FTL Discussion Thread

[Malecord]

What would you replace the claim system with? The previous system whereby you could claim large sections of space with one outpost? How is that better than what we have now whereby you can jump your outposts over an inconveniently placed enemy outpost (provided you can get there by an alternate route of course)?

? The claim system is fine as it is now. Cost is based on distance from nearer owned star. You don't need to dig tunnels in space to make it work.
Distance definition has been changed from straightforward euclidean distance to arbitrary and unintuitive "hops" (in fact now you really have to stop the game and process the map to understand what is actually near and what is not since "traditional map rules" do not apply anymore). But even ft is not related to the visual representation of the map anymore but it remains a number thus it can be used in all mechanics that treat distance as a number.

 

[EU3NOOB]

As if network of stable space roads that stay there for centuries is logical.

Okay then, please explain to me how a as of yet nonexistent possibly impossible technology should work.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

? The claim system is fine as it is now. Cost is based on distance from nearer owned star. You don't need to dig tunnels in space to make it work.
Distance definition has been changed from straightforward euclidean distance to arbitrary and unintuitive "hops" (in fact now you really have to stop the game and process the map to understand what is actually near and what is not since "traditional map rules" do not apply anymore). But even ft is not related to the visual representation of the map anymore but it remains a number thus it can be used in all mechanics that treat distance as a number.

The point was theat Xivitai had said the claim system was BS.
As such I presumed that they wanted it replaced.

 

[Acheron]

Is there any consensus here on FTL BTW? Like, do we have a majority favoring the current system or the old system or one of the other two old systems or something else entirely?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Is there any consensus here on FTL BTW? Like, do we have a majority favoring the current system or the old system or one of the other two old systems or something else entirely?

Depends who you ask, I imagine. I'd say the consensus is "Hyperlanes are fine, get over it". But that's obviously not as popular an interpretation in the quarantine closet.

 

[darthsquirt2]

Is there any consensus here on FTL BTW? Like, do we have a majority favoring the current system or the old system or one of the other two old systems or something else entirely?

Well, considering threads like these stopped popping up shortly after the patch that implemented the ftl changes went live, I'd say there's grounds to believe a consensus. It would seem the community at large is fine with the changes. Either people who complained about them prior to their release came around, learned to accept it, or left the community.

 

[Nighzmarquls]

The implemented hyperlane system is better then the previous ones and ultimately the 'proper' version of the others (jump drives and wormholes) were eventually implemented in a manner that is satisfactory. (jump drives and gate tech) honestly what we got was not that we lost the other FTL systems. It's that we got a better thought out version of all the FTL systems and they were allowed to be 'broken' the way they should be because they could be balanced.

I think getting them more fleshed out would be nice but that's a technical and design hurdle that I suspect would not be worth it at this point.

Maybe some cool high end tech that lets you cut and forge your own hyperlanes at some point would be my main change. And for kicks maybe also a Slower then Light option if you wanted it. Just for that kinda crazy long shot situation.

 

[Acheron]

Is there any support for changing the hyperlane system so as that systems are connected less randomly but instead make it so that close star systems are connected? I really dislike how the distance between systems on the map has little meaning, IMHO, it makes it unnecessary harder to get a feel for distances.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Is there any support for changing the hyperlane system so as that systems are connected less randomly but instead make it so that close star systems are connected? I really dislike how the distance between systems on the map has little meaning, IMHO, it makes it unnecessary harder to get a feel for distances.

Turn up Hyperlane Connectivity in the options before you start a game. At maximum, every star is more-or-less connected to every star around it.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

While there were problems with the way alternate FTL drives were implemented and balanced, I am still of the general opinion that going with hyperlanes only was a copout, albeit the safest choice. The constraints and problems with hyperlanes are well known: its arbitrary, lends itself to bottlenecks and virtually guarantees that the only viable military strategy is total concentration of all force in an extremely narrow front.

I dont accept that jumpndrives, wormholes or gateways constitute alternate asymmetric FTL drives. Their acquisition is entirely random, they arrive too late in the game, and by the time you have acquired them and can use them in any meaningful way you have already won the game.

I would have liked to see a bolder choice or more ambitious system, that would have allowed for broad fronts, multiple angles of attack, greater freedom of movement and asymmetric warfare from the game start. However I get that such a system might have been more costly to implement and balance, so we have safe but boring instead.

 

[makaramus]

maybe jump technology should have tiers like any other tech in game instead of 1 go in
very basic one is found at around 2250 BUT it will be very dangerious to use
very basic version will ALLWAYS damage your ships on use , mark location that jump being done and add all negative modifiers that normal jump will do ...oh and you cant jump to enemy terrority or nebula(YEEEE NEBULAS MEAN SOMETING!)
as you tech up you will start to get rid of some of these modifiers you can be able to jump in enemy terrority, take less and less dmg from doing this so if you want to you can focus on this technology instead of other things and try to bypass enemy defenses.

 

[Prince Ire]

Well, considering threads like these stopped popping up shortly after the patch that implemented the ftl changes went live, I'd say there's grounds to believe a consensus. It would seem the community at large is fine with the changes. Either people who complained about them prior to their release came around, learned to accept it, or left the community.

I'm pretty sure threads like this stopped popping up because you know, this giant master thread was created. Now the decrease of discussion in this thread could be a sign that most people have accepted, but it could also be due to the discussion simply not going anywhere due to the devs having no desire to change the hyperlanes only system no matter what.

 

[Acheron]

While there were problems with the way alternate FTL drives were implemented and balanced, I am still of the general opinion that going with hyperlanes only was a copout, albeit the safest choice. The constraints and problems with hyperlanes are well known: its arbitrary, lends itself to bottlenecks and virtually guarantees that the only viable military strategy is total concentration of all force in an extremely narrow front.

I dont accept that jumpndrives, wormholes or gateways constitute alternate asymmetric FTL drives. Their acquisition is entirely random, they arrive too late in the game, and by the time you have acquired them and can use them in any meaningful way you have already won the game.

I would have liked to see a bolder choice or more ambitious system, that would have allowed for broad fronts, multiple angles of attack, greater freedom of movement and asymmetric warfare from the game start. However I get that such a system might have been more costly to implement and balance, so we have safe but boring instead.

As someone who exclusively plays single player, I would gave preferred the bolder approach to the safe balanced boring system we got now.

Okay, maybe it didn't pan out to have three different system to choose from the start, still, what about different systems available for everyone? I especially want the Warp system, maybe range restricted, but basically, you can go to all neighboring systems hyperlanes be damned.

Turn up Hyperlane Connectivity in the options before you start a game. At maximum, every star is more-or-less connected to every star around it.

Thank you BlackUmbrellas, though it isn't the amount of hyperlanes available that bothers me, but that disconnect between distances we see on the map and distances as they truely are. It is my believe that these should correspond for the sake of good design.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Thank you BlackUmbrellas, though it isn't the amount of hyperlanes available that bothers me, but that disconnect between distances we see on the map and distances as they truely are. It is my believe that these should correspond for the sake of good design.

I don't really agree.

Two places can be next to each other IRL and require you to go the long way around to get between them. It's not particularly unintuitive that if there isn't a path, they're not as close as they look.

 

[Acheron]

I don't really agree.

Two places can be next to each other IRL and require you to go the long way around to get between them. It's not particularly unintuitive that if there isn't a path, they're not as close as they look.

On an earth map, I can usually judge by the terrain features that a route needs to be taken around, provided the map color said feature sufficiently. And AFAIK, these are exceptions, rather than the rule.

And please, I am not arguing from a point of "realism". My concerns are purely practical. We have a star map, the star systems are shown on it in certain relations to each other, particularly distance. To me, it would seems rather sensible design to strive for a match between the distances you immediately see on the map with those that actually exist in game.

Conveying information is very important in games of all types, you want to give as much information as easily and accessible as possible.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

On an earth map, I can usually judge by the terrain features that a route needs to be taken around, provided the map color said feature sufficiently. And AFAIK, these are exceptions, rather than the rule.

And please, I am not arguing from a point of "realism". My concerns are purely practical. We have a star map, the star systems are shown on it in certain relations to each other, particularly distance. To me, it would seems rather sensible design to strive for a match between the distances you immediately see on the map with those that actually exist in game.

Conveying information is very important in games of all types, you want to give as much information as easily and accessible as possible.

Think road maps. Ones that purely show the locations and the paths between them.

If I want to drive - or even walk - from my house to the local football stadium, I can't just go directly. I have to go around several intervening obstacles which aren't shown directly on a map of the road network (off the top of my head, there's two supermarkets and a church), but a more generalised map would.

If you take the major road network as an analogy to hyperlanes, take a look at this : https://www.google.com/maps/@53.1144327,0.2650484,8.75z and notice that you can't go directly from Boston to Lincoln, but have to go by (unnamed at this zoom) other nodes. Zooming in... there's not really a terrain feature that interupts things, but rather that it was just more practical to the road network to go elsewhere instead of directly.
Similarly you can't (by major roads visible at this zoom) go from Kaycee to Wright without going via two other nodes. Again, there's no obvious terrain blocker.
EDIT, because I forgot the map : https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7636388,-106.1385366,9.5z

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Conveying information is very important in games of all types, you want to give as much information as easily and accessible as possible.

And considering Hyperlanes are clearly visible and determine the majority of movement, I'd say its pretty clear how close things are together.

 

[Acheron]

I simply do believe that planning movements would be easier if hyperlane connection corresponded to distances on the map. I fail to see the advantage of having a system connected to a further away system, but not to a closer one.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I simply do believe that planning movements would be easier if hyperlane connection corresponded to distances on the map. I fail to see the advantage of having a system connected to a further away system, but not to a closer one.

I guess then there should never be any examples of cities or towns that don't have direct connections to their neighbours then?
Unlike the two examples I showed from a basic scroll around google maps.

Seriously, how difficult is "it's three jumps away" to gauge?

 

[Acheron]

I guess then there should never be any examples of cities or towns that don't have direct connections to their neighbors then?
Unlike the two examples I showed from a basic scroll around google maps.

Again, I do not care for realism but an intuitive map. Yes, maps in the real world may not be very intuitive, but that is why people use satnavs. Also, in the real world, managing a burger joint means a lot of boring formulas and spreadsheets, I see rather few people here bemoaning their absence in Stellaris.

Seriously, how difficult is "it's three jumps away" to gauge?

Three jumps are okay, but what if I want to blast my way to an enemy capital more than a dozen umps away, with a hyperlane route that resembles a snake having an epileptic fit? Or figuring out where to best unite your dispersed fleets in the face of a big threat that just popped up?

I really don't get the resistance here, what terrible drawbacks do I not see from making jump-distances correspond to map distances.