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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's not change.
It's taking away something we enjoyed for simplicity we could already get from a half dozen other games.
Gloating and insulting isn't exactly helping, either.
It's not change.
It's taking away something we enjoyed for simplicity we could already get from a half dozen other games.
Gloating and insulting isn't exactly helping, either.
It is a change. Removing warp and wormhole and replacing them with a new wormhole/gateway mechanic and an updated jumpdrive is definitely "change". You're not obligated to like that change, but pitching a fit isn't going to help you.
It is change, but painting people disliking it as disliking change in general when it is pretty clear that most dislike this particular change is insulting at best.
1. Master of Orion 3, trust us Starlanes will be fiiiiiine.
2. Master of Orion remake, Starlanes will be fiiiiiine.
3. Stellaris trust us ...
I see a pattern here
The point for me is: I hate Starlanes / Hyperlanes, I tried them in MoO3, MoO Remake, I tried them in Stellaris, heck I even used Nodelines in SOTS. And guess what, I HATE Chokepoints and Starlanes in every game I play! I like warfare around points of Interest (in space games), not through chokepoints etc.
Starlanes / Hyperlanes in my opinion make a space strategy game worse, and I have played a lot of strategy games, believe me.
That's the thing, hyperlanes feel super gamey. And I can agree that hyperlanes might improve gameplay and strategy options. But the immersion and plausibility is what attracted me to Stellaris, so I'd rather sacrifice a little bit of gameplay than a ton of immersion and plausibility. Of course those who already play hyperlanes only don't feel this way so getting rid of warp and wormholes is zero loss to them in exchange for lots of good improvements. I understand why they're excited. It's important though to show some empathy for those of us who feel strongly about this. In a way that's the advantage of historical games - you can't sacrifice plausibility too much in pursuit of gameplay because history constrains you. Sci-fi games tend to suffer from the opposite: no constraints of history means that only gameplay matters to devs and the result is games like GC3 which are just too implausible to be enjoyable for those of us who care about this.
An idea I'd put into the Dev Diary feed seemed to be surprisingly well-received... so I wanted to repost it to try and gather any additional feedback (particularly from the dev team @Wiz + @grekulf ). I'll also share a variant in an immediately reply after this post. Would appreciate trying to feedback focused on why these two ideas would/wouldn't work; not otherwise rehashing the debate still going on over on the Dev Diary.
MY CONCERNS
With the info we have on the updates so far, I can't help but feel that Paradox may see a schism in the players forming here, with a decent sized subset no longer updating beyond the current build. While I agree that the proposed changes will make for a more engaging wargame, that is not the reason I play Stellaris, which is why a Diplomacy rework has been my #1 wish for ages & also why I haven't played Sins of a Solar Empire since Stellaris came out.
I know there's a larger camp in favor of gameplay than realism, but I'll nonetheless add that of the three: hyperlanes seems the least adherent to sci-fi, other than perhaps fans of intergalactic bypasses. This would appear to limit games intended to be set in other sci-fi universes (which are probably about half the games I play).
Hyperlanes are the result of imposing terrestrial geography on space; the equivalent of mountains and oceans where such things have no basis in realism nor sci-fi. [not to be confused with the Galactic Terrain proposed in this dev diary, which I *do* like].
That all said, I do like many of the other changes proposed, particularly wormholes, gateways, and galactic terrain (though that last one could probably use a better name). I'm willing to at least give the update a try, but will be checking to make sure I'm able to downgrade before I commit to an upgrade.
[Disclaimer: I almost always play mixed-FTL games, and tend to play play all three FTL modes about equally. Asymmetric FTL was a huge selling point for me & is a big chunk of what I feel sets Stellaris apart]
MY SUGGESTIONS
I completely agree with Paradox's identified issues, if not their means of addressing them. First: yes, bypassing defenses is a problem, and one that is not easy to tackle when even mid-game FTL tech can allow offensive forces to jump straight to nearly any system in an enemy empire.
Paradox read my mind in identifying the very things I'd have proffered to counter those, and they raise valid points... which is why I fear I'm unlikely to sway anyone's minds trying to reargue them verbatim. But they did hit one point which I felt could've used some further consideration:
Warp+Hyperspace as the only two starting FTL Methods
Wormholes - A later tech, as like jump drives. A big change, however, might be requiring that wormhole stations be present on both sides of the jump (I was really confused when I first started playing Stellaris that I'd only needed an origin gate). This would essentially eliminate the defensive issues, and the constructor ships would still rely on warp/hyperspace travel. Ships might not need to equip wormholes as a drive; they'd use warp/hyperspace but can travel through wormhole structures... much like railroads in old Civilization games.
Hyperspace - Ships might not be effected by warp interdiction or subspace snares (or perhaps simply slowed by it), with hyperspace mechanics being much like SoSE, Pax, or MOO3.
Warp - Ships would be entrapped by interdiction/snares as intended, much as the mechanics work in MOO2.
MY SHARONA
The song got stuck in my head as I formatted those section headers.
The new FTL model will likely take economic warfare out of the game. I quite enjoyed the prolonged struggle, sometimes in vain, against a superior foe with a massive fleet. The best counter was planet raiding, a risky proposition over a long front that takes a long time to have effect. This strategy will no longer be possible, as the game will become trench warfare rather than naval warfare.
Another idea recurring in the Dev Diary essentially suggests a Star Wars style hyperspace/warp approach. Star Wars nominally has hyperlanes, but they merely represent travel-tested safe warp routes; spacefarers aren't otherwise restrained from off-roading it by warping non-hyperlane.
Same drive, but without the firmly rigid constraints (and also less bother for the realism contingent of players).
[this could also conceivably mesh with my idea, above]
Then do just that until the Beta/Release of 1.9 comes out
Saves you a lot of anger and writing work. And us having to filter out your "this is bad for undefined reasons" arguments from the discussion
Classical Win-Win
They fully expect such reactions of you and they still went through. That shows us how certain they are this change is for the better. And how unlikely they are to go back on it.
The new FTL model will likely take economic warfare out of the game. I quite enjoyed the prolonged struggle, sometimes in vain, against a superior foe with a massive fleet. The best counter was planet raiding, a risky proposition over a long front that takes a long time to have effect. This strategy will no longer be possible, as the game will become trench warfare rather than naval warfare.
You are aware that aking outposts will likely redirect all the space resources to your empire, thus making Economic warfare more viable and more beneficial without all the hassle of havng to blow up every mining station?
Premise. The last dd on hyperlane only Stellaris 2.0 is a deal breaker for me. But I really like the game and I want to try to remain constructive. I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that with some fixes the hyperlane thing can arrive into a state where it can be acceptable for me. So here I am.
Let's start with my issues:
Hyperlanes are the antithesis of space. Space is about space (not surprisingly I'd say). Hyperlanes are about mazes made of walls and corridors, dungeons made of rooms and doors, possibly provinces separated by non traverseable lakes and mountains. They are not about space. In the least.
Hyperlanes (as they are now) kills strategy. Strategy is about choices, weighting them and finally decide. Variety. So for instance if I'm the aggressor I have a choice on where I want to face my opponents: in a fortified system? In a system where space conditions are hostile to attackers? In a system where I can not retreat? Hyperlanes (as they are not and as they have been shown in the stream) are the opposite of that. The will be 2, maybe 3 routes to your enemy. He will fortify them and you will frontal assault the weakest one if you feel your deathball is stronger than his deathball and deathtrap combined. There is only one obvious choice and like 1 or 2 completely wrong ones. Where is strategy in this?
Design issues I understand from dd and solutions I accept:
I understand wormholes are to much different to coexists with the other FTL and I've no complaint on their new role. I see the strategic value in designing a functional mid-late game wormholes net. And I like it.
I understand (allied) military fleets needs to move with similarly enough to make the thing usable by a players in multiplayers and allies AI as well. But due to the sheer number of political entities involved in Stellaris conflict it means to flat choices for everybody allies and enemies alike.
What I want:
Warp. Because warp is about travelling in space and having choices. Hyperlanes are about mazes and not having choices at all.
The issues with current warp:
Many choices but with no relevant strategic value associated. So it's really lot of not important choices.
Common ground with devs:
It's also true that warp, implementation wide, is just a special case of hyperlane. Depending on the power of the warp engine it's like having an hyperlane on all stars that are on a certain euclidean distance, whereas hyperlanes are just arbitrarily imposed by the map generator.
I believe this reasoning of mine is sort of common ground where we can try to build something on your hyperlane only rework that at feels more like space (and warp) and less of pacman. That is: we can start from current implementation of warp, try to see it as an extreme case of hyperlanes and then put some constraints that make it interesting. Or viceversa: start from hyperlanes and relax it a bit so it gives at least some strategical choice of interest.
Proposals/ideas for new hyperlane system:
Lanes have a length. Some lanes (depending on euclidean distance) becomes accessible only after you research better FTL. This would give to the new FTL a behavior that is more consistent with open space (and warp). The euclidean distance thing could be relaxed with some flavor text (like the space is more/less dense so longer/shorter distances can be traversed).
Not all lanes are the same. Some lanes traverse a piece of space that is not empty as it looks like. There could be polarized gas masses, there could be dark matter asteroid fields, there could be dimensional fractures, whatever you want. Still they can only be traversed once a certain tech is researched. You want to create islands and early game isolated pieces of map. Here is a more sensible approach than what you have now. You can also create mutually exclusive engine configuration variants so you can equip a fleet with the possibility to go through certain lanes but not others unless without a refit.
Certain lanes apply debuff/restriction. Like above certain lanes traverse hazard piece of space so traversing them comes with a cost/restriction that may be mitigated by tech but not removed. It could be that only ship classes bigger than can traverse them. Or the opposite: only the smaller ships. It could be that they reduce your shields by X% for one month, or your armor, or certain weapon types damage or a combination. It could be that your fleet will split up during traversal and ships will arrive in multiple batches instead of all together. This is the geography you really need to create the strategical options that Stellaris now doesn't have (star system geography is interesting but will not solve the current issues). Forcing players to take the only hyperlane available and crush on a (mindlessly placed) fortress is not strategy. It's a no choice scenario. Giving players different options with different cost/risks associated is strategy. Let them make a risk assessment, go for it and then feel what it is to see it go right or horribly wrong.
Certain lanes are one way only. There is a positron whatever current that allows only movement in one direction and not the other. Again: strategic geography.
Certain lanes needs to be mapped by science ship. There is an hazard on that route so a science ship must first chart the safe route. After this action the route is usable for X years. Then it need to be mapped again since the space changes over time and the hazard might have moved. Hazard might be artificial (minefields). Not all routes can be applied mines for whatever reason you like (cosmic winds, dimensional waves whatever).
Certain lanes opens and closes randomly (or simil randomly) over time. Space changes.
Civilian traffic only goes through standard lanes (no hazard / special lanes). That way you can maintain the current influence costs and other distace calculations. Special lanes are only for exploration/military purposes.
Cosmetic stuff: hyperlanes are renamed routes on teh map. The engine type is renamed warp. Two systems have a route or either they are more distant than max warp range or there is some visible space hazard in between. There are different map modes to show: all possible routes (the ugly hyperlane web thing), only routes available from current fleet position to hovered star system with different optimization (time, no debuff, etc). Color code for special routes.
Map generation: don't make the map a pac man maze. Keep a base "safe lanes" structure made only by normal lanes like it is now. Then build on it with special lanes to relax it enough so it still feel like open space but with all the strategic options and isolated portion of spaces that you want.
Please. Try to build on these ideas and whatever other user will suggest. Keep the open space open. Only close space where you need by putting something in it. I think I will be ok with a much shorter range warp than now that is similar to your idea of hyperlanes. But I can't stand a space game that is designed to work like an underground dungeon. As a philosophy fill space with stuff, don't dig corridors in the dirt. There is enough room to make the rigid hyperlane system you showed in the stream look like a short range warp system that still feels like open space.
The new FTL model will likely take economic warfare out of the game. I quite enjoyed the prolonged struggle, sometimes in vain, against a superior foe with a massive fleet. The best counter was planet raiding, a risky proposition over a long front that takes a long time to have effect. This strategy will no longer be possible, as the game will become trench warfare rather than naval warfare.
Especially since destroying system outposts (which temporarily "captures" them) switches ownership of all resource stations in that system to you; they've added an actual raiding mechanic where you can subvert and siphon/drain the enemy's economy.
I mean de-facto hyperlanes would also probably work.
Like you're saying, you can order any ship to warp anywhere in range, but it may or may not have some critical mass of dust, have a clear route, etc. and ships could be heavily damaged or destroyed in transit. That'd be interesting.
This thread is going to be merged into the FTL Discussion Thread.
(Also I fundamentally disagree that hyperlanes "kill strategy" and choice- they amplify it, instead, by allowing you to actually plan ahead and take different tactics while being able to guess how the enemy will respond semi-reliably, which is really what choice and strategy is all about.)
People (at least I do) play this game for it's ability custom tailor your faction to suit your roleplay desires. Asymmetrical starting FTL is a great tool for narrative and roleplay in addition to being a novel idea mechanically. In a game where your empire is basically an avatar like you would have in an RPG or Bethesda game, there is little wonder that people get miffed when their options become limited in any way.
That's the thing, hyperlanes feel super gamey. And I can agree that hyperlanes might improve gameplay and strategy options. But the immersion and plausibility is what attracted me to Stellaris, so I'd rather sacrifice a little bit of gameplay than a ton of immersion and plausibility. Of course those who already play hyperlanes only don't feel this way so getting rid of warp and wormholes is zero loss to them in exchange for lots of good improvements. I understand why they're excited. It's important though to show some empathy for those of us who feel strongly about this. In a way that's the advantage of historical games - you can't sacrifice plausibility too much in pursuit of gameplay because history constrains you. Sci-fi games tend to suffer from the opposite: no constraints of history means that only gameplay matters to devs and the result is games like GC3 which are just too implausible to be enjoyable for those of us who care about this.
The problem here is that by moving to Hyperlane only, Stellaris is taking away something you can't really get in another game. While at the same time, I and many others don't see what all these "good improvements" need Hyperlanes only in order to function. It just looks like they're trying to emulate Endless Space, and what was once unique is becoming a clone. Hyperlanes only? Max fleet sizes? There's also the folk who also want to get rid of planet tiles or have dedicated combat scenarios. At that point, why not just go play Endless Space?
