FTL Discussion Thread

[Nurizeko]

Dunno where else to post this and I suppose it doesn't matter but I agree with the guy who posted about wanting a refund with the new upcoming near total overhaul patch & FTL removals: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...xpect-a-refund-after-the-ftl-changes.1053021/

Stellaris has gone from my favourite game to me not wanting it on my machine. In fact I not only regret having recently bought the Synthetic Dawn DLC, but I feel like want a refund for every last penny I spent on this game.

Granted I probably have no leg to stand on for getting one, but that's how disgusted I'm honestly feeling about this patch.

Yeah I could keep a downgraded version, or use mods, but TBH I'm sick of having to use mods just to get most games playable these days, instead of as fun extra content after finishing vanilla, and these changes have left enough of a bitter taste in my mouth I dunno if I even want to touch Stellaris again.

I shoulda went with the Endless Space series.

Stellaris was by and large finished. Any further Stellaris development should only have went ahead with the number 2 latched onto the end with being it's own title in mind.

Removing paid for content, fundamentally overhauling the game is...pretty low behaviour.

I've always held Paradox in reasonably high regard as game devs go, but this is some EA grade hyjinks right here. At least then they're mostly about nickel & diming you to death rather than cutting stuff you've already paid for.
No need for anyone to respond, I already know this will change nothing, but Stellaris really was my favourite game. Feels bad, man.

 

[Nurizeko]

If you preferred to eat apples, how would you like being told that you had to eat oranges? I'm sure oranges are nice and all, but I prefer Apples. Don't take away my apples.

It's like when you order something for grocery delivery, and they replace stuff with other things.

Frequently they tend to change products with something completely different and useless to you.


You ordered Stellaris apples, and they deliver oranges. That's great and all if you like oranges, but some of us don't & we didn't order oranges, and we're trying to bake an apple pie here.

The product isn't the one we were initially offered and paid for, and it isn't suitable to our tastes or purpose.


Good intentions or not I really feel like Wiz & Paradox are effectively treating their customers rather poorly. Even by the modern gaming industry's standards, I can't think of many if any devs who remove fundamental content AFTER the game has been released and paid for.

Oh and I think it needs saying:
Traditional 4x games seem to be perpetually stuck in the realm of 'niche' genre, whereas Stellaris took off like a Saturn V and has been one of Paradox's most popular titles to date.

To put it in the frame of the fruit analogy: Stellaris players by and large prefer apples to oranges.

Wiz...Paradox...I'd have infinite more respect for them if they realise and admit they got carried away with the clusterbomb that is the 1.9 update, and aren't making wise business or development choices.

 

[permeakra]

Seen from a distance any soiral galaxy would look flat, just as the surface of the earth would seem a perfect sphere

Actually, nope. While spiral galaxies do have discoid population, they also have spheroidal population or spheroidal halo that contains mostly old stars with low metallicity (and low luminocity, so the are not very visible).

 

[Obak]

Actually, nope. While spiral galaxies do have discoid population, they also have spheroidal population or spheroidal halo that contains mostly old stars with low metallicity (and low luminocity, so the are not very visible).

Paradox, why are these stars not included?

 

[Nurizeko]

I feel this reply needs noticing:

"I play hyperlanes only, i love this change, anyone who doesn't love this change must be a Troll or an idiot" is what i'm seeing a lot here. If you can't see how having a major feature you had in mind when you purchased the game removed, or having a large element of the game removed, or an entire segment of players being told "the game you bought is no longer being supported, here, have Sins 2!" will upset some people, then it is you with the problem, not us.

It's kinda...vindictive for people who like hyperlanes and have already got the option for their Napoleonic land warfare play style to act as if somehow the rest of us are being unreasonable and should just embrace this.

As someone else said, space combat and Stellaris' other FTL methods are more like naval combat in the Pacific theatre. Pure manoeuvre warfare, making choices between what to defend, where to attack, and knowing you can't cover every little 'island'.
This update won't remove doomstacks, it just denies some of the genuine charm & appeal of Stellaris and replaces it with turtling and another space 4X clone. Yawn.

This whole update is just...needless and wrong-headed. It's not just the purely mechanical faults, but the fact that it's urinating over a large segment of the player/customer base.

 

[Almond_Brown]

"This update won't remove Doomstacks!"

Given that DoomStacks is the #1 issue with Stellaris, until the FTL change announcement of course, what if this change is just one of many to come that is required to make the "much despised" "DoomStack" problem become a thing of the past?

It seems many think the Dev are doing this just for something to do? WTH! The players base have asked them to resolve many issues. Many issues have been changed... The fact that the end goal of this change includes the FTL changes do not mean they are "done with Stellaris" after that happens.

If the end goal is in fact D, maybe getting to D means doing all the things required before D can happen, like A, B & C...

Everyone in this Thread who has built a 4X Space game please raise their hand. If you have not ever built one, please just leave it to the experts to make the final decision on how best to get to D.

 

[Nurizeko]

"This update won't remove Doomstacks!"

Given that DoomStacks is the #1 issue with Stellaris, until the FTL change announcement of course, what if this change is just one of many to come that is required to make the "much despised" "DoomStack" problem become a thing of the past?

It seems many think the Dev are doing this just for something to do? WTH! The players base have asked them to resolve many issues. Many issues have been changed... The fact that the end goal of this change includes the FTL changes do not mean they are "done with Stellaris" after that happens.

If the end goal is in fact D, maybe getting to D means doing all the things required before D can happen, like A, B & C...

Everyone in this Thread who has built a 4X Space game please raise their hand. If you have not ever built one, please just leave it to the experts to make the final decision on how best to get to D.

A waffling appeal to authority fallacy is pointless, you could have just said "I like hyperlanes more!"

Hyperlanes don't remove doomstacks, they just change how they're used. Instead of moving doomstacks to core systems, you throw them against chokepoints, which is great for dull turtling...not for Stellaris. That's not strategically interesting. It either leads to grindy wars of attrition (yawn) or to doomstacks just swatting aside the weaker player in a different point of their territory (yawn).
A visual aid if you will: https://i.imgur.com/cTvNSLZ.png

Even worse: You can already play that way.


II still can't fathom how vindictive you have to be to get aroused by the prospect of ruining the game for other people, when your chosen playstyle was never in danger to begin with.
I prefer the manoeuvre warfare of multi-FTL, the ability to engager in "commerce raiding" and generally move about the board trying to overcome superior enemies, and yes, picking & chosing where I make gains and losses I have to write off. I dislike hyperlanes intensely to the point I wont even touch other 4X space civ games that rely on it. And looking at their very niche status I think most gamers concur.

You...DO prefer Hyperlanes. Good for you. Until the announcement to these changes we both felt confident our preferred play styles were being catered for without stepping on each others toes.

It's a bad decision gameplay wise and business wise (hyperlane based games aren't that popular, and this is the textbook way of alienating a not insubstantial percentage of your customer base).

 

[anamiac]

I'm not even sure if doomstacks are necessarily a problem. I'd like it if fleets had a peacetime duty, and if wartime duties included things for some of your ships to do that were not doomstacking (ie, convoy duty, raiding, trade, etc), but countries with navies have always had some of them stacked... from the roman Trireme fleets to the carrier task forces of WWII. Doomstacks are a natural result of the math behind large fleet warfare casualty ratios, and math is not subject to change. Land warfare doesn't have doomstacks, but if I want to go play land warfare, I'll play HOI.

 

[Lucian667]

I'm not even sure if doomstacks are necessarily a problem. I'd like it if fleets had a peacetime duty, and if wartime duties included things for some of your ships to do that were not doomstacking (ie, convoy duty, raiding, trade, etc), but countries with navies have always had some of them stacked... from the roman Trireme fleets to the carrier task forces of WWII. Doomstacks are a natural result of the math behind large fleet warfare casualty ratios, and math is not subject to change. Land warfare doesn't have doomstacks, but if I want to go play land warfare, I'll play HOI.

A very good point, people will inevitably doomstack unless they have a good reason not to. In a game like Distant Worlds doomstacks are not a big problem because....

1/ The galaxy is so huge that your doomstack would only be able to protect a tiny fraction of your empire and therefore you are heavily encouraged to split up into several smaller defensive and offensive fleets simply to cover the area. In Stellaris a single doomstack can often cover most of your empire unless it is really big. I usually have no problems at all using one doomstack to attack and one doomstack to defend. If you tried this in DW, you would get annihilated.

2/ DW uses full free movement, you never know exactly where the enemy will attack so you are strongly encouraged to set up several smaller reaction taskforces scattered around so that you can quickly respond to one or more threats from directions you didn't expect. In Stellaris, starlanes and chokepoints mean that you always know where the enemy will attack from and therefore have no reason to employ multiple defensive picket fleets. You can just merge them all into doomstacks at the chokepoints without any worry that the enemy might attack from an unexpected direction because with starlanes there are no unexpected directions.

So basically the doomstack problem in Stellaris is so horrible because Stellaris is designed to encourage doomstacks and by restricting all movement to starlanes, the doomstack problem will inevitable be made even worse.

 

[PK_AZ]

It's a bad decision gameplay wise

Prove it.

 

[Tavior]

Prove it.

Easy.

I have not touch any of the major hyperlane only game in recent memory while I play almost exclusively wormhole and like other non-hyperlane 4x games far more.

To put this in an objective perspective. I play only 37 hours with remastered MOO compared to 158 hours with Stellaris. I would have play it even more if that was the only game I had.

After the re-work FTL? Not so much.

It might be good in your opinion in the same way it might be bad for other. You have to be a little more specific than "prove it". Especially since I gave you both opinion and objective arguments for against hyperlane only mode. Not once but many time over in both thread (this one and FTL Dev Diary before forum kicked me out).

 

[Obak]

A very good point, people will inevitably doomstack unless they have a good reason not to. In a game like Distant Worlds doomstacks are not a big problem because....

1/ The galaxy is so huge that your doomstack would only be able to protect a tiny fraction of your empire and therefore you are heavily encouraged to split up into several smaller defensive and offensive fleets simply to cover the area. In Stellaris a single doomstack can often cover most of your empire unless it is really big. I usually have no problems at all using one doomstack to attack and one doomstack to defend. If you tried this in DW, you would get annihilated.

2/ DW uses full free movement, you never know exactly where the enemy will attack so you are strongly encouraged to set up several smaller reaction taskforces scattered around so that you can quickly respond to one or more threats from directions you didn't expect. In Stellaris, starlanes and chokepoints mean that you always know where the enemy will attack from and therefore have no reason to employ multiple defensive picket fleets. You can just merge them all into doomstacks at the chokepoints without any worry that the enemy might attack from an unexpected direction because with starlanes there are no unexpected directions.

So basically the doomstack problem in Stellaris is so horrible because Stellaris is designed to encourage doomstacks and by restricting all movement to starlanes, the doomstack problem will inevitable be made even worse.

How does fleet combat differ between devices and Stellaris?

 

[Lucian667]

How does fleet combat differ between devices and Stellaris?

devices? I'm assuming you mean the 4x game Distant Worlds. Like Stellaris, fleet combat in DW is pausable Real Time but differs in that......

1/ you can immediately take full control of any or all ships whenever you want and direct them in battle. Combat in DW is fully tactical unless you leave all the automation on in which case you can just choose to sit back and passively watch an automated battle like you are forced to 100% of the the time with Stellaris.
2/ Fixed defenses are much more powerful in DW and a large starport with several orbiting defense stations will often be able to totally annihilate even a very strong attacking fleet. However it is quite time consuming and expensive to set them all up so fleets are usually needed to guard vulnerable developing colonies.
3/ Fleet actions tend to be much smaller because doomstacks are generally a bad idea, so you usually end up with even large fleet actions being something like 16 vs 16 ships rather than the ridiculously vast death-blobs seen in Stellaris.
4/ You can board and take over enemy ships in combat and then reverse engineer their tech.
5/ Technology in DW is far more effective in combat than Stellaris, one very advanced starship can rapidly and effortlessly defeat a huge armada of low-tech starting ships all by itself without much ado.
6/ In DW, enemy ships can be prevented from escaping via FTL with the use of mid-tech "hyper-deny" modules usually mounted on large capital ships.
7/ Battles can happen anywhere including in the middle of deep space but normally only occur around areas of significant economic importance like colony worlds. There are no choke points. In the later game, deep-space intercepts are possible and increasingly common.
8/ Using FTL to rapidly jump from point to point in a solar system is standard, no slowboating even for low-tech fleets (as long as they have FTL). Warping from anywhere to anywhere within a solar system takes about 10 seconds for the warp-drive to warm up and then a only a split second for the actual movement.
9/ Ships in DW use fuel to move and fight. Suddenly running out of fuel in the middle of a battle can be absolutely catastrophic.
10/ Ships in DW have a complex damage model, they can be partially damaged and fight with reduced effectiveness, they can have their FTL knocked out and be stranded until repaired or manually scrapped. They can have shields, tracking systems or certain weapons knocked out and still be partially effective.

There's probably more differences but those are just a few off the top of my head. Needless to say, DW is light years ahead of Stellaris as far as combat and warfare is concerned, but Stellaris still does a few things better. FTL diversity used to be one of those things...... but not any more.

 

[Riftwalker]

This is what I don't understand as well. Why on earth would anyone support the removal of features that people use and enjoy when there are already options that exist to pick and choose which features to use already there?

because their goal isn't to remove FTL types, their goal seems to be to reconfigure the game to allow for further features in the future. the removal of the FTLs were a calculated neccesity, for them to implement various map features. you might not think it was worth it, but the devs do, it's not like they wanted to remove them, they had other wants and needed to remove them in order to fulfill those wants.

I support it because from what they have said they want to do with the new map system in their dev corners has sparked my interest far greater than multiple FTLs.

It appears that they wanted to streamline the map for future developement.

Also, FYI, imo, FTLs or movement types have never been something i really pay attention to when deciding if i enjoy the game or not. i simply cannot understand how it's so meaningful, so take that into account when replying to me.

For sure they would lose some minor elements but all 3 ftl would work the same in new code devs did, the main difference would be different hyperlane map for them

i brought this up and several people said that they wanted the ability to hop over or past systems.

Easy.

I have not touch any of the major hyperlane only game in recent memory while I play almost exclusively wormhole and like other non-hyperlane 4x games far more.

not to discount your own opinion on the subject, but anecdotes are not proof. I don't think most of the benefits of switching to hyperlane come in the form of more engaging movement, i think they come from the backend allowing for new features like a sensical border progression, meaningful static defences, the possibility for unexplored clusters hidden away behind gate keepers.

but that's all just my opinion.

A waffling appeal to authority fallacy is pointless,

oh and it's only a fallacy, if the person in question is not an authority. FYI https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

Description: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

Even worse: You can already play that way.

I actually can't play currently with any of the new features that are being added for the removal of the other FTL. The game appears to play very differently.

it makes me sad.

 

[Tavior]

not to discount your own opinion on the subject, but anecdotes are not proof. I don't think most of the benefits of switching to hyperlane come in the form of more engaging movement, i think they come from the backend allowing for new features like a sensical border progression, meaningful static defences, the possibility for unexplored clusters hidden away behind gate keepers.

but that's all just my opinion.

I don't think going down a lane to battle a hostile starbase make it any more "engaging" than proper warp/wormhole FTL systems.

Because once you are there. Which FTL you used to get there no longer matter at that point.

I will point out, not for first nor last time, that other video game manage static defense just fine with non-hyperlane only FTL system. To name a few - Sword of the Stars (mostly static defense), Endless Space 1/2 (mixture between early hyperlane and changing into late-game warp), Stars in Shadow (warp only drive with fuel/logistic range limit), Distant Worlds (warp only drive with far more feature than Cerryh and 3 other huge major patch can't hope to touch) and Master of Orion 2 (warp drive only FTL with an end-game boss only accessible behind wormhole station otherwise you can't hit them back).

They all had to various degree of "isolated solar systems with treasure". How they isolated those said system can various greatly like for example Sword of the Stars had planets that could turn hostile if you poke it (YES mobile planet monsters). Distant Worlds map is so huge that with the "first primitive" FTL engine you can't even go across a certain distance on smallest of map. Even if you did manage to daisy chain fuel deposit it would take too long to get anywhere. You would been better of tackling FTL research ASAP to unlock those isolated treasure systems.

My point is thus this. If all those video games can make it work. Why did Paradox decide to go hyperlane only is still mind-baffling to me. Even the "explanation" is a simple one that could be easily wrong for any number of reasons.


I won't argue with sensible border growth. My biggest grip with that is Machine Empire (gestalt conscience machine at game start not ascended ones to just be clear) suffer from lack of extra influence growth and need tons of influence to fill up planet quickly to min/max growth. For instance, 25 slot planet need 1100 influence alone to ensure fastest pop growth. 1100 because you can get 2 population from colonization ship and start a third one. Then move in 22 pop that takes 50 influence each.

Otherwise they can't keep up with organic population growth with nature migration and migration treaty between multiple empires. If they add a few thing to fix this. I might be OK with border/outpost.


I think people keep missing the point of Static Defense. They are already trying to fix the doomstack vs static defense problem by limiting how many ship you can fit in a fleet. You don't need to take the other two FTL out for that. If anything taking out two FTL won't change thing that much. Since there are not enough of a difference between pre-Cerryh Hyperlane only game play and Cerryh Hyperlane only game play.


Even so I may actually keep checking Dev Diary until the last one to decide if I am going to abandon Stellaris in the end (already uninstalled and lost all motivation to play). Having said that I still have very strong doubt it would make the singleplayer experience that much better than 1.8.3 Stellaris version. Multiplayer? Maybe so. It wouldn't be the first time that any game had to sacrifice a mode at expense of another mode (singleplayer feature being cut out in name of multiplayer etc..). It just that kind of thing don't usually go over very well in the end. To be honest I can't ever recall one that had a positive outcome for both side.

 

[LeanneKaos]

"This update won't remove Doomstacks!"

Given that DoomStacks is the #1 issue with Stellaris, until the FTL change announcement of course, what if this change is just one of many to come that is required to make the "much despised" "DoomStack" problem become a thing of the past?

I should probably avoid talking about games I don't really play, but...

...what if they changed Starcraft into a turnbased game in order to balance the rush strategies? I imagine most people who play that game would be rather upset by that change, and even those who felt rush strategies were in desperate need of rebalancing wouldn't be happy about the approach taken to do so.

It's a far more extreme example than what's happening here (and I don't even know if rushing *needs* rebalancing in the first place,) but the general idea is thus: even if changing to hyperlanes is a direct part of their Doomstack mitigation plan, people who don't like hyperlanes are not going to just get over their dislike of hyperlanes. They're going to complain, and spitball alternate approaches that could have achieved the same ends without forcing them to choke on the damn hyperlanes, and *maybe* in the end decide the good parts of the game are enough to outweigh their distaste for hyperlanes but they're *still* going to dislike the lanes.

(And the few ways I can think of by which hyperlanes can actually be a part of mitigating rather than exacerbating doomstacks, all serve to make hyperlanes even more annoying than usual.)

Everyone in this Thread who has built a 4X Space game please raise their hand. If you have not ever built one, please just leave it to the experts

By this logic, the entire "Suggestions" subform should also be shut down. Or at least restricted to people vetted for previous experience building 4X games

 

[Orffen]

Also, FYI, imo, FTLs or movement types have never been something i really pay attention to when deciding if i enjoy the game or not. i simply cannot understand how it's so meaningful, so take that into account when replying to me.

Out of curiosity, which FTL types do you play Stellaris with most often?

it's almost impossible to catch a fleet that uses warp or wormhole with a hyperlane fleet. regardless of how doomstacky they are. you have to wait for them to land in a system they want to do something in, but if they can warp out, you're twiddling your thumbs.

Isn't this the reason Starbases are going to be FTL inhibitors? So that precisely when they show up they can't just get out? And presumably if you're up against Warp/Wormhole fleets then you build those Starbases around systems you expect they'll attack, not systems they'll travel through.

 

[Orffen]

Maybe I'm being to positive here but doesn´t the Dev Diary say that Hyperlane will be the only form of travel at the start of the game. By completing certain technologies Empires will be able to utilise other forms of travel. Having restrictions at the start of the game doesn´t seem that bad to me and especially considering some of the the current ones are OP compared to the others.

The current forms are going away; the names are being reused for variants of Hyperlanes (Wormholes), and rarely-used versions of the current (Emergency Warp). All travel in Stellaris will be star to neighbouring star; Wormhole and Warp currently allows players to bypass neighbouring stars

Everyone in this Thread who has built a 4X Space game please raise their hand. If you have not ever built one, please just leave it to the experts to make the final decision on how best to get to D.

Which 4X space game did you build that gives you so much faith in this change? Arrigo Sacchi said "A jockey doesn't have to have been born a horse." He was a very successful football manager, having never played the game himself. We play games (presumably lots of them given the patience we have for learning Paradox's complex grand strategy games). Please don't dismiss our concerns; they're not born entirely out of ignorance - they're based on previous experience.

 

[Sherry Fox]

I have been quite vocal in the other thread about removing three FTL types. Im against it. I mostly argued from the point of variety, unorthodox warfare and general lack of seeming necessity for such drastic changes. None of the reasons stated and features released in the currently available Dev Diaries have convincingly shown the need for such cutout.

I never played hyperlanes as i have from the start saw that wormholes had a comment 'For advanced players' and decided i was a big boy. I simply fell in love with them and continued to play wormholes exclusively. However recently i played with a friend of mine. She is a newbie to the game, and she chose hyperlanes as they are 'for beginners'. Next game she switched to wormholes same as me... Holy moly she suffered the first game. she was playing a xenophobic empire. Nearly everyone closed their borders to her. She was boxed in a small corner of the galaxy, thankfully close to me. The only way for her to colonise more and EXPLORE more was to conquer her immediate neighbors.(thankfully again i was there to murder most of them for her and to take care of awakened fallen empires so that she could get into the game relatively peacefully) You should have heard how happy she was when she switched to Jump drives. Hyperlanes are simply horrendously inferior. They are actually not that bad as far as warfare is concerned. On many occasions they are a lot faster than warp and can beat wormholes if you are smart about it. But out of war? Holy shit they are bad. You have so much less freedom than other types its laughable. Xploration and Xpansion (Forgive me for using that pun) are getting really really shafted with that change. And warfare is also being shafted albeit to a slightly lesser extent. Roleplay is getting shafted. So much shafting and no unshafting so far... Not even a glimpse of unshafting. Just promises.

 

[Seb_Jean]

You can still get boxed in with other FTL option, especially if you use the cluster option in the galaxy generator.