Wait what? I never play hyperlanes because they are the most boring and actually its the one thing I found the most stupid in other space games. I Always use one of the other two. That's a pretty dumb change. Were can I complain about that exactly?
Cherryh 2.0 - the end of the Galaxy as we know it
- Thread starter Thanquilor
- Start date
-
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.
Wait what? I never play hyperlanes because they are the most boring and actually its the one thing I found the most stupid in other space games. I Always use one of the other two. That's a pretty dumb change. Were can I complain about that exactly?
I'm sorry to the people who really loved the three different FTL types. However, I'm pretty sure the whole reason why it's happening is because the three FTL types were a serious design impediment with how the devs wanted to develop the game and going to hyperlane FTL was the best way to get the flexibility they felt they needed to make the game better. I know that's not going to convince anyone to change their minds on the issue, but it's important to remember that when a new feature, update or change is made to the game it doesn't just fit into the game and that's that. The devs have to take into account what's going to be effect by what they do to the game, and having to balance three FTL types has probably been a major headache for them. The decision to go to hyperlanes only probably emerged after months of constantly running into design problems related to how to balance changes to the game with the three different FTL systems. I wouldn't be surprised if we learned that idea were scrapped or did not go into the game as desired because of having to account for three FTL types.
I know I won't change any minds, but I do believe the up coming changes are needed to really make Stellaris a great game. I already love it, and I want to see it get better. I do have my own reservations about the already announced changes, but I am confident and optimistic that Wiz and his team know what they're doing and they will give us the best update they can provide.
I know I won't change any minds, but I do believe the up coming changes are needed to really make Stellaris a great game. I already love it, and I want to see it get better. I do have my own reservations about the already announced changes, but I am confident and optimistic that Wiz and his team know what they're doing and they will give us the best update they can provide.
How you litterally do every movement in the game is a minor thing? Perhaps if you don't have a fleet. It heavely influences how you expand, a hyperlaner will expand accoding to the lanes, a warper litterally spreads out might go for further planets first. While a wormholer will consolidate the part arround him quickly, and afterwards expand more evenly.
Also hyperlane is by far the most boring one, as it's severly limiting were you can move, which made me never choose it to begin with. It's a horrible change as people could allready decide for themself to allow only one drive, why take away that freedom? Multiplayer balance? Just let people select hyperlane only if they bother, why not letting people decide it for theirselfs?
Let's hope somebody can mod it back in, otherwise it's pretty game breaking indeed as I disliked hyperlanes way to much, its so emersion breaking that you can't got to a close star because there isn't a 'hyperlane', not really realistic imo
Well, it is very good to hear that the other 2 methods of Travel in Stellaris both prevented one from ever getting "Boxed In" at the start of a game... very good to hear...
Well, it is very good to hear that the other 2 methods of Travel in Stellaris both prevented one from ever getting "Boxed In" at the start of a game... very good to hear...
I often still got boxed in. As I normally denied acces to everyone immediately. It wasn't fun if you could just travel through everyones space. And I usually only builded wormhole stations near my own planets. It limited my expansion, but hey I liked it. That's the good part about it, if you want only hyperlanes, you select it, if you want to play like me with arbitrary rules, that's also ok. Everyone can play their own game, I Always thought there would eventually come more options for FTL and weapon systems, rather then less. One would expect that from a GRAND strategy game were you build your own races. I mean I care less about how they look then how they travel. As how they look has no implication on gameplay. But having more options in traits, ftl's and weapons that was pretty much what one would expect.
Anyways it's pretty dumb that the worst FTL is the one thats gonna be standardized. It's not even fun to play with that one, why choose the worst xD
I think what you mean to say is that it's unrealistic you can reach any stars, at all, in less than a few decades.
This does seem to be the basic logic, from what I've seen of the dd's, that hyperlanes are necessary to make the rest of the 2.0 changes fit together. But whether it's starbases or doomstack changes or border shifts, I haven't seen a compelling reason for why that's so.
Take the new starbase and border system for example. Love it, very excited for that change, but why do we need a roads-and-nodes system of travel to make that work? As far as I can tell, this would work just as well based on Euclidean distance and relative nearness of stars.
Or static defenses and doomstacking. Some of the new changes look terrific. The variable role that starbases will play, the new model for system defenses, the combat changes, etc., I'd still like more strategically critical targets on the galaxy map, but I think this all headed in a terrific direction. Again though... I still don't see the role that hyperlane-only travel plays in this. If starbases really do create a network of targets with variably critical roles in economy and capacity to make war, then players will organically pursue those multiple targets. If they don't, then players will keep their forces concentrated to break through chokepoints.
I'm excited about the update, but the FTL change still has me deeply unconvinced just because I still haven't seen a good case (or any case) made for the connection between hyperlane only and the new mechanics.
Well yes, but hyperlane is the one that is the most weird, as if there is a 'spaceroad' that only goes to certain places. Anyways it's also the most boring gameplay wise, so no matter what it's a horrible decision to pick that one over the more fun warp or wormhole mechanics.
Let's just hope somebody can mod it back in.
Hyperlanes are really no more unrealistic than any other sort of FTL, because FTL is impossible. Fake. Fantasy.
Ok even if I say you are right, it's still the worst FTL method gameplay wise? So why not make everything warp? Also having the option to choose your own way is what makes paradox games fun. You can focus on one aspect and be an ant fucker about it, but it doesn't change my other points... One can hardly say France is balanced in EU4 compared to a OPM. Most people play paradox games for immersion and story telling, not for the best traits, best ftl and best weapon technology perse. So you would want to give more options for people to play out their own story.
Also for multiplayer or people who want to, they could have allready selected hyperdrive only. So you could also say, we are gonna belance the game for hyperlanes, but if people really want they can still use the others. It's just not recommended or optimized for them. Drop all support for them, but leave them as options, I think it would make everyone happy. People just have hyperlanes only standard, but can select not to if they want. Seems easy enough.
And at one point, metal boats were fictional because metal always sinks.
Human flight was fictional because we knew that humans fall.
Light radiated out as a wave because we had observed the double slit experiment.
Not to say that someday people will definitely zip around in the Starship Enterprise, but we should be careful about making blanket claims like that. Fallibility is the essential heart of science. We build our models and learn from them, such as the lesson that matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, but always knowing that future discoveries might render all of that moot. Sometimes we discover that what we knew was wrong, other times we discover new ways of looking at the same information, but we've certainly learned that today's iron-clad truth can quickly become tomorrow's quaint assumption.
It is, if nothing else, the essential difference between science and faith.
I am just here waiting and hoping that they only removed warp using soft removal and using modding, it could be possible to readd it again. Like they could just put # before the warp techs (that enable warp functionality) and there would still be a possibility for those die hard warp fans to get back their warp. But I like most of the other changes or at the least I can't think of anything that I specifically hate.
I'm just gonna throw this out there, but this is a video game, so realism probably comes in second place to gameplay, what might be realistic might also not be fun, especially where Stellaris is more sci-fi/space opera-y than say something like Aurora 4X, it's not really rooted in actual science to begin with.
OP: so long as you can still choose to play 1.9, there is no "betrayal of trust." You bought the game at launch. If that game ran OK, then you got what you bargained for. Any chances since then are gravy.
Do you enjoy the linear passage of time?
Because you sort of need to get rid of that for FTL.
The whole "there's stuff we're learning all the time, it's totally plausible we'll figure out FTL!" ignores the fact that the more we learn, the narrower the window of possibility grows, because any new discovery must be explainable within the framework of what we already know. FTL would fundamentally break physics we have otherwise proved extremely reliable- it's not possible.
I’d be extremely skeptical believing any authority you claim to make about what is possible or impossible in physics & science when the manner you’ve done so is stated in a very unscientific way.
The linear passage of time is an illusion our minds build for themselves based on the fact that we don't go very fast and we aren't very small, so neither relativity or quantum effects need to be intuitively understood.
Time is not fundamental to the universe.
Except... discovery doesn't tend to work that way.
Flight breaks the laws of gravitational physics that had otherwise proved extremely reliable. Except that it doesn't, because people didn't understand Bernoulli's Principles. The latter didn't invalidate the former, fluid dynamics were always there. Once we understood that, it expanded our knowledge in new and lateral directions and enabled engineers to build devices previously considered impossible.
Quantum mechanics breaks the laws of classical mechanics that had otherwise proved extremely reliable because this field of study revealed gaps in our understanding of the world, gaps that humanity didn't even realize we had until fairly recently. For centuries (arguably millennia) physicists relied on a Newtonian understanding of the world and would have said all of these same things about anyone trying to argue for expressing matter as a wave form.
Nevertheless, we went ahead and built the atom laser even though 150 years ago it would have been not possible.
This isn't an argument to say that faster than light can and will exist, but simply to say that good science is fundamentally agnostic. Science, to crib from Bismarck, is the art of the impossible. Progress is the story of former fiction becoming today's established fact, and even if we can't know which of our assumptions will change we certainly can't know which ones won't.
Last edited:
Major flaw in your argument here: any new discovery DOES NOT need to be explainable with the framework of what we already know. That literally just means that our framework is wrong and we need to update it... as has been done previously, as @methegrate describes.