• 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:

Ediros

Second Lieutenant
5 Badges
Sep 22, 2017
109
306
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Age of Wonders III
FTL isn't about space.
It's about hyperspace.
There may very well be roads or walls in hyperspace.

This is perhaps the most infuriating anti-hyperlanes argument, because it's disingenuousness combined with pop-culture myopia combined with anti-scientific hypocrisy combined with missing the point.
  1. If you really cared about "realistic space travel" you'd have been complaining about Warp too since Day 1, because it's not "centuries long cryoship slower than light travel times". So that's how I know your complaint is disingenuous
  2. The counter to (1) is that "Stellaris is a futuristic, space video game and warp travel is an absolute staple of futuristic, space media", to which the answer is: Don't pretend you're some historian of science fiction, approximately one popular sci-fi setting has warp travel and it's Star Trek. The fact that you think this one example is representative of the entire genre is proof that you don't really know what you're talking about. I don't want to say "If you make this argument you're a fake sci-fi fan", but... ... ...I don't know how to finish that sentence.
  3. The "Hyperlanes are unscientific" argument is... well, unlike the point above, I do want to say that "If you make this argument you're a fake science enthusiast". Firstly, Krasnikov Tubes. Secondly, all FTL is unscientific, so this argument is very similar to growing the beard of a medieval theologian and pounding the table yelling "The number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin is 12! The heretics who say it's 15 are fools who don't understand exegecis! Burn the heretics! BURN THEM!"
  4. Stellaris is a VIDEO GAME. The important consideration for a VIDEO GAME is whether or not its mechanics produce good gameplay, not how pseudo-scientifically accurate they are. Warpholes pre-2.0 have resulted in very bad gameplay. Anti-hyperlanes complaints are therefore the same kind of argument as "This red car doesn't work, and that blue car does, but I like the colour red more, so I'll buy the red car", and then sitting in the car dealer's lot unable to drive anywhere but yelling about how happy you are with your purchase and how unaesthetic all those blue car drivers are as they drive past you and out into the world.
So if your objective was to annoy me, mission accomplished. But your arguments are still ridiculous from multiple different angles.

1.When did I say, I care about realistic ftl? I am primarily wormhole player and I played all 3 ftl types. It doesn't matter if it is realistic or not. To me, the most important aspect is fun - which hyperlanes are not.

2.All your arguments focus on realism. However we are talking about a game with: space dragons, shroud (similar to that from warhammer), space amoeba, etc.

Stellar is not and has never been pure hardcore science fiction.

To me hyperlanes =/= fun.

They are boring, tedious and predictable - fortify choke points.

The ftl types are imbalanced because you don't know where they come from and unless you click on the Fleet, you won't know where is it going in the first place. Only when they arrive in your space, you can do anything. It is a bad design, that only Stellaris does.

However, if in order to balance wiz would rather cut them all out than fix this problem, I think this is lazy approach that will turn this game into another generic space game.

Cheers!
 

Dr. Chaos

Second Lieutenant
49 Badges
May 30, 2016
198
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II
1.When did I say, I care about realistic ftl? I am primarily wormhole player and I played all 3 ftl types. It doesn't matter if it is realistic or not. To me, the most important aspect is fun - which hyperlanes are not.

2.All your arguments focus on realism. However we are talking about a game with: space dragons, shroud (similar to that from warhammer), space amoeba, etc.

Stellar is not and has never been pure hardcore science fiction.

To me hyperlanes =/= fun.

They are boring, tedious and predictable - fortify choke points.

The ftl types are imbalanced because you don't know where they come from and unless you click on the Fleet, you won't know where is it going in the first place. Only when they arrive in your space, you can do anything. It is a bad design, that only Stellaris does.

However, if in order to balance wiz would rather cut them all out than fix this problem, I think this is lazy approach that will turn this game into another generic space game.

Cheers!

You do know that 1.X hyperlanes =/= 2.X hyperlanes right? And if you just dont like their predictability and choke points, then turn the hyperlane and wormhole density to maximum!
 
Last edited:

Boygor

Second Lieutenant
13 Badges
May 18, 2017
133
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
While I completely agree with you about the Suckability of hyperlane-only travel, I think there's a very good chance we'll find that a 2.0 AI optimised for early to mid game fortified chokepoints and trench-warfare in space wont have a clue how to deal with warp fleets moving wherever they want in the early game. In fact I'd be willing to bet money on it. And of course the AI is one thing we cant mod.

But by all means the modding should still be tried ASAP after release, I'd love to find out that I'm wrong and 2.0 doesn't end up being forced hyperlane hell for everybody. It would be a very pleasant surprise because it means I wont have to stick with 1.9 until I get bored to death with it.

Yes, that's the big worry here to be honest. Essentially it's make or break for me. If modding the jump drives to a start tech doesn't work to my satisfaction then it's time to revert to 1.9 and cut my losses with this game. I've got around 12 games installed I've never played and 23 on my wishlist (including Lord of Rigel which looks like Moo2.5) so it's not like I'll be bored. Would be a pity though.

*edit* I was thinking that it could potentially be possible to create various jump drives. On my digging yesterday I found various jump drive mods containing multiple jump drive types (in one mod) on the Steam Workshop. It could be possible to create various technological iterations of the jump drive (i.e. number of permitted jumps, different malus effects) throughout the course of the game.

Slightly nerfed early warp would still be preferable to no warp at all and would perhaps give the AI half a chance if it can't cope with early game jump drives. Could also be mitigated by cranking up the difficulty too.

Lots of speculation, not long to wait.

You do know that 1.X hyperlanes =/= 2.X hyperlanes right? And if you just dont like their predictability and choke points, then turn the hyperlane and wormhole density to maximum!

Yeah but then the game will look like some demented spider crawled all over outer space. It looks Ugly.
 
Last edited:

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
Lots of speculation, not long to wait.

Like I said, modding free movement back into the game should definitely be attempted. I'll have my fingers and toes crossed that it works.

Yeah but then the game will look like some demented spider crawled all over outer space. It looks Ugly.

Exactly, it looks nothing like a starmap and everything like a hideous'y deformed spider's web, and to add insult to injury it will STILL be nothing like warp travel because you'll have to crawl across each star system along your route in this ultra-dense web at sub-light speed. ONE BY ONE.

The people doing the applauding aren't actually fans of that supposedly popular content; they see it as a failed experiment.

But hyperlane lovers always had the option to play with only hyperlanes if they wanted. The "popular content" they are scrapping takes all the other movement options away and forces everybody to play with the exact same FTL system which has been used in every sub-mediocre or failed 4x for the past 30 years. There's nothing bold, new or innovative about yet another game which uses identical starlanes to every other starlane-based 4x, that's the failed experiment which is now being repeated. Again.
 

steinernein

Corporal
36 Badges
Jun 11, 2016
34
12
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Semper Fi
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • The Showdown Effect
But hyperlane lovers always had the option to play with only hyperlanes if they wanted. The "popular content" they are scrapping takes all the other movement options away and forces everybody to play with the exact same FTL system which has been used in every sub-mediocre or failed 4x for the past 30 years. There's nothing bold, new or innovative about yet another game which uses identical starlanes to every other starlane-based 4x, that's the failed experiment which is now being repeated. Again.

Wrong.
 

Dr. Chaos

Second Lieutenant
49 Badges
May 30, 2016
198
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II
But hyperlane lovers always had the option to play with only hyperlanes if they wanted. The "popular content" they are scrapping takes all the other movement options away and forces everybody to play with the exact same FTL system which has been used in every sub-mediocre or failed 4x for the past 30 years. There's nothing bold, new or innovative about yet another game which uses identical starlanes to every other starlane-based 4x, that's the failed experiment which is now being repeated. Again.

Note that not all who are exited about the changes are hyperlane-lovers (I personally played all FTL games and used wormholes).
Most of us who want Cherryh just accept the FTL changes and dont give a damn about losing warpholes. I dont think that most players play Stellaris because the pre-2.0 three-FTL.
 

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0

Is it just me or are hyperlane apologist counter-arguments getting really lazy?

Note that not all who are exited about the changes are hyperlane-lovers (I personally played all FTL games and used wormholes). Most of us who want Cherryh just accept the FTL changes and dont give a damn about losing warpholes. I dont think that most players play Stellaris because the pre-2.0 three-FTL.

Oh I dont doubt that you're right about that, on this forum at least it seems that most people dont really care about having the FTL diversity options cut from the game. But there are still a significant number of us who chose the ability to avoid roads-in-space as the very basis for our purchase and would have avoided Stellaris like the plague if it were originally released as a starlane-only game. That's certainly the case for me anyway. We're the ones who are screaming blue murder at our game being butchered into un-playability while the rest of you scratch your heads wondering what all the fuss is about.

If the same dont-care to care ratio exists with general customers who dont frequent these forums then the devs will probably get away with it scot free, but if not....... interesting times ahead.
 

AlanC9

Field Marshal
16 Badges
Mar 15, 2001
5.081
320
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Semper Fi
  • Magicka 2
But hyperlane lovers always had the option to play with only hyperlanes if they wanted. The "popular content" they are scrapping takes all the other movement options away and forces everybody to play with the exact same FTL system which has been used in every sub-mediocre or failed 4x for the past 30 years. There's nothing bold, new or innovative about yet another game which uses identical starlanes to every other starlane-based 4x, that's the failed experiment which is now being repeated. Again.

"Every sub-mediocre or failed 4x game?" Perhaps. And a bunch of really good ones too. That rhetoric can't work on someone who's played games with hyperlanes and liked them fine.

And "failed experiment" is just silly. Nothing's failed. Starlanes worked in other games, work in Stellaris already, and will work in 2.0.

You don't like them? Yeah, we all get that. But that's no reason for starlanes to bother anyone else.
 

macd21

General
80 Badges
Oct 10, 2011
2.089
945
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
But hyperlane lovers always had the option to play with only hyperlanes if they wanted. The "popular content" they are scrapping takes all the other movement options away and forces everybody to play with the exact same FTL system which has been used in every sub-mediocre or failed 4x for the past 30 years. There's nothing bold, new or innovative about yet another game which uses identical starlanes to every other starlane-based 4x, that's the failed experiment which is now being repeated. Again.

Playing with hyperlane-only switched on didn’t solve the problems that the 3 ftl gameplay had. The devs were still limited in what they could do with the game, because it had to be balanced with all 3 in mind.

I almost always play with warp drives, but I recognize that hyperlane-only will create a better game.
 

Woozywyvern

Sergeant
80 Badges
Jan 28, 2016
75
81
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
Playing with hyperlane-only switched on didn’t solve the problems that the 3 ftl gameplay had. The devs were still limited in what they could do with the game, because it had to be balanced with all 3 in mind.

I almost always play with warp drives, but I recognize that hyperlane-only will create a better game.

This ... the change is being made to allow the devs to work on other elements of the game going forward. I too play predominantly with Warp, but if the devs feel they can make a better game with this change then great, I'll come along for the ride. Very few 4X games use 3 FTL methods, and those that I can think of don't have the depth or complexity that Stellaris does.
 
Last edited:

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
Every sub-mediocre or failed 4x game?" Perhaps. And a bunch of really good ones too. That rhetoric can't work on someone who's played games with hyperlanes and liked them fine.

Ok, lets talk about this "bunch of really good ones"....

Endless Space: Probably the most popular but not a pure starlane-based game, you can easily (in the very early game) go off-road and in fact the entire game is designed around lane-connected "islands" where the only way between them is to go off-road with free movement, so even if you dont want to, you must at some point.

Sins of a Solar Empire: More of an RTS than a 4x where tactical combat is really the focus.

So out of the pure starlane-restricted 4x games - which Stellaris is about to become - at least in the early to mid game, we have.....

The mediocre to sub-mediocre ones: Space Empires Series, MOO-Cts, Sid Meier's Starships, Polaris Sector. Games that have either been almost entirely forgotten or were completely ignored a month or two after release, mediocre dross at its finest.

The complete disasters: Ascendency (infamously the worst 4x AI) and MOO 3 (worst 4x ever made for so many reasons, starlanes being only one of a huge laundry list)

So where are the "really good" starlane-restricted 4x games, the ones that were incredibly popular and sold really well? I'd love to hear about them. Where are the starlane 4x games just as popular as MOO 1, MOO 2, Gal Civ series, Stars! and Distant Worlds? I must have forgotten about them because they dont seem to be immediately springing to mind. Maybe Stellaris 2.0 will be the first? Or maybe it will just join all the others.

And "failed experiment" is just silly. Nothing's failed. Starlanes worked in other games, work in Stellaris already, and will work in 2.0

I'm not sure I'd define "worked" as succeeding in forcing land warfare concepts like chokepoints, roads and mountains into a space game. How incredibly boring, simplistic and uninspired, basically just RISK in space with a starry skin. They worked for what they did, but what they did was just a pretty rubbish dumbing down of the genre, IMO of course.

You don't like them? Yeah, we all get that. But that's no reason for starlanes to bother anyone else.

You seem to be implying that I claimed that it should bother somebody else. Can you point me to where I said that? Although to be honest, several somebodies - even on this forum - are obviously bothered or else this thread probably wouldn't be 272 pages long with the other one catching up fast. Clearly not everyone is entirely happy with being forced to use nothing but space roads 1.5 years after already buying a game which loudly advertised FTL diversity as a selling point. I cant say I blame them.
 

Woozywyvern

Sergeant
80 Badges
Jan 28, 2016
75
81
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
You seem to be implying that I claimed that it should bother somebody else. Can you point me to where I said that? Although to be honest, several somebodies - even on this forum - are obviously bothered or else this thread probably wouldn't be 272 pages long with the other one catching up fast. Clearly not everyone is entirely happy with being forced to use nothing but space roads 1.5 years after already buying a game which loudly advertised FTL diversity as a selling point. I cant say I blame them.

Players will still have the option of keeping the 1.9 version of the game. The same game you bought 1.5 years ago is still available to you. Nothing is being forced on anyone.
 

GulGnu

First Lieutenant
88 Badges
Oct 5, 2000
271
55
Visit site
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Majesty 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • 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
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
Is it just me or are hyperlane apologist counter-arguments getting really lazy?

After 272 pages of constant regurgitation of the same tired arguments, can you blame them?

Ok, lets talk about this "bunch of really good ones"....

This whole debate has been illuminating - I never even considered the possibility that what people *really* liked about Space 4X games was the absence of hyperlane FTL. You learn constantly I guess.

I'm not sure I'd define "worked" as succeeding in forcing land warfare concepts like chokepoints, roads and mountains into a space game. How incredibly boring, simplistic and uninspired, basically just RISK in space with a starry skin.

RISK IN SPACE sounds pretty good compared to the woeful current state of Stellaris warfare.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BoogieMang

Recruit
17 Badges
Feb 16, 2018
1
0
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • War of the Roses
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
Playing with hyperlane-only switched on didn’t solve the problems that the 3 ftl gameplay had. The devs were still limited in what they could do with the game, because it had to be balanced with all 3 in mind.

I almost always play with warp drives, but I recognize that hyperlane-only will create a better game.

During my time with Sins of a Solar Empire, hyperlanes was tolerable for me because Vasari phase gates were a thing. I hope that gets brought in to the 2.0 patch. Otherwise, the game will be equally as slow minus the tactical depth of Sins.
 

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
After 273 pages of constant regurgitation of the same tired arguments, can you blame them?

Luckily they dont seem to have had any impact on your equally tired arguments. Which is good I guess or we'd just have a big echo chamber.

This whole debate has been illuminating - I never even considered the possibility that what people *really* liked about Space 4X games was the absence of hyperlane FTL. You learn constantly I guess.

Oh so you managed to think of a hyperlane-restricted pure 4x game even remotely as popular and well selling as MOO 1 / 2, Gal Civ or Distant Worlds? Quick, tell me what it is so I can go out and buy it straight away!......
* Queue the sound of crickets *

RISK IN SPACE sounds pretty good compared to the woeful current state of Stellaris warfare.

Yep, warfare in Stellaris is pretty woeful all right, no argument about that. But addressing the problem by turning it into dumbed-down RISK-in-space instead of doing the work and fixing the underlying problems (instant teleporting fleets and horrible UI) sounds like the easiest, most simplistic possible solution involving the absolute least amount of work. The game was incredibly promising and really deserved better than this fate.
 

GulGnu

First Lieutenant
88 Badges
Oct 5, 2000
271
55
Visit site
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Majesty 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • 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
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
Luckily they dont seem to have had any impact on your equally tired arguments. Which is good I guess or we'd just have a big echo chamber.

Which argument(s)? The FTL realism one I guess has been done a few times, but that´s really just one. And it´s a peripheral one at that.


Oh so you managed to think of a hyperlane-restricted pure 4x game even remotely as popular and well selling as MOO 1 / 2, Gal Civ or Distant Worlds? Quick, tell me what it is so I can go out and buy it straight away!......
* Queue the sound of crickets *

Where is the triple-FTL game with freeform race building as popular? I guess distant worlds comes closer than most IIRC, but that makes it a draw between DW and ES going by your list.

Side note: I do disagree that MOO became popular and revolutionized the genre because of warp to any significant degree. But sadly we can´t run time in reverse to check the counterfactual.

Yep, warfare in Stellaris is pretty woeful all right, no argument about that. But addressing the problem by turning it into dumbed-down RISK-in-space instead of doing the work and fixing the underlying problems (instant teleporting fleets and horrible UI) sounds like the easiest, most simplistic possible solution involving the absolute least amount of work. The game was incredibly promising and really deserved better than this fate.

I´ll get back to you on that in a week. I want to actually play the new system before digging in hard on any particular position. I do however wholeheartedly agree that the whole windup/windown vs. actual travel time and strategic map lack of travel info need to be fixed. But I kinda doubt that would actually fix the problems, it would just make them more manageable.
 
Last edited:

PK_AZ

Lt. General
43 Badges
Feb 9, 2015
1.518
1.110
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sengoku
Is it just me or are hyperlane apologist counter-arguments getting really lazy?
You argument is that there exist some mode in Stellaris that is hyperlane based. I.e. movement is hyperlane-based, border grow is hyperlane-based etc.
Your argument is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.