Cherryh 2.0 - the end of the Galaxy as we know it

[Hawklaser]

How "convincing" their explanation was is entirely subjective. We can't stop you from being paranoid about it.

Let me just put back in a key part of context in regards to what you quoted, and italicized to point it out as it shows I know its subjective on if they are convincing enough or not. The point still stands, that the removal of the FTLs have to stand on its own without relying on expansion content, or potential future content.

The problem is that the reasons for the removal of the FTLs for the free 2.0 update, have to be convincing enough to stand on their own in the base game without relying on expansion content, or hinted at features that may never come around. At this time, in this context, the reasons are not convincing enough for me. They may be for you.

The point still stands, that the removal of the FTLs have to stand on its own without relying on expansion content, or potential future content. As the FTLs are a part of the base game.

It's likely not based on what is happening now but what is going to happen.
Those changes haven't happened yet, they were announced as part of the free patch which we are discussing in this very thread. This is my point with regards to that argument - the removal of features isn't actually something you inherently protest if they're not working as intended. There is an emotional attachment to the idea of three ftl types that, if you can find it in yourself to give 2.0 a chance, will fade, and something even greater can rise out of it.

Hmm, I guess next time I recruit an army pre 2.0, ill have to go looking for them if I remember. Though to be fair, armies, as a whole, in the current Stellaris are more or less an afterthought. Generals, what type, and the attachments that never knew when they existed(let alone still existed), all never really considered due to how the game works. The big difference with army attachments vs FTL types is how well known they are I would imagine. As about the only time think of armies, is when need them to drive up warscore.

EDITed to include Following

If you continually judge the decision based only on what has happened so far, it will never happen, because by definition for the system to be in place they must have found some way to have made it at least vaguely work. But this is why I focus on what they could be doing instead of forcing every system to behave with each ftl type. In the immediately coming patch, you could maybe force three ftl types to work, at great difficulty. But then it gets harder for the next patch, and the one after that, and the one after that, and all that time they spend working on ftl is time they could be spending giving us new and cool mechanics. At no single point is the cost so high that it seems like it merits the change, but the combined loss over time is titanic.

Besides, every patch to a game is based at least in part on what the developers want to do in the future. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. To pretend otherwise is folly. They know what they want to do and they know the engine and code they designed better than anyone else. When they say it's going to be extremely hard to implement some of the cool features people want without shifting off of three ftl types, then I believe them.

Edit: sorry @Hawklaser if my edit (the third quote and after) caught you off guard, I originally posted it as a second post but then decided to edit it in, and of course you seemed to post your thing (which quoted mine) at the exact same moment. Didn't intend to cause any confusion.

No worries @Bearjuden. The point making with that last bit you edited in is not that you only judge the decision based on past or future, but that you have to look at 2.0 and the "Apocalypse" expansion as two separate products, with the key distinction of 2.0 and its changes having to be a complete product that has to stand entirely on its own merits, while the expansion is an accessory to the 2.0 product. If 2.0 requires changes from "Apocalypse" to be a considered a complete product, would that not make 2.0 an incomplete product and "Apocalypse" not really an expansion then? And if the expansion requires reworking the base product to be valid there is a totally different issue. As a wild out there example, consider a car with no accessories at all(things like AC, radio, windows that open/close, etc.) If in order to have a radio added to said car, would you not be upset if to do so also required changing out the whole engine(a required part for the car to be considered a complete product) for an unconvincing reason?

 

[TGK72]

The only thing positive I can say about the existence of this post is that it called the general theme of what 2.0s accompaning dlc is all about before anyone else did, LOL.

 

[Bearjuden]

If 2.0 requires changes from "Apocalypse" to be a considered a complete product, would that not make 2.0 an incomplete product and "Apocalypse" not really an expansion then?

If that is the case, then yeah, I would agree with that statement. But there's an implied statement there: based on what you've read, do you not consider 2.0 to be an independently operational product? I know it's not what you or a lot of people wanted, and it's not yet what it could be, but from what I've seen, it is (well...will be when it releases) a fully functional system even without Apocalypse. And that's an important question, because if we differ on that, then all we can really do is wait and see. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right, but at this point we simply have no data on what will happen.

To continue with your analogy, I think it would be more accurate to say the car company said that they are changing the engines in all future models so that if you choose to get the radio/heater/AC/whatever, it works, but the engine still works even if you don't get it. The 2017 model had engine A and no radio, now the 2018 model has engine B and because of that the radio becomes optional. Whatever their reasoning is, they're not charging you for it and it still works, even if it has less horsepower than you wanted (I'm getting dangerously close to the "well you can always just roll back" argument, which I don't agree with because if you are at all aware of how Paradox works then you know development is a thing you sign up for when you buy the game [and it's a needlessly hostile argument to boot], but this is where the analogy is).

 

[A-150]

I actually like the FTL changes, even though wormhole was my favorite ftl. Though, I do not like the changes to ground warfare. Armies being ships that only disembark when attacking a planet, why? And attachments are gone. I feel as if ground warfare is being simplified, paradox should be expanding upon it instead.

At this rate ground warfare will be gone within the next 2 big updates/expansions.

 

[Hawklaser]

If that is the case, then yeah, I would agree with that statement. But there's an implied statement there: based on what you've read, do you not consider 2.0 to be an independently operational product? I know it's not what you or a lot of people wanted, and it's not yet what it could be, but from what I've seen, it is (well...will be when it releases) a fully functional system even without Apocalypse. And that's an important question, because if we differ on that, then all we can really do is wait and see. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right, but at this point we simply have no data on what will happen.

On that implied statement, with the announcement of the "Apocalypse" expansion being slated to release with 2.0, if it is or not has been called into question for me, but I am also keeping any judgements I make for 2.0 and its announced changes such as the FTL removals with the consideration that anything "Apocalypse" related as being non-existent. As won't be getting "Apocalypse" unless 2.0 in practice convinces me that I might still enjoy Stellaris instead of collecting dust, but now it has the additional burden of having to also prove it still feels like a completed product instead of the benefit from having that from prior patches.

To continue with your analogy, I think it would be more accurate to say the car company said that they are changing the engines in all future models so that if you choose to get the radio/heater/AC/whatever, it works, but the engine still works even if you don't get it. The 2017 model had engine A and no radio, now the 2018 model has engine B and because of that the radio becomes optional. Whatever their reasoning is, they're not charging you for it and it still works, even if it has less horsepower than you wanted (I'm getting dangerously close to the "well you can always just roll back" argument, which I don't agree with because if you are at all aware of how Paradox works then you know development is a thing you sign up for when you buy the game [and it's a needlessly hostile argument to boot], but this is where the analogy is).

Its a goofy analogy, and trying to find a better way to get that point across.But its basically you don't alter essential elements of a product to sell the products accessories. Maybe a better way of putting it is you don't go from Engine A that could run AC or Radio but not at the same time, to Engine B that is worse than Engine A to sell a power booster that allows one to run both at the same time instead of finding a way to allow the booster to work with Engine A.

And on the rollback argument which we both disagree with, if that is ever the solution its better to do a Game 2 V1.0 instead of moving to Game 1 V2.0 in my eyes, because its basically admitting that you have done Game 2 V1.0 in disguise.

 

[Bearjuden]

but I am also keeping any judgements I make for 2.0 and its announced changes such as the FTL removals with the consideration that anything "Apocalypse" related as being non-existent. As won't be getting "Apocalypse" unless 2.0 in practice convinces me that I might still enjoy Stellaris instead of collecting dust, but now it has the additional burden of having to also prove it still feels like a completed product instead of the benefit from having that from prior patches.

Okay. That's fair. I would put in a little note that if it looks weaker immediately but still functional, the dev team will still be able to (and thus will) improve it over time, but I'm neither going to ask you to play nor buy dlc for a game that no longer appeals to you, and I'll be sorry to see you go - the more players and the more input, the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. As to the analogy...I mean, I can go on about how the car company thinks engine B is easier to develop which means down the road it will have more horsepower, require less tuning, etc, but at this point it's just a verbatim rehash of all the arguments that have been said so far. I'm glad you're willing to give 2.0 a fair shot, though. It's all anyone can really ask, and certainly more than others have offered.

This doesn't really address the main concern of course which is that some people feel that it's unfair, but...well, this looks to me to be one of the most civil and rational argument in this thread so far, and there's still a bit of a gap in what we want. Paradox was stuck between a rock and a hard place, I think: either they switched and people who liked the old system were unhappy, or they stayed and people were unhappy that new mechanics weren't done as well as maybe they could have been.

I actually like the FTL changes, even though wormhole was my favorite ftl. Though, I do not like the changes to ground warfare. Armies being ships that only disembark when attacking a planet, why? And attachments are gone. I feel as if ground warfare is being simplified, paradox should be expanding upon it instead.

At this rate ground warfare will be gone within the next 2 big updates/expansions.

I like to think that they're only reducing it for now and that they plan on revamping it in the future. So much sci-fi has such wild imaginings of what soldiering will be like in the future, it would be insane to get rid of totally, and they know it. After all, so much of what they've done already has been inspired by sci-fi.

 

[Hawklaser]

As to the analogy...I mean, I can go on about how the car company thinks engine B is easier to develop which means down the road it will have more horsepower, require less tuning, etc, but at this point it's just a verbatim rehash of all the arguments that have been said so far.

And that would be fine by me, if you at least have B on par with A or can convince me that B will surpass A. The problem is when that is not the case, and then you also try and sell accessory Z which is made for just for engine B, and both also happen to come out at the same time. It raises some questions, much like how things have an odd tendency to break just after their warranties expire, even if can't really prove funny business in a case like that. If it consistently happens with the same brand, the brand quickly loses what trust had been built up in it.

I'm glad you're willing to give 2.0 a fair shot, though. It's all anyone can really ask, and certainly more than others have offered.

Been through this kind of process with other games before, such as FFXIV as I played when it was initially released and flopped hard, and after its rework and re-release with the ARR subtitle. Wasn't a fan of the direction the rework took it in as I still think it sacrificed a huge amount of potential, even though the rework was solid. Didn't buy it for a WoW clone, and the rework essentially made it into one. I still check up on it though, as the whole rework and re-release was handled very well and never know when I might want to scratch the itch WoW and its like did. And the time to be critical of major changes is before they are set in stone, as that is when they have to hit that acceptably functional mark that can be balanced tweaked later if needed.

 

[zdesert]

For the sake of illustrating with more examples about how the Star Wars movie handled strategic planets without the use of hyperlanes, we have;

1. Star Wars Rogue One - The Rebels were forced to attack Scarif with their fleet because that was the planet which had an Imperial archive / dbase where the construction plans for the Death Star were stored. The planet held strategic importance because of what was on it, not where it was located.

2. Star Wars 4: A New Hope - The Death Star traveled to Yavin, which was strategically important because of what was on it (the Rebel HQ), not because of where it was located.

3. Star Wars 5: The Empire Strikes Back - The Imperials traveled to Hoth, which was strategically important because of what was on it (the Rebel HQ), not because of where it was located.

4. Star Wars 6: Return of the Jedi - The Rebels traveled to the forest moon of Endor, which was strategically important because of what was on it (the Death Star 2's shield generator) and orbiting it (the Death Star 2 itself), not because of where it was located.

The point is every planet potentially can be a strategically important location depending on what's on it or what it's used for, without bringing in hyperlanes as an artifical means of creating strategically important planets / systems.

well that is a dum argument.... in every example you chose the attacker used a hyper-lane to reach the destination. Further more:

1: Scarif was deep in imperial controlled space and that is why the rebels were outnumbered and also why the ship with leia and the plans on it were caught before they reached the rebel base in the outer rim... in short, part of the strategic importance/strength of scarif was its position in the hyper-lane network and vader caught leia for a similar reason...

2: sure but the reason that the rebel base was hidden on yavin was because it was on a planet in the outer rim that was out of the way enough not to be found and also close enough to impirial targets like scarrif that it could launch raids... and when the death star comes to destroy yavin.... it has to circle around a gas giant becuase the hyper lane exit was on the other side of a gas giant...

3: again, the base was there because of it's seclusion and the fact that it was not on a main hyperlane route. Furthermore the battle of hoth was focused on the impirials blocking the hyper-lane exit and the rebels useing an ion cannon to get one ship through the blockade at a time. and acording to vader the rebels only escaped because one admiral jumped the fleet too close to the planet... again hyper-lanes seem important.

4: sure but the impirials knew where the rebel attack was coming from, lured them into an attack and then maneuvered a massive fleet to cut off the escape route by blocking the hyperlane exits and useing interdiction...

your examples are dum. but that aside. the plot of starwars movies are not good arguments as to why or how FTL should be mechanized in a 4x game

 

[omega4]

They could have gone warp only and probably still done much of what they wanted, and with a little more imagination wormholes only could work.

This x1000.

Now, Stellaris is basically no different than any other space game that's really a land-warfare game in disguise.

 

[PK_AZ]

Now, Stellaris is basically no different than any other space game that's really a land-warfare game in disguise.

It's a good thing Civ 5 doesn't have hyperlanes or else all I'd have to do is park my fleet at a few chokepoints and wait for the fighting to commence. Talk about lack of spontaneity.

I would just put that two quotes side by side, to show how absurd argumentum ad landum warfarum is.

 

[Riftwalker]

I would just put that two quotes side by side, to show how absurd argumentum ad landum warfarum is.

this x10000

 

[Defiler99]

I am trying to get on board with this change; wormholes have been my preferred FTL tech mostly, but I'm open to the change.
I've been playing Hyperlane-only games recently, to get with the program.

Wow, they are... predictable. I feel so much less threat from AI empires in this mode. Sometimes 40 years in you can already be done securing every access route to your empire.
I feel like "tall" setups are going to be very very effective in 2.0, because of the above. Lock the doors and then focus on extracting resources until you emerge with a doomstack.

 

[Bearjuden]

I am trying to get on board with this change; wormholes have been my preferred FTL tech mostly, but I'm open to the change.
I've been playing Hyperlane-only games recently, to get with the program.

Wow, they are... predictable. I feel so much less threat from AI empires in this mode. Sometimes 40 years in you can already be done securing every access route to your empire.
I feel like "tall" setups are going to be very very effective in 2.0, because of the above. Lock the doors and then focus on extracting resources until you emerge with a doomstack.

Remember, that's not the only change coming though. Warfare is still going to be very different even compared to hyperlanes only, just slightly less different than it would be to, say, warp only. Add to that the better and more optimized AI, and...well, we'll see what happens. Tall could be strong. But it could not be. We have no true way of knowing.

 

[Mysticforce]

I am trying to get on board with this change; wormholes have been my preferred FTL tech mostly, but I'm open to the change.
I've been playing Hyperlane-only games recently, to get with the program.

Wow, they are... predictable. I feel so much less threat from AI empires in this mode. Sometimes 40 years in you can already be done securing every access route to your empire.
I feel like "tall" setups are going to be very very effective in 2.0, because of the above. Lock the doors and then focus on extracting resources until you emerge with a doomstack.

I agree that "tall" setups will be more effective in 2.0 then they are currently. It's a good thing I think, because it allows for variations to "tall" strategies by removing their heavy reliance on gaming diplomacy and needing to ally and/or federate early.

 

[omega4]

I actually like the FTL changes, even though wormhole was my favorite ftl. Though, I do not like the changes to ground warfare. Armies being ships that only disembark when attacking a planet, why? And attachments are gone. I feel as if ground warfare is being simplified, paradox should be expanding upon it instead.

At this rate ground warfare will be gone within the next 2 big updates/expansions.

With hyperlanes, you will always have ground warfare. In space. Being waged by starships.

 

[omega4]

I am trying to get on board with this change; wormholes have been my preferred FTL tech mostly, but I'm open to the change.
I've been playing Hyperlane-only games recently, to get with the program.

Wow, they are... predictable. I feel so much less threat from AI empires in this mode. Sometimes 40 years in you can already be done securing every access route to your empire.
I feel like "tall" setups are going to be very very effective in 2.0, because of the above. Lock the doors and then focus on extracting resources until you emerge with a doomstack.

Like I said, hyperlanes reduce the strategic complexity of space games. Some call it predictable. I call it boring. Any way, going to give Civ 6 a spin now lol.

 

[Riftwalker]

With hyperlanes, you will always have ground warfare. In space. Being waged by starships.

or has land warfare been hyperlanes all along?! GASP

 

[Hawklaser]

I would just put that two quotes side by side, to show how absurd argumentum ad landum warfarum is.

With hyperlanes, you will always have ground warfare. In space. Being waged by starships.

or has land warfare been hyperlanes all along?! GASP

Actually, the funny thing is a good tile based ground warfare game give more freedom of movement than hyper lanes do. To avoid space conventions for this example, its like trying to compare a game like Civilization to Risk. Not saying they are bad games.

The biggest problem with going to the highly restricted movement of hyperlanes in a space game, is it very quickly breaks the immersion all on its own. It makes it feel like you are not playing a space game at all. Space games benefit from more open movement types for the immersion factor more than anything, as you really do want more of a Naval feeling to the battles and movement, than following pre-determined roads. A mediocre and un-engaging game, often looses player interest when immersion gets broken. And there are definitely points in Stellaris gameplay where things become un-engaging.

The next biggest problem is the meta of gameplay that the restrictive nature of hyperlanes encourages, but don't really want to re-hash these points yet again.

 

[Athmet]

A mediocre and un-engaging game, often looses player interest when immersion gets broken.

Exactly ! That is why i believe Stellaris has a long years infront of it without issues as it is definitely not an un-engaging game and will become even more engaging with 2.0. I agree with you on this one.

 

[CrazyZombie]

I don't understand, what "problem with immersion" do the players have with hyper-lanes. Yes, you are restricted by some sort of physics joke. And what? If you don't like this, you'd better read lore of popular sci-fi universes once more.

Star Wars? There are hyper-lanes with hyper-beacons, and all big wars are always revolving around control of systems through which hyper-routes pass.

Warhammer 40k? Yes, Imperium uses Warp to travel, but in the Immaterium there are still routes to be followed.

Hyper-lanes in 2.0 allow you to experience logistics of space warfare. Fortify your systems, create "thin passages", plan your own invasions carefully. As for me, looks way better than current game balance, where I never use fortress stations due to the fact that noone in sane mind will ever attack them, if can pass through neighboring system freely. And carpet fortification of own empire looks not so adequate - when you can just build another big fleet, which will be mobile and can be used right where it is needed.