Stellaris Dev Diary #92: FTL Rework and Galactic Terrain

[Cethanis]

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.

Yeees the whole point is "we don't know yet" and I for once are willing to give it at least a shot before starting to complain. And the Ai was doing a great job with ftl inhibitors? You are joking right? They build these things almost always right beside their Planet+Spacedock and so spared your Invasionfleet the nasty way trough the system and pulled you right into comfortable bombardment range. I believe my and your understanding what a "good AI" behavior is, differs a bit. And no, they do not do "some damage" Even in early game they tend to pop in literary seconds, especially since the ai prefers to build the smaller stations even if it could go for fortresses.

 

[Ahahala]

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.

You got the point=) Those who can refund, don't really care. And even if there is one person ready to go this way, ready to explain all the details to public, not much will do the same thing.
That is what I tried to say: in short term, refunds are not an issue to take into account.

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

This is the best figue we have - Agree/disagree without helpfull from initial post. This amount is a far appoximation, but even this trend shows, that cosiderable amount of customers don't like it.

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.

Ok, lets go into this. Devs got an idea how to make some key things better, but it is not rational to do it by keeping 3 FTLs in terms of development expenses. Let's imply, that changes in diplomacy and warfare will be improvements after all. So, it is a trade - we cutt-off one arcstone, but improve several others. We share our plans to public and we face a big opposition - the quatity of customers, who disagree is higher then ever. Not even a half, but big enough to rise 5100 pages hipe under the post. If we continue, if we ignore, we still consider that changes are good, trade is fair, and all our disapointed customers are wrong. So, decision is made, we don't care. And this is very same moment, when we feel ourselves confident and powerfull enough to ignore. And this is God-syndroma. F.e. EA as mega-corp has a mix of God-syndroma and business greed, they ignored public. Disney is even bigger mega-corp, but this mega-corp cares of customers more, then of relations with partners, so Disney forced EA to hold up and take a step back. This also a god-syndroma, but this affects partners, not customers. I think Disney parners are not happy, but I am a customer, and I judge as a customer. And I prefer customer-orieneted developers.

If you compare sales of Stellaris sales with those of Endless Space 2, you will see, that Stellaris has 4 times more owners, and more active players as for now, what makes Paradox current leader in 4x space gamedev. I guess, this is a reason for overconfidence.

 

[pcavalcanti]

Yeees the whole point is "we don't know yet" and I for once are willing to give it at least a shot before starting to complain. And the Ai was doing a great job with ftl inhibitors? You are joking right? They build these things almost always right beside their Planet+Spacedock and so spared your Invasionfleet the nasty way trough the system and pulled you right into comfortable bombardment range. I believe my and your understanding what a "good AI" behavior is, differs a bit. And no, they do not do "some damage" Even in early game they tend to pop in literary seconds, especially since the ai prefers to build the smaller stations even if it could go for fortresses.

Putting them right next to the space station makes a lot of sense - more damage is done when you add station fire + fortress fire. The problem is the balance of the stations - the station components need to be better/stronger according to fleet capacity.

 

[Obak]

Putting them right next to the space station makes a lot of sense - more damage is done when you add station fire + fortress fire. The problem is the balance of the stations - the station components need to be better/stronger according to fleet capacity.

Or mote stations shoulf be able to fit closer, smaller stations within the radii of larger to create interlocking zones of fire

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

You got the point=) Those who can refund, don't really care. And even if there is one person ready to go this way, ready to explain all the details to public, not much will do the same thing.
That is what I tried to say: in short term, refunds are not an issue to take into account.

Okay...but I could easily say that a lawyer could argue against the case for $500 an hour. What point are you making with the law that states that there is a gurantee that PDS is somehow in breach of it?

This is the best figue we have - Agree/disagree without helpfull from initial post. This amount is a far appoximation, but even this trend shows, that cosiderable amount of customers don't like it.

It's not really a fair approximation. It's a very rough percentage of those who bother to up/down vote posts, of which only those who bother to come to the forums see anyway. Niether of us know for certain how much web traffic passes through PDS forums (and Stellaris one for that matter).

Ultimately, it's very bad data analysis to rely on one data sample, which would be unreliable at best to determine the entire Stellaris player base. Which brings me to...

Let's imply, that changes in diplomacy and warfare will be improvements after all. So, it is a trade - we cutt-off one arcstone, but improve several others. We share our plans to public and we face a big opposition - the quatity of customers, who disagree is higher then ever. Not even a half, but big enough to rise 5100 pages hipe under the post.

That's 5100 pages of the same hundred or so people hashing out the same arguments again and again, with no real respite. Again, not a representative sample of the player base, but an example of an incredulous vocal minority with access to an Internet connection.

If we continue, if we ignore, we still consider that changes are good, trade is fair, and all our disapointed customers are wrong. So, decision is made, we don't care. And this is very same moment, when we feel ourselves confident and powerfull enough to ignore. And this is God-syndroma. F.e. EA as mega-corp has a mix of God-syndroma and business greed, they ignored public.

I understand the concept of a God complex, but I fail to see its relevance in this topic for reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

If you compare sales of Stellaris sales with those of Endless Space 2, you will see, that Stellaris has 4 times more owners, and more active players as for now, what makes Paradox current leader in 4x space gamedev. I guess, this is a reason for overconfidence.

I feel that they were overconfident before, and are now at least attempting to stop promising so much and try to bring some structure back while working to make the game better. No one here knows if this is the right call yet, but I really feel that subbing two methods of transport in order to attempt improvement in almost every other element of the game is a beneficial trade.

 

[Ahahala]

Okay...but I could easily say that a lawyer could argue the case for $500 an hour. What point are you making with the law that states that there is a gurantee that PDS is somehow in breach of it?

1. Sometimes it is not obvious who is breaking the law. F.e. in British cantract law there is a "officious bystander test". This is hypothetical test held by the court. Imagine, that when you were purchasing a game, a bystander asked both you and dev "Devs will not delete key featire from the game, yes?" - and the obvious answer is "Yes", so this creates an implied condition to purchace agreement and reason for a refund. On the other side, Dev may argue, that this is DLC, so a new offer and no refunds should be made. Only court may judje on this issue, but in our law system lawyers arguments can make a difference.

That's 5100 pages of the same hundred or so people hashing out the same arguments again and again, with no real respite. Again, not a representative sample of the player base, but an example of an incredulous vocal minority with access to an Internet connection.

25% and your words are both a speculation. What we know, is the fact, that Devs posts never had so many people complaining and so big hipe. Not even close. And this is something to consider.

I feel that there were overconfident before, and are now at least attempting to stop promising so much and try to bring some structure back while working to make the game better. No one here knows if this is the right call yet, but I really feel that subbing two methods of transport in order to attempt improvement in almost every other element of the game is a beneficial trade.

Well, it's you feeling, which I can oppose by my own - it does not change much. Problem is, the game had this feature before. If game was only planed, not released, I would have said nothing. And when you are cutting an important part of existing game, you should care of your current customers, not only potential ones. This is your obligation, actually. And if a considerable amount of them are ageinst such change, you have to stop it. Or simply admit, that you don't care of those, who oppose. This is called honesty.

The main reason, why we are arguing is in point 1, actually. If you treat this FTL limitation as a new offer - Devs will loose only potential customers, which usually is acceptable. If you treat it like limiting delivered product - devs breach their promise, which is not ethical. According to the law it can be interpreted different ways, we can argue of that, but never find the truth, as we are on different sides. But reputation and care are not about the law, but about how customer feels. And many people feel deceived. Not most, but quantity is big enough. And this will have long-term consequances.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

1. Sometimes it is not obvious who is breaking the law. F.e. in British cantract law there is a "officious bystander test". This is hypothetical test held by the court. Imagine, that when you were purchasing a game, a bystander asked both you and dev "Devs will not delete key featire from the game, yes?" - and the obvious answer is "Yes", so this creates an implied condition to purchace agreement and reason for a refund. On the other side, Dev may argue, that this is DLC, so a new offer and no refunds should be made. Only court may judje on this issue, but in our law system lawyers arguments can make a difference.

Firstly, that's a fairly outdated method of legal fiction (as in a metaphorical allegory to interpret laws) and second - you can revert back to the version you bought, so there is no obstruction to get what you paid for. I'm fairly sure as well the games T&C's express that the software may change with updates and that the customer is entitled to updates on an 'as is' basis.

25% and your words are both a speculation. What we know, is the fact, that Devs posts never had so many people complaining and so big hipe. Not even close. And this is something to consider.

True, but if you re-read, it is mostly the same minority of people saying the same things. The Devs know it was controversial and said as much in the DD (now a very long time ago) so it's not so surprising that a minority are really annoyed, while most either don't care, or another, slightly larger minority really like it. That does not equal 25% or 'a significant number' - it's a minority.

Well, it's you feeling, which I can oppose by my own - it does not change much. Problem is, the game had this feature before. If game was only planed, not released, I would have said nothing. And when you are cutting an important part of existing game, you should care of your current customers, not only potential ones. This is your obligation, actually. And if a considerable amount of them are ageinst such change, you have to stop it. Or simply admit, that you don't care of those, who oppose. This is called honesty.

1. It's not an important part (it's just how do I move ships from A to B) and they're not removing, they're changing.

2. They already stated it was a controversial decision, and went through their process of how they also considered warp only and other options. They had to make a (hard) decision - change something you know will piss off some of your audience so you can improve the game or sit on your hands and think of a solution while your audience gets bored and moves on.

The main reason, why we are arguing is in point 1, actually. If you treat this FTL limitation as a new offer - Devs will loose only potential customers, which usually is acceptable. If you treat it like limiting delivered product - devs breach their promise, which is not ethical. According to the law it can be interpreted different ways, we can argue of that, but never find the truth, as we are on different sides. But reputation and care are not about the law, but about how customer feels. And many people feel deceived. Not most, but quantity is big enough. And this will have long-term consequances.

Again, not many, a minority. And I'm arguing not through any special loyalty to PDS (I have one other game by them and that's it) but because people are treating this like PDS leaked the Clinton e-mails or something. It's a game. There are far more things in the world that have more value to argue over than wether two methods of transportation are being removed from a game, in order to try and improve it in every other aspect

 

[Obak]

Firstly, that's a fairly outdated method of legal fiction (as in a metaphorical allegory to interpret laws) and second - you can revert back to the version you bought, so there is no obstruction to get what you paid for. I'm fairly sure as well the games T&C's express that the software may change with updates and that the customer is entitled to updates on an 'as is' basis.



True, but if you re-read, it is mostly the same minority of people saying the same things. The Devs know it was controversial and said as much in the DD (now a very long time ago) so it's not so surprising that a minority are really annoyed, while most either don't care, or another, slightly larger minority really like it. That does not equal 25% or 'a significant number' - it's a minority.



1. It's not an important part (it's just how do I move ships from A to B) and they're not removing, they're changing.

2. They already stated it was a controversial decision, and went through their process of how they also considered warp only and other options. They had to make a (hard) decision - change something you know will piss off some of your audience so you can improve the game or sit on your hands and think of a solution while your audience gets bored and moves on.



Again, not many, a minority. And I'm arguing not through any special loyalty to PDS (I have one other game by them and that's it) but because people are treating this like PDS leaked the Clinton e-mails or something. It's a game. There are far more things in the world that have more value to argue over than wether two methods of transportation are being removed from a game, in order to try and improve it in every other aspect

Indeed, but why are you here then, arguing a game when you could be fighting isis, helping the rohingya or debating Catalonian right to self rule?

 

[~Robbie]

1. It's not an important part (it's just how do I move ships from A to B) and they're not removing, they're changing.

A core mechanic isn't an important part of the game?

They are most certainly removing. The other FTL options aren't being changed, they are being removed. New jump drives are not mechanically similar to current jump or warp drives. Gateways are not mechanically similar to current wormholes. They're gone.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

Indeed, but why are you here then, arguing a game when you could be fighting isis, helping the rohingya or debating Catalonian right to self rule?

First, it's nice that you would quote my whole post, then only focus on the last part of my statement with a straw man.

Second, because I'm at work, where I deal with aid charities anyway, so I'm already doing that bit.

A core mechanic isn't an important part of the game?

Define core mechanic? A core mechanic would be something in which without it, the game would simply not function (such as AI, a UI, a game loop etc).

If you mean 'main feature' then sure, but firstly, as I've posted waaaay waaaay back in this same thread (to which I think you responded to) that they don't advertise 'multiple FTL's' as a main feature, nor where several reviews (which I found last time) which discussed as being pivotal to the games enjoyment.

It's fine to dislike the changes, but to say they are stripping a core mechanic is just hyperbole, especially as they are CHANGING this (not REMOVING)

 

[Furiia]

Define core mechanic? A core mechanic would be something in which without it, the game would simply not function (such as AI, a UI, a game loop etc).

My empire won't work without warp drive so the game dosen't work for me...

It's fine to dislike the changes, but to say they are stripping a core mechanic is just hyperbole, especially as they are CHANGING this (not REMOVING)

They are removing those 2 FTL types. They are GONE(REMOVED).

 

[Obak]

First, it's nice that you would quote my whole post, then only focus on the last part of my statement with a straw man.

Second, because I'm at work, where I deal with aid charities anyway, so I'm already doing that bit.



Define core mechanic? A core mechanic would be something in which without it, the game would simply not function (such as AI, a UI, a game loop etc).

If you mean 'main feature' then sure, but firstly, as I've posted waaaay waaaay back in this same thread (to which I think you responded to) that they don't advertise 'multiple FTL's' as a main feature, nor where several reviews (which I found last time) which discussed as being pivotal to the games enjoyment.

It's fine to dislike the changes, but to say they are stripping a core mechanic is just hyperbole, especially as they are CHANGING this (not REMOVING)

Nice! I donate to charities, let’s get back to debating Stellaris, not debating weather we should debate.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

My empire won't work without warp drive so the game dosen't work for me...

It will, it will just be hyperlanes now...So you can still move your ships.

They are removing those 2 FTL types. They are GONE(REMOVED).

Yep.

Nice! I donate to charities, let’s get back to debating Stellaris, not debating weather we should debate.

Good, that's precisely what I was doing. Feel free to re-read my post and have another go!

 

[Ahahala]

Firstly, that's a fairly outdated method of legal fiction (as in a metaphorical allegory to interpret laws) and second - you can revert back to the version you bought, so there is no obstruction to get what you paid for. I'm fairly sure as well the games T&C's express that the software may change with updates and that the customer is entitled to updates on an 'as is' basis.

I guess you are a lawyer? You have proper aducation and won several Law of Tort cases? I'm not, but even my knowledge is enough to understand, that sometimes truth is to be found, it is not so obvious. And I still have not seen enough legal argumentation to see you as qualified specialist to make final statements.

Actually, I don't understant why to argue? Because I stated, that

in short term, refunds are not an issue to take into account.

?

I see spesialists here to discuss such issues.

True, but if you re-read, it is mostly the same minority of people saying the same things.

This is a speculation, supported by nothing but your words. Actually I see 25% unique people disagried to initial post. And please give a link to Dev diary with higher disagriement rate. And if you can't, admit, that this case is special. This would be honesty.

1. It's not an important part (it's just how do I move ships from A to B) and they're not removing, they're changing.

Once again you are making judgements base on your opinion, experiense and understanding of the game proces. This is not, what we are talking about. We are talking about those, who consider this feature as one of the main one. I gues, if this feature were not important for you, you won't be here after all, strongly protecting it's removal=) Jokes aside, none other dev post had such large amount of protest, what is a sign of significance of this feature for many people. Not for you, I got it, but for others. For devs too, as they state, that 3 FTLs influence so many spheres, thay have to remove them to make new changes.

2. They already stated it was a controversial decision, and went through their process of how they also considered warp only and other options. They had to make a (hard) decision - change something you know will piss off some of your audience so you can improve the game or sit on your hands and think of a solution while your audience gets bored and moves on.

Wrong words. Decision was is hard for me, for other opposers. Devs know about that, but still have not reverted. It means, they don't really care.

Again, not many, a minority.

Trust me, this minority is the biggest minority is Stellaris history=) you can speculate with the statements like "same people saying the same words", but if you try to count unique opposers in this trend you will find, that its about 100 at least. Compare this amount to other dev diaries and make conclusions. Denial of the obvious facts to keep confidence in onw truth is also a God-syndroma, by the way=)

And I'm arguing not through any special loyalty to PDS (I have one other game by them and that's it) but because people are treating this like PDS leaked the Clinton e-mails or something. It's a game. There are far more things in the world that have more value to argue over than wether two methods of transportation are being removed from a game, in order to try and improve it in every other aspect

This sounds weird. I make posts to support what I think is good for the game. But you oppose just to make me do something more usefull? Just take additional working hours, it will make much more diffrence. Or be honest and say: "I like hiperlanes, I want them removed, I don't like so many people don't agree, so I will keep arguing to make this trend even bigger"=)

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

Apologies ahead - incoming wall of text!

I guess you are a lawyer? You have proper aducation and won several Law of Tort cases? I'm not, but even my knowledge is enough to understand, that sometimes truth is to be found, it is not so obvious. And I still have not seen enough legal argumentation to see you as qualified specialist to make final statements.

Actually, I don't understant why to argue? Because I stated, that

?

I see spesialists here to discuss such issues.

Nope. I'm not educated in law, but this is why I stated that a cursory glance via Google on the matter and 10-15 mins reading around the subject gave me the conclusion I presented to you.

And I criticised simply because your initial argument was discussing how an expensive lawyer could guarantee you a refund on your purchase. My argument was how firstly if you're spending more than you paid for your product, why bother? Secondly because why bring this up if there's not a realistic case for it?

This is a speculation, supported by nothing but your words. Actually I see 25% unique people disagried to initial post. And please give a link to Dev diary with higher disagriement rate. And if you can't, admit, that this case is special. This would be honesty.

Correct. I am speculating, however mine is grounded in more logic.

You're saying 25% unique people disagree. But that's 25 percent of what? The player base? Those that read the forums? Those who have read this specific DD?

Saying something is 25% of one sample does not mean a quarter of an audience disagrees. You could say that if you were counting the colour of shoes that walk through a shopping arcade, you could say that 25% percent of them are brown. That doesn't then mean that 25% of the people in that town also have brown shoes.

True, it could be more than that, it could be less, but saying '25% of the people in this DD disagree, therefore a quarter of the player base must also disagree' is making a tenuous link between two data sets.

Once again you are making judgements base on your opinion, experiense and understanding of the game proces. This is not, what we are talking about. We are talking about those, who consider this feature as one of the main one. I gues, if this feature were not important for you, you won't be here after all, strongly protecting it's removal=) Jokes aside, none other dev post had such large amount of protest, what is a sign of significance of this feature for many people. Not for you, I got it, but for others. For devs too, as they state, that 3 FTLs influence so many spheres, thay have to remove them to make new changes.

And I'm not disrespecting others opinions. I get it, it's a bummer. I'm not thrilled about it either as I have (stated before) almost exclusively used warp throughout.

But there are two things. I find it odd that people would only buy a game purely because of one feature. It's like buying Doom because you like the shotgun, when it's not the main thing that makes Doom good, nor is it the only game featuring a shotgun.

The second is people already saying this game is now over before we've even seen all the new features of this patch, let alone played it.

Wrong words. Decision was is hard for me, for other opposers. Devs know about that, but still have not reverted. It means, they don't really care.

No. Because, again 335 out of 1.25 million people (according to steam) have vocalised their displeasure, therefore the ship must turn around and set for port already. Sure when those who don't frequent the forums realise there's a change, that number will go up, but this is what a hard decision looks like - when you decide something that you feel you need to do, likely at the detriment of others.

And like others have said - this is game design, not a democracy.

Trust me, this minority is the biggest minority is Stellaris history=) you can speculate with the statements like "same people saying the same words", but if you try to count unique opposers in this trend you will find, that its about 100 at least. Compare this amount to other dev diaries and make conclusions. Denial of the obvious facts to keep confidence in onw truth is also a God-syndroma, by the way=)

Have more or less covered my own thoughts on this point here above. Am going to ignore your last point, especially as I have no influence in the decision making process of PDS.

This sounds weird. I make posts to support what I think is good for the game. But you oppose just to make me do something more usefull? Just take additional working hours, it will make much more diffrence. Or be honest and say: "I like hiperlanes, I want them removed, I don't like so many people don't agree, so I will keep arguing to make this trend even bigger"=)

Again, made my points above on this. And tbf I guess I made the point about 'better things to argue about' more because the case for keeping FTL's currently boils down to 'I don't like change, change it back' or 'you could totally have warp and wormhole traps, just add the code line {add.warp.hole.trap=true}' without really giving any design additions on how this would improve on the currently dull warfare experience, nor the UI issues you would have with such a system.

All due respect - it's totally fine to not like changes, and I have my doubts, but we could wait for the new patch and play it first rather than mustering a law suit by village mob - which we've both concluded would prove fruitless.

 

[Ahahala]

how an expensive lawyer could guarantee you a refund on your purchase

Reputation once again. Expencive lawyer hired by very loud voice can make this case sound loud, what will bring unnesesary attention, from which company will only loose reputation. Simple as that - company never wins in reputation after such cases in terms of reputation. Paradox can count, they will not loose much on refunds anyway, so best option is simply to give one.This would be seen as generosity and add to reputation even for those, who oppose this change.

So yes, refund is not guarantied, but it is highly possible to get it.

Correct. I am speculating, however mine is grounded in more logic.

Well this looks like previous discussion here, about "Which type of FTL is more based or reality". None speculation is better.

If you want my worst (for me as for opposer) speculation, here it is: 25% is a higher amount than actual, about 5 times higher. This is based only on my experience: people who agree usually don't even put a mark, they simply read and close window. Protesters ususally state their opinion. But this concerns only those who strongly protest, who are angered. 5% is still a big amount, a material one. 1% is immaterial. So let us speculate, what will be the final amount: 25%, or 5%, or 1%, or 300 individuals?=)

Actually you can make assumptions basen in % of dislikes in initial post. That is what market researches are about. And posting dev diaries has several purposes, one of which is collect data from community. But regression models cant handle anomalies, they are based on statistic, and result comming far from breackdown has high chanse to be wrong. And this rate of Dislikes is anomaly - it never was so high. What will it mean in terms of model and research? You can expect anything. It is a risk to disapoint to many customers, and the only rational choise is to try to make this amount smaller to make result more predictable. To insure risks. How can you do it? There are a lot of possibities, from putting these changes to new game to making all FTS somehow integrated. For now I don't see any of those.

but we could wait for the new patch

As it was stated here before - you don't need to taste something, to know you would not like it - knowing ingrediets usually is enough. As I have also stated before - one of the reasons of these dev posts is to get public reaction. Do I have to hide my reaction? Nope. Do I have to wait, try, become disapointed and then post? Why? To get than a Dev reply like "Nobody told us it was a bad idea, so we are surpised"? Nope. Even in case of dinner my wife looks sad, when new cousine does not suit me. So I give my best gues of how I would feel of it before cooking. But to make a game is not same as to make a dinner. And Better I will be wrong now, then devs will spend several months to get bad and unxpected result.

 

[Mastakazam]

Except the developers, who are back to having to develop three varieties of subsystem each time they want to add a new feature that interacts with travel.

That, or admit that they are not going to support non-hyperlanes FTL in future content (meaning - not balance those features against non-hyperlane gameplay: the content might still be there, but if they intended for something to be locked behind "hyperlane secured" soft-locks, you might end with a fully functioning ringworld in year 2230 because you bypassed the expected barriers), raising the ire of non-hyperlane players anyway. Several things have already been designed under the idea of hyperlanes only already - like hyperlane-based system/space control, compared to radius-based system/space control

A little more work to make a lot of people happy? That's just part of making good game! Plenty of people would be fine with some game content unavailable because it's part of a 'hyperlanes only' game mode, that would be fine because then it's a feature of 'this game mode over here' and people would AS THEY DO NOW have the choice whether or not to play Stellaris this way or that.

 

[Hawklaser]

But there are two things. I find it odd that people would only buy a game purely because of one feature. It's like buying Doom because you like the shotgun, when it's not the main thing that makes Doom good, nor is it the only game featuring a shotgun.

The second is people already saying this game is now over before we've even seen all the new features of this patch, let alone played it.

I don't find point 1 odd. All it takes is one feature to drastically change the feel of a game. Lets take Starcraft and Warcraft for example, both solid RTS games, both by the same developer, and rather similar thanks to it(for this example lets assume there is a version X of both where the only real difference is the setting and lore associated with it). One key feature that drastically sets them apart is Sci-Fi setting vs Fantasy setting. Consider if you had only enough to get one of the two games, your going to be making that decision mostly off of if you like Sci-Fi or Fantasy more. And if want to stick with Doom related ones, while Doom, Wolfenstein, Duke Nukem are incredibly similar people will pick one over the often for very small things. Its not always about the main thing that makes the game good as to why some chose it.

On 2, my stance isn't that the game is over, but that the FTL change is moving it into a space where I am unlikely to find it enjoyable anymore. And so far the other changes have not given me any indication to the contrary.

No. Because, again 335 out of 1.25 million people (according to steam) have vocalised their displeasure, therefore the ship must turn around and set for port already. Sure when those who don't frequent the forums realise there's a change, that number will go up, but this is what a hard decision looks like - when you decide something that you feel you need to do, likely at the detriment of others.

And like others have said - this is game design, not a democracy.

Either way, the devs are going to do what they want to do. I'm just hoping that they maybe reconsider just flat out axing the other FTL types without larger player tested feedback at the very least. Not an opt in or closed beta, but a split patch with the hyperlane only focused changes, but still with the other FTLs in the game, with access to the all the new stuff with a disclaimer about it being balanced for hyperlane only. This scale of change is going to anger a number of players, especially if it just happens out of the blue for them(not all read the Dev Diaries or come to the forums). Basically taking a moment to see if the changes the Devs think will make everything better actually do, before crossing the point of no return with those who will not like the forced restriction to hyperlane only.

Again, made my points above on this. And tbf I guess I made the point about 'better things to argue about' more because the case for keeping FTL's currently boils down to 'I don't like change, change it back' or 'you could totally have warp and wormhole traps, just add the code line {add.warp.hole.trap=true}' without really giving any design additions on how this would improve on the currently dull warfare experience, nor the UI issues you would have with such a system.

All due respect - it's totally fine to not like changes, and I have my doubts, but we could wait for the new patch and play it first rather than mustering a law suit by village mob - which we've both concluded would prove fruitless.

My main point for keeping the three FTLs instead of one is that so far all the other changes combined with the FTL removal is looking to be leading to a just as dull if not duller warfare experience. If the goal is to make warfare more interesting, there are a couple of major things that need to happen. First, the AI needs to have varied strategies it can use for conducting war, as if it only ever uses one it gets very predictable, boring, and warps players play style to the counter of that one strategy. Two, we need to have more meaningful and significant choices, most likely as more game altering Points of Interest, which will spur conflict over them or hard choices of which are most important. Three, there have to be ways for one to be able to beat a superior sized doomstack without having to engage the doomstack, such as by crippling it by taking out other locations. Not to say doomstacks should never be an option, but there does need to be a rock-paper-scissors like balance between Static Defenses, Doomstacks, and Smaller Fleets. The removal of FTL types does nothing to alter these aspects, which is a large part of why the warfare is dull.

The reason the removal of the FTLs and shift to hyperlane only is going to be just as dull or duller, is the bulk of the combant is either going to be over the very importan fortifed choke points/planets, or the insignificant tiny systems between chokepoints. Its basically going to boil down to who can get the bigger fleet first and break the others fort, which is not very dynamic but instead rather static.

Some of the other changes that are needed, and also claimed can only have meaningful interactions with thanks to the removal of FTL types, if you take a step back and look, the problem isn't due to the FTL types. Meaningful Defenses and galactic "terrain" for example, big complaint here is non-hyperlanes can just avoid them, this is only true because of how dense the systems are, and people insisting they have to be able to build them away from their points of interest. The bigger culprit here is the Map generation, and they have no plans to touch that this patch from what I remember of the video linked earlier in the thread. To use an analogy, its like complaining your car is rough to ride in and thinking the shocks need fixing without looking at the road you are driving on, which could be a dirt road filled with pot holes. Its not to say the shocks are good are bad, but you might want to eliminate the possibility of a bad driving conditions first.

If you address map generation first with the goals to make exploration more meaningful and increase the number of conflict worthy points, I'd be willing to say you will see a greater return on interesting combat than you would by restricting the player even more.

I am still waiting on a convincing feature that necessitated the removal of the FTL types to be announced. You know, something that actually looks like it will add more to the game than the removal of the FTL types will cause the game to lose. Even if they are prototypes still, and unconfirmed for implementation, would be interesting to hear what actually can't be done without removing the FTLs, instead of just seeming like running from the problem of having to find a way to get the three FTL types into an imperfect balance. Yes, I am aware this could be more coding, and some odd little quirks can mess with it. But we likely don't need a giant mess of traps and other nonsence for the 3 FTL types to work if started with the more root cause of the map gen creating dull maps.

 

[LeanneKaos]

Apologies ahead - incoming wall of text!
But there are two things. I find it odd that people would only buy a game purely because of one feature. It's like buying Doom because you like the shotgun, when it's not the main thing that makes Doom good, nor is it the only game featuring a shotgun.

The underlined part makes that kind of a bad example. Nobody buys a game for the feature that every other game of it's type has unless they're literally buying everything (of it's type) except for the games that don't have the feature in question.

It's the features that stand out that swings decisions, either for or against. And sometimes that does boil down to a single feature, swinging someone towards a game they were on the fence about or even otherwise uninterested in.

The second is people already saying this game is now over before we've even seen all the new features of this patch, let alone played it.

TBH, I've seen that phrase stuffed in the mouths of people who weren't quite saying it more often than I've seen people actually saying it.

I mean yeah, there's a handful saying "over," but there's far more who aren't going quite that far yet being responded to as if they are.

There's also a whole lot of missing the point. IF hyperlanes in general (which we have plenty of experience with, both from other games and the current version of this game) are offputting in themselves, it doesn't matter what the other features are. It's like telling someone who doesn't like first-person-shooters to give Doom a try before writing it off because it's got all these other things that are totally cool but don't change the fact that it's still a first person shooter.

Maybe you find it odd that someone could be that put off by that one feature, as you do with the idea that someone might be drawn to a single feature?

 

[pcavalcanti]

One of the things I'm curious to see as an outcome of this change is how they will improve the AI for wars.
In one of my hyperlane-only games a huge empire declared war against me and they had almost three times the amount of fleets. They invaded my territory and went to bombard one of my planets. In the meantime I sent construction fleets to build 2 military stations in the 2 hyperlanes that connected our empires. Every one of their transport ships and reinforcements got stuck in those defenses and got destroyed. The AI did nothing about it, I didn't engage them at all, the time went by and after quite a while they offered white peace.