However the conclusion was reached that Hyperlanes allowed them to work with the new systems of gameplay and the new mechanics best.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
If you read the dev diary, they did. They discussed the issue at length. He even talked about how things like trying to create multiple means to disrupt all three forms of FTL travel would've been a giant mess. They did look into alternatives. However the conclusion was reached that Hyperlanes allowed them to work with the new systems of gameplay and the new mechanics best.

What can I say... "I have tried, I have looked into alternatives" is not a result, its a weak excuse. The result is: "I have failed to change game in a way I want and keep FTLs, which is loved by many". I don't know WHAT can compensate it, actually. What change was so important and cool to through away key feature.
 

Tomn_Peng

Captain
109 Badges
Oct 31, 2006
354
48
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
theory craft, but this might take a bit of coding to work, is to have warp drives but you can make a sort of "net" to force hostile fleets to the space fort. Have a part for the fort that creates a sphere of influence, then you need to put beacons in other systems so when a hostile fleet goes to, or between, the beacon and star fort, the hostile fleet is redirected to the fort. This would solve the "hyper lane is restrictive" complaint as well as allowing for defensive lines to be set. sorry if this idea has already been pitched, but I am not looking through over 4,000 other messages to find out QQ

This idea HAS already been pitched...in the OP.

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.

Short version is, the problem isn't just that Warp is hard to make strategic defense points for because there ARE potential solutions for that. The problem is that those potential solutions, when added to all the other potential solutions you need for each and every available FTL drive system, becomes an unintuitive mess to the player. This is the key issue with multiple FTL drives from a design perspective: Each drive system, individually, can be worked around to create interesting warfare, but when everything is added together things start getting exponentially more complex for both the player and the designer to wrap their heads around. It'd be rather like trying to develop a major highway intersection when you need that intersection to simultaneously incorporate the highway, railroad tracks, bicycle paths, and a space for cattle drives for good measure.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
Short version is, the problem isn't just that Warp is hard to make strategic defense points for because there ARE potential solutions for that. The problem is that those potential solutions, when added to all the other potential solutions you need for each and every available FTL drive system, becomes an unintuitive mess to the player. This is the key issue with multiple FTL drives from a design perspective: Each drive system, individually, can be worked around to create interesting warfare, but when everything is added together things start getting exponentially more complex for both the player and the designer to wrap their heads around. It'd be rather like trying to develop a major highway intersection when you need that intersection to simultaneously incorporate the highway, railroad tracks, bicycle paths, and a space for cattle drives for good measure.

But the problem itself is artificial. If look at every good game you may see different mekanicas. Some are simple and close to "click and win", they don't need much attentin to be effective. Others can be performed only by those who can manage them and give better results. We don't need auto-buid gubernators for all systems, each player can concentrate on specific traditions and governments to have 20+ controlable systems. Not many people can manage them in real-time, for most it is mess, but you can have it.

Look at non space 4x games. Will you be happy if there would be only pre-located roads to move on? No, you can move any direction, like in warp. Warmholes can be easily disabled by one simple module, which you can put on each one of your outposts. And even if still seems a mess, you can add one small checklist in start menu: which FTLs players and AI can use. Let those who can handle different FTLs have them. Give me abbility to manage more complex FTL rules, let me dicide. I have this choise now, don't take it from me.

the game already now has to much points to take care of: diplomacy, factions and happiness, leaders, shroud, techs and races. Do many people actually manage population allocation on planets in late-game? I have 100+planets with migration, I don't really go into this in late game, but Devs keep making it more and more complex, rebelancing sinths and genetical modifications. Because many players like this part of game, like divercity. Like modifing concured species into tastefull ones. I like different FTLs. Lets us choose what kind of mess we really want to dive into.
 

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
The problem is that there is no "magical formula" to make both the different types of FTL less messy, or to the war more interesting and less boring. The only way that the devs found to make such changes was to make Hyperlanes the default FTL of the game -- and I am very happy with that decision, once that not everyone has the patience to waste time with micromanagement. Like you said, we already have too much micromanagement in the game. So let the devs get rid of the excesses.
 
Last edited:

Nelliel

Private
31 Badges
Nov 8, 2017
17
0
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Age of Wonders III
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II
Oh yes, I'm totally trilled about the least liked, most tedious FTL becoming the default. Have they seriously ever tried playing a pacifist nation (or worse fanatic pacifist) and having the hyper-lanes being blocked by purifier, or anything which will hate you no matter what. Have they tried a hyper-lane only game, I wonder.

(Edit) If you don't know why I call it tedious, try a spiral galaxy with 1000 stars. To get to something which is basically one wormhole jump away, you might need to make a good 100 jumps.

This seem to be case of "it's going to be easier this way", until they figure out they need to do a complete AI balance. The AI is totally incapable of to figure out what to do with an empire which builds a post on the bottleneck, closes the border and that's it. A human opponent will see that through and preemptively destroy that outpost before it gets fortified.

And yes I did join the forum to let you know that.
I think thats part of the point 1 jump for a wormhole player 100 for hyper and lets say 35 for warp (that will prob take longer than the hyper due to windup/down) just points out how op wormhole's were from a war prespective though im a hyper only player iv played alot with all on (iv even stat bk as a FE and watched how things go) and the wormhole players are much better off mid to late when wars are happening yes it sucked a little early as it limited your exploration but thats jsut the same as hyperlan players running into pirates etc (even more of an issue with the changes)

Lets look at it this way you start a war with someone that doenst have WH (you do) you start war seconds later you feet is sat on there homeworld bombing it if there ships arive jump back and pick something on the other side of there space they cant get to you fast enough(yes i understand this could also be the fualt of doomstack playing) and personly i dont see why wormhole inhibs were not a thing in the base game it didnt even need to be something small 1 station that puts a area up (like sensors) that A) stops you from warping inside at all
B) pushes your jump outside of the bubblle (i dont like this way as it could push your fleet outside of being able to get bk)

All in all im looking forward to the changes gateways and natural wromholes etc
 

Nelliel

Private
31 Badges
Nov 8, 2017
17
0
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Age of Wonders III
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II
But the problem itself is artificial. If look at every good game you may see different mekanicas. Some are simple and close to "click and win", they don't need much attentin to be effective. Others can be performed only by those who can manage them and give better results. We don't need auto-buid gubernators for all systems, each player can concentrate on specific traditions and governments to have 20+ controlable systems. Not many people can manage them in real-time, for most it is mess, but you can have it.
I think people forget yes its a game but they trying to make it realistic i doubt a gov could manage 20 systems when you consider thats trillions of people but i think thats the RP side of me showing
 

Tomn_Peng

Captain
109 Badges
Oct 31, 2006
354
48
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
But the problem itself is artificial. If look at every good game you may see different mekanicas. Some are simple and close to "click and win", they don't need much attentin to be effective. Others can be performed only by those who can manage them and give better results. We don't need auto-buid gubernators for all systems, each player can concentrate on specific traditions and governments to have 20+ controlable systems. Not many people can manage them in real-time, for most it is mess, but you can have it.

Look at non space 4x games. Will you be happy if there would be only pre-located roads to move on? No, you can move any direction, like in warp. Warmholes can be easily disabled by one simple module, which you can put on each one of your outposts. And even if still seems a mess, you can add one small checklist in start menu: which FTLs players and AI can use. Let those who can handle different FTLs have them. Give me abbility to manage more complex FTL rules, let me dicide. I have this choise now, don't take it from me.

the game already now has to much points to take care of: diplomacy, factions and happiness, leaders, shroud, techs and races. Do many people actually manage population allocation on planets in late-game? I have 100+planets with migration, I don't really go into this in late game, but Devs keep making it more and more complex, rebelancing sinths and genetical modifications. Because many players like this part of game, like divercity. Like modifing concured species into tastefull ones. I like different FTLs. Lets us choose what kind of mess we really want to dive into.

I understand your position, but I also understand it from the point of view of the devs. Let's take your issue with 20+ controllable systems. As you say, micromanaging all that is a mess, but it's the sort of mess that some people like and it's good that they have the option to handle it. Fine and well - but people who can't or don't want to handle that don't HAVE to handle it if they don't want to. That's key, as you say, isn't it?

But if you're designing strategic gameplay for warfare, you CAN'T make it something that others don't handle. You CAN'T turn it off. As a designer, you HAVE to create a warfare system that works for every kind of FTL in play, and every player HAS to interact with that system because you can't very well turn off combat. It's a mess that IS forced on everybody who plays, whether they can handle it or not. And while you can argue that people should be fine if you allow them to restrict themselves to whatever specific FTL systems they want, it doesn't work that way from a game design perspective because as a designer, you STILL have to implement the various UI widgets to allow people to comprehend those FTL systems whether they're playing with them or not, and you STILL have a make a coherent strategic combat system that incorporates every single FTL system because you can't assume that people are necessarily going to play with one or another off. Asking the designers to create a combat system that not only incorporates each FTL drive system, but also works fine if some of them are restricted is...a lot of work. An unrealistic amount of work, in fact. And the end result is still going to be something that a LOT of people are going to be confused with and upset by - but they won't have a choice, because that particular mess is so central and fundamental to gameplay that there's no escaping it.

You want the option to play with weird, complex, crunchy rules, and I get that. Heck, I even think it could be kinda interesting, though in the long run I'm not sure how much I'd care for it. But the problem is that when it comes to something as central as warfare, it isn't an option - if you design a complex combat system, it's something that EVERYBODY has to deal with and they have no choice in the matter. Either way the devs go, someone is going to be burdened with a choice they don't want, and they reckoned - correctly, I think - that more people would be annoyed at being stuck with a complex, unintuitive mess of a combat system than would be annoyed at being stuck with hyperlanes, even if those who were annoyed by the FTL changes likely felt quite strongly about it.

It's unfortunate for you and for those who felt really strongly about FTL for whatever reason...but from a gameplay design perspective, it really does make sense. And ultimately, gameplay design is Paradox's job.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
So let the devs get rid of the excesses.

You don't need such formula. You simly need to find the solution. Cutt the key feachure - is not a solution, sorry. If you can't improve what you have - do not touch it till you can find one. Game has a lof other problems to solve, a lot of other things to make better.

And yes, cutting of FTLs will surely make war more boring. Different from what it is now, but pritty much same to what we have in other 4x space games. Seen it different variations many times, it is boring even before I started to play. Details may change, but general line - never.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
I understand your position, but I also understand it from the point of view of the devs. Let's take your issue with 20+ controllable systems. As you say, micromanaging all that is a mess, but it's the sort of mess that some people like and it's good that they have the option to handle it. Fine and well - but people who can't or don't want to handle that don't HAVE to handle it if they don't want to. That's key, as you say, isn't it?

But if you're designing strategic gameplay for warfare, you CAN'T make it something that others don't handle. You CAN'T turn it off. As a designer, you HAVE to create a warfare system that works for every kind of FTL in play, and every player HAS to interact with that system because you can't very well turn off combat. It's a mess that IS forced on everybody who plays, whether they can handle it or not. And while you can argue that people should be fine if you allow them to restrict themselves to whatever specific FTL systems they want, it doesn't work that way from a game design perspective because as a designer, you STILL have to implement the various UI widgets to allow people to comprehend those FTL systems whether they're playing with them or not, and you STILL have a make a coherent strategic combat system that incorporates every single FTL system because you can't assume that people are necessarily going to play with one or another off. Asking the designers to create a combat system that not only incorporates each FTL drive system, but also works fine if some of them are restricted is...a lot of work. An unrealistic amount of work, in fact. And the end result is still going to be something that a LOT of people are going to be confused with and upset by - but they won't have a choice, because that particular mess is so central and fundamental to gameplay that there's no escaping it.

You want the option to play with weird, complex, crunchy rules, and I get that. Heck, I even think it could be kinda interesting, though in the long run I'm not sure how much I'd care for it. But the problem is that when it comes to something as central as warfare, it isn't an option - if you design a complex combat system, it's something that EVERYBODY has to deal with and they have no choice in the matter. Either way the devs go, someone is going to be burdened with a choice they don't want, and they reckoned - correctly, I think - that more people would be annoyed at being stuck with a complex, unintuitive mess of a combat system than would be annoyed at being stuck with hyperlanes, even if those who were annoyed by the FTL changes likely felt quite strongly about it.

It's unfortunate for you and for those who felt really strongly about FTL for whatever reason...but from a gameplay design perspective, it really does make sense. And ultimately, gameplay design is Paradox's job.

You forget one thing. All this people foced to play a mess has chosen to play it from the start, from the 4-th dev diary, from the day thay purchased the game. And all thess suffering people suffer this system for hundrets of hours, clame game to be best in 4x space. None of top-mods cuff FTLs, by the way. Was is really so bad? So bad to cause 200+ pages of protests? I don't think so.

As I sad before, all previous modifications changed game by making it bugger. This one changes it by making it smaller. And it is wrong direction for 4x.
 

Nelliel

Private
31 Badges
Nov 8, 2017
17
0
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Age of Wonders III
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II
The anything goes Games show the inferiority of Hyperlanes as a Concept. Making actions of your counterpart more predictable etc does not add strategic depth. It will make the Game worse
No it just shows how overpowered Wromholes are WD was meh 300 day winddown on fleets at wartime was a killer even more so when you had 2 or more jumps left to get to the system
 

Tomn_Peng

Captain
109 Badges
Oct 31, 2006
354
48
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
You forget one thing. All this people foced to play a mess has chosen to play it from the start, from the 4-th dev diary, from the day thay purchased the game. And all thess suffering people suffer this system for hundrets of hours, clame game to be best in 4x space. None of top-mods cuff FTLs, by the way. Was is really so bad? So bad to cause 200+ pages of protests? I don't think so.

As I sad before, all previous modifications changed game by making it bugger. This one changes it by making it smaller. And it is wrong direction for 4x.

Well, no, you misunderstand. The mess isn't what currently exists - what is in place now is uninspiring and not terribly interesting, but it's easy enough to understand for the player. The mess I'm talking about is what will happen if they tried to add coherent strategic depth to warfare while still incorporating all three FTL systems - THAT would be an interface and design clusterbugger. And warfare is widely agreed to be one of Stellaris's weakest points, in desperate need of a revamp, even by those who like the rest of the game - I think it's difficult to find many people who are truly happy with and satisfied with warfare as it currently exists. Something had to be done, and given the choice between making warfare absurdly complex to accommodate the pre-existing FTL structures while still being new and interesting and streamlining it into something more coherent and intuitive, the devs went for the latter. That's my argument, not that the existing system is complex.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Interesting warfare.

Looked at the new Dev Diary on the warfare, which those changes look like they will help a lot on the interesting warfare front, though I still don't see those changes necessitating the removal of the other FTL Types.

It'd be rather like trying to develop a major highway intersection when you need that intersection to simultaneously incorporate the highway, railroad tracks, bicycle paths, and a space for cattle drives for good measure.

Welcome to my home state :) Get intersections like this around here fairly frequently and they work just fine by the way.

But if you're designing strategic gameplay for warfare, you CAN'T make it something that others don't handle. You CAN'T turn it off. As a designer, you HAVE to create a warfare system that works for every kind of FTL in play, and every player HAS to interact with that system because you can't very well turn off combat. It's a mess that IS forced on everybody who plays, whether they can handle it or not. And while you can argue that people should be fine if you allow them to restrict themselves to whatever specific FTL systems they want, it doesn't work that way from a game design perspective because as a designer, you STILL have to implement the various UI widgets to allow people to comprehend those FTL systems whether they're playing with them or not, and you STILL have a make a coherent strategic combat system that incorporates every single FTL system because you can't assume that people are necessarily going to play with one or another off. Asking the designers to create a combat system that not only incorporates each FTL drive system, but also works fine if some of them are restricted is...a lot of work. An unrealistic amount of work, in fact. And the end result is still going to be something that a LOT of people are going to be confused with and upset by - but they won't have a choice, because that particular mess is so central and fundamental to gameplay that there's no escaping it.

But yet games like Overwatch and League of Legends can manage to have wildly asymmetrical balance to them as well as a much larger burden of knowledge on the player when start having to keep track of how every character behaves and work just fine? But yet three different movement types in a wargame with everything else essentially identical, is impossible to find a correct balance to? To put things closer to a war game perspective, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Age of Wonders, and I am sure people can name a few more games that managed to achieve an asymmetrical balance between sides with much more differences to them besides a lone movement type. It is because of this, I still am not convinced the FTL removal is necessary.
 

Tomn_Peng

Captain
109 Badges
Oct 31, 2006
354
48
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
But yet games like Overwatch and League of Legends can manage to have wildly asymmetrical balance to them as well as a much larger burden of knowledge on the player when start having to keep track of how every character behaves and work just fine? But yet three different movement types in a wargame with everything else essentially identical, is impossible to find a correct balance to? To put things closer to a war game perspective, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Age of Wonders, and I am sure people can name a few more games that managed to achieve an asymmetrical balance between sides with much more differences to them besides a lone movement type. It is because of this, I still am not convinced the FTL removal is necessary.

The problem isn't actually balance, though that does make things more tricky - the biggest issue is interface complexity and intuitive understanding, and in that regard League of Legends is actually a really good example because it's notorious for being violently unfriendly to new players who haven't learned the ropes. A well-balanced system means nothing when most people are annoyed, confused, and frustrated trying to figure out the system in question and how to actually do anything meaningful with them. A system of hyperlanes with chokepoints, fortresses, and terrain makes immediate intuitive sense to almost everyone here, and from that basis almost everyone can start working out the strategies and tactics you need to work with that system. A system of hyperlane interdictors, warp nets and wormhole traps on the other hand is fuzzy and unintuitive and for most would require a fair bit of headscratching to figure out the meta and the correct strategies to deal with these on a basic level. Paradox as a game designer is trying to create a gameplay system where you DON'T need to figure out the meta just to get by, and that's what including complex systems for all three FTL drives would have entailed - at least in their judgement.

Welcome to my home state :) Get intersections like this around here fairly frequently and they work just fine by the way.

Yeah, I had a feeling that wasn't necessarily the best analogy, but even so it still does give some insight into the design headache it would be to create something like that. Also, cattle drives? Really?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.