• 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:

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
There were no strategies in 1.9 either, by your standards. So what's the argument?

My argument is to demonstrate that the monotone mantra of "strategy" being constantly regurgitated when it comes to 2.0 is a nonsense. Not going to argue, 1.9's strategy was paper thin but, it was fast, immediate and quite frankly about a million times more fun than Stellaris 2.0's border painting and "repeat battle" tedium.
 

Defiler99

Space Barbarian
89 Badges
Dec 9, 2013
1.426
390
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • March of the Eagles
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Magicka
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Vikings
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • BATTLETECH
  • Age of Wonders III
Does nobody care about the poor horse? Why are you still torturing it? It is already dead! You Monsters! :eek:

Look, this horse isn't going to beat itself. Somebody has to.

It's too bad that all the "do X, Y, or Z with v1.9" stuff is unrealistic, because there are some beautiful dreams around that in this thread.

Unfortunately I think it's become clear that the long-standing Stellaris bugs are going to require some serious effort under the hood, in the scripting engine itself.
It's been tortured to fit the current build; the Enigmatic Fortress stuff is almost certainly not a bug in the event scripting, but rather some trickier game engine trigger that no longer works the same way. They've got their hands full with a single version, no matter which version that turned out to be.
 

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 horse isn't dead. People have discussed this in other posts. For me personally I had CK2 for deep strategy, that wasn't what I was looking for in Stellaris. The shallow diplomacy is a let down - all I wanted was that, a way to make diplomacy more interesting and engaging. In other words, if I were involved in a war I could bargain with other empires to help me in the war so I could turn it around, and rare resources that made a huge economic impact not just a small percentage advantage in some small areas.

But what they've done with the FTL and the war re-work isn't something I'm enjoying. I'm giving it a try, and yes, there are improvements and many good ideas, but they forgot the fun factor of what Stellaris had provided thus far. Actually, what we needed was deeper exploration, more events more things for the different types of ships to do, better diplomacy, etc. War could've remained the way it was if we had other types of defenses that made it fun and interesting. It would have been much better also to give each individual empire unique sets of technology that no other empire could get unless through war(not just for the FE) that would help each empire develop in different, innovative ways. But now the game is slow and I'm constantly reminded that I could be playing better games that use the same type of mechanics like CK2, EUIV or even HOI.

I'm actually considering dumping Stellaris and getting back to CK2 and Victoria 2. They're slow, really slow but the payoff is much more rewarding than anything the Stellaris dev team brought to the table with 2.0.
 

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
I'm actually considering dumping Stellaris and getting back to CK2 and Victoria 2. They're slow, really slow but the payoff is much more rewarding than anything the Stellaris dev team brought to the table with 2.0.

Totally understandable:

CK2 released in 2012 and as of now with 14 expansion pack (not counting the music/graphic ones)
Victoria 2 released in 2010 but only 2 expansion pack (not counting the music/graphic ones)

I would say, let's talk again about Stellaris in 5 years and 5 more expansion pack.

Edit: forgot to say sorry to that poor horse people seem to enjoy beating...
 

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
Totally understandable:

CK2 released in 2012 and as of now with 14 expansion pack (not counting the music/graphic ones)
Victoria 2 released in 2010 but only 2 expansion pack (not counting the music/graphic ones)

I would say, let's talk again about Stellaris in 5 years and 5 more expansion pack.

Edit: forgot to say sorry to that poor horse people seem to enjoy beating...

CK2 was already awesome 2 years after release though...
 

hangry

First Lieutenant
98 Badges
May 26, 2016
278
343
The horse isn't dead.

Of course it is dead. You can all write all day long how lazy the devs are, how easy it would be to fix and balance three ftl types and how broken stellaris is. At the end this thread is nothing more than an echo chamber for the vocal minority. I get it, it sucks, you dont like the changes. Try to play 2.x, go back to 1.9 or move on, but this horse is dead.
 

Overclocked1

Sergeant
22 Badges
Nov 6, 2017
81
3
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Prison Architect
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Ancient Space
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
You need to understand, this game because of the dev direction. It is always going to have this flung in its face. When you remove content from ANY game that people liked and completely change some mechanics (and dont test those mechanics in any way). You will always suffer from this, and rightly so. the bad feeling the dev’s have created by what is perceived as runing an otherwise decent game wont be forgotten.
 

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
You need to understand, this game because of the dev direction. It is always going to have this flung in its face. When you remove content from ANY game that people liked and completely change some mechanics (and dont test those mechanics in any way). You will always suffer from this, and rightly so. the bad feeling the dev’s have created by what is perceived as runing an otherwise decent game wont be forgotten.
"Don't test those mechanics in any way"
Mighty presumptious of you, don't you think?
 

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 need to understand, this game because of the dev direction. It is always going to have this flung in its face. When you remove content from ANY game that people liked and completely change some mechanics (and dont test those mechanics in any way). You will always suffer from this, and rightly so. the bad feeling the dev’s have created by what is perceived as runing an otherwise decent game wont be forgotten.

And the opposite argument is also true. People can see that the dev's realised that they needed a major change to be able to move the game onwards to their new vision, and had the guts to make a controversial decision to better the game. I fully respect them for this. They did what they thought was right for the game.

In my opinion, it was a success and totally the right decision to make. 2.0 (well 2.02 beta) is an infinitely more fun game to play. I look forward to what else they can accomplish with future updates.
 

~Robbie

Captain
26 Badges
Nov 6, 2017
342
417
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
I'd take "severely" off.
I don't know man, some of the oddities of 2.0 are apparent right out of the gate. Take event timers, for instance. The developers have already acknowledged that the timers aren't meant to be as tight as they are in 2.x (in some cases you actually cannot reach an event in time to even start it) and any player can notice that within an hour of playing. Obviously that's one example that they've said will be fixed going forward, but it's also a very simple fix. I or any other modder could make a mod to extend timers in <1 hour and nip the problem in the bud.

The more complicated stuff I understand putting off to later updates. I don't agree, but I understand. It's all the problems that have very straightforward and simple fixes that lead me to believe that 2.0 didn't get nearly enough testing time. I don't think this is unreasonable.
 

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
I don't know man, some of the oddities of 2.0 are apparent right out of the gate. Take event timers, for instance. The developers have already acknowledged that the timers aren't meant to be as tight as they are in 2.x (in some cases you actually cannot reach an event in time to even start it) and any player can notice that within an hour of playing. Obviously that's one example that they've said will be fixed going forward, but it's also a very simple fix. I or any other modder could make a mod to extend timers in <1 hour and nip the problem in the bud.

The more complicated stuff I understand putting off to later updates. I don't agree, but I understand. It's all the problems that have very straightforward and simple fixes that lead me to believe that 2.0 didn't get nearly enough testing time. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Balance problems are not errors though.

The 2.0 update reworked the framework of the game. The fact that it worked well with so few bugs is already impressive.
 

~Robbie

Captain
26 Badges
Nov 6, 2017
342
417
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
Balance problems are not errors though.

The 2.0 update reworked the framework of the game. The fact that it worked well with so few bugs is already impressive.
Balance problems are absolutely something that is tested and recorded in typical game development QA. It's one of the most important aspects of QA, as a matter of fact.
 

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
Balance problems are absolutely something that is tested and recorded in typical game development QA. It's one of the most important aspects of QA, as a matter of fact.
QA will never be able to flag all problems. Especially balancing. The sheer time and number of games run by players will vanish the efforts of even the biggest QA teams. That is the main reason for open Betas, after all. Another week or even a month wouldn't have made that much of a difference. And sure, in hindsight the problems seem obvious, but that doesn't mean you can always catch them. It is very easy to play 20 games in a row without noticing that AE don't have any CBs, after all. Even though it is extremely obvious in hindsight.

This is why all games suffer problems after release or major changes. Sure, you can see a difference between shoddy work and good work, but believe me (or google examples like Gothic 3 :D), shoddy work looks quite different.
 

~Robbie

Captain
26 Badges
Nov 6, 2017
342
417
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
QA will never be able to flag all problems. Especially balancing. The sheer time and number of games run by players will vanish the efforts of even the biggest QA teams. That is the main reason for open Betas, after all. Another week or even a month wouldn't have made that much of a difference. And sure, in hindsight the problems seem obvious, but that doesn't mean you can always catch them. It is very easy to play 20 games in a row without noticing that AE don't have any CBs, after all. Even though it is extremely obvious in hindsight.

This is why all games suffer problems after release or major changes. Sure, you can see a difference between shoddy work and good work, but believe me (or google examples like Gothic 3 :D), shoddy work looks quite different.
I agree that not everything will get caught by QA, but there are very obvious problems that I don't believe could have been missed by QA (see: event timers).
 

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
I agree that not everything will get caught by QA, but there are very obvious problems that I don't believe could have been missed by QA (see: event timers).
Whats your point? You doubt there has been any QA work done? As if.

I have only once had an issue with Event timers in my runs, and that was an instance were I thought "Well, that is your fault". You are talking about something that is massively affected by RNG, somewhat affected by Player decisions, and heavily affected by your current game situation. Also, it did not help that Event timers weren't flagged as a potential problem, seeing as they were fine the version prior. Theoretically you can run 50+ games without ever encountering the problem - and just because a single event timed out on you does not make an experienced QA jump and scream "Balancing problem!"

Maybe adding another month to QA would have caught it. Maybe it wouldn't have. You face diminishing returns very fast with that sort of thing. But one thing is certain: Claiming they were "obvious" will not help anyone, not the Devs, not the QA, not the players who have had trouble because of this.
 

~Robbie

Captain
26 Badges
Nov 6, 2017
342
417
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
Whats your point? You doubt there has been any QA work done? As if.

No -- I entered this conversation specifically by saying that saying that there was no QA seems too harsh. I think it's self-evident that there wasn't enough QA however, judging by how many bugs remaining that are very obvious even after only a small amount of time playing. I'm sure it was tested, I just think it clearly wasn't tested enough. More time in QA would have helped flush some of these issues, and there would have been fewer issues on release.

Maybe adding another month to QA would have caught it. Maybe it wouldn't have. You face diminishing returns very fast with that sort of thing. But one thing is certain: Claiming they were "obvious" will not help anyone, not the Devs, not the QA, not the players who have had trouble because of this.

The event timer issue was noted by many, many people on the very first day of 2.0's release (here, on the Steam forums, on Reddit, etc.) very soon after the patch went live. It was probably the first glaring error I noticed <an hour into a 2.0 game. The developers also acknowledged this problem almost immediately and said they were going to correct it, so I do think it's fair to use that as an example of an obvious issue that should have been caught by QA. I don't think it's at all unfair to hope for the best from a major game developer when it comes to something like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.