• 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:

Strager

General
10 Badges
Jan 9, 2007
2.072
1.143
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris Sign-up
The island idea could have been implemented without forcing us to all use hyperlanes, simply by inserting extra-galactic systems only accesible via worm hole travle or galaxy map warp storms that prevented ftl access.
This will nowhere add to neither warfare nor exploration, as it will, as stated earlier only remove possibilities and force everyone to adopt one strategy.

Nothings saying they won't go back to a multi-FTL approach at some point in the future. For the time being however, they won't change their mind here so no use in crying over spilled milk - instead focus on encouraging them to open possibilities in other areas and ensure that we aren't stuck with one strategy.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Ooook... Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I was under the impression that the objective of this change had relatively little to do with doomstacks and more to do with scalability and complexity for future content. Adding more fun/interesting features is much harder if you have to take 3 different travel methods into account than if you have to only deal with one. The example given here is that making defensive war playstyles viable is much harder if you need to take all three FTL methods into account, but I think the idea is that this applies too to a number of other features. Adding "space terrain", for example, is much harder if you need to add terrain and mechanics to make it effective against all three models. Same with a bunch of other issues. I honestly like the idea of finding a weird spatial disruption that lets me jump to an isolated system, not connected by normal hyperlanes, that contains the ruins of an old civilization or somesuch. Having those three modes makes it harder to achieve this kind of inmersive exploration. And there are a bunch of very interesting concepts that are much harder to integrate, such as real trade routes or supply lines, which could come down the line, but that are infinitely harder to define and balance if you have to account for the three FTL methods.

The problem with this claim, is that so far every single feature mentioned is achievable with all three FTL types in the game, and the inclusion of Gateways, and Jump Drives proves this. For what its worth, Gateways are darn near equivalent to the existing Wormholes, with the main differences being the endpoint needing to be a 2nd Gate, and no distance limitation between gates. The 2 gate pair for wormholes is ship and station, and range is based on station. And the jump function on jump drives is just a manually activated warp drive.

On the warfare front, the reason defensive wars are not possible is two reasons, the defenses are not strong enough, and beyond planets and hyperlane chokepoints, there are no Points of Interest worth defending/contesting. The new starforts are making the defenses strong enough, but I have yet to see anything indicating there will be new worthwhile points of interest to warrant defending outside of gateways. So still have the same set of locations where you would build the defenses, the only difference is now forced to interact with hyperlane chokepoints that will be stuffed with defenses, requiring a larger doomstack to crack the defense, leading to an even harder snowball.

On space terrain and locking off sections of the galaxy, that is a map generation problem not a FTL problem(and they don't plan to address map generation until after this patch if understood the dev video correct). The biggest reason Warp and Wormhole seem like they don't have the terrain problems of Hyperlanes is due to the system density. You do start encountering terrain problems with warp and wormhole on spiral galaxies as they too can not just cross between arms when they want, and can also be boxed in by FEs. You can still add space "Islands" accessible only via the new wormholes with warp and wormhole FTLs in the game, but that would take adjusting map gen to ensure said islands are outside warp and wormholes range but again they are not touching map gen yet.

Trade might be a little trickier due to performance issues, but that was also covered pages ago as well as a potential compromise to keep different FTL types in practice, with a change to move wormhole and warp to a nodal system like hyperlanes instead of their current to improve performance.

The community isn't dying down over this, they just realise (like from what I just experienced very recently) that they aren't being listened to or just shushed. We have come to realise that for whatever reason the changes are going to happen regardless of our positions, thoughts or feelings. Had these changes been made prior to release I could understand the logic and even respect the decision to try and normalise some of the core mechanics, but it's not prior to release, its post release and there is now a fully matured and diverse community around this game that don't all agree with the removal / rewrite of core mechanics and some of the reasons for it. To be honest, let look beyond the FTL changes for a second, the games mechanics are getting a RADICALLY overhaul and shifting in a way that makes it considerably different to what it was before! In fact even the developers (can I say this????) have stated that the changes they are making would normally only appear in a Stellaris 2 and have even admitted they realised it would divide the community.

So why is it such a surprise some of us aren't happy with it? I mean I've put in over 250 hours of time into this game because of what it was. Now I feel like what I will be playing (which I probably won't do after whats just happened) isn't the same, the core mechanics will change considerably away from what I know and enjoyed (into something I have played so many times before). It is no different to going to KFC and finding that the new secret recipe tastes awful because it now includes 5x as much salt, would you eat it anyway because the Colonel says its still finger licking good? No of course not, it is down to personal taste at the end of the day. But if KFC did a taste survey and realised that they suddenly found 25% of their tasters said the product wasn't as good as before, or said that the introduction of 5x as much salt wasn't something they wanted (maybe they are concerned over salt intake). Do you think they would just ignore that and keep that new recipe? The real difference here is that we know KFC would do some market research before making such a radical change to see the likelihood of acceptance.

Some people that purchased this game aren't happy, just because they aren't posting anymore doesn't mean they have seen the light and suddenly AGREE with the changes, it more likely means they have accepted Stellaris 1.0 for them is now dead and gone looking for a new game or they have decided to try and do something about it and looked into the modding options to bring the new Stellaris 2.0 back inline with what they like (nothing wrong with either to be fair).

What really surprises me the most is that there hasn't been even an acknowledgement by the development or community managers that there are disagreements. Instead its like "nothing to see here just move on". Such attitudes is pretty damning and disrespectful towards the countless thousands that have purchased the game as it was and feel the need to speak out against the changes to what it will become.

This is pretty much true, and that last bit about the lack of engagement by the Devs and community managers is making it worse I would think. While I don't expect them to respond to everything, the initial stance and the few responses to it initially seem more like sweeping the dissent under the rug to ignore it than attempting to resolve it(much like confining the discussion to two threads, turning them into monster threads where lots of comments and feedback go to die without really being acknowledged)
 

ISitOnGnomes

They know what they did
87 Badges
Mar 30, 2015
530
381
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
This is pretty much true, and that last bit about the lack of engagement by the Devs and community managers is making it worse I would think. While I don't expect them to respond to everything, the initial stance and the few responses to it initially seem more like sweeping the dissent under the rug to ignore it than attempting to resolve it(much like confining the discussion to two threads, turning them into monster threads where lots of comments and feedback go to die without really being acknowledged)

They pretty much said that they knew this would make a ton of people unhappy and quit the game, but at the end of the day they think that this is the best direction to take to make the game they want to make. So it's best to just do it and get it over with, take the hate this will generate, and move on rather than work on a game they aren't happy with.

They are confining the discussion to 1 thread because there isn't much to even discuss. I'm sure they would prefer if everyone would be open minded and see if this really is a better direction, but I'm also sure that they have accepted that this patch will lose them some players. I bet they also think it will enable them to better retain the remaining players or get new players.
 

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
Nothings saying they won't go back to a multi-FTL approach at some point in the future. For the time being however, they won't change their mind here so no use in crying over spilled milk - instead focus on encouraging them to open possibilities in other areas and ensure that we aren't stuck with one strategy.
I am not one sitting idly by when bad decissions are being made. Nor one to fall back on wishfull thinking. There have been no promises to bring back the other ftl methods.

I have already played endless space, ascendancy, aos and many more yperlane based 4x space strategy games, and not one have been able to hold a candle to MOO2s warp travle system. 4x space games have bern down this proverbial hyperlane before and we all know where it leads, and it is not the kind of game we want.
We complain, and bitch, and moan not because we hate, but the opposite. We see what have the potential to be great and unique being brought down and turned into the same mediocrity as so many before it.

This is not an act of ill will Ir tempertantrums of spoiled fans, it is an act of love and honest concern.
 
Last edited:

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
They pretty much said that they knew this would make a ton of people unhappy and quit the game, but at the end of the day they think that this is the best direction to take to make the game they want to make. So it's best to just do it and get it over with, take the hate this will generate, and move on rather than work on a game they aren't happy with.

They are confining the discussion to 1 thread because there isn't much to even discuss. I'm sure they would prefer if everyone would be open minded and see if this really is a better direction, but I'm also sure that they have accepted that this patch will lose them some players. I bet they also think it will enable them to better retain the remaining players or get new players.

As someone who works in an industry that is very closely related to a creative medium, and also wanting to eventually be creating, there is the cold hard facts of sometimes you have to do what your customers want instead of what you want. This gets forgotten sometimes, as after all the customer is the one who ends up paying the bills in the long run. No customers -> no sales -> no work. Sure you can be great at your prefered niche, just better hope you can get a large enough customer base to support you.

While the Devs may think this is the right direction to go, it is also taking the game right into the territory of why I didn't purchase any number of other 4x/Grand Strategy games that have been listed in this thread. I am willing to give it a try, but unless they reveal something incredible between now and when the patch actually hits, I fully see this game going into my dustbin of forgotten and unplayed games.

Since it is fairly relevant to what is going on here, going to link an Extra Credits video on how to get good feedback. Some key points of it. What Devs think is the key engagement, may not be what the players find engaging(IE notice the amount of people unhappy they won't be able to roleplay their fav Sci-Fi group to their satisfaction anymore), don't just think the problem a player is describing is the same as the one on the Devs to fix list(there are a number of things that could be tied to this), and Devs are the worst people to playtest their own game as they get too close to it and accustomed to all the odd quirks in the game due to playing/testing it so much. Also those saying they will stop playing the game are giving the devs one very huge piece of feedback, these changes will likely put the game below most other forms of entertainment out there and available to them, as after all the game isn't just competing against other games but all entertainment.
 

rittstar

First Lieutenant
44 Badges
May 4, 2016
211
96
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
i am no fan of removing wormholes and get hyperlanes instead.. i had a choice, to play 1500h+ with wormholes instead the boring hyperlanes, now i have no choice and only play with boring hyperlanes? no thanks, hope you will develop this mod friendly to make it possible to bypass this mess
 

xxaxx

Second Lieutenant
36 Badges
Aug 17, 2010
176
47
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
As someone who works in an industry that is very closely related to a creative medium, and also wanting to eventually be creating, there is the cold hard facts of sometimes you have to do what your customers want instead of what you want. This gets forgotten sometimes, as after all the customer is the one who ends up paying the bills in the long run. No customers -> no sales -> no work. Sure you can be great at your prefered niche, just better hope you can get a large enough customer base to support you.

While the Devs may think this is the right direction to go, it is also taking the game right into the territory of why I didn't purchase any number of other 4x/Grand Strategy games that have been listed in this thread. I am willing to give it a try, but unless they reveal something incredible between now and when the patch actually hits, I fully see this game going into my dustbin of forgotten and unplayed games.

Since it is fairly relevant to what is going on here, going to link an Extra Credits video on how to get good feedback. Some key points of it. What Devs think is the key engagement, may not be what the players find engaging(IE notice the amount of people unhappy they won't be able to roleplay their fav Sci-Fi group to their satisfaction anymore), don't just think the problem a player is describing is the same as the one on the Devs to fix list(there are a number of things that could be tied to this), and Devs are the worst people to playtest their own game as they get too close to it and accustomed to all the odd quirks in the game due to playing/testing it so much. Also those saying they will stop playing the game are giving the devs one very huge piece of feedback, these changes will likely put the game below most other forms of entertainment out there and available to them, as after all the game isn't just competing against other games but all entertainment.

Do we have any numbers that most Stellaris players don't want the change? I mean i agree with your post, but you're saying here that the vast majority of players are against this change... is that really the case? Obviously there are some people who dislike it and are very vocal about it, but people (like me) who kinda like the change (even though i always played either Warp or Wormhole) and are more than willing to give it a chance of course don't come to the thread saying "we like it" over and over.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
They pretty much said that they knew this would make a ton of people unhappy and quit the game, but at the end of the day they think that this is the best direction to take to make the game they want to make. So it's best to just do it and get it over with, take the hate this will generate, and move on rather than work on a game they aren't happy with.

They are confining the discussion to 1 thread because there isn't much to even discuss. I'm sure they would prefer if everyone would be open minded and see if this really is a better direction, but I'm also sure that they have accepted that this patch will lose them some players. I bet they also think it will enable them to better retain the remaining players or get new players.

While I can understand, why you may want to protect changes and apmutation of core mechanics, I really see no reason why you work as Devil's Advocate. You really think you can speack for them end explain everithing, while never even have been a part of Sellaris development? But I think Devs can speck for themselves and I don't really care of what you think of reason why they ignore this trend. We post here to get answers, to make them see our reasoning, to make them change decision. Not for you to explain their actions.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
Do we have any numbers that most Stellaris players don't want the change? I mean i agree with your post, but you're saying here that the vast majority of players are against this change... is that really the case? Obviously there are some people who dislike it and are very vocal about it, but people (like me) who kinda like the change (even though i always played either Warp or Wormhole) and are more than willing to give it a chance of course don't come to the thread saying "we like it" over and over.

Will you spare lives of 25% of random people to make lives of other a bit better?
Each fourth (al least) is angered by this decision and this is a big quantity to be taken into account. Actually for some industries level of profit is about 4%. I only hope Devs will react before they see actual fall in sales income after the release.
 

-Myth-

Second Lieutenant
33 Badges
Nov 12, 2013
151
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
I don't know how to respond to this post to be honest. Are you being serious or are you some kind of sapient PSA?

I am being serious. The old system is fun in theory but poorly executed in practice, plus people mostly stuck to one method of FTL travel for most of their games. I'm a wormhole user actually, contrary to what people think. Except playing a machine empire with wormhole is counterproductive on Impossible because of the mineral costs involved. Warp is slow and the old hyperlanes can get you boxed in leading to a restart.

You remind me of the crowd that whined when Diablo 3 got rid of the Auction Hosue, despite that feature totally disbalanced the game. Sometimes features have to go for the sake of the game. I am being serious that the new system is more elegant, it provides choke points that add the layer of strategy this game sorely needed. If you and all the others liked chasing doomstacks around - many of us didn't.

This will also prevent the abuse where you continuously mow down the AI's troop transports because its fleet is bombarding your homeworld but the troops are lagging 5 systems behind, now, through claims and starbases as well as the new FTL method, it will gradually try to conquer your systems. This will make it more predictable and you will know where to guard and fortify and it in turn will know how to escort its transports.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ISitOnGnomes

They know what they did
87 Badges
Mar 30, 2015
530
381
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
While I can understand, why you may want to protect changes and apmutation of core mechanics, I really see no reason why you work as Devil's Advocate. You really think you can speack for them end explain everithing, while never even have been a part of Sellaris development? But I think Devs can speck for themselves and I don't really care of what you think of reason why they ignore this trend. We post here to get answers, to make them see our reasoning, to make them change decision. Not for you to explain their actions.

From what i can tell this thread is almost 250 pages of people yelling into nothingness. The devs have responded to you. They said this will enable them to make the game better moving forward and everyone needs to either get on board or not because its happening. Then there was 250 pages of demanding the devs explain themselves... more? What more can wiz say?

It just seems to me like a lot of wasted effort
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
From what i can tell this thread is almost 250 pages of people yelling into nothingness. The devs have responded to you. They said this will enable them to make the game better moving forward and everyone needs to either get on board or not because its happening. Then there was 250 pages of demanding the devs explain themselves... more? What more can wiz say?

It just seems to me like a lot of wasted effort

At least I'm wasting effort to make Devs change game I like in a way I think will be most effective. And you are wasting effort to make me stop. Who is wating effort, after all?
Thanks for keeping this trend alive, by the way ;)
 

ISitOnGnomes

They know what they did
87 Badges
Mar 30, 2015
530
381
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
At least I'm wasting effort to make Devs change game I like in a way I think will be most effective. And you are wasting effort to make me stop. Who is wating effort, after all?
Thanks for keeping this trend alive, by the way ;)

As long as you dont feel like you're wasting your time, who am I to stop you. I, personally, don't mind wastimg mine here. Gotta do something while I'm at work.
 

xxaxx

Second Lieutenant
36 Badges
Aug 17, 2010
176
47
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
Will you spare lives of 25% of random people to make lives of other a bit better?
Each fourth (al least) is angered by this decision and this is a big quantity to be taken into account. Actually for some industries level of profit is about 4%. I only hope Devs will react before they see actual fall in sales income after the release.

25%? Where did you get that number?
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
25%? Where did you get that number?

The only statistic we have now - likes and dislikes in Devs initial post (its even more now, about 1/3). Actual share will differ for sure, but this is already far more, than anything I have seen for Dev diary post as for now.

As long as you dont feel like you're wasting your time, who am I to stop you. I, personally, don't mind wastimg mine here. Gotta do something while I'm at work.

Not much time to waste, big posts were written 10 pages before, now mostly reading.
 

Shadeseraph

Captain
56 Badges
May 11, 2017
307
59
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Age of Wonders
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
The problem with this claim, is that so far every single feature mentioned is achievable with all three FTL types in the game, and the inclusion of Gateways, and Jump Drives proves this.

The point is not that implementing those features is not possible. The point is that the added complexity and difficulty of implementing mechanics that cover and account for 3 different FTL models and GUI that allows for easy understanding of those is a price too steep to pay for a mechanic that, while interesting, isn't deep enough to warrant the kind of effort it would require. We are talking about, at the very minimum, three times as much effort per each new feature that interacts with FTL, and usually several times more because you also need to account for the different interactions between FTL types (trade between a wormhole and a warp empire, for example).

As for the gateways and jump drive, the first one is radically different from wormholes - one requires starting points but doesn't care about the end point while the other is basically adding "fixed" vertexes to the matrix, which requires a pre-existing FTL flight mode to travel to the end point, the other is an end-game feature that only needs to be balanced for end-game, instead of for the whole game - and I'm fairly sure they'll just end nerfing it hard so that the "warp" mode travel is only useful in very circumstantial situations (hefty penalties from warping, very slow cooldown/coolup...)

Essentially: they could have chosen to support the existing FTL models, but that would have meant that the new features would take much, much more to implement for relatively little benefit and a lot of headaches. I can understand why you'd be angry, and to a degree I share the same feeling because I kinda liked the mixed FTL thing (though in the end of the day it wasn't as different as some of you make it be - I play all three, and the game isn't all that different from using one to the other), but if I were in their position I'd probably do the same, because, business wise, it makes creating new content much more expensive in work hours. In the end, when you are going to release a new DLC the users want to see a certain amount of content - and every man-hour dedicated to solving the intrincacies of multi-FTL will go against the budget for more features.
 

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
The point is not that implementing those features is not possible. The point is that the added complexity and difficulty of implementing mechanics that cover and account for 3 different FTL models and GUI that allows for easy understanding of those is a price too steep to pay for a mechanic that, while interesting, isn't deep enough to warrant the kind of effort it would require. We are talking about, at the very minimum, three times as much effort per each new feature that interacts with FTL, and usually several times more because you also need to account for the different interactions between FTL types (trade between a wormhole and a warp empire, for example).

As for the gateways and jump drive, the first one is radically different from wormholes - one requires starting points but doesn't care about the end point while the other is basically adding "fixed" vertexes to the matrix, which requires a pre-existing FTL flight mode to travel to the end point, the other is an end-game feature that only needs to be balanced for end-game, instead of for the whole game - and I'm fairly sure they'll just end nerfing it hard so that the "warp" mode travel is only useful in very circumstantial situations (hefty penalties from warping, very slow cooldown/coolup...)

Essentially: they could have chosen to support the existing FTL models, but that would have meant that the new features would take much, much more to implement for relatively little benefit and a lot of headaches. I can understand why you'd be angry, and to a degree I share the same feeling because I kinda liked the mixed FTL thing (though in the end of the day it wasn't as different as some of you make it be - I play all three, and the game isn't all that different from using one to the other), but if I were in their position I'd probably do the same, because, business wise, it makes creating new content much more expensive in work hours. In the end, when you are going to release a new DLC the users want to see a certain amount of content - and every man-hour dedicated to solving the intrincacies of multi-FTL will go against the budget for more features.
But why oh why did they choose hyperlanes?
 

Shadeseraph

Captain
56 Badges
May 11, 2017
307
59
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Age of Wonders
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
But why oh why did they choose hyperlanes?

Probably because Hyperlanes is the easiest one to handle, as well as the most familiar one. Wormholes as the sole FTL method would probably not have been a good choice because it's a bit more complex and because it's not that common as a typical sci-fi trope - it works as a side option if you have the more familiar warp/hyperlanes, but not as a standalone choice. Warp could have been a perfectly valid alternative, but I guess they went with hyperlane instead because it meshed better with many of the ideas they already had in mind. The pathfinding/CPU issues are probably a factor (working with weighted graphs is easier than working with geometry)

Personally, I do agree that I would have preferred a warp core rather than an hyperlane core.
 

Dr. Chaos

Second Lieutenant
49 Badges
May 30, 2016
198
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II
The only statistic we have now - likes and dislikes in Devs initial post (its even more now, about 1/3). Actual share will differ for sure, but this is already far more, than anything I have seen for Dev diary post as for now.

Actually 71.34% agree, 23.13% disagree and 5.53% neutral (helpful).

If we dont count the neutrals, then: 75.52% agree and 24.48% disagree

(Counted with 1018 agrees, 330 disagrees and 79 neutrals)
 

Dr. Chaos

Second Lieutenant
49 Badges
May 30, 2016
198
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II
Will you spare lives of 25% of random people to make lives of other a bit better?
Each fourth (al least) is angered by this decision and this is a big quantity to be taken into account. Actually for some industries level of profit is about 4%. I only hope Devs will react before they see actual fall in sales income after the release.

Well we already "spare lives" of the "minority" at every election in most democratic countries. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.