• 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:

Cat_Fuzz

General
May 10, 2016
1.772
2.365
Because like many things in Stellaris, free movement is implemented quite badly. If you were playing Distant Worlds or SOTS, you'd be able to do exactly what you suggest.

But the game isn't designed like that. The galaxy map isn't a real Galaxy. It already is hyperlanes in space, regardless of which FTL you are using (just warp and wormhole the 'train tracks' are invisible, and you have a little more choice in which one to travel on).

The game already has roads to 'system maps' which are then free to roam. You're asking them to redesign the game to allow this. That would pretty much require them to remake the game as it is. That's not practical.
 

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 the game isn't designed like that. The galaxy map isn't a real Galaxy. It already is hyperlanes in space, regardless of which FTL you are using (just warp and wormhole the 'train tracks' are invisible, and you have a little more choice in which one to travel on).

I was thinking the same, TBF. The map is a semi-complete graph, in which different FTL implementations have different edges available for travel - Warp has all edges of a certain weight or less available for travel, wormholes have all edges of a higher weight than warp, but restricted to those edges that part from vertexes with a gate in them, and hyperlanes just use arbitrary edges from each vertex.

Technically you could create "choke points" just by reducing the density of systems in a section of space.
 

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
But the game isn't designed like that. The galaxy map isn't a real Galaxy. It already is hyperlanes in space, regardless of which FTL you are using (just warp and wormhole the 'train tracks' are invisible, and you have a little more choice in which one to travel on).

The game already has roads to 'system maps' which are then free to roam. You're asking them to redesign the game to allow this. That would pretty much require them to remake the game as it is. That's not practical.

I'm well aware its not designed like that. You asked why its not possible to stop in deep space with Stellaris. I told you why. That doesn't mean I'm "asking" for anything. I'd be more than happy for them to retain the current poorly-implemented version of free movement as an FTL option. It may not be perfect but it certainly beats fixed train-tracks-in-space, at least with warp you don't have choke-points and a never changing road-map making you feel like you're playing a Civilization map containing only cities connected by roads with impassable mountains everywhere else.
 

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
No, because you're ignoring the other changes, such as seizing systems during war being actually useful and the implementation of fortresses that aren't completely useless.
Even so, the travle modes are ubrrlatrd to the problem with doom stacks, this thread have presented several alternatives to fixing the problem with doomstacks while retainibg free ftl, including fleet atrittuon, fleet efficiency decreasing with size, planetary weapons, supply lines and so on.
Lumping the comvat system with the ftl system is compating apples to oranges.
 

Cat_Fuzz

General
May 10, 2016
1.772
2.365
I'm well aware its not designed like that. You asked why its not possible to stop in deep space with Stellaris. I told you why. That doesn't mean I'm "asking" for anything. I'd be more than happy for them to retain the current poorly-implemented version of free movement as an FTL option. It may not be perfect but it certainly beats fixed train-tracks-in-space,

That was the point of my original response - you were saying space should allow free movement, not being on train tracks. I was saying that the game currently is on train tracks, just invisible ones that give an illusion of freedom of movement.

at least with warp you don't have choke-points and a never changing road-map making you feel like you're playing a Civilization map containing only cities connected by roads with impassable mountains everywhere else.

Well, there are chokepoints. It's where your planets are currently located. Now unless you choose to position all your stuff into one system there's potentially more place to fight over. (Eg if you decide to take a few outposts in a war which have great resources, you can do that now, where before you had to take a planet to do so, or destroy resources to deny the enemy.
 

Person012345

Field Marshal
92 Badges
Jan 27, 2010
2.594
914
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
But the game isn't designed like that. The galaxy map isn't a real Galaxy. It already is hyperlanes in space, regardless of which FTL you are using (just warp and wormhole the 'train tracks' are invisible, and you have a little more choice in which one to travel on).
I'll point out that Wiz stated there will be a slider to adjust hyperlane generation and that at the maximum setting it will give a high degree of freedom anyway.

Even so, the travle modes are ubrrlatrd to the problem with doom stacks, this thread have presented several alternatives to fixing the problem with doomstacks while retainibg free ftl, including fleet atrittuon, fleet efficiency decreasing with size, planetary weapons, supply lines and so on.
Lumping the comvat system with the ftl system is compating apples to oranges.
No it's not. The suggestions have problems. Every suggestion has problems. The devs have decided that this is the best way to implement these things as part of a larger overhaul. The other options have been deemed too unwieldy or too complex to add in a single update. Remember it may not always be like this anyway, it wouldn't be the first mechanic they've overhauled, then overhauled again later. If there comes a time when the code infrastructure is in place to make combat interesting and with varied fTL it may make a comeback. But right now at least this is the decision that they believe is best.
 

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
I'll point out that Wiz stated there will be a slider to adjust hyperlane generation and that at the maximum setting it will give a high degree of freedom anyway.


No it's not. The suggestions have problems. Every suggestion has problems. The devs have decided that this is the best way to implement these things as part of a larger overhaul. The other options have been deemed too unwieldy or too complex to add in a single update. Remember it may not always be like this anyway, it wouldn't be the first mechanic they've overhauled, then overhauled again later. If there comes a time when the code infrastructure is in place to make combat interesting and with varied fTL it may make a comeback. But right now at least this is the decision that they believe is best.
I I'll agree to disagree. The future will tell.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
No, because you're ignoring the other changes, such as seizing systems during war being actually useful and the implementation of fortresses that aren't completely useless.

No, I don't think we are missing those changes. Its more like we realize that seizing a non-planet system that is worth 4-6 combined minerals and energy with 2-4 total research on average is more often than not insignificant in the course of the game. We also realize that the new stronger starforts are going to be primarily built on high value targets like chokepoints and systems with good planets, the same places you would already be placing them. As after all, if a system is valuable enough for me to spend influence to try and take it, its also going to be valuable enough for you to justify fortifying it. So we get the end result of throwing doomstacks against each other again, just with the occasional forced chokepoint thrown in. The old defenses were not useless due to being avoidable, it was more they were underpowered and not enough valuable locations, which applies irregardless of what FTL types are used.

It may not be perfect but it certainly beats fixed train-tracks-in-space, at least with warp you don't have choke-points and a never changing road-map making you feel like you're playing a Civilization map containing only cities connected by roads with impassable mountains everywhere else.

Warp and wormhole do have chokepoints, but thanks to the system density, you rarely notice or encounter them on non-spiral maps. While hyperlanes, it only takes a couple of games using hyperlanes for an observant person to have a really good idea of where they are, even when unable to see them and can predict and plan around them.

They do need to tweak map generation, for a number of reasons, and that will likely have a bigger impact on the strategy side of the game instead of removing FTLs for currently unconvincing reasons to me.
 

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
Why is their such faith in developers to 'get it right'? The game was released with major flaws, a year later by my reckoning none have been fixed. You can argue that developers are consistently making changes which indicates a level of diligence, but the more times the try to fix something and fail the lower our confidence should be in their skill. I don't doubt that Stellaris will get steady updates for years, I just don't think the game will be made any better by them.

Am I and everyone else upset at this announcement saying they know better then the developers, YES, and that is perfectly reasonable, these are veteran strategy game players who have been consuming strategy game products for years, they have seen a LOT and can easily have more experience then developers who are often fresh out of school.
 

Person012345

Field Marshal
92 Badges
Jan 27, 2010
2.594
914
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
a non-planet system that is worth 4-6 combined minerals and energy with 2-4 total research on average
Source? And why would these not be worth seizing en masse?

We also realize that the new stronger starforts are going to be primarily built on high value targets like chokepoints and systems with good planets, the same places you would already be placing them. As after all, if a system is valuable enough for me to spend influence to try and take it, its also going to be valuable enough for you to justify fortifying it. So we get the end result of throwing doomstacks against each other again, just with the occasional forced chokepoint thrown in. The old defenses were not useless due to being avoidable, it was more they were underpowered and not enough valuable locations, which applies irregardless of what FTL types are used.
It was both. And no, you have no idea what the hell you're even talking about. They've specifically stated there will be other anti-blobbing measures alongside these and we have no idea how the new system plays out, how valuable rebalanced systems will be, whether it'll be worth taking them, how many starbases we will be able to build (I'm assuming you can't just foritify everything valuable). This is just stupid ill-informed *apparently expletives are banned now* and you have no idea what you're talking about. You literally can't know any of this *apparently expletives are banned now* until they release more details or you get to play it.
 

Person012345

Field Marshal
92 Badges
Jan 27, 2010
2.594
914
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
Why is their such faith in developers to 'get it right'? The game was released with major flaws, a year later by my reckoning none have been fixed. You can argue that developers are consistently making changes which indicates a level of diligence, but the more times the try to fix something and fail the lower our confidence should be in their skill. I don't doubt that Stellaris will get steady updates for years, I just don't think the game will be made any better by them.

Am I and everyone else upset at this announcement saying they know better then the developers, YES, and that is perfectly reasonable, these are veteran strategy game players who have been consuming strategy game products for years, they have seen a LOT and can easily have more experience then developers who are often fresh out of school.
I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying it's the decision that's been made, and I don't believe a bunch of random people who haven't even played the new build can really comment accurately on how it plays. Maybe it'll be terrible, but a lot of people are just being knee-jerk reactionaires and have absolutely no clue what they're talking about either in terms of gameplay effects, or the programming requirements and feasibility. I'm waiting until I actually get to play it to make a decision on whether it's good or not because although I like the 3 ftl methods, I'm not so invested in it that this inherently ruins the entire game for me and if it can contribute to more interesting wars and general gameplay then great.
 

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
a lot of people are just being knee-jerk reactionaires and have absolutely no clue what they're talking about either in terms of gameplay effects, or the programming requirements and feasibility. I'm waiting until I actually get to play it to make a decision on whether it's good or not

Y'see you are flat out wrong here. There are an abundance of 4x games that use hyperlanes so we know exactly what we are talking about when it comes to "gameplay effects". It's not knee-jerk when it's derived from experience...?

As to coding and feasibility, are you saying that the Devs are not competent enough to program due to constraints related to the variable FTL types? You got some insider knowledge there?
 

Tolgron

Recruit
85 Badges
Mar 12, 2011
5
3
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Divine Wind
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
...What?

This is akin to releasing a patch for Hearts of Iron saying "We found that fortresses in HOI were being ignored because players were sailing around them with their fleets, or flying over them with planes. So we've cut those out and placed greater emphasis on ground warfare." Fortresses don't work because fortresses don't make sense in space warfare, or indeed in modern warfare. Why fly straight into a fortified orbit when you can just fly around it? Or bombard it from several thousand kilometers away with projectile weaponry?. Remember -- Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a witch in space. The only reason fortresses work at all right now is because Stellaris treats space as a 2D rather than a 3D plane, and limits the range of projectile weaponry (understandably, I will admit).

That you're dropping warp and wormholes in favour of fortresses suggests that perhaps it's fortresses that don't work, not those particular forms of FTL travel. Or, more specifically, you're thinking of fortresses incorrectly. If I use fortresses at all (and I usually don't) I use them to guard especially valuable systems, not as roadblocks.

This decision is a poor one, and I'm hugely disappointed that it's been made. It has made me reluctant to play Stellaris again (unmodded), and has ruined one of the main reasons I greatly enjoyed the game to begin with. It allowed for a diverse means of play and style. I enjoyed that there were three approaches to FTL (four included the Psi Jump), as it not only showed there were several approaches to a common problem but helped each civilisation seem a little more unique. It added new elements to space warfare, as different civilisations would be operating under different strengths and limits. It made space seem dynamic and interesting.

Now you've tried to make space warfare into ground warfare. Because for some reason you've decided fortresses are now more important to the game than anything else.
 
Last edited:

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
Y'see you are flat out wrong here. There are an abundance of 4x games that use hyperlanes so we know exactly what we are talking about when it comes to "gameplay effects". It's not knee-jerk when it's derived from experience...?

As to coding and feasibility, are you saying that the Devs are not competent enough to program due to constraints related to the variable FTL types? You got some insider knowledge there?
Yep, given a large enugh sample, you would know empirically that a 25yr old oak-aged single malt will taste better than a bottle of blended aged in a plastic cup
Now if you had the choice of buying them for the same price, you would always go for the better one.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Source? And why would these not be worth seizing en masse?

Source? The game, perhaps? Granted, I didn't go digging into the code to find the exact values, it was an estimate based off what I commonly see across a number of games, much like what can see in this screenshot I have on Steam. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1202931410 If you really want to know the distribution odds, maybe someone who loves figuring this stuff out can find it in the code and give more concrete values and odds of what the average non-scripted systems have.

As to the en masse, thats a different story. But just sponging up a bunch of minor systems is a very bad reason to risk your fleet. When this should happen for the best effect, hopefully becomes a bit clearer after I address the next part.

It was both. And no, you have no idea what the hell you're even talking about. They've specifically stated there will be other anti-blobbing measures alongside these and we have no idea how the new system plays out, how valuable rebalanced systems will be, whether it'll be worth taking them, how many starbases we will be able to build (I'm assuming you can't just foritify everything valuable). This is just stupid ill-informed *apparently expletives are banned now* and you have no idea what you're talking about. You literally can't know any of this *apparently expletives are banned now* until they release more details or you get to play it.

You really fail to grasp why the ability to go around a static defense does not make them useless, and why forcing interaction with them in choke points results in even larger doomstacks. So let me ask you a few questions. Are dams and levies worthless because water can go around them? What happens when a dam or levy holding back water breaks? (remember not all dams or levies over the course of history have had release mechanisms) And what does the water do when it is held back, and can there be any unintended consequences due to it?

There is a reason why both Sun Tzu, and Bruce Lee, have quotes about emulating water. The more obvious link is that Water finds the path of least resistance, and applied to military it means avoid where your enemy is strong. Now go a step further, what does water do when it is blocked? It pools, and deepens until it either overpowers the blockage or finds a way through or around it. Depending on which happens, the results can be catastrophic. The blockage would be synonymous with a chokepoint or fortified location. So, now what do you think your opponents army is doing while trying to find the solution to your choke point? Think McFly, Think. This is where the minor systems en-masse ties in by the way.

On the resource front, I highly doubt they are going to make large adjustments to the economy via scale of resources in system especially since they are already removing the ability to have empty systems.

On the Anti-blobbing, you go to far and you end up making Starfort+Fleet unbeatable, which leads to a stalemate when no one can make any progress due to it. Anti-blobbing isn't going to stop the flood, its just going to delay it if you want the game to keep progressing.

The number of starbases doesn't really matter to this discussion, as the only thing that changes with quantity is what is going to be prioritized for secondary locations in the long run, as the primary two will always chokepoints and planets
 

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
The number of starbases doesn't really matter to this discussion, as the only thing that changes with quantity is what is going to be prioritized for secondary locations in the long run, as the primary two will always chokepoints and planets

This isn't entirely true, and the way I was imagining things (Sorry, it's the best I can do until I can see some gameplay.) There would hopefully not be enough starbases to cover all of your choke point needs while also giving you enough shipyards. As you get big you wont be able to defend all directions properly, and you would need to cover any gaps with your fleet. Small empires wouldn't have this problem, and would be better able to strike at a large foe during a moment of weakness to sieze some fromtier worlds.
 

anomanderus

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Jan 26, 2010
3.719
562
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Lost Empire - Immortals
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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 III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Complaints regarding balancing of three FTL systems make no sense because all you have to do is just turn off the FTL types you feel are poorly balanced. But frankly since ship customization is also being limited I hope they go all the way and scrap missiles and kinetic weapons just to see the hoops people jump through to further justify removal of features to "make da combats better"

And of course regarding FTLs if you wanted to balance them then just treat Warp as "Jump Drive Jr."- the babby form of the reality-tearing FTL. And since Jump Drive Sr. can attract the attention of a billion jillion aliens from other dimensions then why not make it so that Warp drives have a chance of having your little ship warping through space have a chance of being destroyed by those extradimensional invaders- the further you jump, the bigger a chance of it happening.

And as for Wormholes and the whole "you can bypass all the defenses and jump really far so it's bad!" (see my comment regarding fortresses and hyperspace below, I literally don't see how removing wormholes should change anything unless we're literally going to do land combat in space where you're forced to attack a fortress instead of using your ability to move faster than light to just bypass systems with fortresses) why not make it so there's also an energy cost for moving your fleet on top of the maintenance cost- if you jump a doomstack halfway across the galaxy using wormholes then charge 1000 energy to warp the entire thing. And since you're fitting a thousand ships through a teeny tiny gate while not also ramp up the time it takes to get there depending on how far you're going (this is already in game but I'm talking like really ramping the time it takes up hard). Or hell you could just make Wormhole gate tiers into actual differing gates, with tier 3 gates the longest range and highest cost and required to actually wormhole long distances while tier 1 would be cheap and for short distances.

There's a billion easy ways you can limit these things but instead of getting creative the idea is instead to just throw everything out and give out a space mod for EU4.

No, because you're ignoring the other changes, such as seizing systems during war being actually useful and the implementation of fortresses that aren't completely useless.

Except that fortresses themselves are a problem if they impede your hyperlanes since in space you should be able to bypass any fortress using hyperspace anyway.

This isn't entirely true, and the way I was imagining things (Sorry, it's the best I can do until I can see some gameplay.) There would hopefully not be enough starbases to cover all of your choke point needs while also giving you enough shipyards. As you get big you wont be able to defend all directions properly, and you would need to cover any gaps with your fleet. Small empires wouldn't have this problem, and would be better able to strike at a large foe during a moment of weakness to sieze some fromtier worlds.

Except the chokepoints for small empires would work both ways- you can't "seize lots of frontier worlds" easily if there's only one route from your little empire into the neighboring big empire. Effectively this means your ability to attack as a small empire will be slowed and allow the big empire to defend easily. Likewise a big empire can just send their big fleet to attack you at your chokepoint and even if you beat them they've got another fleet to hit you with because they're a big empire (this is assuming that doomstacks will be done away with by forcing you to have a limit on the number of ships you can have in a single fleet).

Why is their such faith in developers to 'get it right'? The game was released with major flaws, a year later by my reckoning none have been fixed. You can argue that developers are consistently making changes which indicates a level of diligence, but the more times the try to fix something and fail the lower our confidence should be in their skill. I don't doubt that Stellaris will get steady updates for years, I just don't think the game will be made any better by them.

Am I and everyone else upset at this announcement saying they know better then the developers, YES, and that is perfectly reasonable, these are veteran strategy game players who have been consuming strategy game products for years, they have seen a LOT and can easily have more experience then developers who are often fresh out of school.

At this point it's not even so much the FTL changes that annoy me, the fact that apparently the whole "dese features are paid content, dose are free content" divide has been completely breached and they're making it clear to us buying these games at release for specific features is pointless because they can just decide later on to completely change course and remove entire chunks of the game with "don't worry guys this'll be better you'll like it trust us" as their justification.
 
Last edited:

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
This isn't entirely true, and the way I was imagining things (Sorry, it's the best I can do until I can see some gameplay.) There would hopefully not be enough starbases to cover all of your choke point needs while also giving you enough shipyards. As you get big you wont be able to defend all directions properly, and you would need to cover any gaps with your fleet. Small empires wouldn't have this problem, and would be better able to strike at a large foe during a moment of weakness to sieze some fromtier worlds.

This would only be correct if you neglect diplomacy. Keep friendly with various empires around you and you can essentially block all access to your empire using your allies choke points/ fortresses/ fleets. Your enemies will be forced to fight their way through an entire empire before they reach you rendering their smaller size useless.

Conversely, you could use your allies space to launch raids with impunity as a larger empire... You are always going to have more ships as a larger empire so you just attack from multiple sides and continually wear down the enemy defences.

*edit* you might think this will be more like whack-a-mole instead of whack-a-stack lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.