FTL Discussion Thread

[Lucian667]

I already have shown you more attention that you are worth, little troll, but this argument seems to be quite popular, so I'll answer for other people. First of all, nobody is deprived anything of real value. If you like your SUV, you can right-click Stellaris in your steam library, properties, beta, and then choose any model of SUV Stellaris ever been.

Speaking of popular arguments, this one seems to be an absolute dead-set favorite with many of the forum white knights. But I have to wonder, would they be so quick to advocate sticking with 1.8.3 forever if the devs abruptly decided to change the game in such a way that it became unplayable for them? Somehow I doubt it.

- No future bug fixes.
- No future content.
- No improved mods.
- No new mods. Ever.

Very easy to suggest to others when it doesn't actually affect you personally, right?

 

[LeanneKaos]

If you narrow patch to hyperlanes-only and hyperlanes only, then yes. But to do so, you have to ignore all cool stuff. Space fortresses. New claiming system. Warfare rework. Changes to armor (as much as Im against them). Sublight movement changes. And iother still not seen changes supposed to give an end to doomstack-based warfare.
IF you ignore all that stuff, then yes, WIz was lying. But it means you have to literally see only things you don't want to

It's called "staying in context." Just like how I'm also ignoring the Humanoids shipset and the HOI4 expansion being advertised at the top of my page right now. Those are all things they did, but not "things they did with FTL in compensation for guttng the asymmetrical component." On that specific topic, they cut asymmetrical ftl out and effectively called it a day. (Effectively doing something being what happens when you technically didn't, but had the same end result as if you had fully done it.)

Which means you create three different rules, one for every FTL (lets say jump drives works like warp; through why should they? arent they, flavor-wise, more like wormholes?). They are inconsistent (warp movement is enforced, but wormhole is blocked?). Max possible range of FTL inhibitor is capped at less than 65 (range of weakest wormhole; in fact you have to subtract at least average distance between star systems), which would make psi-drives able to jump over inhibitor field. And you still need three times more rules than for one-FTL only.

Psi-drives are already jumping past the static defenses under what they've already planned for Cherryh anyway, albeit with a further debuff on top of the opportunity costs of research to pay for that privilege. If it's not a problem under the official plan, then it's not a relevant complaint about Tavior's answer to your challenge either.

Now imagine every feature you create have to be designed in three variants.

Not every feature is going to care. But yes, having a feature like 'asymmetric ftl' does come with a bit of overhead in needing extra rules to handle it. Ethos&Civics does the same; the new claims system had to have an exception put in for the three anti-diplomatic civics, and they're almost certainly going to want to consider all of them when working out war exhaustion and attrition (gestalts should really work differently on that front than standard empires, and the militarist/pacifist spectrum should likewise affect the rate of exhaustion buildup if they want to retain a sense of verisimilitude.)

Tavior's argument is that the overhead is minimal. Your counter-argument seems to be... even minimal isn't good enough?

 

[ImpalerWrG]

If you narrow patch to hyperlanes-only and hyperlanes only, then yes. But to do so, you have to ignore all cool stuff. Space fortresses. New claiming system. Warfare rework. Changes to armor (as much as Im against them). Sublight movement changes. And iother still not seen changes supposed to give an end to doomstack-based warfare.
IF you ignore all that stuff, then yes, WIz was lying. But it means you have to literally see only things you don't want to

I do not count any fix to some already badly broken part of the game as new content. Anything to do with ship design is a LONG overdue fix. Space Fortresses are a NOT an improvement in my opinion and it's a change to an existing feature not a new one. Claiming and war system is again fixing a long standing issue not a new feature. And Sub-light movement (geez your desperate) is a bloody DEFINED VARIABLE any of us could mod in 1 minute.

Their has been 1 new feature in the game post release, the unity system which was a strait ripoff from Civ5.

 

[Terijian]

Really the thing that irks me most about this whole thing is how people are implying or stating directly this will add more strategic depth. That makes no sense. How is limiting the options of your enemy encouraging strategic thinking? If your enemies have a large number of ways to reach your space, you have alot of contingencies to consider. If they have 1 or 2 ways to reach them then your "strategy" is basically put a def structure there or dont, keep your fleet there or dont.

It would be like of someone came out with "strategy chess" and the board was just 2 squares wide.

If these changes are for the best then fine. I think there would be better ways to address the issues than forcing everyone into hyper, but Im willing to give it a chance (not like I have a choice) But please dont pretend that cutting your enemies choices from 20 to 2 increases "strategy" thats absurd. The less choices your enemies have and the less choices you have, the less strategy there is. Thats why chess is thought of as a game of strategy and rock paper scissors is not.

Saying forced hyper lanes makes the game "more strategic" is either a straight up lie, or people just have no idea what strategic means


ps devs I love stellaris but am so salty about forced hyper. Please make it worth it

 

[StragaSevera]

- No improved mods.
- No new mods. Ever.

Who prohibits you from writing a mod for any Stellaris version? If you are really so tryhard-fan about 1.8.3, you will write mods for 1.8.3, not 2.x.x. And if you will not write them for 1.8.3... are you a fan then, or just a complainer? =-)

 

[PK_AZ]

In the same way there are many possible combination of ethics? Feature bloat is indeed already huge in current Stellaris. You can't go call something that is "too complex" and left the ethic system intact. Going by your logic there should be only 5-6 possible ethic picks and call it a day.

Whats about ethos? Except gestalt, I do not see anything truly game-changing, just some quite good bonuses. FTL, on the other hand, is per definition game-changing. Its totally different level of design difficulty.

Have you ever seen how EU 4 forts rule work in practical? It is horrible not very intuitive and yet EU 4 team left it as it is despite already tried changing it at least once. There was a short-lived beta of a "fort per state" that never actually went live. Yet that was much better than what we used to have (fort carpet siege).

Yes, I saw, through I only played about 170 hours in EU4. Maybe thats the reason why I did not saw any problems with fort system, opposite actually, its the best thing that happened to Paradox in long time. But its EU4, seventeen years of constant progression in the topic of grand strategy warfare model.

If you want to argue back and forward on keeping hyperlane only mode. Give me one good reason to like it. Mostly because after 53 pages of FTL discussion and 260 pages on #92 dev diary debates. I have yet to see a good reason for going hyperlane only.

Easy. You can have either 1.8 with three different FTLs, or Cherryh with only one basic FTL. No middle ground. No golden endings.

Speaking of popular arguments, this one seems to be an absolute dead-set favorite with many of the forum white knights. But I have to wonder, would they be so quick to advocate sticking with 1.8.3 forever if the devs abruptly decided to change the game in such a way that it became unplayable for them? Somehow I doubt it.

- No future bug fixes.
- No future content.
- No improved mods.
- No new mods. Ever.

Very easy to suggest to others when it doesn't actually affect you personally, right?

First problem with your theory is that no change made by Paradox make any of their games unplayable for me.
Second, no game studio is obliged to keep making new patches and content for game published long months ago.
True, Paradox promised that SOME development will be done. But never promised that no radical and controversial changes will be done. Some people gambled on that promise and they just lost.
And you know what? I actually sympathise with them. I would keep myself out of this discussion. If not simple volume of irritating behaviour. "I want refund' from people who had lost nothing but hopes. 'Design is easy' from people who never designed big game it seems. Simple aggresion. (Its not that everyone who hate hyperlanes-only is total ******, mind you, but when you sum them up...)
Third, there is some group of people who actually seems satisfied with 1.8. In their case, I still consider 'stick with is' as valid argument.

It's called "staying in context." Just like how I'm also ignoring the Humanoids shipset and the HOI4 expansion being advertised at the top of my page right now. Those are all things they did, but not "things they did with FTL in compensation for guttng the asymmetrical component." On that specific topic, they cut asymmetrical ftl out and effectively called it a day. (Effectively doing something being what happens when you technically didn't, but had the same end result as if you had fully done it.)

This branch of discussion started from ignoring context. Hyperlane-only policy is part of doomstack measures that were talked about in design corner stream. In that stream it was clearly stated that Wiz consider removing all starting FTLs other than hyperlanes (at that point, there were some vague idea to make warp and wormholes advanced FTLs). Ergo theory that Wiz ever promised that he will not remove two starting FTLs is absurd, ergo Wiz cannot break that promise.
And I think I will end in that point. Sorry, hard day at work.

Ethos&Civics does the same; the new claims system had to have an exception put in for the three anti-diplomatic civics, and they're almost certainly going to want to consider all of them when working out war exhaustion and attrition (gestalts should really work differently on that front than standard empires, and the militarist/pacifist spectrum should likewise affect the rate of exhaustion buildup if they want to retain a sense of verisimilitude.)

Which three? Purifiers, China and?
Gestalds will probably work like every other empire. Just a guess.
In case of militarist/pacifist axis, they will probably just get some modifiers.

Tavior's argument is that the overhead is minimal. Your counter-argument seems to be... even minimal isn't good enough?

Honestly I think my two other counter-arguments (lack of consistence and arbitrary max range limit) were more problematic. Also, is it really that minimal? Its three times more design than in hyperlane-only variant. And don't forget: we are talking about almost any feature connected with movement.

 

[Tsu Chi]

Inhibitor was one of the reason against 3 different FTLs, not for hyperlane-only. And Im still waiting for that simple solution (for yours: hyperlanes gets nerfed again, wormholes are reduced to warperlanes again).

Simplest solution is to remove Inhibitor in this form and replace it with sth else (I gave a lot of examples)

Hyperlanes do not get nerfed - every time I read that standard hyperlanes are worse than stadard warp/wormhole I think What? why? they can be so much better!
They are worse for only one reason : map generation engine for random maps, and simplistic view on a hyperlane map. Why generate hyperlaness only to closest stars? why it is not allowed for hyperlane crossing?. If it would be otherwise hyperlanes would be better than warp/wormhole during start to middle game, giving player an edge.

As for my extended hyperlane idea: YES, hyperlanes, warp and wormhole are based on 1 way of travel - hyperlanes. All I want to say is that game engine can simulate standard warp/wormhole by generating different types of hyperlanes in specific pattern. All move rules, all other rules devs planned or just imagine are THE SAME for hyperlane/warplane/wormlane
Why the same? to simplify things. All it differ is a different hyperlane connections each FTL can move and all different connections are at the same time on a single map. Is warplane nerfed ? in some way yes. Is wormlane nerfed? yes, but at the same time they could be in the game, to play, to enjoy, with only little additional effort from devs.

1. Warp warperlanes will get much more room to expanse than hyperlane warperlanes.

yes and no.
It depends how hyperlanes are generated. What speed you have and wind up/down you have.
In my opinion they should be not only to closest stars but also sometimes to stars further (those that a player with warp/wormlane would reach with advanced drives). Such player would have advantage to midgame.

2. Allied fleets cannot work effectively if they are using different FTLs.

so you say that stacking several fleets in one system is good? Domstack is doomstack no matter if it consist of one or several fleets.
I agree that coordinating movement would be more challenging for AI, but few additional algorithms could handle it with a benefit to the game e.g. imagine that your empire is attacked by 3 allied fleets from different angles. Or while they move you intercept one of enemy fleets and destroy it bcs you outmanoeuvred the rest of them. Or in the last momnet your ally joins the battle turning it into victory - so much emotions!
I say it would be for the better of the game.

3. Actually why cannot you change your FTL method? Its stupid.

yes it is stupid.
But in extended hyperlane functionality it is possible to have a drive that can go through different types of hyperlanes (list of types of hyperlanes would be defined in drive components). I can easily imagine that advanced form of Wormhole drive could use also hyperlanes in addition to worplanes (or even warplanes of smallest range too).

4. So hyperlane and warp fleets can get theirs radars upgraded, but wormhole-based fleet cannot?

no, you still do not understand fully my idea, but you are close
Sensor modul instaled is the same for all FTL types.
So when you are wormlane empire you also see (in GUI dimmed for clarity - so that you dont tell it is a mess) hyperlanes and warplanes and adequate ship movements through them. You just cant move fleets on them, but radar works for all types. So if you upgrade you simply see more (always the same)

5. So hyperlane and warp empires are supposed to take only neighbouring systems, but wormhole ones not?

again it depends how you set ranges for each ftl.
If hyperlanes are generated also for further systems, it is them who can claim non neighbouring systems further and quicker than warp/wormlane empire.

6. Aww, isn't that bordergore at the border of two wormhole-based empires beautiful?

yes for some it is beautiful. I definitely enjoy warfare from different angles. And if you referring to "catch a mouse" way of play it is in my opinion not connected and should be resolved by other game mechanic.

7. So you can now build wormhole stations in your allies territory, I guess? And it is the only space structure that can belong to other empire than star system it is in?

no it is not the only such structure, there are neutral structures(neutral empires in game engine) in space that can be inside other empires borders.
And even if, this is simple data field that say: this structure is under controll of this empire. I see no problem here.


For those of you who do not know what am I talking about I suggest reading some of my posts:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?posts/23541177/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?posts/23502613/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?posts/23513110/

 

[Black5Raven]

I already have shown you more attention that you are worth, little troll, but this argument seems to be quite popular, so I'll answer for other people.
First of all, nobody is deprived anything of real value. If you like your SUV, you can right-click Stellaris in your steam library, properties, beta, and then choose any model of SUV Stellaris ever been.

You came to the doctor with a pain in the abdomen (doomstack), he cut off your legs (ftl) - you do not have the right to judge a doctor because you are not a doctor of medical sciences.
If you do not like life without legs, you can use wooden prostheses (fashion) or try to return to the old version of your "mobile" life, but you will not have the opportunity to use medical help in future at all . You paid a lot of money for it ? Well we sorry about that .
We offer our sincere condolences. We hope that you still get used to our "innovations".


As I said earlier, you are a blind fan who will eagerly catch any *stuff* that will be thrown to him by his idols and would be defend it with all fury


Just like the EA lootboxes politics "fans" who with fury protect it and say "it does not affect on anything in game"

you are not affected by this problem? Congratulations, enjoy life and hope that this problem will not affect you in future
The conversation does not make the slightest sense with you, so I ask you to leave the chat and enjoy life in the pre-emptying of this "magnificent" update
and not to stop the remaining ones from discussing really important problems.

is a bloody DEFINED VARIABLE any of us could mod in 1 minute.

Somewhere I've already heard it, oh yeah - Fallout 4, where the criticism of the base game was answered by the words "mods fix it".
You can splash shit with French perfume, but it stops being shit? No .

.

Who prohibits you from writing a mod for any Stellaris version? If you are really so tryhard-fan about 1.8.3, you will write mods for 1.8.3, not 2.x.x. And if you will not write them for 1.8.3... are you a fan then, or just a complainer? =-)

Let me guess why hmmmmm........, maybe becouse a lot of mod makers not planning to do that ? Sound logical arent it?

 

[StragaSevera]

Let me guess why hmmmmm........, maybe becouse a lot of mod makers not planning to do that ? Sound logical arent it?

So, you want to force 2.x.x mod makers to do something for version 1.8.3, and not for the version 2.x.x, which they like more? This sound selfish, isn't it?
I repeat - if you want to write mods for 1.8.3, you can write mods for 1.8.3. If many people want to write mods for 1.8.3, then modding community will thrive and grow - and maybe Evil Paradox Interactive will see that people like 1.8.3 more, and 2.x.x less, and will revert their changes.
And if the 1.8.3 community will be small and slowly die... then it will be your fault. Heck, 1.7.10 Minecraft still is popular, and giant mods like Gregtech a developed for it - are you afraid that you cannot do what Minecrafters can?

 

[Lucian667]

First problem with your theory is that no change made by Paradox make any of their games unplayable for me.
Second, no game studio is obliged to keep making new patches and content for game published long months ago.
True, Paradox promised that SOME development will be done. But never promised that no radical and controversial changes will be done. Some people gambled on that promise and they just lost.
And you know what? I actually sympathise with them. I would keep myself out of this discussion. If not simple volume of irritating behaviour. "I want refund' from people who had lost nothing but hopes. 'Design is easy' from people who never designed big game it seems. Simple aggresion. (Its not that everyone who hate hyperlanes-only is total ******, mind you, but when you sum them up...)
Third, there is some group of people who actually seems satisfied with 1.8. In their case, I still consider 'stick with is' as valid argument.

And what if it had been YOU who had "gambled and lost"?

That pretty much proves my theory that Paradox White Knights are more than happy to urge everyone to stick with 1.8 forever, as long as they personally dont have to. Then it would be different, then it wouldn't be somebody else being screwed. The term "ethically bankrupt" comes to mind.

Who prohibits you from writing a mod for any Stellaris version? If you are really so tryhard-fan about 1.8.3, you will write mods for 1.8.3, not 2.x.x. And if you will not write them for 1.8.3... are you a fan then, or just a complainer? =-)

So I go from having the entire steam workshop library to choose from - modders from all around the world - to only my own efforts in my limited spare time (that I would rather spend gaming) and that sounds just fine to you? Incredible reasoning dude, just..... astounding.

 

[Shermanator]

Labeling people who disagree with you as "white knights" seems to be a favorite argument from those who don't like the new system, but I agree the argument that you can just stick with 1.8.3 (or 1.9) isn't very compelling.

90% of the Stellaris games I have played have been warp only, and I will continue to play warp only until warp is removed from the game. That being said, I am ok with warp going away in 2.0 because I believe the new FTL system will make the game better.

It Wiz and the rest of the devs decide to leave warp in, I think it would be best if it was kept in as an option for players who don't like Hyperlanes, and in games would have to be either warp only or hyperlanes only, no option to have them both.

As for wormholes, I have always wanted their to be a mechanic that allows you to travel quickly to different parts of the galaxy, so I like that it is being replaced with natural wormholes and gates.

 

[Tavior]

Whats about ethos? Except gestalt, I do not see anything truly game-changing, just some quite good bonuses. FTL, on the other hand, is per definition game-changing. Its totally different level of design difficulty.

My point was that you are applying a double standard. Which is to ignore other complex stuff that you "need" a calculator to figure out some minor details; while saying FTL is complicated enough to take out. Ethos is one such example of this and is not alone either. Weapon selection for your warships is one example that is fairly more complicated than choice of FTL.

Then go back and say that 3 choice of FTL is "too complex" for the best top 1% player.

It doesn't matter how much ethos/FTL choices impact your gameplay. Do you see where I am going now?

If that wasn't enough. Let me explain it in another way. Saying algebra, 3 FTL types, is too hard and should not be taught in College. While ignoring harder stuff, Ethos picks, like calculus or even quantum math being taught in College.

Yes, I saw, through I only played about 170 hours in EU4. Maybe thats the reason why I did not saw any problems with fort system, opposite actually, its the best thing that happened to Paradox in long time. But its EU4, seventeen years of constant progression in the topic of grand strategy warfare model.

Currently OPM in late-game can't even afford to keep up to date with forts. Easy to see when you are a 3 province minor in Europe and try to build a fort at Nov 11, 1444. That is the cheapest fort available. It get worse over time.

Rules for fort is "location-depended and depended on if you have naval superiority". Only afterward you could finally figure out your movement options afterward. Watch this video to see what I meant by this. Especially the Mediterranean loophole are not explained anywhere in-game.

They are SO expensive that they bankrupt your subject nations (colonial nations and certain other subject below a threshold) because they have to bankroll their fort and everything else. Easier to notice in your CN subjects because the economical AI "think" they get the gold income but they don't.

There are a certain subset of players who refuse to build a fort and play like that. Which can break AI in some not so good way when they are attacking you.

Army traditions from fort was supposed to make up for loss of army traditions from battle at one point. After so many changes there are still major flaws. Especially since this change was made before development was even a thing. If you have more than 60 development per province on average then you won't be able to min/max your fort to full yearly +1 army traditions.

Having to search through of savegames to try close loopholes that AI can use that seem to be broke each other patch. Waste of programmer hours if you ask me when those same hours could be spent on other things.

On and on I could go for a bit more but I think I will stop here.

I guess what I am trying to say here. Is that even post-hyperlane FTL change won't fix all of the problems and may in fact create a few of their own that aren't trivial to fix.

Easy. You can have either 1.8 with three different FTLs, or Cherryh with only one basic FTL. No middle ground. No golden endings.

I already gave you one scenario that will keep both side more or less happy. I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge this. Have the official mode support hyperlane only while keep both older FTL type in. Or even simply give up the hyperlane only model. But this thread should show that either side are willing to meet in the middle ground. Not that there isn't a middle ground that both side could meet on. You seem to be completely dead set on hyperlane only.

If anything it could hurt the community long-term by splitting into two camps. I don't think I have to explain this one to you.


I am talking a lot now because I do care about Stellaris and I don't want it to end up as a horrible boring vanilla 4X like hundred other that are already on the market.

 

[StragaSevera]

So I go from having the entire steam workshop library to choose from - modders from all around the world - to only my own efforts in my limited spare time (that I would rather spend gaming) and that sounds just fine to you? Incredible reasoning dude, just..... astounding.

So, you are saying that you are the only person in the world that wants to play 1.8.3, and all other people want to play 2.x.x? In that case, sucks to be you, but the change is for the best.
If, on the other hand, there are more people that want to play 1.8.3, then you will cooperate. You will write and share your own mods, you will port 2.x.x mods to 1.8.3. If your community will be big enough, then even 2.x.x modders will make two separate versions, for 2.x.x and 1.8.3 - like modders in Minecraft make mods for 1.7.10, 1.8, 1.9 and so on.
Keep trust in yourself, guys. I believe in modders self-organisation.

 

[Kappenloch]

So, you are saying that you are the only person in the world that wants to play 1.8.3, and all other people want to play 2.x.x? In that case, sucks to be you, but the change is for the best.
If, on the other hand, there are more people that want to play 1.8.3, then you will cooperate. You will write and share your own mods, you will port 2.x.x mods to 1.8.3. If your community will be big enough, then even 2.x.x modders will make two separate versions, for 2.x.x and 1.8.3 - like modders in Minecraft make mods for 1.7.10, 1.8, 1.9 and so on.
Keep trust in yourself, guys. I believe in modders self-organisation.

Or rather than all becoming die-hard mod makers struggling to keep a dead patch alive, we could just drop Stellaris entirely, forget it ever existed and move on to another 4x game like Distant Worlds where space is treated like space instead of land and the devs don't suddenly remove core features to make their lives easier or treat their customers like garbage. Personally I'm quite partial to option #2. They've certainly earned it.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

Or rather than all becoming die-hard mod makers struggling to keep a dead patch alive, we could just drop Stellaris entirely, forget it ever existed and move on to another 4x game like Distant Worlds where space is treated like space instead of land and the devs don't suddenly remove core features to make their lives easier or treat their customers like garbage. Personally I'm quite partial to option #2. They've certainly earned it.

This is the other option, yes.

 

[StragaSevera]

Or rather than all becoming die-hard mod makers struggling to keep a dead patch alive, we could just drop Stellaris entirely, forget it ever existed and move on to another 4x game like Distant Worlds where space is treated like space instead of land and the devs don't suddenly remove core features to make their lives easier or treat their customers like garbage. Personally I'm quite partial to option #2. They've certainly earned it.

Yes, it is another option, and is certainly valid. If you do not like Stellaris 1.8.3 enough to support it with your actions, you can just not play it =-)

 

[Malecord]

They should definitely add a space Troll specie in the new humanoids pack with attached forum avatar.

It would improve the quality of life in the FTL threads by a large margin.

 

[StragaSevera]

They should definitely add a space Troll specie in the new humanoids pack with attached forum avatar.

It would improve the quality of life in the FTL threads by a large margin.

I think "Hobbits" from that pack would suffice =-)

 

[LeanneKaos]

First problem with your theory is that no change made by Paradox make any of their games unplayable for me.

As I understand it, that's actually the very premise of his theory.

This branch of discussion started from ignoring context. Hyperlane-only policy is part of doomstack measures that were talked about in design corner stream.

Crap. I can't watch streamed content (personal issues; I can read walls of text all day, but audio loses me in under five minutes) so I can't actually check this part for myself. Specifically, whether or not they actually said "hyperlane-only policy is part of doomstack measures," as opposed to similar-but-not-same ideas like "is coming with" or "abandoning asymmetry and assorted overhead to make more time."

However...

In that stream it was clearly stated that Wiz consider removing all starting FTLs other than hyperlanes (at that point, there were some vague idea to make warp and wormholes advanced FTLs). Ergo theory that Wiz ever promised that he will not remove two starting FTLs is absurd,ergo Wiz cannot break that promise.

Comes down to timeline actually. The promise was not explicit, but heavily implied by the above mentioned twitter post; if this stream you're speaking of came before that post, then you may have a point. If it came after, then it's just moving the timeline on when his mind changed from "we're going to rework not abandon" to "nope, we're abandoning after all."

Which three? Purifiers, China and?

Purifers, Devourers and Exterminators. Though the last one is a bit odd, in that where this was mentioned somewhat implies they get the exception when dealing with non-machine empires but play by 'the rules' when dealing with other machines.
(I assume one of those is "China," but my familiarity with the local jargon isn't good enough to do more than guess at which one.)

Gestalds will probably work like every other empire. Just a guess.
In case of militarist/pacifist axis, they will probably just get some modifiers.

And my point is that even "just some modifiers" are added overhead in the same way (albeit to a different scale) as FTL considerations are. If implemented, they need to be coded in, tested, possibly have their values adjusted and retested. Even if gestalts are working like every other empire, they still need to at least be looked at to verify that they can do so without breaking things. (Granted, the only real problem on attrition mechanics for gestalts that I can see is verisimilitude; IMO they really shouldn't work exactly like regular empires on that front, but I can't think of any mechanics they break by doing so. The influence economy adjustments, accounting for the change in how outposts will work, might be a different story.)

Honestly I think my two other counter-arguments (lack of consistence and arbitrary max range limit) were more problematic. Also, is it really that minimal? Its three times more design than in hyperlane-only variant. And don't forget: we are talking about almost any feature connected with movement.

Personally, I don't find them problematic at all. "Game balance" notwithstanding, range limits are inherently arbitrary - whether that's your autocannons, your ftl drive's max jump, or the reach of an FTL inhibitor. And the lack of consistency in this case is IMO a feature, not a bug - the point of asymmetrical FTL is asymmetry, not consistency. Different drive types should work differently, and be affected differently. (As should gestalt consciousnesses, or the different poles on each of the ethos - albeit to different degrees.) Shoving consistency where it doesn't belong is what I believe Emerson was referring to when he spoke of a foolish consistency being "the hobgoblin of little minds.” (Though, he was obviously speaking to a different context than game design.)

Does this add more work? Yes, absolutely. How much? I can't say, and I'm willing to accept and even sympathize with (albeit with significant disappointment) the argument that the devs believed it was more work than it's worth. (Tavior is not, as I believe he considers the amount of extra work involved to be minimal. But that's his argument, and I'm only interjecting where I believe his argument was missed.)

It's the argument that it can't be done at all that I'm not so keen on. I would believe Wiz if he said "asymmetrical ftl was blocking our preferred solutions," but I'm a little more skeptical if says it was blocking "any and all solutions."

 

[Lucian667]

Or rather than all becoming die-hard mod makers struggling to keep a dead patch alive, we could just drop Stellaris entirely, forget it ever existed and move on to another 4x game like Distant Worlds where space is treated like space instead of land and the devs don't suddenly remove core features to make their lives easier or treat their customers like garbage. Personally I'm quite partial to option #2. They've certainly earned it.

Option two is definitely sounding pretty good. The hard-coded bugs alone in 1.8.3 make it not worth sticking with.

As I understand it, that's actually the very premise of his theory.

Yes apparently it made a loud "woosh" sound when it sailed right over his head. Its really quite sad that some people seem to be literally incapable of understanding that some fundamental changes to core gameplay can be an absolute deal breaker for certain types of player. Which is why critical design elements like movement type are usually only changed in alpha or early access - if that - and not a fully mature game which people have already paid for.

The only way they can possibly understand it is if it actually affects them personally. It almost makes me wish that in the next dev diary the devs remove or change something that is equally game-breaking for them. Then finally the penny might drop.