• 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:

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
Ultimate (in my humble opinion) and unfortunately long answer to the question many asks:
Why devs plan to remove 2/3 FTLs?

And where it can get us if they go a step further

I really encourage you to read it :)

Foreword:
  • I play warp games most of the times (mostly STNH mod), but long time ago played vanilla so tried hyperlanes and wormholes and both are fun bcs you have to have different strategies for them and it allows more freedom or give some restrictions which both is nice (variety is nice)
  • I am against removing 2/3 FTL types
  • I agree with devs that removing 2/3 FTL is necessary for performance and some of new futures.
  • I want our removed 2 FTLs back!
  • I think that removing 2/3 FTL is a good base to provide 3 FTL based on unified and performant hyperlane pathfinding code.
  • I may be wrong, but I hope I am right.
  • Not all will like it but it is better than having only 1 FTL or having the game with 3 FTL but without future mechanics which depend on performant codebase.
  • I will adapt to whatever game devs prepare and play it (maybe hyperlane only game can be good, but I also might just stop playing in several months till some moders find a way to bring 2 FTLs back)
With the above seemingly contradictory statements I want you all take your time and understand my point of view on the situation and why I think Devs do the right thing with removing warp and hyperlanes while doing some thigs wrong at the same time.

It is very funny and at the same time kind a sad that my posts are marked as respectfully disagree by those who oppose removing 2/3 FTLs. But… I can deal with it really ;). It is as if I was not understood, they had other vision, or words hyperlanes in a post makes people to like/dislike it by default or they simply click randomly ;) or other reasons.

So reasons…
Performance:
  • Devs stated that 3 FTL have different code base and calculating paths for each is resource consuming. I think it is true.
New futures based on performant code base:
  • Devs said that with the use of unified pathfinding based on 1 FTL: hyperlanes there can be more futures developed.
  • I think it is true bcs if the code is performant you can use it more often to do a lot of stuff in the game and bring futures not possible before (like maybe supply lines, trade routes, better AI that can predict enemy movements better and anything we can imagine that should be based on with possible move routes)
Other futures described by devs like: chokepoints, starbases, outposts, borders, terrain are less meaningful in a light of removing 2/3 FTLs and are only a consequence and maybe a not very well developed vision about possibilities that one unified pathfinding code can do to the game.
They are important only if you look at the hyperlane map from one simple perspective – the hyperlane map is the same for all. But it can be different… Right? It is only a matter of some additional code.

Here is a place where I differ with devs vision, and I would love to see devs and players (from both sides) to recognize the possibilities my point of view presents.
I already can hear voices from those who understand my idea that:
  • it will take some memory - yes, but FTLs in current version takes a lot more for sure, and it will take slightly more than what devs plan.
  • it will be harder for AI to handle - AI struggles with current 3 FTL even more. If all is based on unified performant code it will be only slightly harder for devs do better AI than they already did for 1.9
  • how to present it to the user in GUI – user couldn’t see 2/3 of FTLs on the map, so should he now? Easy/first that comes to mind solution would allow the player to see hyperplane map as his opponent do see it. Just by clicking on the enemy empire.
  • How warp/wormhole range will be calculated if all is hyperlanes – easy. Each hyperlane will have parameters that will tell if ship with certain engine can go through it. Warp – the higher the engine the longer hyperlanes it can go, the same for wormholes
  • How hyperlane map will be built for wormholes if they need a wormhole station – easy, the hyperlane map for wormhole will be built during a game when you build/destroy wormhole station/research new wormhole range. The hyperlane map will be updated with new connections – so it will be an data structure what is loaded at start but can be expanded/reduced during the game
  • So how about wormholes for different empires – easy – each hyperlane for wormhole have additional parameter: list of empires that can use this hyperlane. This way at the start each empire have its own hyperlane net build with wormholes, but later they can share hyperlanes net by an agreement like they do now.
  • We will lose some of uniqueness of warp/wormholes – like 10% increase in range (ship component), or the need to move for warp/wormhole ship to the edges of system like it is planned for hyperlanes in 1.9 – yes, and is it so hard to accept it?
  • Wormhole just jumps from one place to another, it do not move through hyperlane between stars – easy, it is only GUI - ship can just not be presented on the map.
  • What about static defenses and chokepoints on borders …, only hyperlanes give this possibility – they are possibly bad design choice, who on “earth” militarize only borders… - I say redesign idea of chokepoints, make them work differently, do not base them only on geography, implement POI better, add some futures to starbases, implement supply lines (with unified pathfinding code it is easy), do whatever to add variety, some idea here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?posts/23534381/
  • Sensors, will they work with 3FTL – sure, why not, under the ood everything is a hyperlane
  • Snares – my favorite ;) – why devs want to catch fleets that bypass chokepoints? Why different code for them? Just be creative, add forced movement through star with snare module, allow to move to that systems only from star with snare module or whatever – there are plenty ideas that could work. And what about if the station with snare is out of range, force fleet to go back to originating star or do not allow to travel in the first place – now you have very performant pathfinding code so you can calculate it when player hove over the star with the mouse.
  • etc. – my point is everything can be solved.
But all this problems are minor compared to the possibilities of having 3 FTLs that are based on one simple hyperlane code and happiness of players who will get their beloved FTLs and can play Stellaris with all the futures of 1.9 and future version bring.
Devs wont revert from their decision, it is done, deal with it.
Too much is already done, and devs have plans to further extend the game based on 1 hyperlane FTL. I think one thing they didn’t fully considered or are aware of is that their move is good if they look further, if they see warp and wormholes as hyperlanes (with minor limitations).
All we can do now is
  • Post as most do in a hopes that game will stay as it is, stop playing etc.
  • Hope that every new future will have to take into account non-performant code for 3 FTLs lagging the game even more and stopping devs from bringing us gamers new cool futures
  • Take this situation as is and try to convince Devs that there is another path to take (it is even possible they already know it but are uncertain if this is good path) I call it COMPROMISE where everyone wins:)
I do not want to take your right to oppose, present other ideas/solutions, but I also want you to know that from every situation is a way out, all everyone should do is to see it and take it.
In many previous posts I tried to bring the idea of hyperlanes as base for other FTL types. I have mixed feeling about its outcome. Especially from those who oppose removal of FTL but who also disagrees with the idea of bringing back warp and wormholes based on hyperlanes.

Here is the nice link that will tune you further to my way of thinking and if you go deeper will take you to some of my posts about FTLs, supply lines, doomstacks etc.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?posts/23533283/

As this post becomes longer and longer I will stop writing. I hope you reached the end and have some thoughts about it.
All I kindly ask people who respectfully disagree with above idea is to write why you disagree. Without it your feedback and my effort is close to pointless. To be honest I count on 100+ votes, dozens of responses, but reality will be 10-15 max with 1-2 responses ;) as all posts in this thread got buried.
 
Last edited:

Nippleworthy

First Lieutenant
Jun 1, 2017
257
0
Was not already said everything? Let's face it, the "Book of Mormon" is less in reading ...
All I kindly ask people who respectfully disagree with above idea is to write why you disagree.

I disagreed, so you do not have to be sad about it anymore that your posts are liked by people who are for new changes described in the DD. :D
 

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
I disagreed, so you do not have to be sad about it anymore that your posts are liked by people who are for new changes described in the DD. :D

:)
I am very happy now ! really ;)
I even liked your post

And I get it :D (after a while) - have to edit my previous post!

but if you like it you can agree now ;)
The thing I wanted to tell was that hyperlane only player can have all futures from DD with only small tweaks here and there, and all other 2 FTL players would get great game too.
 
Last edited:

Nippleworthy

First Lieutenant
Jun 1, 2017
257
0
I really would like to make you happier :) and if it were up to me, then I would wish all players to keep their beloved FTL's. But the creators of the game have decided and I'm afraid that is not to change anymore. I'm too exhausted to be upset about it. If I do not like the changes I will not play Stellaris anymore. Until then, I'm looking forward to the changes. I think your devotion to write so much is so admirable, but i am a simple hearted human, I'm pragmatic about Stellaris.
 

permeakra

Major
67 Badges
Nov 20, 2017
650
345
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
I'm perfectly OK with different FTLs built on top of hyperlane code. IFF this is what is happening, than I see no problem, except we need to live through a patch with incomplete feature set. This sucks, such things should be developed in-studio or at most in a form of beta program.

Regretfully, I do not believe this is what is happening. I'm a cynic and to me it seems that the devs simply cannot read through recent works on graph algorithms and make tweaks to galaxy generators and existing code, so they scrap away features they have no brains to deal with. Understandable, but I'm not going to cheer for it in any case. This sucks.

My main problem with hyperlanes is that they are static and the changes that happen with them are very limited. It could be tolerable or even fun to live with hypelanes/jumpgates that are built by empires during the game. TBH, if we had to live with one FTL model of the current three, I would prefer wormholes. They are dynamic and, if reworked (more mineral costs/ costlier maintanance, modified rallying) could be an interesting part of gameplay. Hyperlanes, on the other hand, are done so much times that they are just boring.

That said, it seems to me that devs leave jump drive in place, which I think can be modified to behave effectively as current warp, so hopefully we can live through this with mods. Otherwise I'll boot into windows and install my recently bought Sword of Stars with how many? Six FTL models?
 

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
Regretfully, I do not believe this is what is happening. I'm a cynic and to me it seems that the devs simply cannot read through recent works on graph algorithms and make tweaks to galaxy generators and existing code, so they scrap away features they have no brains to deal with.

Yes, it is sadly very possible. But if they manage to clean code maybe there is a chance they will extend it with with functions I described or something similar.

it seems to me that devs leave jump drive in place, which I think can be modified to behave effectively as current warp

I do not think that jump drive will be possible to mod to simulate Warp :( As pathfinding algorithm will be based on hyperlanes. Jumpdrive is started with a function by a player and he has to select another star, and I suppose that code underlying it just change the position of a fleet to a new star system - without the use of pathfinding.You wont be able to set several jumps in a row.
Only mod I can imagine is that costs and cool down of jumpdrive is reduced to nothing, but you would have to jump one star at a time and each time had to choose this jump function - it is almost unusable.

Sword of Stars with how many? Six FTL models?

what are other FTL types in that game? how they work?
bcs I think under extended hyperlane functionality we could have more FTLs - it is just a matter of drive used by ships, and the specific hyperlane connections for this drive.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
Devs wont revert from their decision, it is done, deal with it.

Nope. Fight till release and anger steam reviews after. Never forget, never forgive :)

Actually what you said seems ok. But you have to keep in mind, that you are solving 3FTL problem by only instuments of hiperdrive, what is not made for that. So it will use more resources, than now. If it will not... than I can't understand why it was not implemented in original game by devs in the first place=)

And even if everithung is ok, one issue remains. Devs don't want to ballance 3 FTLs, so it will be a mod, right? And here comes the biggest WTF - why do cuntomers have to eliminate mistakes of the devs? When I buy a car with turbine I don't expect it to be taken away by producer, so I would have to put new one for my own.

It will be good to make 3FTLs on hiperlane mechanics, it will save the game. But I still don't understand, why game is to be saved by user, not by devs.
 

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
Nope. Fight till release and anger steam reviews after. Never forget, never forgive :)

Agree, but after some point it is good to try to compromise. If we (those who want our 3 FTLs) only undermine decisions of devs, demanding but not giving realistic solutions that are aligned with their vision we are possibly lose this fight.
I think devs received the message that some (significant or maybe not that much) part of players are not happy with the upcoming changes. I think this is why DD about warfare doomstacks is delayed, and sickness is only an excuse (conspiracy theory... :D )

So it will use more resources, than now. If it will not... than I can't understand why it was not implemented in original game by devs in the first place=)

Maybe that is true, maybe not. I think that current code base for pathfinding takes a lot more resources (in RAM and processor power) as a sum (each calculation) than storing more data about hyperlanes and use simple, fast pathfinding mechanic based on hyperlanes.
They possibly didn’t do it bcs it was not needed, done fast, not a lot of game futures were connected to pathfinding, it was already done and they had more immediate needs etc.

Devs don't want to ballance 3 FTLs, so it will be a mod, right?

I hope if they take this path to extend hyperlanes they will try to balance those FTLs. It would be foolish to provide such great functionality and not use it to sell more copies of the game. And yes, moders will do the rest, creating awesome mods :)
 

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
You already bought the game so even if you protest, it's your right, the only thing they will lose from you is the revenues from buying their future DLC.

But they wouldn't be bothering to make those changes unless they wanted to sell lots of future DLC, so boycotting it and never buying another DLC for Stellaris will be the most effective protest one can make about the sudden removal of core game features and the forcing of space-train-tracks on every player. That and changing Steam reviews to thumbs down.
 

Boygor

Second Lieutenant
13 Badges
May 18, 2017
133
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
Some really good points here with regards to the map generation. Using space "terrain" as blockers for various FTL types would also have been interesting IMO. Warp storms, wormhole inhibiting nebulae, unstable hyperlanes, ancient tech (like that gravitational anomaly event) creating unstable regions of space etc

Having different terrain creating different effects with regards to different FTL types/ ship configurations would have added some depth instead of creating bottlenecks. You could even have done something with doomstacks to that effect with larger fleets taking damage/ losing moreships in particularly dangerous regions of space.

Advanced tech to mitigate/ overcome/ utilise these issues. Perhaps fleets with area effect inhibitors that stack with fleet density/ size (or whatever).

So many options available and the boring (balanced?) option was picked. I want more chaos and more things to overcome. Not choke point forts :(
 

Seb_Jean

First Lieutenant
60 Badges
May 5, 2013
259
58
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
But they wouldn't be bothering to make those changes unless they wanted to sell lots of future DLC, so boycotting it and never buying another DLC for Stellaris will be the most effective protest one can make about the sudden removal of core game features and the forcing of space-train-tracks on every player. That and changing Steam reviews to thumbs down.

It is a valid form of protest but Paradox is a private company so if they made this decision, it's clearly because in the end, they think they will benefit from it.

About Steam reviews, I don't really care about it. I mostly make my decision by viewing videos and seeing gameplay. More, Steam reviews are often tweaked by Valve to limit bots and trolls so I don't think they are a useful way to rank a game.
 

Ahahala

Corporal
Nov 8, 2017
30
0
I hope if they take this path to extend hyperlanes they will try to balance those FTLs.

My best guess is that not the codding itself is so time-consuming. Code can be written by junior and middle specialists, but for ballance and creative part the time of game architect, top-engineer, teamlead and other high-ranked expensive specialists is needed. And testing. Each option has to be played, tested, and correctred. Not the code itself is a problem, but a system as a whole.

Surely, if this is the case, 3 FTLs will be deleted no matter how easily they can be made.
 

permeakra

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

Tsu Chi

Sergeant
3 Badges
Sep 13, 2016
93
27
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders III
My best guess is that not the codding itself is so time-consuming. Code can be written by junior and middle specialists, but for ballance and creative part the time of game architect, top-engineer, teamlead and other high-ranked expensive specialists is needed. And testing. Each option has to be played, tested, and correctred. Not the code itself is a problem, but a system as a whole.

Surely, if this is the case, 3 FTLs will be deleted no matter how easily they can be made.

The game do not have to be balanced very well. Is it balanced now? I think not. Moders do a lot of mods, spend their time, and I think that devs take advantage of some ideas and do tweaks here and there based on mods work or just from forum feedback.
And if it comes to code testing, a lot of test can be made by code itself (unit testing), or by scripts (do not know if such tools are used in game industry). But yes, testing game balance and haw it feels when you play it is only possible with team of humans.
 

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
It is a valid form of protest but Paradox is a private company so if they made this decision, it's clearly because in the end, they think they will benefit from it.

No doubt they do think that, but I know for sure that I most certainly wont benefit from forced hyperlanes, so I will vote with my wallet and my Steam review.

About Steam reviews, I don't really care about it. I mostly make my decision by viewing videos and seeing gameplay. More, Steam reviews are often tweaked by Valve to limit bots and trolls so I don't think they are a useful way to rank a game.

Then we buy Steam games in very different ways. When I am looking at a prospective title, I usually examine MOSTLY the negative reviews because these often contain the serious game flaws that many positive reviews fail to mention. And if I end up disagreeing with most of the negative reviews or if the "faults" are not relevant to me, then I end up buying the game.
 

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
Other futures described by devs like: chokepoints, starbases, outposts, borders, terrain are less meaningful in a light of removing 2/3 FTLs and are only a consequence and maybe a not very well developed vision about possibilities that one unified pathfinding code can do to the game.

This is where I have to disagree. From my reading, they made it pretty clear that those were the primary factors in why they chose hyperlane as the single FTL to remain. To me, it therefore seems confirmed that their vision is not the one you're speaking of here.
 

Syric

Private
73 Badges
Nov 22, 2017
12
10
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
I 100% agree with worm holes being a nature formation within the galaxy! EXCELLENT CHOICE! I've wondered why this wasn't the case since I recently started playing Stellaris. It just fits so much more into a sci-fi setting as you outline in your OP! Exciting strategic possibilities indeed!

As for the rest, it all sounds GREAT and once again just goes to show/prove that PARADOX is truly a 1-of-a-kind gaming company!!! PLEASE DO NOT LET EA EVER BUY YOU....pppllllleeeeeeaaaassseeee! (and ty!)
 

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
But they wouldn't be bothering to make those changes unless they wanted to sell lots of future DLC, so boycotting it and never buying another DLC for Stellaris will be the most effective protest one can make about the sudden removal of core game features and the forcing of space-train-tracks on every player. That and changing Steam reviews to thumbs down.

I've changed my review and explained why in it.

It's a slim hope this will catch on and get Paradox to reconsider (I'll change my review back the moment they change course from this insulting and self-destructive development practice), but I cannot condone Paradox's behaviour, and I'd want people to warn me if a dev is prone to breaking/fundamentally altering games and content you've already paid for well after release.

It's really toxic conduct and I would hope this is nipped in the bud before it becomes a precedent for Paradox. The world doesn't need another EA.

Edit: lol https://i.imgur.com/qjWJIjl.png
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.