FTL Discussion Thread

[Nyrael]

I recently posted a suggestion about readding the other ftl-types as separate "modes" in future updates, the idea being that since you'll only ever have one ftl-type per game you can design separate systems to accommodate each one. What do you guys think of this idea?

The time and resources spent on making and maintaining those two extra modes are better used to develop other features. It gets worse when you consider that, for each, you need a different border system, different defense station mechanics, different fleet movement mechanics, different trade system (which is supposed to come in future), different balance with the New Wormhole, Gateway and Jump systems, different AI systems, and so on.

The main point of going full-hyperlane is to avoid this very problem actually.

 

[dskod1]

In order to prevent this forum from getting flooded with threads discussing the same topic, all FTL discussion will now take place here.

You may only discuss FTL here and in any Dev Diary that directly mentions it in the dev diary itself. All other FTL threads will be merged with this one.

Thanks,
Dylan

 

[Tim_Ward]

I believe warp can eventually make a reappearance in the game as essentially a mid-game, poor mans jump drive.

 

[Akka le Vil]

That does not mean Deep Sea battles. Pretty sure most battles were still fought around sea geography (the equivlanet of Stellaris Systems). Here is a list from Wikipedia. Nearly every battle is named after the geographic region it was fougth in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_warfare#20th_Century

Indeed that the Bismark could not get close enough to the coast to get fighter cover was propably what sealed it's fate.

Of course that BATTLES were waged around strategical assets. Those worth defending/conquering.
The point was that fleet moved freely in the waters to REACH these "points of interest", they weren't railroaded along arbitrary waterlines and blocked by an island in the middle of the sea.
"oh no, there is an island here, we obviously can't move farther and HAVE to conquer it, because reasons"

 

[Hatsune Miku]

I see a lot of stuff affecting warfare alraedy, and the picture is not yet complete:
Systems are now claimed by occupation of thier outpost. This also negates any need for blowing up mining stations
Armor is now a ablating bar like shields
We saw a Naval capacity limit/Fleet
Power is now a central module of the ship like computers, limited amount of shields you can fit
Static defenses rework
FTL rework

The first four were only hinted or briefly mentioned so far, we haven't actually got a Dev Diary (or any full explanation) regarding them. We don't know how the fleet limit will work, we don't know how occupation will work apart from the occupier taking the resources of the system to themselves, we don't know which other changes were done to ship components.

The static defenses are a big change to defensive gameplay, yes, but it only indirectly addresses the offensive (fleet) gameplay. And the FLT rework basically affects everything, but it also doesn't change anything for fleet warfare on itself, it just simplifies feet travel and expands what can already be achieved by playing a Hyperlanes-only game on the current version (and adds much more depth to that).

We can safely assume there are huge changes coming to ship components, doomstacks, war goals and possibly many more things that we haven't heard of yet. We're still on Dev Diary #2 for what seems to be the biggest update yet, it's far too soon to make assumptions like "it's going to become X" or "it should be like Y" when we don't even know the scope of the changes to come.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I believe the devs are making changes they think are good for the company bottom line, which is fine, again. I have no idea what "promises" they may or may not fullful.

I'm adding my opinion to the sea of opinions to strengthen their resolve to make the "new" hyperlanes unlike the "old" hyperlanes. If it's better great! I'm willing to see how it plays out.

I don't think the Devs are working solely to increase bottom line profits. I genuinely believe they think that Stellaris is capable of being an even more addictive game than it is right now. It's the first Paradox game since Vicky 2 that I have played constantly and first PC game since Civ V that I have wasted so many hours on.

Now improving the game to appeal to more people will increase bottom line if it brings more new players than it pisses off old ones. That's the way it's always been. I'm old enough to remember the flame wars when EU dropped deterministic events - that worked out well for most people but there are still a few die-hards who want the ToT to fire on the CORRECT date!!!

 

[Darth_Dangermouse]

Currently, in the live game, defences are useless less you stack them in every single damn system you have and trying to race the AI to see who manages to get the Doomstack to the important planets first.

It sucks, but with these new Hyper lines, it'll be more important to establish a front line of defence and defending your exterior planets, instead of worrying about all of them at once.

 

[scaper12123]

In an effort to give this thought more reason to exist (and to bump this back up to the top :3), maybe there could also be a slight difference between the warm up and cooldown timers of each FTL type. Like Warp could have more cooldown than warmup, Hyperspace could have equal parts of both, and Wormholes could have more warmup than cooldown. Not a meaningful difference but would be a difference and could still adhear to the current hyperlane ideal

 

[PirateJack]

Of course that BATTLES were waged around strategical assets. Those worth defending/conquering.
The point was that fleet moved freely in the waters to REACH these "points of interest", they weren't railroaded along arbitrary waterlines and blocked by an island in the middle of the sea.
"oh no, there is an island here, we obviously can't move farther and HAVE to conquer it, because reasons"

Actually, they were. Strategically important islands had to be conquered in order to establish safe supply routes and provide air cover for the fleet. It's why if you look at any map of the Pacific campaign you'll see the ships taking a more or less direct route from island to island, securing their position, resupplying, then moving on to the next island. The US would not have been able to drop the atomic bombs on Japan if it hadn't retaken the Mariana Islands (as that put the Enola Gay within return range after dropping the bombs).

 

[The Founder]

"oh no, there is an island here, we obviously can't move farther and HAVE to conquer it, because reasons"

Except that is literally what happened in the Pacific theater. Or how warfare worked in the time of rome:
Leaving a enemy stronghold (Island in Sea, Fortress or city on land) in your back was usually strategic suicide.

Island hopping was literally the Strategy of the allies in teh pacific:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrogging_(strategy)

 

[Akka le Vil]

Except that is literally what happened in the Pacific theater. Or how warfare worked in the time of rome:
Leaving a enemy stronghold (Island in Sea, Fortress or city on land) in your back was usually strategic suicide.

There were battles around point of interest because of the value of said points of interest. These points of interest didn't act as walls. In fact, one of the MAJOR strategic element of the Pacific War was the ability to FIND the other fleet (the near entire reason why the Battle of the Coral Sea was won, actually, IIRC) in the middle of all this empty ocean.

The reason why they conquered islands and so on was to act as supply lines (and to prevent supply lines for their enemies). It's nothing about "chokepoint" and all about "supply lines". Islands didn't prevent movements, they just acted as "points of interest". The nuance IS the point.

Stellaris could simply have included a supply system instead of this retarded gutting of the game.

 

[The Founder]

Stellaris could simply have included a supply system instead of this retarded gutting of the game.

Or they could make a change that solve this issue and is hepfull for 20+ further issues. Wich is what they choose.

 

[Akka le Vil]

Or they could make a change that solve this issue and is hepfull for 20+ further issues. Wich is what they choose.

Except it isn't and it doesn't. It doesn't fit the theme, it's illogical, it doesn't fix anything, it's just falling back on a design they know.

 

[roboemperor]

With everyone using the same type of FTL, you don't have to worry about wormhole players screwing the hyperlane players over by planting outposts to cut off hyperlane routes.

You can already do this. IN YOUR GAME. It's right there in the setting menu: restrict FTL. In my game I don't give a **** if no one is using hyperlanes. To each his own, yet here you are saying your playstyle is superior to everyone and everyone should play like that.

 

[Akka le Vil]

Yes, if you ignore literally all of the Dev Diary, the dev Stream and all of the stuff yet to come you are actually right.
But who would go to such lenghts of ignorance and asuming the worst in any meaningfull discussion?

I asume they actualyl know the stuff that is literally their job better then you, random guy on the internet.

Ah, you're just a blind fanboy nodding approvingly at everything a dev does without thinking.
Sorry I wasted my time on someone devoid of critical thinking.

 

[Druplesnubb]

The time and resources spent on making and maintaining those two extra modes are better used to develop other features. It gets worse when you consider that, for each, you need a different border system, different defense station mechanics, different fleet movement mechanics, different trade system (which is supposed to come in future), different balance with the New Wormhole, Gateway and Jump systems, different AI systems, and so on.

The main point of going full-hyperlane is to avoid this very problem actually.

Not really. The only things that need to be adapted are sensors and defensive structures. Unlike the current border system tha only makes sense for warp the new border system can work no matter ftl type you're using, you just have to rebalance the influence cost of claiming systems. Fleet movement mechanics have worked perfectly fine for all three systems so far, and the AI can handle all three movement types already (in fact it's probably easier whe nyou jsut have t odeal with one at a time). The new wormholes and gateways work fine for all three and Jump Drive ca njust be removed for ftl types that can't support it.

 

[Akka le Vil]

Wow. your argument is so shitty you alrady have to resort to namecalling and insults to hide that you have nothing to say?

Dude, I know my arguments tend to be good. No need to admit it by trying to distract from it via insults.

Your argument is LITERALLY "they know better than you". That's your standard for "my argument tend to be good" ? Yeah, thanks for vindicating me.

Btb, I was critically thinking about such a change literally since I got this game. As I said above: Multiple FTL was always a weaknes of this game.

It says it all.

 

[Claremont Waltz]

This is a good change and I'm looking forward to it.

That said I'd like an earlier method to jump the lanes. It'd be *fun* to have a shitty jump drive with a long cool down for science ships relatively early on that could do strange things like strand them in the other side of the galaxy, blow them up, kick them into a different dimension or time period (event chains!) and similar crazy stuff. Or it could let them get into locked off parts of the galaxy early, potentially getting you some really good shit. Not something you'd want to use all the time, but a good way to let the player roll the dice and see what happens.

If anyone has seen the show Dark Matter (the first season is bad, but the others are pretty decent), think of the stories that came out of the blink drive.

I'm old enough to remember the flame wars when EU dropped deterministic events - that worked out well for most people but there are still a few die-hards who want the ToT to fire on the CORRECT date!!!

I admit to hating that change when going from EU2 to EU3 and just hating EU3 in general. It ditched all the historical flavor and in return we got blobhemia and snakestria and all kinds of weird and stupid bad sandbox shit.

I still think EU3 is a terrible game. EU4 won me over on killing deterministic events, but I stuck to EU2 over 3 and I definitely wasn't the only one. Honestly the 3 series paradox games were all pretty bad compared to the 2 series.

 

[The_Sorrowful]

To tell about incoming FTL change in 1.9, I dislike it.
The reason why I dislike is NOT it looks like land warfare or the movement of fleet is too much predictable.


The reason why I dislike is that backdooring to assult oppenents' source of resource such as mining stations and/or planets will be impossible almost in incoming change.
Even empire has lots of unbreakable forts and massive fleets, unless have factory to maintain them, this empire cannot win at war.
So, destroying enemy infratstructure that enemy needs to keep going war is one of strategy to win war.


But in FTL change in 1.9, If you just block some chokepoint with doomstacks of forts, backdooring to assult enemy resource stations and/or planets will become almost impossible. Why? Because fleet must move through hyperlane!
Yep, the warseance of stellaris will become more boring. All thing that we to do is just blocking chokepoint with doomstacks of forts!


That is even worse than land warfare. (Yes, comparing incoming change with land warfare is awful insult for land warfare.)
Land warfare has many ways to assult enemy infratstructure such as landing from sea, paratroopers, strategy bombing, etc.
But it is almost impossible for incoming FTL change.


Well, fortunately, jump drive would remain and it might could be solution of that problem. But it is end game technology, and there will be nuff such as FTL cooltime and debuff for fleets which using jump drive.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I wonder if the galaxy generation will let empires spawn on hyperlane "islands"- as in, the reverse of the scenario that was used as an example, where you open a Wormhole or a Gateway that leads to a bountiful but isolated and potentially dangerous part of the network.

It'd be a (potentially playable) version of that occasional bug where your home system is too far away from its neighbouring stars for your T1 warp drive to reach them. You'd have more stars to play with, hopefully some planets, but the vast majority of the galaxy would be inaccessible until you researched one of the higher-tier FTL methods.