• 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:

Siatru

Second Lieutenant
11 Badges
Feb 7, 2018
188
0
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Have you been at Stellaris' Steam page lately? There've been mixed reviews from players just after 2.0 release. Even if some people like taking a bus every time they have to go to war or take up some unclaimed territories (which sometimes require to go around whole galaxy even with wormholes and gates) some people still do not like it. So maybe devs should allow players to choose what kind of FTL mode they like?
Exactly. Opinions are mixed. And there's considerable backing on both the anti and the pro opinions. There are even opinions from the neutrals saying that the developers should stick to their decisions and not change up everything at a drop of a hat just because not everyone liked it.

So you see, Paradox is in a bit of a bind in that any side they pick or any decision they make is gonna cause some kind of uproar.

Unless they manage to find that perfect solution to all our problems.
 

McJalla

Private
16 Badges
Nov 17, 2016
23
8
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
Well done, Paradox. Enjoying the shit out of 2.0. Hyperlanes is an interesting choice and adds more strategy to a game that desperately needs it. But please, for the love of god, make my tiny ships move faster across the system so I can get a construction ship out 10 jumps within 10 years.

Maybe I forgot to tweak a setting or something? Or maybe I need to play at a faster pace? :O

Hopefully you've ended the "everybody has jump drive and kinetic artillery in the end game" nonsense. Love how the game looks now and very appreciative of the hard work that went into this. <3
 
Last edited:

Knight of Orthus

First Lieutenant
16 Badges
Dec 9, 2017
271
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
Nope. If there is so much annoyance over one patch's changes, we must press on in hope that developers will listen to players and fix it. After all, people forced EA to remove money-draining mechanics from Battlefront II, so we may be able to do something here.

It's over. Once the next DLC and major patch come around it will be almost forgotten. There has been no large outcry. Average Players have gone up massively, almost no one is playing 1.9 anymore (see the statistics on that) - and even in this forum, very few people are complaining. The "silent exodus" argument is made up to adress that (though entirely fictive, see average players on Steam, which have gone way up).

I repeat: It's over. The Devs have listened to the crippling problems sucking the joy out of all pre-Cherry games, and they took ballsy action to adress them. Most players are happy (there are always a few outraged, that can't be avoided). They will not roll back those awesome improvements. They would loose their player base - and Paradox is very much for-profit, so they will never intentionally do that.
 

_Sohei_

Captain
47 Badges
Aug 24, 2013
433
145
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
Say that they do what you want, and undo all 2.0 changes back to 1.9, what about the people who actually like 2.0?
If the devs insist on sticking with the current direction, then I think that the most practical solution would be to release a 1.95 version with the old systems tweaked and enhanced slightly and bugs fixed. Then also include a separate section in the Stellaris wiki to provide help for those that want to stick with the old fork. Ideally I would prefer the old direction to be the main fork but I am not holding my breath for that.
 

Devanor

Professional casual gamer
52 Badges
Jun 24, 2017
1.902
876
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Impire
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Sword of the Stars
If the devs insist on sticking with the current direction, then I think that the most practical solution would be to release a 1.95 version with the old systems tweaked and enhanced slightly and bugs fixed. Then also include a separate section in the Stellaris wiki to provide help for those that want to stick with the old fork. Ideally I would prefer the old direction to be the main fork but I am not holding my breath for that.

So, the most practical solution is to give them even more work when even they themselves think that the FTL system had to be changed in order to improve the experience?

I understand people who're disappointed with the removal of warp and wormhole (personally I loved using wormhole) but as cool as it was to have multiple options that was so vastly different, the amount of work PDX would have to put in to even have a chance of making 2.0 work was simply not worth considering.
 

Mandemon

First Lieutenant
62 Badges
May 29, 2013
231
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • War of the Roses
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Magicka
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Ancient Space
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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
  • Dungeonland
  • King Arthur II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
If the devs insist on sticking with the current direction, then I think that the most practical solution would be to release a 1.95 version with the old systems tweaked and enhanced slightly and bugs fixed. Then also include a separate section in the Stellaris wiki to provide help for those that want to stick with the old fork. Ideally I would prefer the old direction to be the main fork but I am not holding my breath for that.

And who is going to pay the extra effort to maintain two different branches of Stellaris?

You?
 

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
If the devs insist on sticking with the current direction, then I think that the most practical solution would be to release a 1.95 version with the old systems tweaked and enhanced slightly and bugs fixed. Then also include a separate section in the Stellaris wiki to provide help for those that want to stick with the old fork. Ideally I would prefer the old direction to be the main fork but I am not holding my breath for that.

Wouldn't the most practical solution be to do nothing at all with 1.9?
 

_Sohei_

Captain
47 Badges
Aug 24, 2013
433
145
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
Wouldn't the most practical solution be to do nothing at all with 1.9?
No, because showing effort to appease the significant portion of the player base that is displeased with core features being removed may be lost as customers for future games and DLC. Paradox customers tend to be loyal and make many purchases over time but you can only push people so much before they get frustrated enough to stay away. The reputation of the company may also be damaged to some extent. Even some developers in other companies have commented about how removing core features is a bad decision in general. There are some who believe that version locking is not an adequate workaround and are not happy about being put in the position of doing that, playing a game that is no longer in a configuration they enjoy playing, or quitting the game.

And who is going to pay the extra effort to maintain two different branches of Stellaris?

You?
Yes, through the purchases I continue to make as a customer. I had several Paradox products in my Steam shopping basket that I abandoned recently after hearing about and trying out the changes to Stellaris and version locking my third Paradox game. If I do not see a future in the games I purchase I am far less likely to make DLC purchases for those games or buy other games from the same publisher that may also see drastic changes after purchase.

So, the most practical solution is to give them even more work when even they themselves think that the FTL system had to be changed in order to improve the experience?

I understand people who're disappointed with the removal of warp and wormhole (personally I loved using wormhole) but as cool as it was to have multiple options that was so vastly different, the amount of work PDX would have to put in to even have a chance of making 2.0 work was simply not worth considering.
This has been covered at length in the FTL thread but in short, the FTL changes were not necessary even from the standpoint of reducing work load. The tweaks required to 1.9 to make it better would require very little or no adjustment to the FTL and game balance changes could have been accomplished for the most part with implementing changes in slightly different ways. Choosing to make drastic changes has created much more work at least in the near term as many more bugs and new balance issues have presented themselves as a result. It may create less work in the long term but how much longer the game will receive large updates anyways is not known so it may or may not be a good investment for saving work load. Regardless, investing the time and effort to put out one more minor update to 1.9 and perhaps one or two bug fix passes is not likely to require that large of an amount of time. It would not require further attention after that unless they felt it was worth incorporating support for some additional DLC.

Anyways, I am not saying that a 1.95 update is the ideal solution, it is just probably the most pragmatic for appeasing as much of the player base as possible. At least enough that they continue to be Paradox customers.
 

Devanor

Professional casual gamer
52 Badges
Jun 24, 2017
1.902
876
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Impire
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Sword of the Stars
Anyways, I am not saying that a 1.95 update is the ideal solution, it is just probably the most pragmatic for appeasing as much of the player base as possible. At least enough that they continue to be Paradox customers.

"Give an inch, and they'll take a mile"

If PDX does release this "1.95" the next thing they'll want is updates that give new stuff that is similar to 2.0 without changing FTL. If not, there'll be another outcry that PDX has "betrayed it's customers" and whatnot.
 

_Sohei_

Captain
47 Badges
Aug 24, 2013
433
145
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
"Give an inch, and they'll take a mile"

If PDX does release this "1.95" the next thing they'll want is updates that give new stuff that is similar to 2.0 without changing FTL. If not, there'll be another outcry that PDX has "betrayed it's customers" and whatnot.
I think that is a fair concern to have but if they don't give even an inch then they are showing bad faith to some of the customers who purchased the game specifically for the features that were removed. Throwing them a bone has worked in the past to appease customers and make almost all the outcry go away.
 

Devanor

Professional casual gamer
52 Badges
Jun 24, 2017
1.902
876
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Impire
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Sword of the Stars
customers who purchased the game specifically for the features that were removed.
dee.jpg


So... wait. People didn't buy Stellaris because it's a mix of grand strategy and 4X? Because it does things differently from other space based games? They bought it solely for the FTL options that, in the end, was amazing on paper but a disaster in execution?
 

_Sohei_

Captain
47 Badges
Aug 24, 2013
433
145
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
So... wait. People didn't buy Stellaris because it's a mix of grand strategy and 4X? They bought it solely for the FTL options ...
Yes. The mixed FTL was the primary determining factor for some customers. There have been some who have stated so. Of course it was not the main factor for everyone and there are some who did not like it but there are some who did like it and bought the game because of it.
 

Devanor

Professional casual gamer
52 Badges
Jun 24, 2017
1.902
876
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Impire
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Sword of the Stars
Yes. The mixed FTL was the primary determining factor for some customers. There have been some who have stated so. Of course it was not the main factor for everyone and there are some who did not like it but there are some who did like it and bought the game because of it.

Alright. I'll admit I have no idea how to respond to this. After sitting here for literally 20 minutes writing and erasing, I guess I can only say: Alright.
 

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
No, because showing effort to appease the significant portion of the player base that is displeased with core features being removed may be lost as customers for future games and DLC. Paradox customers tend to be loyal and make many purchases over time but you can only push people so much before they get frustrated enough to stay away. The reputation of the company may also be damaged to some extent. Even some developers in other companies have commented about how removing core features is a bad decision in general. There are some who believe that version locking is not an adequate workaround and are not happy about being put in the position of doing that, playing a game that is no longer in a configuration they enjoy playing, or quitting the game.

I gotta go with Devanor here. The day after 1.95 drops, we're right back where we are now, with one supported branch and one unsupported branch. It's not like people would actually be happy with just getting 1.95.

When would they even do 1.95? Surely not now, with so many core systems in flux. I suppose by summer it would be doable, but by then it's not obvious enough of you guys will still be around for the project to make sense, even if we grant your premises.
 
Last edited:

Mandemon

First Lieutenant
62 Badges
May 29, 2013
231
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • War of the Roses
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Magicka
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Ancient Space
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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
  • Dungeonland
  • King Arthur II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
Yes, through the purchases I continue to make as a customer. I had several Paradox products in my Steam shopping basket that I abandoned recently after hearing about and trying out the changes to Stellaris and version locking my third Paradox game. If I do not see a future in the games I purchase I am far less likely to make DLC purchases for those games or buy other games from the same publisher that may also see drastic changes after purchase.

Yeah no, your once-a-year 20 dollars are not enough to fund entire second development team.
 

Athmet

Captain
93 Badges
Nov 20, 2011
359
60
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Ancient Space
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
Regarding the "It's over" : we will respeak about this in some months, when Paradox will realize that its new DLC sales are bad and the players basis will have tanked, thanks to the "ballsy" changes of v2.0. ;)

If only ! Instead I fear we will keep getting those type of post until the very end of the universe.... Anyway... as you say ! Let's wait and see ;)
 

_Sohei_

Captain
47 Badges
Aug 24, 2013
433
145
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
The devs are in a tough position now. They have done a great deal of good work on many games. They rightfully need the freedom to take games in the direction that they feel it should go.

At the same time they do sometimes make changes that some portion of users do not like, sometimes to the point that they do not even want to play that version of the game. In my opinion when this is an additive change it is understandable. When EU4 had updates with new added features I didn't like, I locked into the previous version. Okay, I am not happy when that happens but it is understandable that there is a risk of that happening as the game is updated and expanded on over time.

When such changes are subtractive of features however, there is a problem. When a customer purchases a game there is an implied understanding that the game will keep the features that they based their purchase decision on. Now, they do have legal cover though the EULA to do whatever they like with the game, even changing it into an entirely different game. They could make Stellaris into a purple dinosaur online card game if they were feeling particularly sadistic. But there are of course still consequences when customer's expectations are not met regardless of whether they have cover to do so or not. This may just be a small minority of upset customers or it might be a majority of customers in an uproar or somewhere in between.

What to do about the situation is a tough question. They could do their best to just carry on and weather the criticism and accept some bad impressions from some customers. I don't think that is the best option. They could add back in the removed features in a modified form, but it may upset others who prefer them gone. They could fork the game in one way or another, as separate versions or even separate products. I don't have all the answers. But doing nothing seems like the wrong choice to me.
 

pcavalcanti

Second Lieutenant
50 Badges
Dec 24, 2014
138
9
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Dungeonland
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
The best thing would have been to just add the changes in the DLC and make it optional. The people who prefered 1.9 would only get the colossus, titans, dreadnoughts, pirates. Everybody else could unlock the full package. So people who stayed with 1.9 would pay the same price for less, but that's something you already do as a Paradox Customer. Every major DLC they release is the price of a brand new game on Steam, so you're already paying them for much less.
 

Popenhauzen

Second Lieutenant
16 Badges
Oct 2, 2017
131
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
This has been covered at length in the FTL thread but in short, the FTL changes were not necessary even from the standpoint of reducing work load. The tweaks required to 1.9 to make it better would require very little or no adjustment to the FTL and game balance changes could have been accomplished for the most part with implementing changes in slightly different ways. Choosing to make drastic changes has created much more work at least in the near term as many more bugs and new balance issues have presented themselves as a result. It may create less work in the long term but how much longer the game will receive large updates anyways is not known so it may or may not be a good investment for saving work load. Regardless, investing the time and effort to put out one more minor update to 1.9 and perhaps one or two bug fix passes is not likely to require that large of an amount of time. It would not require further attention after that unless they felt it was worth incorporating support for some additional DLC.

customers.
first of all appeasing most of the playerbase is not something you should strive for. its not. anyone with some basic life experience understands that people are childish. you try to find univeral solution-》you get the shitfest of dow 3.

i have serious complaints of the game:especially the war system in its entirety not just the 2.0 update.

but saying ftl could be balanced with small changes? please illustrate how. please tell me because i find it amazing people actually use the words small changes with the comparisson of limited movement on rails and free movement. no its ot just a speed/range issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.