• 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:

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
Static defenses is nonsense. We are in space and not on a map. you have to protect points and not close borders .. I do not want to play trump.

What about the star trek mod? Do you take the mechanics of the warp out completely? RIP star trek?

I also read a lot of good new ideas but I do not understand why in favor of "trumps" or "DDR / GDR-like" the special feature of the 3 drives is removed ...
 

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
...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.

Hyperlanes can be hyperlanes for warp with some small addition like property warp engine
Hyperlanes can be wormholes with properties empire and wormhole engine.
Under the hood each FTL is a hyperlane from A to B.
I really wish everyone could see this with devs too and build around it.
 

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
The big problem is that a part of the players lose their way to play. the others get what they already have. Of course, the hyperlane players will find that they are good because the hyperlane players can now play their way away as in the future. we warp / wormhole players will just f*****.
 

LeanneKaos

First Lieutenant
24 Badges
May 11, 2016
255
9
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
(quoting full chain for context here)
And then they would have to support two different versions of the game...
No sane developer would do that.
WotC must be insane, then. Not just two, but 8 different versions of the same game...
Which game is that?

Magic: the Gathering. At least 8 different formats (ie. different ways to play, different versions of the same game) supported to various degrees by the company.

Granted, some are less supported than others; and one could quibble about the number by conflating a few of them together or something. (Or one could argue it's a completely different game, but that would be moving the goalposts from the original statement :p )
 

Lumion32

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
May 12, 2017
103
0
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
I honestly do not know what all of this is about. It will not take long at all until there is a mod that adds the other drives back in the game. Let paradox solve some of the biggest problems the game has with this change, and if you dont like it you will need like 30s to get the mod from the workshop. Stellaris is very moddable after all.
 

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
Static defenses is nonsense. We are in space and not on a map. you have to protect points and not close borders .. I do not want to play trump.

What about the star trek mod? Do you take the mechanics of the warp out completely? RIP star trek?

I also read a lot of good new ideas but I do not understand why in favor of "trumps" or "DDR / GDR-like" the special feature of the 3 drives is removed ...

Static defences are not nonsense but I agree with you bcs you are referring to static defences that devs plan to create e.g. chokepoints on borders, and this static defences are nonsense ;)
I think we need static defences but done slightly different (tried to bring this idea elier but maybe now it will be better understood)
  • Lets imagine we have supply lines, and they can provide supplies for a range.
  • Devs said that each star will have Outposts and they will be captured during war.
  • Let’s say Outposts are needed to provide 100% supplies.
  • Player1 fleet capture Outposts – slowly building their supply lines for its fleet. Special counter starts (explained later)
  • Somewhere near by captured outposts is stong starbase of Player2 with player2 fleet docked (both are strong enough to repeal the nemy but Player2 fleet is only 1/3 of Player 1 fleet.
  • Each starbase has some special ability (influence on surrounding star systems) that allows to automatically regain control of nearby captured outposts. It can happen after some time and only if the war is still on.
  • So Player1 captured several outposts but do not tries to capture Player 2 starbase (it is too strong when you count smaller Player2 fleet).
  • Player1 decides to bypass strong starbase of Player2 and go for a core worlds and capture them - his supply lines are stable but are very long and based on captured Outposts.
  • As soon as Player1 fleet left star systems with captured Outposts, special counter starts to count down for each outpost separately.
  • After some time when counters for each Outposts reach 0 – each outpost is returned to player2 (automatically the moment it reaches 0)
  • Player 2 fleet also moved to regain control of several other outposts out of range of Starbase and even captured few of Player1.
  • Player1 Fleet is CUT from supplies. Counter for supplies decreases for this fleet supply very fast.
  • In few weeks this fleet will have 0 supplies. But player1 is so certain victory that he attack another smaller starbase of player2 to capture his worlds. The battle takes some time and supplies reach 0 and Player1 fleet starts to receive penalties, that cumulate over time.
  • Player1 is worried but it is only few weeks battle till the starbase will be captured.
  • Meanwhile Player2 sends his small fleet to aid almost defeated Starbase.
  • With the penalties received fleet of Player1 is defeated by combined power of player2 smallfleet and weakened starbase (even though Player1 fleet was initially stronger than small starbase+Player2 fleet combined).
The end.

Why this is so important for automatic regain of outpost control? Bcs only this way static defences will have bigger meaning – when they have influence on surrounding area not only on a system where built.
Player 1 should try to lure out Player 2 Fleet and capture stronger starbase, or build bigger fleet, but should not go deeper into enemy territory with unsecured supply lines or at last withdraw from combat with Player 2 weaker starbase and try to deal with Player 2 fleet or resupply and wait for other opportunity. He could also split his big fleet, and with one part try to secure captured outposts while other part would deal with other starbases.
This way by simple game mechanics we have chokepoints, but not based by hyperlane configurations only but by strategic decisions of players, and dynamic decisions.
I call it strategy.
 
Last edited:

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Why bother to invest devtime and resources in a decent Defense and Terrain system, if 2 of 3 modes of travel will just ignore it.

For one, the new starforts and the new modifyiers in systems and nebulas are not just ignored by warp and wormhole. The difference is warp and wormhole have more options to move in a way that is favorable to them. On good defenses, it doesn't matter how strong you make them if they are placed in the wrong locations. In space, since their are nearly infinite ways to approach a single point, trying to create a "wall" an enemy can't get around will never be practical. On the terrain, systems are too clustered to have the choice of which system do I stop at between A and B matter because more often than not I have 4-5 systems that work as the midpoint.

Its not because the other FTLs just flat out ignore the defenses, but either poor placement on the players end, or the systems being too dense. So instead of having to have the players improve their play, or addressing the bigger issue regarding terrain (and by extension exploration) caused by the map generation having systems be too dense, they are forcing interactions by removing player choice.


And then they would have to support two different versions of the game...
No sane developer would do that.

Well in addition to WotC, Blizzard must be insane too with the announcement of them eventually providing vanilla WoW servers again.
 

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
Well in addition to WotC, Blizzard must be insane too with the announcement of them eventually providing vanilla WoW servers again.

1. Blizzard refused to do that for many years primarily because they refused to have multiple different versions of the game floating around.
2. This is hardly comparable as classic WoW does not affect development of the 'real' WoW because classic does not get any new features afaik. If anything this is more comparable to 1.8.3 remaining available plus Blizzard whipping up actual support for that version (probably).
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
Let us consider the influence of this decision on income in short term.

25% of current players are disapointed and will never purchaise this DLC.
Plart of others will, and some new playars will be attracted too.
I think it is possible to make a refund. One will do it with the help of a good lawyer and then will show the way to others. But refund means, that you will not be able to play the game even in current state. I don't think, that even 5% of current players will choose not to play Stellaris at all.

So, here we have it - the worst scenario shows, that sales income will simply lower. Losses from refunds will not be significant, and current communityt will simply change to hiperlane-oriented players. The only variable is the prifir: will the income be good enough to cover expenses on DLC, will it be large enough to give expected level of profit, and not some non-material amounts. If it will our argue is for nothing. If it will not, this will probably mean end of Stellaris, as bringing back 3 FTLs will ruin the new mechanics. So, we will have to wait Stellaris 2. Thay will make it for sure, as Stellaris 1 was most salalble game for Paradox. But this will be a new game with new mechanics and in worst profit scenario - new Devs.

Still, this is a short-term. In long term such decision will drop Devs reputation. 3 FTLs were promised and the marketing showed 3 FTLs as key feature, and 25% of people think this is a key feature, if not the most significant one. So, we have to admit: 3 FTLs are important part of the game. May be not the most one, but one of arcstones. Deliting such part of the mature game, ignoring 25% of players opinion - is not a sign of care for the community. It is a sign of either God-syndroma (I'm the Dev, it's my game, I know the best, you will submit anyway), or a simple business (I don't care, I still have the money). Time will tell, what it is, but each option has nothing to do with the customer care. And as a customer, I don't like it. And I'm not alone. And this will have affect in future.

I'm not a programmer, but I work in IT as a financial manager. And I know the problem very well - old product is not good enough, but to complex, with part of this complexity not used by the most of customers. If we had ever made such decision, our company would have been long forgotten. The only ethical and correct option in this case is to start development of a new game, with slowly decreasing support of the old one. And the price-drop after the realese. Actually we have eventually made our old complex product totaly free with limited support. And it brought so many new customers to our other pricy products, we have never imagined.

Stellaris is a young brand for Paradox, just look at the CK 2, dated 2012. But if you are trying to make new business decision - and cutting of key feature to add new stuff IS a new word in game development - it's not a good idea to start with ethicaly-poor choice.
 

Cethanis

First Lieutenant
58 Badges
Jul 11, 2013
278
49
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities in Motion
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • 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
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
I always get a a good laugh out of people who state that the are some kind of IT Specialist or work in a law form and then say some utter bollocks like "a good lawyer will pave the way for a refund". Good luck with that! :D But then these people miraculously also know the exact percentage of players who are annoyed by the upcoming patch, so the probably have some kind of crystal ball.


p.s. but it's fun to imagine how such a case would be handled at court.

Judge: so you bought the game 4 months ago and it worked and you used it since then?
You: Yes
Judge: And you are suing the defendant why exactly?
You: The want to apply a patch that changes the game in a way i do not like!
Judge: Is the defendant forcing you to apply this update in any form?
You: ahhhhm not exaaaactly but aaaaaaahm
Judge: So you are still able to use the game in the same state as you purchased it 4 months ago?
You: Well..... technically yes..... but i still wan't patches for free just not this one!
Judge: Get out of my court, case dismissed.
 
Last edited:

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
Again, Paradox's issue is not a legal one. It's one of consumer confidence. People expected updates to the game they had, they didn't expect to have to cut off that support because of a massive change to the core mechanics. This will inevitably harm confidence in consumers who dislike the change. That being said, people DID expect updates to the game they had and this is an update that the majority of respondents seem to support. The devs are doing it in good faith with the aim to make the game better. This isn't some cynical money grubbing scheme. Ultimately, they've decided it's just a risk they have to take, for the reasons they and others have explained. Personally I would like to see the option kept in for modding. Modding should give people the ability to customise their game in a very personal way.
 

Nurizeko

Corporal
16 Badges
Apr 19, 2016
36
36
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
Just adding to the saltiness of this 'update'. I hate a lot of the changes which are basically changing the game to "sorta-but-not-really" Stellaris.

I also can't stand hyperlanes, they're stupid. Choke-point warfare and "geography" makes sense for a terrestrial based game only.

"But opponents can bypass my borders and go straight for my core systems!"

Then defend your core systems you fool, that's how real life space combat will probably work anyway.

I liked the old border system.

Between total overhaul and cutting content I already paid for, I feel like my formerly favourite game is getting shafted hard, and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

If this had all been for Stellaris 2 that would have been one thing, but this. It's EA levels of weak. I used to sing Paradox's praise but now I'm probably swearing off it's titles, and won't be recommending.

TBH had I known this was coming I'd have passed over Stellaris and just picked up one of the Endless Space games or something, if that.
Stellaris doesn't have to be some perfect power-gamer's fetish to be good, it was good as it was, it had flavour, it had uniqueness, and it had soul.

As stated:

Ok but maybe I would have gone away with having both warp and FTL but introducing some kind of relatively cheap warp inhibitor bubble thing. So that warp remains the exploration FTL and hyperlanes become the war FTL.

For me hyperlanes completely nullifies the magic of "space". The emptiness, the bigness, the mysteriousness... When you detect a spaceborn alien warping in one of your systems. What will it be, where does it come from? Specter?

And frankly I liked the dynamic manoeuvre warfare more than this obsession with turtling. Plenty of games do that, it doesn't need to be encouraged here.

P.S. I can totally empathise with people feeling like they want refunds, that was one of my gut reactions TBH, this move feels like a real low blow.
 
Last edited:

Cethanis

First Lieutenant
58 Badges
Jul 11, 2013
278
49
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities in Motion
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • 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
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
Just adding to the saltiness of this 'update'. I hate a lot of the changes which are basically changing the game to "sorta-but-not-really" Stellaris.

I also can't stand hyperlanes, they're stupid. Choke-point warfare and "geography" makes sense for a terrestrial based game only.

"But opponents can bypass my borders and go straight for my core systems!"

Then defend your core systems you fool, that's how real life space combat will probably work anyway.

I liked the old border system.

Between total overhaul and cutting content I already paid for, I feel like my formerly favourite game is getting shafted hard, and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

If this had all been for Stellaris 2 that would have been one thing, but this. It's EA levels of weak. I used to sing Paradox's praise but now I'm probably swearing off it's titles, and won't be recommending.

TBH had I known this was coming I'd have passed over Stellaris and just picked up one of the Endless Space games or something, if that.
Stellaris doesn't have to be some perfect power-gamer's fetish to be good, it was good as it was, it had flavour, it had uniqueness, and it had soul.

As stated:



And frankly I liked the dynamic manoeuvre warfare more than this obsession with turtling. Plenty of games do that, it doesn't need to be encouraged here.

P.S. I can totally empathise with people feeling like they want refunds, that was one of my gut reactions TBH, this move feels like a real low blow.

Whoa i applaud you. You must be the best Stellaris Player ever! I could never "turtle" a 50+ Planet Empire with about 6 Starbases. Can you please teach me how you do this? I want to be imba too! And please also teach me how i fool shall defend my home system. You see stupid me can atm just build those Starfortress thingies who die against a 100k Fleet in like 10 seconds? What do i wrong? Can you please tell me your secret?

p.s. and i also can totally see how hyperlanes will ruin the now totally realsitic 2D Space experience in Stellaris!
 
Last edited:

LeanneKaos

First Lieutenant
24 Badges
May 11, 2016
255
9
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Its not because the other FTLs just flat out ignore the defenses, but either poor placement on the players end, or the systems being too dense. So instead of having to have the players improve their play, or addressing the bigger issue regarding terrain (and by extension exploration) caused by the map generation having systems be too dense,

Oddly, things like system density come closer to my idea of what 'galactic terrain' terrain would be: stuff that exists on and interacts with the galactic map, rather than the system map. (Hyperlanes *could* be as well, but they're really more like roads through the terrain than the terrain itself. With the new rules saying there's no off-roading allowed.)

Expanding on that kind of 'terrain' - things that interact at the galactic-map level - is something I could have gotten behind. In-system hazards and 'environmental effects'... isn't really galactic to my mind, and doesn't really grab me. I get that the intent is to make systems more important, but... really, systems are basically all there is on the map right now so it's not like there's anything competing for importance.

The devs are doing it in good faith with the aim to make the game better. This isn't some cynical money grubbing scheme.

FWIW, inasmuch as I dislike the decision I agree completely with this point: I believe the devs *are* acting in good faith, doing what they see necessary to keep moving forward with the game. I may not care for their vision, but I do not fault their intention.
 

Graeymaelkyn

Recruit
9 Badges
Nov 21, 2017
4
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
I think you can make warfare very interesting and with choke points using warp, too.
In fact, I think Stellaris has a historic chance to make something new and great by combining warp and hyperlane travel in one single game.

The problem with warp is supposed to be that you cannot build choke points. But that's not true at all.
I'm thinking of Stardrive II for example. By limiting the range using fuel tanks (and far distances between some star blocks) and nebulas warp has it's own limits which hyperlane don't have, for example. And the expansion Sector Zero brought some interesting ideas, too. Because you can build space stations between star systems (for example to mine for asteroid fields) and any ship flying through one sector had to face a space station if there was any, you could build some kind of border defense.

Furthermore it would be very exciting to be able to implement both, warp and hyperdrive in a single ship. Everyone would start with one drive system, but by analysing debris or researching it later on you might be able to use both. Of course this would need a lot of ship space, so normally one only uses one drive per ship design to fit best to the use case. For example in one part of the empire there are a lot of nebulas making warp almost impossible (by limiting speed so much it makes no sense flying through). And on the other side of the empire there are too less hyperlanes so you build a fleet using warp.

And it would make totally sense if even fleets with warp have to surround the gravity well of the star to jump to the next star system or that galactic terrain like neutron stars or black holes limit warp range in addition to its fuel range. In worst case your fleet could be end up without fuel in any system and you need to get some additional fuel by sending another fleet or building a supply station in that system.

And last but not least I don't see any problem that "warp interdiction bubble" only affects warp. So you have to build defense systems at hyperlane choke points AND stations for warp interdiction bubbles - not so much trouble, if you ask me.

So please don't go the easy way by implementing a only hyperlane game over again. I bet that there are some really great ideas outh in the community using warp and hyperlanes AND improving warfare.
 

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
Whoa i applaud you. You must be the best Stellaris Player ever! I could never "turtle" a 50+ Planet Empire with about 6 Starbases. Can you please teach me how you do this? I want to be imba too! And please also teach me how i fool shall defend my home system. You see stupid me can atm just build those Starfortress thingies who die against a 100k Fleet in like 10 seconds? What do i wrong? Can you please tell me your secret?

p.s. and i also can totally see how hyperlanes will ruin the now totally realsitic 2D Space experience in Stellaris!

So you'll replace 20k fortresses for 100k starports and that's gonna make things different ? How? You know how long it will be until you can actually gather enough fleet strength to really take anything in this "new" version? At worst it will be just the same as it already is now...

At the moment the AI does a decent job of building defense stations in their most important systems, and the defense platforms are weak depending on the year that you are but they still do some damage. In a space game they're there to hinder the enemy fleets to give you some reaction time not to be this giant obstacle on your way that you're forced to face. In one of the games I played that was hyperlanes only, the AI did a great job at placing fortresses with FTL inhibitors all the way towards its capital planet and when I saw they were about to meet me and I would have to go against their station + fortress + fleet I had to retreat.

The citadels will only replace this combo in a more creative way. Now what's going to happen is basically what kind of already happens. Five or so few core planets will have huge stations for specific purposes and good defenses to keep them and the enemy empires will have to eat at the borders little by little to destroy the economy and have larger fleets to invade. The addition of a status quo peace offer for war will make borders shift more often and they might give better chances of a recovery after a loss at war but other than that it will take quite a while to be able to take over those few reinforced core systems.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
I always get a a good laugh out of people who state that the are some kind of IT Specialist or work in a law form and then say some utter bollocks like "a good lawyer will pave the way for a refund". Good luck with that! :D

You will be surprised, what is possible under the implied laws, which are dominant to Steam offer statements. I can repeat: in case you can afford a good lawyer, with 500$ per hour payment, you will able to win this case and get refund with court expenses.

Still, if you read my post carefully, you will find, that this refunds will not be material, as almost nobody will agree to delete the game end not to play it at all. The rest might be able to get rufuds, or might not be - this amount will not be material in sales terms.

This will inevitably harm confidence in consumers who dislike the change. That being said, people DID expect updates to the game they had and this is an update that the majority of respondents seem to support. The devs are doing it in good faith with the aim to make the game better. This isn't some cynical money grubbing scheme.

Let me repeat. 3 FTLs is important part of the game, and this part of game was promissedat the purchase. 25% of community seem to hate cutting this important part of game off. It does not matter, that the rest 75% support, actually. You can either ignore quarter of your customers, or not. Ignoring them is not a customer care. You can't care for 75% by punishing the other 25%.

And about the good faith... The read to hell is paved with good intentions, you know. 25% of community here oppose - this is more then enough to stop changes, ingoring them is God-syndroma. It is a blind faith in own strength, power and vision,it is as bad as business, if not worse.

And I want to use your rhetoric at the end. You can't read thoughts, so you can't be sure - what Devs really think of. Yoy can only asume. I try to asume several possible opportunities, you rely on faith in their good intentions.
 

Cat_Fuzz

General
May 10, 2016
1.772
2.365
You will be surprised, what is possible under the implied laws, which are dominant to Steam offer statements. I can repeat: in case you can afford a good lawyer, with 500$ per hour payment, you will able to win this case and get refund with court expenses.

So what would be the point if you were to pay $500 for what, $50 returns and expenses? If you had the money to afford a lawyer at $500 an hour, I'd say getting a refund on a $50 piece of software surely ranks quite low on your list of priorities.

Still, if you read my post carefully, you will find, that this refunds will not be material, as almost nobody will agree to delete the game end not to play it at all. The rest might be able to get rufuds, or might not be - this amount will not be material in sales terms.

? - so what would be the point of spending $500 an hour for a lawyer if there 'may or may not be' any material refunds for the plaintiff?

Let me repeat. 3 FTLs is important part of the game, and this part of game was promissedat the purchase. 25%...

Wait wait wait wait. What 25%? Where is this figure coming from?

And about the good faith... The read to hell is paved with good intentions, you know. X% of community here oppose - this is more then enough to stop changes, ingoring them is God-syndroma. It is a blind faith in own strength, power and vision,it is as bad as business, if not worse.

Lol, PDS aren't some international mega Corp, nor are they a shady government. They're a f**** medium sized business and I feel that they f***** up their production plan not long after release and this is their attempt to rectify that.
 

Jorrhast

General
Apr 24, 2017
2.403
0
All that nonsense about how warp/wormhole interdiction just "wouldn't work" is just that, nonsense. Simple (and also working) solution: make interdictors repel enemies to the exact system from where they were warping/wormholing if any point of their path is going through the bubble, except if they go directly to interdictor system. In which case it hold attacking fleet in there, just like it will do in Cherryh. And please oh please stop it with this "but it is impossible for WH" dumb **** - it is quite possible, take WH fleet make movement order and look at the flight path, it is right there on your screen for Force sake. There. Case solved. Now you can have your hyperline-ish chokepoint warfare and still leave both warp and wormholes in the game. But noooooo, they must die because reasons.

inb4 "but it doesn't make sense for WH" - well, not many things do make sense in the game anyway, I'd prefer this little piece of "physics"(haha) inconsistency(haha again) to gutting 3/4ths of all existing FTL systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.