• 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:

Furiia

Private
36 Badges
Nov 12, 2017
12
0
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Island Bound
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Magicka
You're still getting a burger which still has some interesting elements to it, (ethos system, sectors, FE and crises) they've just chosen to standardise the patty a little so they can better work on new flavours.
The only element I wanted to have is asymmetrical FTL travel. Other things may be great but for me are not as important.
Different FTL types was the only reason I bought this game and all dlcs.
 

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
Yah, but that requires manpower, work hours, and exponentially more testing - which then can't go to more features and DLC (which is what brings in money). As someone who works in the IT business, I've been there in the situation where trying to support multiple different features leads to eating your budget away, so you end having to axe some of those features to give the product more space (meaning, more budget elsewhere).

Don't get me wrong, ideally, I'd prefer it if they were to keep all the FTL types and develop features that meaningfully interact with each other, but I'm fairly sure they've made their own cost-benefit analysis and decided that the costs outweighted the advantages.

Other option would have been to change to hyperlanes and then put on them "make-up" so that they still look like different subsystems, even if down below at the code level they are the same. But I'm sure this would just anger people more, unless the make-up were really cleverly done.
Right now there ate four variables, warmup, cooldown, range and speed.
Thb I have not been working in siftware dev. But four variables don't seem that much to me, sure there would be a lot of tweaking, but SC1 made lot of small tweaks of tenths of seconds for mineral gathering, unit range, damage, cost etc.
In comparison to that, tweaking four variables with input from the community seems pretty small?
Could this not be done and tweaked within a couple of months with minimal work?
 

sillyrobot

General
Jul 18, 2015
1.857
3.578
You're still getting a burger which still has some interesting elements to it, (ethos system, sectors, FE and crises) they've just chosen to standardise the patty a little so they can better work on new flavours.

Which would be fine... if he chose a patty I like. I really like the beef and can tolerate the chicken if there's a reason I don't want beef. Too bad he chose to standardize on the tofu patty. I hate that one.
 

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
Right now there ate four variables, warmup, cooldown, range and speed.
Thb I have not been working in siftware dev. But four variables don't seem that much to me, sure there would be a lot of tweaking, but SC1 made lot of small tweaks of tenths of seconds for mineral gathering, unit range, damage, cost etc.
In comparison to that, tweaking four variables with input from the community seems pretty small?
Could this not be done and tweaked within a couple of months with minimal work?

besides warmup, cooldown, range and speed you have two factors more:
1) how well connected are the graphs for each travel mode
2) the fact that travel graphs are independant for each travel mode (hyperlane has sometimes higher range than warp, sometimes lower range than warp, warp and wormholes are functionally very similar with the main difference that you need a "starting point" built beforehand)

In particular, those two are important because they are the ones that require tweaking if you want to implement things like starbases (because if the two participants of the war can bypass trivially the starbases they might as well not exist, as they are fixed defenses) and the Status Quo peace (a type of peace that makes static defenses even more worthless if you can bypass them, because one side can force the other to capitulate planets without even facing those starbases, even if the other side is, virtually, in working condition)

Note that I'm not saying that there isn't other solutions for this - just that I believe (and I don't want to put words in the mouth of the developers here, but that's what I'm reading between lines) that they decided that the amount of work and complexity required to implement and design those solutions exceeded what they deemed reasonable.

The only stat that matters out of those you have mentioned for these issues is range - and range isn't even an actual parameter, because hyperlanes, while distance-related, don't follow the same distance system than warp/wormholes.

There is also the fact that very probably hyperlanes offered an easy solution to a lot of things they weren't happy with - borders, particularly, seems like something they've talked a lot about - currently it's based on geometry, which from the PoV of the designers seems to be hard to read (or at least harder than node-based control, which seems like what they are going for with this update.
 

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
besides warmup, cooldown, range and speed you have two factors more:
1) how well connected are the graphs for each travel mode
2) the fact that travel graphs are independant for each travel mode (hyperlane has sometimes higher range than warp, sometimes lower range than warp, warp and wormholes are functionally very similar with the main difference that you need a "starting point" built beforehand)

In particular, those two are important because they are the ones that require tweaking if you want to implement things like starbases (because if the two participants of the war can bypass trivially the starbases they might as well not exist, as they are fixed defenses) and the Status Quo peace (a type of peace that makes static defenses even more worthless if you can bypass them, because one side can force the other to capitulate planets without even facing those starbases, even if the other side is, virtually, in working condition)

Note that I'm not saying that there isn't other solutions for this - just that I believe (and I don't want to put words in the mouth of the developers here, but that's what I'm reading between lines) that they decided that the amount of work and complexity required to implement and design those solutions exceeded what they deemed reasonable.

The only stat that matters out of those you have mentioned for these issues is range - and range isn't even an actual parameter, because hyperlanes, while distance-related, don't follow the same distance system than warp/wormholes.

There is also the fact that very probably hyperlanes offered an easy solution to a lot of things they weren't happy with - borders, particularly, seems like something they've talked a lot about - currently it's based on geometry, which from the PoV of the designers seems to be hard to read (or at least harder than node-based control, which seems like what they are going for with this update.
Tbh Star forts are a terrible idea, why they are implementing them is beyond me.
But would those difrences not be the strengts if difret firm if ftl? Hyperlanes could hypotethically have unlimited range, but a warp interdictor would slow down movement. It would simmilarily affect warp but in a larger degree, wormholes would bypass it but subspace interference pixie dust would reduce its range and so on.
 

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
But if we where to be constructive, what would a difrent, 3-type fyl solution look like? Or, how could we live with the current 3-type sollution
 
Last edited:

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
Tbh Star forts are a terrible idea, why they are implementing them is beyond me.
Because they decided it's something they liked as a new feature, conceptually. I personally happen to agree, but I can understand someone not agreeing.

But would those difrences not be the strengts if difret firm if ftl? Hyperlanes could hypotethically have unlimited range, but a warp interdictor would slow down movement. It would simmilarily affect warp but in a larger degree, wormholes would bypass it but subspace interference pixie dust would reduce its range and so on.
And we are back again to having to design, balance and represent intuitively 3 different subsystems for each new feature to address the 3 FTL types. Again: it's not an issue of not being able to do it, it's an issue of if the cost is worth it.

Note that this is only the current issue. If the day of tomorrow they want to implement something else that interacts with FTL, this issue will happen again. Which is why they decided to change it now.
 

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

pcavalcanti

Second Lieutenant
50 Badges
Dec 24, 2014
138
9
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • 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: Charlemagne
  • Dungeonland
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
Because they decided it's something they liked as a new feature, conceptually. I personally happen to agree, but I can understand someone not agreeing.


And we are back again to having to design, balance and represent intuitively 3 different subsystems for each new feature to address the 3 FTL types. Again: it's not an issue of not being able to do it, it's an issue of if the cost is worth it.

Note that this is only the current issue. If the day of tomorrow they want to implement something else that interacts with FTL, this issue will happen again. Which is why they decided to change it now.

But that's the thing! They've done this up to now, it's already in the game - so you're saying they no longer have the budget to continue developing the game as is?
 

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 that's the thing! They've done this up to now, it's already in the game - so you're saying they no longer have the budget to continue developing the game as is?

Not really. The last two DLCs were all about stuff that didn't actually interact with the FTL models: Both Synthetic Dawn and Utopía are DLCs that focus only on intra-empire content. Only precursor missions and leviathans actually are affected by FTL choice - and they just introduced both in the simplest way possible: luck. But that's because they are one-off events that one can incorporate without caring much about their balance effect in the whole game.
The next DLC is supposed to focus on diplomacy and war. Those are things that are heavily affected by FTL modes - after all, unlike a new subrace or civic, their very base is inter-empire by definition, so you can't just let luck solve it.
 

permeakra

Major
67 Badges
Nov 20, 2017
650
345
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
But if we where to be constructive, what would a difrent, 3-type fyl solution look like? Or, how could we live with the current 3-type sollution

IFF we actually just want choke points (which is not necessarily so, or at least not always desirable), tweaks to galaxy generators can achieve as much.

Current galaxy generators produce a rather uniform star distribution with some irregularities on the outer edge for elliptic generator. Let's imagine that stars are grouped into clusters, with some amount of 'star bridges' consisting of 1-7 stars each between them. This shall create choke points in a form of said bridges. Of course, for many star bridges we shall need more than one fortress to block them, but this actually introduce more space for player decisions.
 

kettch

First Lieutenant
92 Badges
Aug 15, 2011
219
63
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Ancient Space
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sengoku
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • 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: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2
  • BATTLETECH
Because they decided it's something they liked as a new feature, conceptually. I personally happen to agree, but I can understand someone not agreeing.


And we are back again to having to design, balance and represent intuitively 3 different subsystems for each new feature to address the 3 FTL types. Again: it's not an issue of not being able to do it, it's an issue of if the cost is worth it.

Note that this is only the current issue. If the day of tomorrow they want to implement something else that interacts with FTL, this issue will happen again. Which is why they decided to change it now.

Exactly. This was also stated clearly in the OP. There have been a lot of 'How can we make X work without changing FTL' lately, which is completely beyond the point. This is, and never was claimed to be, and issue of 'We need to change FTL so we can do Y'.

This is an issue of 'FTL makes everything so unnecessarily complex in such a scale that we are FAR better off dropping FTL so we can effectively address a lot of other things.'
I am working as a software developer myself and I have experienced a number of similar cases myself. It is just that one feature that in itself is pretty sound, often even creative or otherwise a great thing to have, but just gets in the way of everything else.
If every time you plan a change or a new feature you get to that point where you notice that that smart, easy solution you imagined just isn't gonna roll, because of 'Feature X', you start considering that this awesome, creative 'Feature X' might just not be worth the cost. And from experience I can tell, things usually get A LOT better once you take the decision to really drop it, because often you notice that it maybe wasn't just as important as it seemed and how much it actually pulled down everything else.

I am not saying, that in this specific case what the devs did is necessarily the right choice and everything will get a lot better now. This remains to be seen.
But I can really feel where the devs are coming from with this and I have the strong impression that most people can not really grasp what this is really about.

Oh and a word about the 'I hate Hyperlanes and I feel like this change is unfair and the devs should not do it.' sentiment, while I'm at it:
I can see how you feel disappointed about this and I will not claim this may not be unfair to you. But as I see it the opposite applies as well.
Personally, I bought the game knowing how Paradox operates and in the expectation that they will expand on a lot of things in the game over time. Not doing this change would, as it seems, substantially reduce their ability to do expansions and improvements I am eagerly waiting for. Wouldn't that be unfair to me as well?
There obviously is no easy solution to satisfy everyone here, but I'd argue sacrificing one feature to be able to improve numerous others faster and with much less effort, I'd say that's worth it (and again, I do not know for sure that's the case, but that's basically what the devs claim and I am strongly inclined to believe them based on my background).
 

IronShio

Private
53 Badges
Sep 6, 2016
19
0
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Empire of Sin
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
are you serious? with the hyperlane compulsion? just that you have the opportunity to choose what you want is good. if i can't do warp games anymore... dudes ... you ruin the game for me. I haven't played a serious hyperline game yet. then I can also play endless space or such a nonsense.

I don't understand .... you take a group of players the choice to play the way you want ... the other group that likes hyperlanes ... they can already play as they want ... you annoy only one part of the players ... that does not make sense ...

I've written a mod that lets everyone start with slower "warp" to simulate a conventional STL Drives ... that's a fair start for me.
that you take one of the great features of the 3 drives from stellaris ... I just can not believe it ...
 
Last edited:

Furiia

Private
36 Badges
Nov 12, 2017
12
0
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Island Bound
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Magicka
Exactly. This was also stated clearly in the OP. There have been a lot of 'How can we make X work without changing FTL' lately, which is completely beyond the point. This is, and never was claimed to be, and issue of 'We need to change FTL so we can do Y'.

This is an issue of 'FTL makes everything so unnecessarily complex in such a scale that we are FAR better off dropping FTL so we can effectively address a lot of other things.'
I am working as a software developer myself and I have experienced a number of similar cases myself. It is just that one feature that in itself is pretty sound, often even creative or otherwise a great thing to have, but just gets in the way of everything else.
If every time you plan a change or a new feature you get to that point where you notice that that smart, easy solution you imagined just isn't gonna roll, because of 'Feature X', you start considering that this awesome, creative 'Feature X' might just not be worth the cost. And from experience I can tell, things usually get A LOT better once you take the decision to really drop it, because often you notice that it maybe wasn't just as important as it seemed and how much it actually pulled down everything else.

I am not saying, that in this specific case what the devs did is necessarily the right choice and everything will get a lot better now. This remains to be seen.
But I can really feel where the devs are coming from with this and I have the strong impression that most people can not really grasp what this is really about.

Oh and a word about the 'I hate Hyperlanes and I feel like this change is unfair and the devs should not do it.' sentiment, while I'm at it:
I can see how you feel disappointed about this and I will not claim this may not be unfair to you. But as I see it the opposite applies as well.
Personally, I bought the game knowing how Paradox operates and in the expectation that they will expand on a lot of things in the game over time. Not doing this change would, as it seems, substantially reduce their ability to do expansions and improvements I am eagerly waiting for. Wouldn't that be unfair to me as well?
There obviously is no easy solution to satisfy everyone here, but I'd argue sacrificing one feature to be able to improve numerous others faster and with much less effort, I'd say that's worth it (and again, I do not know for sure that's the case, but that's basically what the devs claim and I am strongly inclined to believe them based on my background).

The problem is that they chosed hyperlanes and now Stellaris will be like every other 'space'(land) strategy game. And I'm forced to find another good game with asymmetrical FTL to buy.

I don't understand why they didn't try to stand out as a game with different method of travel. Hyperlanes are boring and market is over-saturated with games having it.
 

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 is that they chosed hyperlanes and now Stellaris will be like every other 'space'(land) strategy game.

...Warp is literally very dense but short hyperlanes. If the "hyperlanes density meter" is implemented right, you should be able to have a game that is mechanically indistinguishable from a current warp-only game, just with pretty lines between stars. Add a mod that removes the lanes if they are an insult to you.

I don't understand why they didn't try to stand out as a game with different method of travel.

1) Wormhole is natively complex as a standalone travel mode (higher learning curve for people who are starting) and less significant in pop culture than warp and hyperlanes.
2) Warp and hyperlanes, as I've said above, are very similar to each other, from a mechanic point of view. The difference is that hyperlanes allow for potentially longer distance travel and that it has certain connections arbitrarily removed. Essentially, warp is a subset of hyperlanes, because you can create a travel map that mimics warp with hyperlanes, but you can't create a travel mapn that mimics hyperlanes with warp.

So hyperlanes is the obvious option if you are going for non-asymmetrical FTL, TBH. The problem IS asymmetrical FTL, after all.
 

Furiia

Private
36 Badges
Nov 12, 2017
12
0
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Island Bound
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Magicka
...Warp is literally very dense but short hyperlanes. If the "hyperlanes density meter" is implemented right, you should be able to have a game that is mechanically indistinguishable from a current warp-only game, just with pretty lines between stars. Add a mod that removes the lanes if they are an insult to you.



1) Wormhole is natively complex as a standalone travel mode (higher learning curve for people who are starting) and less significant in pop culture than warp and hyperlanes.
2) Warp and hyperlanes, as I've said above, are very similar to each other, from a mechanic point of view. The difference is that hyperlanes allow for potentially longer distance travel and that it has certain connections arbitrarily removed. Essentially, warp is a subset of hyperlanes, because you can create a travel map that mimics warp with hyperlanes, but you can't create a travel mapn that mimics hyperlanes with warp.

So hyperlanes is the obvious option if you are going for non-asymmetrical FTL, TBH. The problem IS asymmetrical FTL, after all.

Warp and hyperlanes are similar mechanically but feel completely different.
I liked the variety with having different empires with different FTL drives I prefer to have more roleplaying options even if it means having unbalanced game.

AND YOU ALREADY COULD HAVE A HYPERLANE-ONLY GAME! Why couldn't they just make it as default and leave the other methods alone and add warning notification that using them breaks the game and blocks the ability to unlock achievements?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.