• 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:

Mavkiel

Major
22 Badges
Jun 10, 2017
585
49
  • Crusader Kings II
  • King Arthur II
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
The more I hear about these changes the better I think they are. It's saying something because I only play as a wormhole empire. I think the changes will open up the possibility of defending against superior fleets.

Also, did anyone watch some of the new videos that showed numbers with the fleet name? Like 1st fleet (4/10). I get the feeling thats a stab at removing doom stacks. Also they brought back the ability to change how the fleet engages, opposed to the current rush in and get slaughtered strategy. So we get the ability to create choke points, some work on doom stacks, ability to alter fleet AI..
 

Mavkiel

Major
22 Badges
Jun 10, 2017
585
49
  • Crusader Kings II
  • King Arthur II
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
Keep thinking about some of the changes of this patch, they also showed the artificial wormholes. Enemy fleets can't access wormholes under your control.

For the most part I think that's fine, but how neat would it be if there was an admiral trait that allowed you to bypass that safeguard? That could be your raiding leader. A person capable of making strikes deep in enemy territory, but can't be easily reinforced by other fleets.
 

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
At this point, I am just curious if I can turn up the amount of hyperlanes, so all stars are connected, and turn off the damned hyperlane interface.

I am not a fan of the change, but the ultimate insult to injury is how ugly the hyperlane map is on my pretty galaxy!
 

MILINTarctrooper

Private
21 Badges
Nov 2, 2017
19
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
May I play Devil's Advocate
Why wasn't there a fourth option?

1) Warp
2) Wormhole
3)HyperDrive [With a modification to place hyperspace and hyperlane beacons to added benefit. Basically Warp Drive but forced to hop between systems, until you start placing hyperlanes.]
4) Precursor Starlane System. -Your Civ discovers an ancient Precursor Star Lane Archive and the plans for the Precursor Star Drive. [you have to research the archive to unlock star lanes over time; also special events to unlock lost starlane connections.] Your empire intitually has a rather large zone of known recovered star lanes, but in order to go further across the galaxy you need to do both research or special events that unlock and reveal new star lanes. So it has strategic advantage or disadvantage.

5) Sandbox mode-Starlanes as default...basically Cheryl update.
 

TheShadowKick

Recruit
Nov 13, 2017
1
0
Reading this FTL dev diary gave me an interesting idea. What if you had to survey hyperlanes before you could use them, making your exploration a more deliberate choice rather than shoving your starting corvettes through a dozen systems every game start?

It could also lead to interesting situations where you and a rival have fortified your borders but you stumble onto another route into their territory, letting you launch a surprise attack into their vulnerable sides and rear. Anyone who's read David Weber's In Death Ground and The Shiva Option knows how fun this sort of thing can be.
 

ImpalerWrG

First Lieutenant
14 Badges
Feb 26, 2012
234
249
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
Cross posted from another thread where folks felt I destroyed the devs arguments.


May players are rightly pissed about these FTL changes because the justification we were given is a strawman of developer incompetency.

They claimed that 1) It would be necessary to have different types of snares for each FTL type, WRONG, a single universal snare just needs to have different effects on each FTL appropriate to how that FTL works.

They then claim 2) It would be too confusing to visualize the area of the snare on the map, WRONG both by the fact that the number is NOT excessive and by the extensive use of map overlays and visual effect already created by moders.
 

Boygor

Second Lieutenant
13 Badges
May 18, 2017
133
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
Cross posted from another thread where folks felt I destroyed the devs arguments.


May players are rightly pissed about these FTL changes because the justification we were given is a strawman of developer incompetency.

They claimed that 1) It would be necessary to have different types of snares for each FTL type, WRONG, a single universal snare just needs to have different effects on each FTL appropriate to how that FTL works.

They then claim 2) It would be too confusing to visualize the area of the snare on the map, WRONG both by the fact that the number is NOT excessive and by the extensive use of map overlays and visual effect already created by moders.

The reasons the Devs cited are nonsense and there has been literally nothing in the other Dev diaries (so far) that would lend credence to their claims... I strongly suspect that they have business related constraints that they have to work with (time and money) and have simply picked the cheaper option.

I design solutions for a living and deal with managerial incompetence on a daily basis. This reeks of my workplace! :)
 

LeanneKaos

First Lieutenant
24 Badges
May 11, 2016
255
9
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
The more I hear about these changes the better I think they are. It's saying something because I only play as a wormhole empire. I think the changes will open up the possibility of defending against superior fleets.

The only thing I've seen in these changes that really opens up that possibility is the promised nerfing/removal of doomstacks, which at this point is something that we have no details on yet beyond "it's on the agenda."

What I fear *this* particular set of changes will do is solidify the "doomstack or GTFO" scenarios with the combination of chokepoints + static defenses being reworked into relevance. Put that into combination with the whole "wait no doomstacks either" promise... and I can see it easily turning into staring contests more than anything else. Unless the AI just turns out to be relatively weak at the whole "establishing and fortifying chokepoints" subgame, but I'm not sure that's something one should be hoping for.


Reading this FTL dev diary gave me an interesting idea. What if you had to survey hyperlanes before you could use them, making your exploration a more deliberate choice rather than shoving your starting corvettes through a dozen systems every game start?

It sounds cool in concept, but likely to be tedious and stifling in practice; my scientists already have more than enough to do in the early game, while my early fleet has very little to do other than poking their noses around to see what's out there. I guess I could always add more of them to the mix, but (assuming these surveys still require an actual scientist character on board) then I'm eating into my early influence reserves and leader cap.

They claimed that 1) It would be necessary to have different types of snares for each FTL type, WRONG, a single universal snare just needs to have different effects on each FTL appropriate to how that FTL works.

This is basically the same thing from a development perspective; you're still basically coding three different types of snares, you're just amalgamating them into one 'object' at the end. The amalgamation part at the end just makes it *look* like they're different things to the end user.
(No argument on the second point, though.)
 

Gudadantza

Recruit
30 Badges
Apr 19, 2010
2
0
  • Deus Vult
  • Magicka 2
  • Semper Fi
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pride of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
I bought the game because the warp option was fresh air in the mechanics these kind of games suffered during a lot of time.
I dislike hypelanes I dislike high speeds in sublight travelling.
The game is pointing to generic and mediocre mechanics and developers are trying to break all that made Stellaris special in concept.
All of this only have an answer to me. Lack of design and improvisation.
 

OverthinkingThis

Second Lieutenant
18 Badges
May 17, 2017
143
0
  • Magicka
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
Cross posted from another thread where folks felt I destroyed the devs arguments.


May players are rightly pissed about these FTL changes because the justification we were given is a strawman of developer incompetency.

They claimed that 1) It would be necessary to have different types of snares for each FTL type, WRONG, a single universal snare just needs to have different effects on each FTL appropriate to how that FTL works.

They then claim 2) It would be too confusing to visualize the area of the snare on the map, WRONG both by the fact that the number is NOT excessive and by the extensive use of map overlays and visual effect already created by moders.


Personally I interpreted (1) as not three different types of snares but 3 different behaviors for the same snare being detrimental. Hyperspace would work as live, warp would need to have an AoE around a system to 'intercept' a fleet passing by a system and wormhole would have to block (wormhole would need to block to prevent a defender from pulling a fleet outside of the attackers wormhole range and forcing them to only be able to MIA out). Those are all the necessary objectives of a snare design. However the confusion comes in when you have non-ideal cases. What happens when a hyperspace fleet jumps to a system within a station's warp 'pull' range Do they get pulled to the station or are hyperspace fleets exempt? What happens when a warp fleet jumps through two 'pull' ranges? Are they pulled by the last station so they're as far away from their own territory as possible or the first station they hit to start a fight ASAP? Do you let the player control that behavior? How large is too large for a pull range when you have to consider both small and large maps? How do you prevent station spamming so someone can simply never jump into your territory without fighting through literally every system you own due to pull overlap? And worst of all how do you balance the numbers so all three FTL types feel okay to use as opposed to completely invalidating one (Do you remember when hyperspace was king in terms of speed/power? So many valid complaints...)?

(2) is kind of tied to above, it's more intuitively showing the behaviors of a snare mechanic to all 3 FTL types while simultaneously not allowing an unfortunate assumption of cross behaviour (i.e. warp pull range pulling hypespace or wormhole blocking warp)
 

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
I would like to propose a different approach to FTL Snare functionality for all 3 FTL types.
What if Snare is not to pull but to force enemy fleets to travel through a system with snare module.

How it would work?

When a player builds a snare module in his starbase the game chooses for him all other star systems in certain radius (or even player do it manually and with each level of snare module he can add additional star systems on longer ranges). Only systems that are not already chosen by other snares can be chosen and those who have no snare modules, and only systems within borders can be chosen. (I personally think that building levels of snare and allow player to change/configure systems would be best solution but I understand that for many it might mean micro). For auto it would mean that who is first it catches the star, if snare lvl changes the highest level is taken first.
So we have a starbase with module and let’s say 3 nearby systems affected with our snare effect.
Whenever a system calculates a path for a fleet for an enemy player, and a system with snare effect is part of the path, the path is recalculated to include a system with snare module as a preceding step (if possible).
It would work for ALL FTLs.
· Hyperlane – first travel by hyperlanes to star with snare module, then to that star with snare effect and then to the destination.
· Warp - the same
· Wormhole – the same, it would mean that first jumps have to be done in such a way that it would have to go through system with snare module first.

Sometimes the new path could be longer and through many other systems or even unreachable bcs of limitations of range/borders etc. In this scenario Player would get information that this system is unreachable bcs of snare effect by starbase on system X.
Stars with snare systems could be linked somehow (graphically) on the map with each other to quickly tell a player that snare effect is in place for those systems.
off course with long range warp/wormholes it would be possible to jump over snare effects, which in my opinion is fine (high level tech beats static defenses)
 

Obak

Hiiii-aaa hiiii-aa!
62 Badges
Mar 22, 2012
142
20
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • War of the Roses
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Majesty 2
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
Personally I interpreted (1) as not three different types of snares but 3 different behaviors for the same snare being detrimental. Hyperspace would work as live, warp would need to have an AoE around a system to 'intercept' a fleet passing by a system and wormhole would have to block (wormhole would need to block to prevent a defender from pulling a fleet outside of the attackers wormhole range and forcing them to only be able to MIA out). Those are all the necessary objectives of a snare design. However the confusion comes in when you have non-ideal cases. What happens when a hyperspace fleet jumps to a system within a station's warp 'pull' range Do they get pulled to the station or are hyperspace fleets exempt? What happens when a warp fleet jumps through two 'pull' ranges? Are they pulled by the last station so they're as far away from their own territory as possible or the first station they hit to start a fight ASAP? Do you let the player control that behavior? How large is too large for a pull range when you have to consider both small and large maps? How do you prevent station spamming so someone can simply never jump into your territory without fighting through literally every system you own due to pull overlap? And worst of all how do you balance the numbers so all three FTL types feel okay to use as opposed to completely invalidating one (Do you remember when hyperspace was king in terms of speed/power? So many valid complaints...)?

(2) is kind of tied to above, it's more intuitively showing the behaviors of a snare mechanic to all 3 FTL types while simultaneously not allowing an unfortunate assumption of cross behaviour (i.e. warp pull range pulling hypespace or wormhole blocking warp)
Warp drive + fuel cells would still be a better solution than star lanes
 

ImpalerWrG

First Lieutenant
14 Badges
Feb 26, 2012
234
249
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
The reasons the Devs cited are nonsense and there has been literally nothing in the other Dev diaries (so far) that would lend credence to their claims... I strongly suspect that they have business related constraints that they have to work with (time and money) and have simply picked the cheaper option.

I design solutions for a living and deal with managerial incompetence on a daily basis. This reeks of my workplace! :)

That sounds about right to me, they decided to cut their coding work and stop supporting the 3 FTL types. But just admitting that were being shafted due to business decisions they give us a sop-story about 'game-play demands it' to throw us off.

This is a bait and switch, and that is on top of the fact the game was basically RELEASED IN BETA, it has never been anywhere near done, with a whole multitude of unfinished cludge systems that make a mockery of 'grand-strategy' and has profoundly soured me on all Paradox products going forward, I can not even trust fan reviews of future projects as their are too many fanboi fools that will rate everything as perfect even if incomplete because 'Paradox has such good post release support' well we know that is a lie now. More then a year after release they still have not even finished BETA to get the game to proper Release. And now they are openly admitting that they CANNOT and WILL NOT ever finish the game. You can be assured I an and many other will be giving the game a thumbs-down on Steam.
 

OverthinkingThis

Second Lieutenant
18 Badges
May 17, 2017
143
0
  • Magicka
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
Warp drive + fuel cells would still be a better solution than star lanes

A fuel/supply mechanic is an entirely separate discussion (and by no means a bad idea) and doesn't 'solve' anything in this subject. As for warp, well while that is definitely relevant I'm not interested in repeating the same exact conversation that's been had a dozen times now. I'll agree to disagree.
 

Boygor

Second Lieutenant
13 Badges
May 18, 2017
133
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
That sounds about right to me, they decided to cut their coding work and stop supporting the 3 FTL types. But just admitting that were being shafted due to business decisions they give us a sop-story about 'game-play demands it' to throw us off.

This is a bait and switch, and that is on top of the fact the game was basically RELEASED IN BETA, it has never been anywhere near done, with a whole multitude of unfinished cludge systems that make a mockery of 'grand-strategy' and has profoundly soured me on all Paradox products going forward, I can not even trust fan reviews of future projects as their are too many fanboi fools that will rate everything as perfect even if incomplete because 'Paradox has such good post release support' well we know that is a lie now. More then a year after release they still have not even finished BETA to get the game to proper Release. And now they are openly admitting that they CANNOT and WILL NOT ever finish the game. You can be assured I an and many other will be giving the game a thumbs-down on Steam.

Ha ha, I already gave them the thumbs down on Steam. It's definitely a "vote with your wallet" situation here but frankly some folks are too weak to stick to their principles so I guess zombie Stellaris will shamble on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.