FTL Discussion Thread

[kenawyn]

@President Park Lee Ng Thanks for reacting to my message. It seems I did a poor job conveying what i meant. Here is some clarification

1. Room for error shouldn't happen with movements. It'd very much suck balls if you can't stop a raiding party because oops, for some reason you jump to the other system instead of the one you intended do. Bad outcomes in something so crucial shouldn't happen due to bad luck, but merely due to bad decision making. Error in movement very much *realistic*, but not *fun*
2. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "scouting is less important" because scouting is all about gathering information, and fog of war takes care of that. If you mean you don't need to patrol your empire because a bunch of ships can appear anywhere within your empire, I believe that's the strategic problem that made hyperlane won over warp drive during the axing: setting up border defenses became literally impossible
3. Raiding is actually made possible in 2.1 with the introduction of Barbaric Despoilers. If you mean you can't poke at enemy points a la real time strategy games, I believe that's the problem as outlined in point 2: it became a chore in which empire management took a backseat to constantly worrying about attacks. It was fine back when there was literally nothing to do but warring, but as things get more and more complicated, it's not very fun
4. See no.2
5. The original hyperdrive implementation made hyperlanes very fast, which was required because hyperlanes was unpredictable and they had to compete with other, arguably faster, FTL systems. The current system is much better precisely because it takes time to move, allowing you to react if you see enemy approaching, not just by moving fleets, but also building armies and defenses

1. Room for error
Having more options means it is harder to pick the optimal solution at a given situation.
In fleet movement I usually act based on the following information:
- what are the possible paths you can take
- what is your objective at the moment
- where are the enemy fleets compared to your current position

In pre-2.0 you had the following options:
- hyperdrive - similar as now but you could FTL from anywhere outside the gravity well and there are no inhibitors; this is the only case where snares can be used effectively at lane choke-points
- warp - free movement, long cool-downs; hard to fight a warp race, requires strong fortified positions, lucky snares, raiding and luring fleets
- wormhole drives - very hard to follow, the best counter is to destroy the stations and deal with the fleets later
There are a lot of possible moves here depending on what FTL is used by the two parties.

After 2.0 the movement and sensor mechanics got simplified:
- you move alongside lanes
- you can see all adjacent systems based on your technology / ascension perks.. etc
- there are easy ways to block fleet movement using star bases and planets
This a is a much simpler situation, because everyone is using the same method and it is a simple method. Limited number of strategies available.

When we compare the basic modes of travel it's clear that the pre-2.0 has more options. More options mean that there is a larger pool of actions you can choose from. There is a small number of optimal choices and a larger number of sub-optimal bad choices, thus there is more room for error. This is what i meant.

To be fair the current game has some really nice features when it comes to travel:
- wormholes - these are basically lanes that require research to unlock
- gateways - these are amazing, but also necessary, since travel is incredibly slow in post-2.0
- the manual jump option of jump gates and psi jump gates - it's a worse pre-2.0 jump gate

These bring back some of the options, but they usually come online in the mid and late game, when new technologies are introduced.
Also these new travel methods could have been easily added to the old system without any problem. It is a shame they are not available in 1.9.

2. Scouting is less important
I distinguish two types of scouting:
- exploration, where you fly around with some explorers and map the systems. Method is similar to a pre-2.0 hyperdrive empire.
- scouting, where you try to get as much sensor data as possible to track enemy fleet movements.

Since most enemies use the lanes to travel their movement is fixed. The need of scouting is based on the complexity of the lane system. At default setting you have an easier time determining where to defend and how to defend. There are less fronts and thus less scouting is needed.

I agree with your axing comment and that in the pre-2.0 it was much harder to defend.
I preferred the pre-2.0 implementation, but it's subjective.

3. Raiding
My definition of raiding: using small fleets to go around causing as much economic damage as possible by destroying orbitals and blockading planets while also trying to avoid any large enemy force.

I also agree with your assessment that pre-2.0 was more war focused. It is one of the reasons i like 1.9 better.

What I would like to see in Stellaris is a similar level of automation Distant Worlds Universe has. In that game you have the option to control everything manually, give full control to the AI or choose what you want to manage and what is managed by the AI. I had one game, where i gave full control to the AI and only commanded a small fleet of patrol ships defending the border. I was amazing.

5. Hyperdrive
I have to disagree with you on this, since i enjoy playing a fast paced game and the 2.1 is like watching paint dry.

So I have seen this kind of argument a lot. I mean, sure it gives a superficial "design choice" on the outside (like "designing" your very own construction ship), but what kind of penalty would fuel impose?

• Is it some sort of internal bar for each ship and when it goes out the ship is quite literally disabled? and ships have to refuel every once in a while?
  
• Is it some sort of range limit of how far you can travel away from a fuel depot, representing the limit you'd have to be able to go and return safely?

Sorry for using examples from distant worlds, but it's a good game.

First about the ship design:

In Distant Worlds you have full control how you build a ship, what components you use and how many.
If you wanted you could build a construction ship and strap a mining module to it with some storage bays and go around mining the asteroids and planets for the resources you need for your stations -- it would be insane to do it, but you have the option.
Here is an example what you could do:
- give full control to the AI to manage your empire
- design and build a ship capable of

• sub-light movement
  
• FTL
• mining
• building
• repair
• having some fighters and weapons for defense
• shields
• sensor modules for prospecting

- You can use this ship to go to remote systems and build refueling stations there using the minerals you collect on the way.

The reason i suggested that you should have an internal fuel bar because it's easy. This is how it works in Distnat Worlds
- You have a maximum amount of storage determined by the number and type of your fuel tank modules
- There are different power generators that use different fuel, consumption rate and efficiency is different
- You generate power using fuel
- You use the power for movement / combat / etc
- If you ran out of fuel, you still have the ability to move, but you move very slowly
I am not saying that we should exactly copy this from Distant Worlds, just that it works.

I do not like the abstracted max range limit approach, since in that case fuel would have no real impact, just the max range limit.

I don't play Distant Worlds, so I don't know how it works. But let's discuss the impact it'd have for each type of ship:

• Science ship: this limits your exploration. You have more downtime waiting for refuel, there's nothing important a science ship does aside from exploring. I don't see any upside in down time for exploration, late game everything's pretty much automated, adding fuel doesn't provide additional depth
• Construction ships: these guys can only operate within your own space, adding fuel to them would pretty much do nothing due to the nature of their work: constructing the fuel depots
• Military ships: like I said, capturing star-bases is already a requirement in wars right now, due to the repairs they provide (not to mention extra firepower). If it's impossible to attack the far reaches of enemy empire due to fuel constraints instead of firepower, what will entail is a frustration: I've already won, but now I need to wait a couple months to retrofit more fuel tanks, which I'll remove again after the war ends. It doesn't let the beaten party recover, it just delays the inevitable

All right, here is my take on this:
- I would change how design works, and introduce the fuel tanks
- Every ship should have a fixed amount of fuel reserves, based on how many fuel tanks it has.
- Ships running out of fuel should become disabled. If you move a ship that has fuel over to the disabled craft will refuel the craft. The transferred fuel is subtracted from the rescuers tanks.
- Since i like the Distant World approach i would use fuel to generate power and power to do actions like movement, weapon fire... etc
- The fuel consumption for the generator should be fixed, but the ship systems must be able to run on the generated power
- Using sublight drives should consume a small amount of fuel
- Using FTL drives should consume a larger amount of fuel depending on the drive used
- Higher tier tech should improve efficiency and reduce fuel consumption
- We could have multiple fuel types to make it more interesting. This has the potential to create some conflict, where each empire tries to control the fuel sources. Your starting system should always have the type of fuel deposit available you have chosen at start.

Science Ship:
If automated:
- it should explore unexplored systems
- it should travel to the nearest resupply platform (this could be calculated by per jump or by distance)
impact:
- exploration is limited by effective range
- as your empire grows you get more opportunities to explore further and further, which means there is no definitive period of exploration... it is a continuous process that lasts until other empires close their borders and prevent access.
- if we have multiple FTL - warp should explore the slowest consuming the most fuel and Hyperdrive should explore the farthest limited by the lanes, wormhole stations should use large amount of fuel for power generation

Construction Ship:
- they still need fuel to get there where they are going
- i would allow construction in enemy territory... you could need repair makeshift platforms and beach-head fuel depos

Military ships:
- I would remove the star bases as a requirement to conquer a system and set ownership of each orbital and planet instead and use area of influence like it was in pre-2.0 to determine effective borders. This would also allow 2 different empires to share ownership of a system by empire 1 owning the mining and refueling station around the gas giant and empire 2 owning the small colony on the 4th planet. Any captured station or planet gets the occupied status until you can assimilate it or sign a treaty with the other empire that it now belongs to you.
- Since i would change ship design as well, you could have the option to focus on range instead of weapons. If you bring more fuel, you can fit less guns. Choose the composition you want. So in a way fuel would affect firepower. I would also calculate speed differently. Instead of speed i would define ship acceleration and would have a max speed as x, where x<c; machine races should be able to tolerate greater acceleration
- With fuel wars would play out differently. One of the most important aspect of the war would be the supply lines. Since fuel is key to movement you must take/destroy enemy fuel depos to secure your advance and restrict enemy movement. If they build long range ships, then those ships will be less effective in combat, so a small guard fleet can be effective against them.

But the more important point is: what's the limit on fuel depots? if all it does is "I need a starbase and a fuel depot instead of just the star-base", then I do think it doesn't add much. After all, for fuel to play the strategic role you envision, it needs to be *limited* in some way

Great question.

As mentioned above i recommend having a fuel capacity for each ship / station and even planets.
So There would be planets / asteroids / gas clouds / stars .. whatever to harvest fuel from. You would build your mine there. Then this fuel would be distributed by trade ships / transport ships - similar to Distant Worlds.
You could also build fuel depo's that only store the fuel. You supply it with transport ships moving the mined and refined fuel to the depo, thus allowing your ships to resupply there.
If we have star-bases or stations we could build fuel depo modules on them, so they can resupply ships.

Strategic role?
- As long Fuel depos have fuel, they can resupply ships, thus have a strategic value. If the enemy captures the depo, they can use the fuel. If the enemy destroys the depo the fuel is lost. If the depo runs out of fuel, it looses its strategic value until it is resupplied.
- Fuel mines/refineries are more important. They can be used to act as resupply stations, so they have the same role as a fuel depo, but they also produce fuel, so if the enemy manages to destroy a fuel mine it has a major impact - unless you have enough fuel stockpiled to deal with the fuel shortages. So a mine is a major strategic location. Using raiding tactics to destroy enemy infrastructure and mines becomes a valid strategy to defeat a foe.
- You should be able to trade for fuel with other empires, you just make a trade deal and send your transports. Since the transports are vulnerable and carry fuel, they also would have strategic value, so escort fleets could be commissioned to protect them.
- We need new mechanics and technologies to disable and capture ships like Fuel transports. Unsafe areas infested with pirates should be dangerous for fuel transports, since these pirates will try to capture undefended fuel transports. Captured transports will be escorted to the pirate base giving a chance to recapture the transport.

Some additional notes:
- i would change emergency FTL to only FTL to the nearest possible system / least hostile system - you should still limp back to base after...
- some ships should turn into disabled ships or hulks in combat... research ships should be able to investigate them as before but construction ships should be able to salvage and repair them
- boarding action research should be available. if our ship has marine modules and boarding modules we can launch boarding pods to enemy ships with marines. boarding actions can have 4 outcome:
* fail - boarding pods failed to deliver marines to enemy ship
* repelled - our boarding crew was repelled
* partial success - caused a lot of damage on the enemy ship, de-buffing enemy ship actions
* enemy ship destroyed - the marines failed to capture the ship but managed to overload the ships reactor
* enemy ship disabled - the enemy crew was killed to a man, the ship can be salvaged by transferring naval personal
pirates should use the boarding action described here

 

[DizietSma]

The point is that it allows for defensive lines.

If you need to directly defend targets, you need to defend EVERYTHING, all the time. Hyperlanes and Starbases allow for lines of defence, for fallback points, for core territories and fringe sectors.

Yes that's true, and if we were talking about a ground-based strategy game where defensive lines and trenches are the norm then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But should "defensive lines" really make any sense in a space setting? Obviously it can be artificially contrived so that they are introduced and unavoidable, but it seems very awkward, counter-intuitive and frankly kind of dull.

I can play dozens of land wargames where lines of battle, roads and choke points are the norm, but I look for a different, and fresh take on strategy in a space strategy game. This comes back to something we discussed before, I dont see the space setting as just a "skin" on a generic strategy game which could otherwise be instantly re-skinned as EU4 or CIV and still play identically. I'm not making a reality argument here, nobody knows what the reality of space warfare will be like, I'm just saying that making the conscious choice to make space warfare just like land warfare is about as boring and creatively impoverished as you can get.

I buy a space game for unique, fresh, interesting strategic considerations due to its unique setting, not just more-of-the-same land warfare concepts with a space skin slapped on.

 

[KingAlamar]

The point is that it allows for defensive lines.

If you need to directly defend targets, you need to defend EVERYTHING, all the time. Hyperlanes and Starbases allow for lines of defence, for fallback points, for core territories and fringe sectors.

Actually there generally aren't defensive lines currently ... it's a defensive point(s) on the map that others need to funnel through in order to attack more valuable assets. The choke point system works well when static defenses are limited and you can't actually defend all of your valuable assets -- which basically means with the current starbase system choke points work well because starbases are a limited asset.

When at war [I.E. when it matters] you could enable FTL inhibitors and your choke points would work as normal assuming you don't have gaps in your inhibitor network. UI color coding could take care of showing you what gaps if any are present. Problem solved for those people [like me] that would like to merge the systems together so we can get [some] of the best of both worlds:

• Terrain can play an even larger part IF some terrains prevent the use of non-Hyperlane FTL
• We can still have choke points [enforced by FTL inhibitors + map generation]
• We can have free movement when at peace
• There may even be extra decisions to be made about how to best cover your territories with FTL inhibitors to lower enemy freedom of movement

The problem with the above is:

• While not intellectually difficult it's still too tedious to implement VS. the return on investment VS. the opportunity cost of working on something else
• While I don't mind hyperlanes as an FTL type their mere existence seems to be an offense to others ... which is fine by me but they'd hate my hybrid system AS MUCH as the current one so what is gained there??

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

But should "defensive lines" really make any sense in a space setting?

Stellaris makes no efforts at being realism-based, so... sure. Hyperlanes aren't even an invention of videogames- they've been in science fiction for decades.

Very few games make the effort to depict space at all accurately. What matters is gameplay, and hyperlanes do not create intrinsically bad gameplay- its a matter of subjective taste, and I have zero issue saying that people who dislike them should sit down and shut up when its a question of game balance and development resources whether or not other modes of FTL are included.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Actually there generally aren't defensive lines currently ... it's a defensive point(s) on the map that others need to funnel through in order to attack more valuable assets. The choke point system works well when static defenses are limited and you can't actually defend all of your valuable assets -- which basically means with the current starbase system choke points work well because starbases are a limited asset.

My experience has been that I very rarely have just a single chokepoint that I'm banking all my defences on; I typically have a chokepoint with a Bastion, but then there'll be another starbase or two nearby with some lesser defences, and these arrangements will be nested as my territory expands and I develop new sectors. If I'm on the defensive, I'll send fleets ahead to defend my outermost fortifications and try to eliminate incoming enemy fleets before they can claim any of my undefended systems; if that's not possible, I'll fall back and either A.) try to battle them at my fortified Bastion staging ground (which is typically assigned as a fleet's home base so if they're forced to retreat they'll be in position), or if the enemy forces are too strong and I need to bring more of my fleets to bear I'll fall back further to my next-innermost defensive point and have other fleets meet up there.

I suppose I find the the difference between "defensive lines" and "nested clusters of defensive points" purely semantic.

 

[KingAlamar]

Stellaris makes no efforts at being realism-based, so... sure. Hyperlanes aren't even an invention of videogames- they've been in science fiction for decades.

Very few games make the effort to depict space at all accurately. What matters is gameplay, and hyperlanes do not create intrinsically bad gameplay- its a matter of subjective taste, and I have zero issue saying that people who dislike them should sit down and shut up when its a question of game balance and development resources whether or not other modes of FTL are included.

"Sit down and shut up" is not a very constructive attitude to take.

The game balance argument in isolation is relatively poor given that straight-forward solutions are available to the balancing questions I've seen brought up.

Resources vs. ROI vs. opportunity cost is the real argument and this is where I likely agree with you. Unfortunately for me it doesn't seem to be worth the DEVs time to bother with FTL. That's disappointing because I do like to see DEVS that are bothered enough to want to accept a "better" system even if it is more costly.

 

[DizietSma]

Stellaris makes no efforts at being realism-based, so... sure. Hyperlanes aren't even an invention of videogames- they've been in science fiction for decades.

Very few games make the effort to depict space at all accurately. What matters is gameplay, and hyperlanes do not create intrinsically bad gameplay- its a matter of subjective taste, and I have zero issue saying that people who dislike them should sit down and shut up when its a question of game balance and development resources whether or not other modes of FTL are included.

I thought I made it 100% clear in my previous post that reality has absolutely nothing to do with my argument, "reality" can be whatever the dev wants. But out of the near infinity of possibilities, they decided to make strategic space warfare almost identical to the exact same strategic considerations one would use in countless land strategy games, and I find that incredibly boring and creatively bankrupt.

I want a space strategy game to involve significantly different, interesting and innovative strategic thinking than merely CIV or RISK with a space skin. Reality doesn't factor into it and never did.

 

[KingAlamar]

My experience has been that I very rarely have just a single chokepoint that I'm banking all my defences on; I typically have a chokepoint with a Bastion, but then there'll be another starbase or two nearby with some lesser defences, and these arrangements will be nested as my territory expands and I develop new sectors. If I'm on the defensive, I'll send fleets ahead to defend my outermost fortifications and try to eliminate incoming enemy fleets before they can claim any of my undefended systems; if that's not possible, I'll fall back and either A.) try to battle them at my fortified Bastion staging ground (which is typically assigned as a fleet's home base so if they're forced to retreat they'll be in position), or if the enemy forces are too strong and I need to bring more of my fleets to bear I'll fall back further to my next-innermost defensive point and have other fleets meet up there.

I suppose I find the the difference between "defensive lines" and "nested clusters of defensive points" purely semantic.

Good points. Well stated. Our differences laid in nuance which I didn't see earlier as I was too focused on the Black & White issues.

FYI: I pretty much do the same thing

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

The game balance argument in isolation is relatively poor given that straight-forward solutions are available to the balancing questions I've seen brought up.

Theory versus practice. Plenty of people have suggested ideas, but without seeing any of them in action, it's impossible to say they're actually viable. Paradox has vastly greater insight into this because they had the opportunity and the motive to test these sorts of ideas before they made The Big Decision.

Resources vs. ROI vs. opportunity cost is the real argument and this is where I likely agree with you. Unfortunately for me it doesn't seem to be worth the DEVs time to bother with FTL. That's disappointing because I do like to see DEVS that are bothered enough to want to accept a "better" system even if it is more costly.

Ultimately, even pure passion projects need to draw a line about whats worth including. Stellaris is a commercial project, so there's doubtlessly a financial element to the decision, but I don't find it so unbelievable that the developers just didn't think three types of FTL was working out and decided that one type was better for the sort of game they were trying to make.

I want a space strategy game to involve significantly different, interesting and innovative strategic thinking than merely CIV or RISK with a space skin. Reality doesn't factor into it and never did.

90% of space games must disappoint you, then.

 

[KingAlamar]

@BlackUmbrellas : You're right on the points you're making. I suspect our big differences lay in WHERE we draw the line and not that a line should exist.

As for the BIG Decision I'm betting the DEVs knew they could do better ... but not at the same "opportunity cost" ... Once again it's where the lines get drawn

 

[DizietSma]

90% of space games must disappoint you, then.

How, when 90% of space games - including original Stellaris - dont use forced starlanes, lines of battle and choke points like a land-warfare game? Even the most popular space game of all time, MOO II used free movement. Spouting fake statistics should really be beneath you.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

90% of space games must disappoint you, then.

I don't know if the number is correct (and it doesn't really matter). But my reply to the statement (independent to the number) is clearly: Yes.
And I was glad that Stellaris made a different approach. Well, until it disappointed me, too...

 

[DizietSma]

I don't know if the number is correct (and it doesn't really matter). But my reply to the statement (independent to the number) is clearly: Yes.
And I was glad that Stellaris made a different approach. Well, until it disappointed me, too...

The number is pure nonsense, i'd suspect its more like 50%. But I agree with you that even if it were true it would indicate a deep-seated absence of creativity and/or laziness. Is it really so hard to make a game set in space NOT have the exact same strategic thinking and considerations as a hundred other done-to-death land war games?

And yes, it had its problems, but Stellaris was indeed a breath of fresh air...... right up until they made it just another land-warfare-in-space game....

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

90% of space games - including original Stellaris - dont use forced starlanes, lines of battle and choke points like a land-warfare game?

right up until they made it just another land-warfare-in-space game....

These points contradict each other...

"
That's disappointing because I do like to see DEVS that are bothered enough to want to accept a "better" system even if it is more costly.

1.9 released on the 03/08/2017, so presuming that 2.0 was beginning active development not long after this, it's conceivable that going back to multiple FTLs, whilst incorporating almost a whole years worth of additional development on new features that were built around the Hyperlane only system, is not a particularly viable prospect, and again, this would be to satisfy a niche group, for not much benefit other than to qualify to achieve what apparently "90% of all space games" do anyway.

At this point, it's worth considering that maybe this game isn't for those who want this, or that another game is out there that you might prefer?

 

[KingAlamar]

@Cat_Fuzz :
Oh at this point I 100% agree. There is NO going back at this point.

As for being a niche group just one mod [New Horizons] has had interest from 5-10% of the entire player base [based on limited Steam data that I pulled == perhaps incorrectly]. That's just one mod so I wouldn't be surprised if the total numbers of players that would like multiple FTLs is closer to 20% or 30%. Still not a majority but I wouldn't just qualify folks that prefer more flexibility in their sandbox as a lunatic 1% either

Not that you did that .... I'm just saying that role players and people that want more options in their SciFi Space Opera Strategy game shouldn't necessarily be ignored.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

@Cat_Fuzz As for being a niche group just one mod [New Horizons] has had interest from 5-10% of the entire player base [based on limited Steam data that I pulled == perhaps incorrectly]. That's just one mod so I wouldn't be surprised if the total numbers of players that would like multiple FTLs is closer to 20% or 30%. Still not a majority but I wouldn't just qualify folks that prefer more flexibility in their sandbox as a lunatic 1% either

Not that you did that .... I'm just saying that role players and people that want more options in their SciFi Space Opera Strategy game shouldn't necessarily be ignored.

I'd counter by saying that people who want a Star Trek grand strategy should implore those who own the rights to that IP to start getting that together - Stellaris isn't a Star Trek game, and there are plenty of Space Strategy games where you can roleplay that and have warp travel (which is the prevailing arguement from those still attached to this thread)

I therefore don't understand why Star Trek fans get to dictate what does and doesn't constitute 'correct gameplay' in a game that has little to do with it. Sure, it's 'trench warfare' in space, but the game is about more than that, and it does actually do warfare pretty well (when they fix the AI to play by the new rules each patch)

EDIT: To add, I remember only using warp as my method of choice before 2.0, and I found chasing down fleets that would just bop around between systems trying at the best of times and as I've said to you previously, that can still happen now with Hyperlanes, but now it's from bad planning on the players part, rather than a permanent gameplay feature.

 

[KingAlamar]

I'd counter by saying that people who want a Star Trek grand strategy should implore those who own the rights to that IP to start getting that together - Stellaris isn't a Star Trek game, and there are plenty of Space Strategy games where you can roleplay that and have warp travel (which is the prevailing arguement from those still attached to this thread)

I therefore don't understand why Star Trek fans get to dictate what does and doesn't constitute 'correct gameplay' in a game that has little to do with it. Sure, it's 'trench warfare' in space, but the game is about more than that, and it does actually do warfare pretty well (when they fix the AI to play by the new rules each patch)

The math on this is super simple. Star Trek [and Star Wars and Babylon 5 and Stargate and Expanse ...] fans wouldn't complain if the feature wasn't there as a core gameplay element and then was ripped out. Not because it couldn't be done but simply because the Devs wanted to implement new features and didn't it didn't make sense to go back and change the other systems to properly compliment the new features.

Basically if Stellaris was always Hyperlane only then you wouldn't see this level of fuss about it.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

I can agree with that, but what's done is done and at this stage, you can either move on and enjoy it as it is now, or find a different game that can cater to your tastes. (That's collective you, not you specifically). Devs can't be responsible for mod integrity when they are changing mechanics, and this game does have the option of rolling back to play that if that's what you prefer.

 

[KingAlamar]

I can agree with that, but what's done is done and at this stage, you can either move on and enjoy it as it is now, or find a different game that can cater to your tastes. (That's collective you, not you specifically). Devs can't be responsible for mod integrity when they are changing mechanics, and this game does have the option of rolling back to play that if that's what you prefer.

Actually I agree with your post ... [Yes I put the agree checkmark there] ...

Honestly [collective] we EITHER need to get over it OR find something else to do. I still like discussing this as a consumerism & intellectual exercise though so that's why I still visit the thread.

FYI: Yes I am playing 2.2.6 and I do see improvement over 2.2.0 and as long as we continue seeing continual improvement I'll likely still support Stellaris. I think they can do better but lets face it ... they're still better than EA

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I'm just saying that role players and people that want more options in their SciFi Space Opera Strategy game shouldn't necessarily be ignored.

I'm a roleplayer. I used to give my empires whatever FTL made the most sense for their lore.

Then I stopped, because Hyperlanes was the only FTL I found made for compelling gameplay.

Roleplay does not require 100% mechanical fidelity. There's a dozen other instances in the game where a roleplayer will have to adapt their RP to the options the game provides- FTL is no different.