To ses how much "love" a thread getg, click on "show only dev responses"
It will tell ifianyoni cares about the subjesub
FTL Discussion Thread
- Thread starter scaper12123
- Start date
-
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.
It will tell ifianyoni cares about the subjesub
I enjoyed the 3 options because it differentiated Stellaris from Masters of Orion and Endless Space 2 And most other 4x space titles. But even ES2 has the option to allow fleets to fly out of starlanes at a slower speed. They traded flavor and flair, for a safe formula. I think they could have added tech options that could be added to star bases that forced enemy fleets to fly there rather than remove the FTL options. It would be a module that extends a no fly zone to certain star systems around it. instead the enemy would be redirected to said bulwark system. Not hard to code and still leaves 3 ftl types. when playing before I vehemently avoided hyperdrive, only playing as warp or wormhole. Also from a scientific point of view. hyperlanes make no sense. The Current leading theory is warp drives that give you freedom. and yes it makes defending a stellar empire difficult. Sorry to say it but this update killed the game for me. I hope they fix it and I hope all of you who enjoy it keep on enjoying it. But I would like them to find a middle ground.
If 1.9 wasn't still playable I would agree with you, but it is so I can't.
Although that's unfortunate, I've been able to get refunds on games a few hours over the limit, 10, 12, 6 etc. Never tried one with hundreds though.
I bought Stellaris over MOO4 because of the multiple FTL ship movement types. I am most interested in solo games, at the larger galaxy sizes.
It is only as the galaxy increases in size towards n=800 or 1000 that the "Hyperlanes," a.k.a. starlanes become more
frustrating and IMHO, absurd. This is partly because of the unnecessary micro-management of routing each fleet along route A-Z involving way points A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, I,J, K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z, followed by the joy
of also routing ship and transport reinforcements and but also because it "feels" rigid like railways in space.
Automating with waypoints will not help because the AI is adept at ambushing isolated reinforcements,
Imagine my excitement at starting Stellaris 2.0 with the new Apocalypse splash screen only to start a game only to have that hope crushed by an ugly grid of railway-lines, dooming my play-style to be forever locked into an old game version 1.9 that will never receive exciting new content.
Now a player who likes multiplayer could well be happy because:-
(a) Multiplayer games will always tend to be the smallest galaxy, because of the lower time commitment and faster low tech interaction, combat and cut and thrust these games provide.
(b) Hyperlanes are the best combat choice because of the increased ship speed, and at small galaxy node sizes
the routing problems are far less noticeable [except for rigid early expansion]. Therefore they would automatically be the default choice of 99% of multiplayer gamers.
Also a solo player who nearly always plays small galaxies may not notice any difference because they picked
Hyperlane travel as the most combat effective anyway, leading to the quick combat and plunder they were after.
All the above is just IMHO, as you would expect, but I have played a lot of Space 4X games.
Is there any chance of having a "revert to 1.9" button put on the start game menu screen, I have the uncomfortable feeling I will need it.
It is only as the galaxy increases in size towards n=800 or 1000 that the "Hyperlanes," a.k.a. starlanes become more
frustrating and IMHO, absurd. This is partly because of the unnecessary micro-management of routing each fleet along route A-Z involving way points A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, I,J, K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z, followed by the joy
of also routing ship and transport reinforcements and but also because it "feels" rigid like railways in space.
Automating with waypoints will not help because the AI is adept at ambushing isolated reinforcements,
Imagine my excitement at starting Stellaris 2.0 with the new Apocalypse splash screen only to start a game only to have that hope crushed by an ugly grid of railway-lines, dooming my play-style to be forever locked into an old game version 1.9 that will never receive exciting new content.
Now a player who likes multiplayer could well be happy because:-
(a) Multiplayer games will always tend to be the smallest galaxy, because of the lower time commitment and faster low tech interaction, combat and cut and thrust these games provide.
(b) Hyperlanes are the best combat choice because of the increased ship speed, and at small galaxy node sizes
the routing problems are far less noticeable [except for rigid early expansion]. Therefore they would automatically be the default choice of 99% of multiplayer gamers.
Also a solo player who nearly always plays small galaxies may not notice any difference because they picked
Hyperlane travel as the most combat effective anyway, leading to the quick combat and plunder they were after.
All the above is just IMHO, as you would expect, but I have played a lot of Space 4X games.
Is there any chance of having a "revert to 1.9" button put on the start game menu screen, I have the uncomfortable feeling I will need it.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/236850/discussions/0/540743128759038454/
It's for EU IV, but works the same way for Stellaris.
Just for clarity here is the same thing but with the names right for Stellaris:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/281990/discussions/0/351660338715630667/
If you're fighting someone so far away that it's relevant to do that, why not try to get warp gates to ease your burden?
Can turn them off there.
Also a mod to make the terra incognita ones hidden.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=701434781&searchtext=hyperlane
Last edited:
I could not agree more. I only bought the game a few weeks ago and from the start rejected hyperlanes and only played wormhole. Both the ability to move freely and the fluid "sphere of influence" model for generating borders created for me for the first time since MoO2 a space 4x that does not feel like a reskin of the CK II/EU IV province maps which, under the hood, probably have a pretty similar structure than the hyperlanes graph.
The problem with reverting is that while, conceptually, I consider 1.9 to be the better game, it does suffer from a number of deficiencies that were addressed in 2.0 (i.e., the doomstack problem). So it's the choice between two games, an unmaintained space 4x game with a design I like or a maintained 4x game that is missing the fundamentals of space. Space, by it's very nature does not have choke points.
Who knows? Maybe there are hyperspace routes that you must take for ftl travel. After all, there are literally magical beings in this game. I don't see anyone complaining about the Shroud. So this realism argument is pointless, ftl in the first place is not realistic.
And i don't think you can solve doomstack problem while keeping other ftl types. Slower game pace and travel limitations are crucial to keep doomstacks dead.
FTL in real life will likely require massive engines to create massive bubbles. There is a solution for doomstacks with warpdrive.
Wormholes would be unstable most likely and would not last forever. There is a solution for doomstacks with wormholes.
FTL "warp" in real life probably requires more energy than the mass of whole observable universe.
Wormholes are not even worth arguing about.
That isn't a valid counter argument to ways to fix doomstacks without removing player choice.
You thinking they are not possible doesn't mean they couldn't have been fixed.
I was merely pointing out ways - based on how they would theoretically work - that would allow for an easy fix to doomstacks that the developers would've had easy access to information wise.
I am not talking about doomstacks there, i am talking about this stupid "realism" and "how the space should be" argument.
I told that i can't see a viable way to fix doomstacks without removing warp and wormholes. And i read the doomstack thread. Even in this system, i found myself using doomstacks after i found some wormholes that connect to the enemy empire. So i can clearly see what devs wanted to do.
I don't think I mentioned realism in my post. You should calm down.
I am calm, sorry if sounded angry or something. We can't properly express emotions in text after all.
Alright, the whole calling an argument I didn't even make stupid thing was confusing me. I was just offering ways the developers could've made it work without removing everything that I found made the game fun. I liked having to deal with large fronts like that - even if the fleets were limited in some way I think it would still add a bit of flare and challenge that just isn't there anymore.
Another thing they could do (I have no idea if this was already in or not since I would keep my fleets split even if they went to the same place to chase down retreating forces) is add an 'over command limit' penalty of sorts. Essentially massive fleet groups get a malus - with the logic being (since the only reason I mention logic at all is so that you are not just saying 'because its what works) that large fleets would require insane amount of logistics and coordination.
Most of us just really don't like being railroaded - literally - into hyperlanes and hyperlane specific gameplay and map system.
I responded to a comment that says "space doesn't have choke points" in summary. That is the argument i call stupid. Then you said that warp requires massive engines, so i told that even massive engines can't solve anything since warp in real life requires the energy equivalent of entire observable universe. (actually some orders of magnitude higher for a small ship)
I don't know how we came to doomstacks. I guess because i told that i think it is not possible to completely solve the issue with other ftls still in the game.
Those fleet maluses are in hoi4. Everyone just keeps using doomstacks.
I personally like the change to the lane system, at least the idea of it, however the actual results are not exactly what I've expected, travel times are extended in extremes compared to all prior modes of travel, mainly because of the need to pass through a system (in itself this idea I like, gives more immersion, however it's the most crucial factor of the extended travel times), this greatly extended the way to traverse even for the old lane travel, but it's orders of magnitude slower compared to old warp or wormhole travel, since they could pass over several systems (possibly a dozen or even more based on lane layout), even if we factored in a need to cross a system for these phased out -or at least pushed up on the tech tree- modes of travel, they would be slower, but not this much slower.
And my main gripe with the above is that most events that are timed -including debris after battle- are not adapted to this slower mode of travel, (most notably that I encountered are the drill rampage, that was already a close shave with the old system most of the time, and even the communist gas alien relocation, is now hard to reach in time, or even impossible if you have all your science vessels out of position, or god forbid the target sector has hostiles that you have to clear out to be able to safely do the event, thus it's possible that completion is contingent on multiple fleets being already in position to react to an event), even post battle debris can be hard to reach in time now.
On top of it all I just feel it's a similar issue that civilization always had with its movement allowance (it being the same regardless of the game's pace, be it "online" or "marathon", armies were limited to the same number of actions per turn, resulting in a less efficient army on faster game modes), and thus I just feel like I should set the game to a slower pace now, with slower tech and unity, and later crises.
TL;DR
Travel is now more immersive, more tactical, but way too slow compared to the rest of the game that more or less kept the old pace.
And my main gripe with the above is that most events that are timed -including debris after battle- are not adapted to this slower mode of travel, (most notably that I encountered are the drill rampage, that was already a close shave with the old system most of the time, and even the communist gas alien relocation, is now hard to reach in time, or even impossible if you have all your science vessels out of position, or god forbid the target sector has hostiles that you have to clear out to be able to safely do the event, thus it's possible that completion is contingent on multiple fleets being already in position to react to an event), even post battle debris can be hard to reach in time now.
On top of it all I just feel it's a similar issue that civilization always had with its movement allowance (it being the same regardless of the game's pace, be it "online" or "marathon", armies were limited to the same number of actions per turn, resulting in a less efficient army on faster game modes), and thus I just feel like I should set the game to a slower pace now, with slower tech and unity, and later crises.
TL;DR
Travel is now more immersive, more tactical, but way too slow compared to the rest of the game that more or less kept the old pace.
Oh come on. 2.0 wormholes have nothing to do with 1.9 wormholes. Wormholes now are just special hyperlanes. You found yourself using doomstacks because you found a chokepoint in space and you played it in the only way a chokepoint can be played.