The Real Problems With Stellaris

[WarriorofMODS]

To be fair, Paradox at the time did make the point that Distant Stars would essentially be a project for their writers while the programmers worked on the next big thing (that being MegaCorp and 2.2), but I still think it was completely unacceptable to charge money for a DLC that just adds a bunch of re-skinned anomalies.

The fact that modders are better at adding onto the base game than PDX is tells a lot about how dedicated PDX is as a company to their IPs. At the end of the day, if corporate can make more cash, they won't fix anything.

I find it impossible to enjoy Stellaris without mods. Mods fix all the problems this game has.

For instance, 2.2 practically killed ultra-wide and ultra-tall builds, forcing you to employ a layered build, expanding and specifying over time. If you get boxes in with a small punt of space or roll bad planets, you are screwed.

The mod Expanded Civics+Ethics rectifies this by adding Capitalist and Collectivist Ethics and giving you options on how your economy and government runs. For instance, Collectivist is great for keeping crime low and boosting pop growth rate, making ultra-wide incredibly viable and allowing you to get a financial and Political hold on more worlds early on at the cost of trade income and leader skill/lifespan.

On the other hand, if you find yourself trapped in a box early on and need to make the most of your limited resources, Capitalist is great, and provides a lot of options to generate wealth with almost nothing. A great Civic to take is wasteful consumerism, which adds extra clerk jobs to all trade producing buildings, while also forcing you into a free market economy and private healthcare and education, generating revenue from doctors and increasing leader lifespan and skills. This allows you to consolidate your economy onto a small group of planets while still competing with massive empires. On the downside, this generates a lot of crime due to the wealth disparity and poverty this kind of ultra competitive free market creates. This necessitates oppressive police forces and a strong military.

There's even levels to this. Social Democrats are basically a lightly collectivist form of democracy with capitalist influence, balancing the benefits and downsides of both. Then there is the Indomitable Hierarchy, a caste system that removes trade altogether in favor of complete control of the citizenry and a ln incredibly low crime rate since every citizen has a place. Then there is Minocracies and Timocracies, Democracies based of wealth generation and limiting democracy to the rich, free libertarian republics that focus on trade, all the way up to ultra oppressive dictatorships that Consider slavery a necessity to th preservation of the state and the corporations (my current playthrough)

It's all very detailed and a simple yet elegant system to rapidly improve upon the messy and meaningless ethics and civics provided by PDX.

Sorry for my rant.

 

[Oscot]

A great Civic to take is wasteful consumerism, which adds extra clerk jobs to all trade producing buildings, while also forcing you into a free market economy and private healthcare and education, generating revenue from doctors and increasing leader lifespan and skills.

I want the people who keep spouting "Reducing player agency is always bad" to read this line once, twice, three times.
Reducing player agency is good because it forces hard choices. "B-but if you don't let me roleplay my specific fantasy healthcare-capitalist society where everyone has free medicine AND solar multinationals run rampant then... [trails off]" - NO. Player agency is terrible because if you put on the table "X with downside Y" and "X with no downsides" everyone's always going to choose #2.
Constraining player agency is the whole point of having rules in your game, and a game without rules is no game at all.

 

[Ediros]

This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

"...decided to scrap the feature that was there since day one..."

Why does it matter that it was there from day one?

"...now you have to go through all of the starbases and destroy them all."

So war is now more complicated than literally one space battle leading to a peace settlement, and that's a bad thing?

This comment is all I really have to say to the "FTL rework bad" crowd. I haven't seen any decent arguments against the FTL rework that weren't based on "but muh customization", which doesn't make for a good argument in a strategy game.

You really didn't read the FTL thread, did you? There were plenty of arguments of why FTL types could be kept, ideas how to improve upon them.

And yes, the war was more strategic as I could split my fleets and attack the ai from multiple angles, something that I can't do now. That's how I drew a war to a stalemate, as they kept doomstacking, while I attacked their systems.

Fun fact, you could restrict ftl types, before Paradox removed them.

 

[Oscot]

And yes, the war was more strategic as I could split my fleets and attack the ai from multiple angles, something that I can't do now. That's how I drew a war to a stalemate, as they kept doomstacking, while I attacked their systems.

As the man who literally wrote the late-2016 inforgraphic on how to do this to Fallen Empires (which I now can't find to link to because forum reworks make searching impossible to the point of Orwellianism): it was a micro hell exploit, not "MUH STRATEGY". Holding that tactic up as an example of good gameplay during the 3-FTL era - a tactic where you had to spend 3 minutes paused for every 5 seconds on 1-speed - kinda puts you in the opinion:discarded basket as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Akka le Vil]

I was originally going to be a lot more active in this thread but it's very difficult for me to try and start a conversation since almost every disagreeing opinion so far has been "I liked the old FTL types so you're wrong". If you don't care about strategy, I really think you shouldn't be playing Stellaris. Stellaris may be a game with a heavy focus on RP, but it's a strategy game first and foremost, and game balance should not be decided by how much customization players have access to, but by how well the game plays.

1) Stellaris original vision certainly was just as much a RP-based game than a strategy one. It was about recreating narrative and stories as much as gameplay. So you're wrong here.

2) Even in the strategy aspect, asymmetric and diversity beats uniformity, so you're also wrong, different FTL beats restriction to only one.

3) Even in the specific case of Stellaris as it was, with doomstack problem and so on, hyperlane only made the problem worse DUE TO ITS VERY CONCEPT (I can't understand why pro-hyperlane people can't get the obvious "a chokepoint make concentration of force even more required" notion). It even makes it the ONLY way to work. So you're wrong a third time.

It's not about "I liked it more", it's about you being factually wrong on several aspects.

 

[Flynch]

From my point of view and with all the respect:
1) Terrible AI. Not bad, just terrible. It's really common to have useless allies and sitting enemies. That's the main problem. I don't want to be playing dozens of hours to reach the climax of the game and see these kind of things.
2) Too much unnecesary and frustrating micromanagement.

But I guess that from a sales points of view it's more tempting to offer new dlc's and new functionalities. That's killing not just this game, it's a common problem in this studio. And it's a circle, when they add new functionalities (i.e. new job system) the limited AI is even more evident.

 

[Ethanol]

MegaCorp and 2.2

This is where things get sour.

With the amazing patches that were 2.0 and 2.1, I was excited for MegaCorp. There were some red flags, like the fact that the new jobs system was managed by an AI, since Paradox has an excellent track record of having terrible AI in nearly all of its games (Stellaris most definitely included), but with how well Paradox reworked FTL, I was ready to be proven wrong.

I wasn't.

Ignoring the usual initial hiccups where Paradox always releases its DLCs and major patches in unfinished, barely playtested form (something that's par for the course if you're a Paradox veteran), the new system was a disaster. Paradox set out several goals for the new jobs system:
1. Reducing micromanagement so that players can focus on the macro level of strategy
2. Encouraging players to play more tall builds instead of wide
3. Encouraging players to play more multi-ethnic empires, like xenophiles

All of these goals were failed spectacularly, and I will now break down how and why.

Goal the first: Paradox wanted to reduce the level of micro necessary to keep an empire running efficiently. What ended up being accomplished was the opposite; before 2.2, planets needed to be micromanaged to get more efficient. You had to place the correct pops on the correct tiles with the correct buildings on them in the correct order to squeeze out the maximum possible efficiency out of them. You micromanaged to get the best possible results. Now, you micromanage as damage control against the awful job AI which fails to put any of the pops in the right jobs. There are so many problems with this system with so many specific examples I could give that I would completely stray from the main point of this post if I were to list them all, but I'll give one example: pops don't always promote to the higher level of stratum, even if there are slots open, when you prioritize low-strata jobs.

Goal the second: they wanted to encourage players to play more tall builds. This was accomplished at the cost of wide empires being nerfed into the ground, as to stay under your administrative capacity you have to build tons of buildings which increase the cap, buildings you don't have space for because building slots are now extremely valuable, meaning you have to either take massive sprawl penalties or forsake your economy in order to keep up with the new system.

And finally, goal the third: Paradox wanted people to play more multi-ethnic empires. The new jobs system had the opposite effect, as the jobs AI fails to put the best pops with the best traits on the correct tiles, and because only one pop can grow at a time, you will never hit the right balance of pops for each species to be able to cover every job every specific species is good at. You could do population controls, but then you take a flat penalty to growth for wanting a more efficient planet, and you also get no notification for when a new pop is born, so if you forget about a planet for a few years, you'll come back to a world full of a species that is now working jobs it's less efficient at than another species.

The jobs system is terrible. I played several games with the most up-to-date version, and ran into massive problems every time. My favorite empire type, a syncretic evolution slave empire, was nerfed into the ground not by balance changes, but mechanically. It's not longer possible to play efficiently unless your empire is homogenous.

In addition, the new market system meant resources are now worthless, since whenever you run low on any resource all you have to do is dump your stockpile of whatever you have too much of and buy whatever you're missing, completely destroying trade with other empires, since it was now obsolete.

I agree with most of this although i'm not sure the job system is really at fault (but the multiplication of pops needed to sustain the system is clearly at fault for performance issues that everyone complains about so it should be reviewed nonetheless).

What annoys me is that some of the additions of megacorp were great - consumer goods/alloys, population strata, trade, districts (not buildings) - but completely brought down by the AI, lack of depth in pops (internal politics ?, factions are something you don't even bother looking at since they don't do anything), a job system which requires a crazy amount of pops and the internal market which makes having an economy useless.

I like the game, and I enjoy the immersion I get when playing, but the systems underneath need more evolutions rather than DLC with new shiny broken things.

 

[balmung60]

A very good FTL used by almost no one because of that, AND the only FTL who costs resources, AND has an energy unkeep to maintain the stations which was terrible in end game.
SO PLEASE!

That's funny, because it's only good when we compare it to the hyperline drive.

Meanwhile, we have the warp drive. Almost as fast, 0 upkeep, with more freedom -> 0 drawbacks.

Everything looks more shiny compared to garbage, right?

Warp Drive was much slower, much shorter range, ate power from the ship's power supply, incurred a debuff on system entry, and respected borders.

Wormhole had the unique benefit of being able to access exclaves that were fully cut off by other empires' borders, in addition to not having an entry debuff or using any of the ship's power supply. Even jump drive couldn't access exclaves because it was just instant warp and thus still passed through the space in between and respected borders.

Also, you paid upkeep on every FTL system. It's just that for Hyper, Warp, and Jump, it's paid on each and every ship as part of its upkeep, while Wormhole paid it at the station.

Anyway, I wouldn't even mind that they cut the most fun FTL system entirely if the hyperlane-only system had actually improved the AI. But it's just as dumb with its fleets as ever, possibly worse because it can't figure out how to cover its own empire effectively.

EDIT: It didn't even make chokepoints meaningful because defensive stations suck just as surely as old defense platforms. And fortified systems could easily have been made possible with the multi-FTL system by making snares pull in fleets from a relatively large bubble around the system, so any fleet trying to bypass the system would still be redirected to the fortified system.

 

[Nocty1501]

1) Stellaris original vision certainly was just as much a RP-based game than a strategy one. It was about recreating narrative and stories as much as gameplay. So you're wrong here.

2) Even in the strategy aspect, asymmetric and diversity beats uniformity, so you're also wrong, different FTL beats restriction to only one.

3) Even in the specific case of Stellaris as it was, with doomstack problem and so on, hyperlane only made the problem worse DUE TO ITS VERY CONCEPT (I can't understand why pro-hyperlane people can't get the obvious "a chokepoint make concentration of force even more required" notion). It even makes it the ONLY way to work. So you're wrong a third time.

It's not about "I liked it more", it's about you being factually wrong on several aspects.

1. Again, all I see is "but muh roleplay". Not a valid argument.

2. Rules and restrictions are what drives (player) innovation, as well as allow for actual strategies to form.

3. No, it really doesn't. I literally just played a game two hours ago where the AI, with an equivalent fleet strength, completely outmaneuvered me and ended up taking back every system I occupied up to our border while my doomstack was waiting for a planetary invasion to wrap up.

Don't pretend like you have an argument. The very reason I made this thread is because my observations are backed by actual logic and a rudimentary understanding of game design, not desire for "muh customization" and "muh roleplay" in a strategy game.

 

[Akka le Vil]

1. Again, all I see is "but muh roleplay". Not a valid argument.

How is it not a valid argument ? Because you don't like it ? So on one hand you say "your argument is that you like the other FTL systems, which means your argument is invalid", but on the other hand you say "I don't like roleplay so I don't want to recognize that it was a the core of Stellaris design and so I want to claim that your argument is invalid". What kind of cognitive dissonance is that ?

2. Rules and restrictions are what drives (player) innovation, as well as allow for actual strategies to form.

That doesn't counter my argument in any way. It's just completely unrelated and makes absolutely no sense. Having asymmetric warfare doesn't imply that there aren't restriction, you're just throwing some triteness and hoping people won't see through the smoke.

3. No, it really doesn't. I literally just played a game two hours ago where the AI, with an equivalent fleet strength, completely outmaneuvered me and ended up taking back every system I occupied up to our border while my doomstack was waiting for a planetary invasion to wrap up.

So because you didn't move your doomstack, somehow it makes FTL fixing doomstacks ? What nonsensical argument is that ?
Just how what you describe would only work with FTL and not warp ?

Don't pretend like you have an argument. The very reason I made this thread is because my observations are backed by actual logic and a rudimentary understanding of game design, not desire for "muh customization" and "muh roleplay" in a fucking strategy game.

Actually, your very answer here show you have no argument and just throw whatever nonsense pass through your mind that is totally unrelated to the point, and pretend as if it countered the actual factual reasonings that you can't answer.
That's frankly embarassing to watch, and especially embarassing when you bang your chest claiming you rely on logic, considering how the complete lack of logic is precisely what makes your retort so ridiculous.

 

[Nocty1501]

How is it not a valid argument ? Because you don't like it ? So on one hand you say "your argument is that you like the other FTL systems, which means your argument is invalid", but on the other hand you say "I don't like roleplay so I don't want to recognize that it was a the core of Stellaris design and so I want to claim that your argument is invalid". What kind of cognitive dissonance is that ?

That doesn't counter my argument in any way. It's just completely unrelated and makes absolutely no sense. Having asymmetric warfare doesn't imply that there aren't restriction, you're just throwing some triteness and hoping people won't see through the smoke.

So because you didn't move your doomstack, somehow it makes FTL fixing doomstacks ? What nonsensical argument is that ?
Just how what you describe would only work with FTL and not warp ?

Actually, your very answer here show you have no argument and just throw whatever nonsense pass through your mind that is totally unrelated to the point, and pretend as if it countered the actual factual reasonings that you can't answer.
That's frankly embarassing to watch, and especially embarassing when you bang your chest claiming you rely on logic, considering how the complete lack of logic is precisely what makes your retort so ridiculous.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

And for the record, I do like roleplay. I have a headcanon about an empire I made I could probably write entire books about.

 

[WarriorofMODS]

I want the people who keep spouting "Reducing player agency is always bad" to read this line once, twice, three times.
Reducing player agency is good because it forces hard choices. "B-but if you don't let me roleplay my specific fantasy healthcare-capitalist society where everyone has free medicine AND solar multinationals run rampant then... [trails off]" - NO. Player agency is terrible because if you put on the table "X with downside Y" and "X with no downsides" everyone's always going to choose #2.
Constraining player agency is the whole point of having rules in your game, and a game without rules is no game at all.

I agree. Playing this mod has been refreshing because I've HAD to make hard choices, and it's made the game more challenging and interactive. Also, sometimes it even reduces Micro.

I've got nothing wrong with choices, I'm all for designing a government that fits your Playstyle and RP, but every action has consequences, every upside has downsides, and certain styles of play will benefit certain governments. Your success relies on how you use what you have.

My current playthrough, as I explained before, really exemplifies this: I was boxed in and could not expand to more than 25 systems and had only three planets. For a lot of empires, this would equate to stagnation. But I used my government and civics to my advantage, taking my already hyper-capitalist state and pushing it into overdrive and trading Autocracy for Expanding on trade revenue. I couldn't produce enough food and all my minerals came from my stations, so I focused on wealth generation and trade and created an Anarcho-Capitalist Slave State.

Now, despite having three planets and a Habitat, I have one of the strongest economies in the galaxy. I had to make a hard choice to specialize my production.

 

[WarriorofMODS]

I agree with most of this although i'm not sure the job system is really at fault (but the multiplication of pops needed to sustain the system is clearly at fault for performance issues that everyone complains about so it should be reviewed nonetheless).

What annoys me is that some of the additions of megacorp were great - consumer goods/alloys, population strata, trade, districts (not buildings) - but completely brought down by the AI, lack of depth in pops (internal politics ?, factions are something you don't even bother looking at since they don't do anything), a job system which requires a crazy amount of pops and the internal market which makes having an economy useless.

I like the game, and I enjoy the immersion I get when playing, but the systems underneath need more evolutions rather than DLC with new shiny broken things.

I highly recommend the mod 'Expanded Political Events' which adds a ton of new events sparked by pops that can effect your empire. It adds a lot of really cool stuff and I highly recommend it.

 

[Subtle Apparition]

I think I'm done trying to talk about the FTL rework.

I think words taste great when I eat them.

(I can't understand why pro-hyperlane people can't get the obvious "a chokepoint make concentration of force even more required" notion). It even makes it the ONLY way to work.

No, it does not.

1. Try out max hyperlanes; would you like to tell me that you haven't? I can guarantee that you won't understand how it's different until you try it. And no, don't make up some sorta hypothetical "but it's gonna be the same anyways" because it isn't. Warp and wormhole were great, but "free travel" shouldn't mean "leap-frogging straight to the enemy homeworld".

There's arguments that hyperlane-only strategies are only great on paper; yet they claim that their ideas on paper are better. It's been clearly explained on the old dev diary why "interdiction snare bubbles" as a concept just wasn't good, especially since it wasn't compatible with wormhole-FTL, which would lead to another interdiction system. Imagine trying to manage those interdiction systems on top of 2.2's micromanagement.

I'll definitely boil down the argument of "diversity over strategy" as "b-but muh roleplay".

2. Play higher-difficulty w/ advanced start, or higher-level crisis (though crisis doesn't work right now), both of which I did. I can guarantee you that chokepoint won't work here, or do you not prefer having an AI whose doomstack is stronger than your doomstack? Or are you one of those veterans who are like "my doomstack is ALWAYS stronger than theirs"?

I agree with most of this although i'm not sure the job system is really at fault (but the multiplication of pops needed to sustain the system is clearly at fault for performance issues that everyone complains about so it should be reviewed nonetheless).

What annoys me is that some of the additions of megacorp were great - consumer goods/alloys, population strata, trade, districts (not buildings) - but completely brought down by the AI, lack of depth in pops (internal politics ?, factions are something you don't even bother looking at since they don't do anything), a job system which requires a crazy amount of pops and the internal market which makes having an economy useless.

I like the game, and I enjoy the immersion I get when playing, but the systems underneath need more evolutions rather than DLC with new shiny broken things.

^This times a hundred.

On the other hand, I've found factions to be both a decent influence boost, and a reminder that there are pops and leaders in my empire who don't share the same ethics as my government, so my empire isn't just 100% xenophiles, but rather there is a xenophobic isolationist party led by my level 5 scientist with their own interests, but otherwise would've been indistinguishable from ordinary citizens.

 

[Akka le Vil]

No, it does not.

1. Try out max hyperlanes; would you like to tell me that you haven't? I can guarantee that you won't understand how it's different until you try it. And no, don't make up some sorta hypothetical "but it's gonna be the same anyways" because it isn't.

Because you think you made some sort of unique breakthrough that nobody ever tried before ?

Warp and wormhole were great, but "free travel" shouldn't mean "leap-frogging straight to the enemy homeworld".

There's arguments that hyperlane-only strategies are only great on paper; yet they claim that their ideas on paper are better. It's been clearly explained on the old dev diary why "interdiction snare bubbles" as a concept just wasn't good, especially since it wasn't compatible with wormhole-FTL, which would lead to another interdiction system. Imagine trying to manage those interdiction systems on top of 2.2's micromanagement.

I was there, thanks, I remember. And the explanation provided by the dev was just complete PR bullshit that didn't stand up to scrutiny, was criticized and dismantled already at the time, with plenty of alternatives proposed that would actually work better, and the only counter-argument in the end was just "trust them, they know what they're doing". Basically trying to convince people that faith wins against ability to analyze concepts.

I'll definitely boil down the argument of "diversity over strategy" as "b-but muh roleplay".

No, it boils down to "diveristy INCREASES stragegy" vs "I can't counter facts and reasoning so I'll try to pretend the other guy is grasping at RP".

2. Play higher-difficulty w/ advanced start, or higher-level crisis (though crisis doesn't work right now), both of which I did. I can guarantee you that chokepoint won't work here, or do you not prefer having an AI whose doomstack is stronger than your doomstack? Or are you one of those veterans who are like "my doomstack is ALWAYS stronger than theirs"?

What the hell is this... weird salad ?
Where does difficulty enter the picture in the discussion ? If the chokepoints don't work, then what's the point of hyperlane-only considering chokepoints WERE the whole argument from Wiz to make the game "more strategic" ? You're demolishing your own argument here and presenting it as a "gotcha", mate.

Isn't it pretty telling that both supporters of the hyperlane-only here have incoherent arguments and seem to only be able to repeat mantra and try to mock others with "muh RP" while completely failing to actually answer the main points ?

 

[Subtle Apparition]

snip

I'd be upset at the ad hominem comments, but honestly I don't really care that much if you want to perch me up as some sort of fanatic defender. You're clearly having a lot more fun than me, I won't puff up to that; I'm definitely willing to concede and listen to how the "choke-points" strategy can be avoided, whether you believe me or not.

I didn't like the removal of FTL diversity, but can you elaborate on "diversity equals more strategy"?

Because there's a "he said, she said" thing going on, I'll bring out the main points that Wiz made:

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) (Wiz dropped the ball on this one after 2.2)
• Warfare with a distinct sense of 'theatres', advancing/retreating fronts and border skirmishes (more on this in future dev diaries)

Because at this point I just realized that this is basically "he said, she said", I'll take your word for it that the playerbase did know better.

If Wiz did say somewhere, like in a dev response in a random forum, that he did support a "chokepoints-only" strategy, then no, I don't agree with Wiz. If he didn't say anything of the sort, then okay.

So my main point was: chokepoints do work, but not 100% of the time, and it rarely worked for me, especially against empires that were stronger than me. The only time I did chokepoint doomstack battles was when I was neighbouring that enemy empire and basically had to hunker for a chokepoint battle because their fleet doesn't have to traverse an entire sector to get to mine.

So if your only experience is "this is the only strategy that works", then okay.

Now back to the actual implementation, the things I did experience when I played 2.0:

1. Galactic terrain feeling "bigger" through border expansion and warfare being on a per-star basis, instead of fleets being able to jump vast distances (in the case of wormholes, higher-tech warp, and "classic" jump drives) and being able to leap-frog straight to the enemy homeworld. The galaxy feeling "bigger" is a matter of perspective, so I get why the slow hyperdrive speed is more frustrating than anything.

2. Exploration being just a tad more unique such as the L-cluster and the wormhole-only shrouded planet system. A game with warp or wormhole wouldn't be able to accommodate that besides "this system doesn't allow your hyperdrive/warp/wormhole/jump drives to enter !!", which... isn't as fun.

3. Warfare having multiple distinct "theatres", though this only happened to me when my empire is large and even capable of participating in a galaxy-wide war (like the War In Heaven or the Crisis). There weren't any "advancing/retreating fronts and border skirmishes" like Wiz said, since the AI isn't capable of retaliating in a drawn-out war; their only threat is the initial fleets that they mobilize.

This is what I experienced. This is what a lot of others probably didn't experience, which sucks. At this point, we just have to agree to disagree, that's all.

 

[WarriorofMODS]

Because you think you made some sort of unique breakthrough that nobody ever tried before ?

I was there, thanks, I remember. And the explanation provided by the dev was just complete PR bullshit that didn't stand up to scrutiny, was criticized and dismantled already at the time, with plenty of alternatives proposed that would actually work better, and the only counter-argument in the end was just "trust them, they know what they're doing". Basically trying to convince people that faith wins against ability to analyze concepts.

No, it boils down to "diveristy INCREASES stragegy" vs "I can't counter facts and reasoning so I'll try to pretend the other guy is a retard grasping at RP".

What the hell is this... weird salad ?
Where does difficulty enter the picture in the discussion ? If the chokepoints don't work, then what's the point of hyperlane-only considering chokepoints WERE the whole argument from Wiz to make the game "more strategic" ? You're demolishing your own argument here and presenting it as a "gotcha", mate.

Isn't it pretty telling that both supporters of the hyperlane-only here have incoherent arguments and seem to only be able to repeat mantra and try to mock others with "muh RP" while completely failing to actually answer the main points ?

Apparently he's never heard of the Battle of Coruscant.

 

[KNakamura]

I mean, the real problem with Stellaris is that people keep asking for more in depth systems. The more complexity you introduce, the more you SLOW IT DOWN.

Which is why it can't really fix it's problems. It would need to vastly simplify the pop system, for one, and then it can look into updating the AI. But the performance impacts come from pop and planet updates. (And I'd give a gimlet eye into simplifying how fleet combat works, but that's a different problem considering you'd be removing strategic options and probably a bad idea.)

But if you read the suggestions here and elsewhere, what players want is every system to become more complex. And that increases performance demands.

This isn't to say you couldn't fix systems to make them simple but complex by rewriting AIs and how things work, but..

As an aside:

No, it boils down to "diveristy INCREASES stragegy"

It doesn't necessarily. Diversity of options can actually negate strategy depending on how it was implemented, and from what I remember pre 2.0 I usually found if you had warp you could actually negate a lot of strategic defense options. (Also, as much as I hate to say it: there are solid reasons to force people to use one option to make a system easier to understand.)

 

[HFY]

I think it would be possible to have a diverse set of FTL techs and also have a coherent strategy game -- and I think that would be awesome, and I'd like to play that game.

But that would take significant re-design beyond what Stellaris has ever offered.

For example, if you wanted chokepoints to be a strategic element, you'd need to choke off ALL the different FTL types at those points. Warp drives would need to deliver you to the FTL inhibitor system; Wormholes would need to be diverted, and of course Hyperlanes would be restricted in that system.

That seems doable, but it's probably not simple to balance out -- but it would be awesome.

 

[Atahal]

I don't get why you are all focusing on FTLs.

The game is broken, and putting back old FTL wont fix the AI, multiplayer, the UI UX, and the end game performances.