• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #92: FTL Rework and Galactic Terrain

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is about Faster than Light travel in the Cherryh update, and it's likely to be a controversial one. When discussing, please remember to keep things civil, and I would kindly ask that you read the entire dev diary before rushing to post, as it's going to cover some of the questions and concerns we expect to see from the playerbase. Also, as posted last week, all of these changes are currently far away, and we cannot give more details on ETAs or the exact nature of the Cherryh update than we already have. Thank you!

FTL Rework
The single biggest design issue we have had to tackle in the Stellaris team since release is the asymmetrical FTL. While it's a cool and interesting idea on paper, the honest truth is that the feature just does not fit well into the game in practice, and blocks numerous improvements on a myriad of other features such as warfare and exploration, as well as solutions to fundamental design problems like the weakness of static defenses. After a lot of debate among the designers, we finally decided that if we were ever going to be able to tackle these issues and turn Stellaris into a game with truly engrossing and interesting warfare, we would have to bite the bullet and take a controversial decision: Consolidating FTL from the current three types down into a primarily hyperlane-based game, with more advanced forms of FTL unlocked through technology.

However, as I have said on the previous occasions when discussing this issue, one thing we would never consider doing is just slashing FTL types from the game without adding in something else to compensate their loss. That is what most of this dev diary is going to be about. However, before continuing with the details on the additions and changes we're making to FTL, I want to cover a couple of the questions I expect will arise from this:

Why are you removing FTL choices instead of building on them?
A lot of people have asked this question when we have brought up consolidating FTL types before, suggesting that problems such as static defenses can be solved by just adding more mechanics to handle each special case. I think the problem with this is best illustrated with defense stations and FTL inhibitors. One of the aims of the Starbase system is to give empires the ability to 'lock down' their borders, building fortresses that enemy fleets cannot simply skip past to strike at their core worlds, instead of having to create static defenses in every single valuable system.

With hyperlanes, this is a pretty simple affair: As hyperlanes create natural choke points, the only thing a hyperlane-stopping FTL inhibitor needs to do is to prevent enemy fleets from leaving the system once they enter it. The fleet can enter, it can retreat (via emergency FTL) and it can bring down the source of the FTL inhibitor (which might be a Starbase or even a planet) to be able to continue. This is quite easy to understand, both in terms of which system you need to defend to lock down your borders, and how it works when you are on the offensive.

Now let's add Warp to the mix. In this case, the single-system FTL inhibitor is useless because Warp fleets can just go over it, so we'll invent another mechanic: A warp interdiction bubble, stretching a certain distance around the system, that pull in any hostile Warp fleets traveling there to the system containing the FTL inhibitor, and force them to battle it or retreat. This is immediately a lot more messy: First of all, this bubble can't possibly affect Hyperlane fleets, because it could potentially pull them dozens of jumps away from their current location. This means that when fortifying your borders, you now need to not just make sure that every important chokepoint is covered, but also that your entire border is covered in warp interdiction bubbles.

But there's more: Add Wormholes as well, and you now have an FTL type where not only the 'bubble' type interdictor doesn't make intuitive sense (because Wormhole fleets make point-to-point jumps rather than traveling over the map) but if said interdictor works to pull Wormhole fleets out of position regardless of what makes intuitive sense, you end up with the same probem as with hyperlanes, where the fleet can get pulled out of range of its wormhole network and end up stranded even if it brings down the defenses. This means you pretty much have to invent a third type of interdiction type for Wormhole on top of what is already an overengineered and hard to understand system.

Finally, add the problem of displaying all these different types of inhibitors and interdictors on the map, in a way that the player can even remotely start to understand, and you end up with nothing short of a complete mess, where it's far better to just have static defenses protecting single valuable systems... and so we come full circle.

This is the fundamental problem that we have been grappling with when it comes to asymmetrical FTL: What works in a game such as Sword of the Stars, with its turn-based gameplay, small maps of usually no more than 3-6 empires, and 1-on-1 wars breaks down completely in a Stellaris game with real-time gameplay and wars potentially containing a dozen actors, all with their own form of FTL. The complexity collapses into what is for the player just a mess of fleets appearing and disappearing with no discernible logic to them.

Why Hyperlanes?
When discussing this, we essentially boiled down the consolidation into three possibilities: Hyperlanes only, Warp-only, and Warp+Hyperlanes. Wormhole is simply too different a FTL type to ever really work with the others, and not intuitive enough to work as the sole starting FTL for everyone playing the game. Keeping both Warp and Hyperlanes would be an improvement, but would still keep many of the issues we currently have in regards to user experience and fleet coordination. Warp-only was considered as an alternative, but ultimately Hyperlanes won out because of the possibilities it opens up for galactic geography, static defenses and enhancements to exploration.

Here are the some of the possibilities that consolidation of FTL into Hyperlanes creates for Stellaris:
  • Unified distance, sensor and border systems that make sense for everyone (for example, cost of claiming a system not being based on euclidean distance but rather the actual distance for ships to travel there)
  • Galactic 'geography', systems that are strategically and tactically important due to location and 'terrain' (more on this below) rather than just resources
  • More possibilities for galaxy generation and exploration (for example, entire regions of space accessible only through a wormhole or a single guarded hyperlane, containing special locations and events to discover)
  • Better performance through caching and unified code (Wormhole FTL in particular is a massive resource hog in the late game)
  • Warfare with a distinct sense of 'theatres', advancing/retreating fronts and border skirmishes (more on this in future dev diaries)
Are all new forms of FTL free patch content?
Yes. Naturally we're not going to charge for any form of content meant to replace the loss of old FTL types.

Hyperlane and Sublight Travel
As mentioned, in the Cherryh update. all empires will now start the game with Hyperlanes as their only mode of FTL. By default, hyperlane generation is going to be changed to create more 'islands' and 'choke points', to make for more interesting galactic geography. However, as we know some players do not enjoy the idea of constricted space, we are going to add a slider that controls the general frequency and connectivity of hyperlanes. Turning this up will create a more connected galaxy and make it harder to protect all your systems with static defenses, for players who prefer something closer to the current game's Warp-style movement.

Sublight travel is also being changed somewhat, in the sense that you need to actually travel to the entry point to a particular hyperlane (the arrow inside a system) to enter it, rather than being able to enter any hyperlane from any point outside's a system's gravity well. This means that fleets will move in a more predictable fashion, and interdictions will frequently happen inside systems instead of nearly always being at the edge of them, in particular allowing for fleets to 'guard' important hyperlane entry/exit points. To compensate for the need to move across systems, sublight travel has been sped up, especially with more advanced forms of thrusters.
2017_11_02_2.png


FTL Sensors
Along with the change to FTL, we are also changing the way sensors work. Instead of simply being a circle radiating an arbitrary distance from a ship, station or planet, each level of sensors can now see a certain distance in FTL connections. For example, a ship with level 1 sensors (Radar) will only give sensor coverage of the same system that it is currently in, while a ship with level 2 (Gravitic) sensors will give sensor coverage of that system and all systems connected to it through a Hyperlane or explored Wormhole (more on that below), a ship with level 3 sensors will be able to see systems connected to those systems, and so on. Sensor coverage can be 'blocked' by certain galactic features (more on that below), which will also block propagation into further connected systems. We are currently discussing the implementation of sensor blockers as a potential Starbase component.
2017_11_02_1.png


Wormholes
While Wormhole as a full-fledged FTL type is gone, Wormholes are not. Instead they have been changed into a natural formation that can be encountered while exploring the galaxy. Wormholes come in pairs, essentially functioning as very long hyperlanes that can potentially take a ship across the entire galaxy near-instantly. Natural Wormholes are unstable, and when first encountered, you will not be able to explore them. To explore a Wormhole, you need the Wormhole Stabilization technology, after which a science ship can be sent to stabilize and chart the Wormhole to find out what lies on the other side. If you're lucky, this may be unclaimed space full of valuable systems, but it could just as well be a Devouring Swarm eager to come over for dinner. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of wormhole pairs in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_4.png


Gateways
Gateways is an advanced form of FTL most closely resembling the Wormhole FTL in the live version of the game. While exploring the galaxy, you can find abandoned Gateways that were once part of a massive, galaxy-spanning network. These Gateways are disabled and unusable, but with the Gateway Reactivation mid-game technology and a hefty investment of minerals, they can be restored to working order. Like Wormholes, Gateways allow for near-instant travel to other Gateways, but the difference is that any activated Gateway can be used to travel to any other activated Gateway, and late-game technology allows for the construction of more Gateways to expand the network. Also unlike Wormholes, which cannot be 'closed', Gateways also have the advantage of allowing any empire controlling the system they're in to control who goes through said Gateway - hostile empires and empires to whom you have closed your borders will not be able to use 'your' Gateways to just appear inside of your systems.

When the first Gateway is re-activated, another random Gateway will also be re-activated along with it, so that there is never a situation where you just have a single active Gateway going nowhere. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of abandoned gateways in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_8.png


Jump Drives
Jump Drives and Psi Jump Drives have been changed, and is now an advanced form of FTL that mixes Hyperdrive with some functionality from the old Warp FTL. They allow for a ship to travel normally and very quickly along hyperlanes, but also come equipped with a tactical 'jump' functionality that allows a fleet to make a point-to-point jump ignoring the normal hyperlane limitations. This is done with a special fleet order where you select a target system for the jump (within a certain pre-defined range, with Psi Jump Drives having longer range than regular Jump Drives), after which the fleet charges up its jump drive and creates a temporary wormhole leading to the system. After the fleet makes its 'jump', the Jump Drive will need to recharge, with a significant cooldown before it can be used again, and also applies a debuff to the fleet that reduces its combat effectiveness while the cooldown is in effect. This allows for fleets with Jump Drives to ignore the usual FTL restrictions and skip straight past enemy fleets and stations, but at the cost of leaving themselves vulnerable and potentially stranded for a time afterwards. This design is highly experimental, and may change during the development of Cherryh, but we wanted Jump Drives to not just be 'Hyperdrive IV' but rather to unlock new tactical and strategic possibilities for warfare.

Galactic Terrain
With the switch to Hyperlanes and the creation of strategically important systems and chokepoints, we've also decided to implement something we had always thought was a really interesting idea, but which made little sense without such chokepoints: Galactic Terrain. Specifically, systems with environmental effects and hazards that have profound tactical and strategic effects on ships and empires. This is still something we are in the middle of testing and prototyping, but so far we have created the following forms of Galactic Terrain:
Nebulas block all sensor coverage originating from other systems, meaning that it's impossible for an empire to see what ships and stations are inside a system in a nebula without having a ship or station stationed there, allowing empires to hide their fleets and set up ambushes.
Pulsars interfere with deflector technology, nullifying all ship and station shields in a system with a Pulsar.
Neutron Stars interfere with navigation and ship systems, significantly slowing down sublight travel in a system with a Neutron Star.
Black Holes interfere with FTL, increasing the time it takes for a fleet to charge its emergency FTL and making it more difficult to ships to individually disengage from combat (more on this in a later dev diary).

The above is just a first iteration, and it's something we're likely to tweak and build on more for both the Cherryh update and other updates beyond it, so stay tuned for more information on this.
2017_11_02_3.png

2017_11_02_5.png


That's all for today! I will finish this dev diary by saying that we do not expect everyone to be happy with these changes, but we truly believe that they are necessary to give Stellaris truly great warfare, and that we think you will find the game better for it once you get a chance to try them. We will be doing a Design Corner feature on today's Extraterrestial Thursday stream, where me and Game Designer Daniel Moregård (grekulf) will be discussing the changes, fielding questions and showing off some gameplay in the internal development build. If you want a look at some of these changes in a live game environment, be sure to tune to the Paradox Interactive twitch channel at 4pm CET.

Next week, we're going to talk about war and peace, including the complete rework of the current wargoal system that was made possible by the changes to FTL and system control discussed in this and last week's dev diary. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Stellaris is not a hard sci-fi game.

Wiz finally admits Stellaris is easy.

(Sorry :>)

The closest thing to Stellaris' hyperlanes are FTL systems which rely on stargates, most prominently in gaming EVE Online and the X-Universe. But in both those are artificial point-to-point wormhole connections

From books, Ancillary Justice (+ series) uses gates you have to slow-boat, which makes it kinda similar. There are escape hatches, though. Also, Odyssey 2001 had hyperlanes (that gave you bad trips) with hubs AFAIR? I'd have to check though.

I think it's implied that Expanse will feature a similar FTL method, with artificial "hub" systems.

Point-to-point connections you _have_ to slowboat around are actually my favorite "fiction" setup (besides the no-ftl one, that is), but that's not exactly compatible with Stellaris timescales :<
 
I'm conflicted; on the one hand, we're getting some more interesting, late-game FTL options. But on the other hand, I'm not going to be able to start with my wormholes anymore.

We are getting alot more then some more interesting, late-game FTL options, this will lay the foundations for alot more interesting game al together. Exploration and warfare will be greatly improved with the new features that now is possible,
 
Most of us playing Stellaris have seen a large number of other outer-space games to compare it with. The genre has been around for decades, with various titles rising to prominence and others being dismissed as duds upon release. Most of the issues this Dev Diary raises have been chewed upon by developers for years.

Space isn't like terrestrial environments, it's more open (waaaaaay more). Strategic choices in a system with unrestricted movement become troublesome, if you can't predict enemy movement you can't intercept fleets. Either you defend everything (creating a trench warfare system with as much excitement as a slow WWI sim) or find a way to limit ship movement ("space terrain") and mirror terrestrial strategies. I have seen games fail when they don't make defense easier than offense, somehow. I have seen one game that made fleet interception nearly impossible, resulting in any war devastating the core worlds of both sides while attacking fleets usually remained intact. I have seen games make station-building cheap and easy, resulting in the slow trench-warfare grind mentioned above. Many games just make interception easier than surprise assault, usually resulting in the desired large-scale fleet engagements and consequent loss of readiness to continue pressing on, at least temporarily. Most of us want a space game to boil down to fleet battles, really, with static defenses being primarily to give enough edge to the defender to make conquest expensive (but not quite prohibitively so).

The primary way other games have preserved a means of creating defensive layers in a free-warp movement scheme is by introducing range limits, usually described as fuel range. A player would then need to fortify only systems within travel-range of his borders, or station large fleets near said borders, to intercept incoming enemies. When Stellaris chose to make ships capable of traveling indefinite distances from home without returning (probably an early choice to make exploration compelling, and more story-driven), it became necessary to find some other way to allow a defender to intercept an attacker. Like a lot of earlier games, Stellaris has now chosen the "hyperlane network" dynamic to create strategic "terrain", choke points, etc. I confess I have always preferred games which attempted to make space non-terrestrial, and create a different strategic balance (or different strategic decisions), and I am disappointed that Stellaris will no longer be one of these.

I still believe Stellaris will be fun, and this will probably bring balance and sensible decision-making to the game, but it will be somewhat closer to Paradox's other strategy titles and a little less "space-y", and will also be more like a host of other 4X games on the market. I fear from here on I will still play Stellaris, but keep watching new titles as they come out, hoping for the next one that decides on a less traditional solution and feels more different from what I've played before.
 
Frankly I can't be bothered to read all 30 pages but from what I can see the people who like to mostly play wormhole are sad but generally ok with this, hyperlane (who are usually hyperlane only) are obviously happy and those who like warp are the least happy.

An interesting split (if my casual generalisation is correct).

I'd honestly like to see the telemetry data for how large each group is.
 
With hyperlaneas i can have a fleet at every gate.

Can you? That seems to be a question of fleet size more than anything else. You either have sufficient strength to defend every point or you don't, whether it's one point or 100.

This is what I'm not getting. Your issue appears to be that you get frustrated by your inability to defend your worlds effectively, but this change appears to simply transpose the issue from "I can't defend my worlds" to "I can't defend my chokepoints." Planets are by themselves essentially chokepoints, since they're the end destination of any enemy fleet/invading army.

Let me put it to you this way. Suppose you're fighting a war on equal footing, 10k fleet strength each. You have your fleet stationed on the border, with a death blossom of space stations primed and ready. The AI completely skips over the system because it has warp drive and attacks your capital. Is the different forms of FTL the problem here, or is the problem that I put my defenses in the wrong place? It would have made tactical sense if the enemy had hyperdrive FTL, but they don't, so why not place the defenses over your capital instead? It's like with fleet composition; my enemy has missiles, so I use point-defense, and so on. By the same virtue, my enemy uses XYZ ftl method, so I plan accordingly.
 
I've seen the streaming and honestly I can't change my opinion.

I can see how geography adds a lot of design options for you but forcing a graph on a galactic map fundamentally betrays the concept of empty space. It makes me so sad to see that hyperlane web. It feels like the space is made of walls and gates instead of emptiness. I would really have preferred you opted for something else to force a geography on the map like obstacles made of nebulas, storms, dark matters cloud and whatever that blocks certain warp routes.
To create meaningful geography with that technique the obstacles would have to be so plentiful it wouldn't be much different from hyperlanes.
 
I only ever play Spiral. Can confirm it makes a difference with hyperlane starts sometimes being severely constraining and more noticeably often so than warp or wormhole. I know others feel more strongly about it, but I'm ok with waiting to see how Wiz and co. put everything together. Factors such as start positions will no doubt be part of their revamp considerations with hyperlane only games.

I only ever play spiral and I only ever play hyperlane only now. It's fine. If anything, since there are usually hyperlanes across the gap between spiral arms, it's often less restrictive than warp 1.

Plus, as mentioned, there will be a hyperlane frequency slider if you're worried about things feeling too restrictive. Although personally I enjoy some degree of restrictions. Setting wargoals around the need for control over important hyperlane junctions rather than simply to grab the best planets is pretty cool.
 
Explored Wormholes will probably also propagate sensors (though this isn't final), we haven't made a call yet on whether Gateways will also do so.

If Gateways propagate sensors then by late game any empire which has even one is likely to have near-galactic coverage. That's near the level of Sentry Array. So at the very least make it require a rare and expensive - perhaps even dangerous because while you were watching you could be seen (Uninvited?) - tech.
 
I like most of the changes, but I was also someone who like Wiz played almost exclusively hyperlane only games.

I'm really interested by Gateways. This style of FTL has always been something I've liked in Sci Fi. Mass Effect relays for example.
 
except this isn't vanilla icecream, this isn't a flavor issue. this is a hard mechanical difference that limits the game. This is complaining that everyone get's their newspaper through the internet today, and you liked it when it was paper. to properly be able to utilize and improve upon the design they NEEDED to consolidate them. I'm arguing that people are getting too upset over this, and probably haven't tried a hyperlane only game. Hyperlanes with all FTL enabled is horriblem, I've played that and never liked it, hyperlane only though, is a grand old time, you start looking to grab territory for reasons other than resources but because you want to control this hyperlane nexus to cut off another empire's growth. I have yet to find any start that i've felt was "a bad start" in all my time playing (i don't use spiral galaxy generation though, so it could be that).

They can make warp work. If they really wanted to. Surely wormholes are lost in early game (sadly enough), but comes back reworked back late game, but making the game work with warp and Hyperlane is perfectly possible. People that only play with hyperlanes are just fond of static wars and universes. You are 100% sure the enemy fleet will show up at your border. Add a doomstack on that choking point and voila. You are guaranteed to win a war and can get cocky. You only have to look at your border and that is it. Adding warp drive with a certain risk, like a certain % chance getting sucked in to a system with for example a black hole, or a fortress with a warp snare, would add different playstyles. Some would focus on building on fortifying their border, others their core worlds, which is what makes a game fun, players with different flavors. The only hyperlanes mode will consolidate the game to 1 way of playing: Building Trump's wall in space and keep the enemy out.
 
OK...
We will have everyone start with one type of FTL, there will be natural anomalies [wormholes] that we can figure out how to use and a precursor-made teleport-gate network that we can at first reboot and, after figuring out how, make more of.
And jump-drives will allow a fleet to 'hop' to another system ignoring the network while suffering a malus for doing it...
Ok. The feel I got from this is actually a rather good one; a small, young civilization making its first trembling steps into the unknown, discovering strange oddities of space and taming them, ancient precursor technologies and making them their own... Going from a species searching for a new home to one capable of creating fortresses the size of star systems and bringing the full force of their armadas to any part of their galaxy-spanning empire near-instantly...
I Like It.
 
this doesn't simplify the game though, especially since I only use hyperlanes already. for me, this only expands upon what is there and gives me additional options. this weekend do me a favor, play a hyperlane only game.

I have played hyperlane before, it was my first play through and I have returned a few times, but people who major hyperlane only make up part of the games player base. I still hold that limiting the types of travel is limiting to the gameplay and expansion possibility. You can add all additions to hyperlane without removing ftl.
 
So, Europa Universalis 4, but with a Galaxy background ? I already play this game. It's good. But sometimes I want to play something different. Something where you need to protect key system in the back, deny the enemy its resources, force him to pull a fleet away so you can grab the planet, that kind of stuff. Not fortify the border and wait for attrition to kick in.
The fact you failed to see all the strategical we already have is not my fault. But I'm glad they are forcing everyone with forced strategical chokepoint. That way everyone will be able to see them, they'll be clearly labeled on the map "the enemy will come here, deploy a fleet or something". If only we had that IRL.
people can keep saying this, and I will still not see the connection.

Also, no i use defense stations more often than most, and I can say there generally there's enough open lanes that it's only feasible to guard here or there, sometimes within your empire and not at your borders. so you still need to figure out who the real threats are, where they're likely to attack, and how to defend against them. when I'm warp, i don't think about any of this, only baiting tactics at most to abuse AI behavior. To be clear, even in warp games I rarely lose planets because of how the AI is set up. It will ignore offense if a planet of it's own is destroyed. This is even when i'm in a multifront war against several opponents. so to throw it off as "you just need 1 layer of defense now" I think really shows how little you've played hyperlane only.

I have played hyperlane before, it was my first play through and I have returned a few times, but people who major hyperlane only make up part of the games player base. I still hold that limiting the types of travel is limiting to the gameplay and expansion possibility. You can add all additions to hyperlane without removing ftl.

and it jsut so happened a portion of those players were both the design and programmer leads.

FYI, limits do help define gameplay. they do help to make situations more engaging.
 
I have a question though. I honestly don't like this change just like many others before me, but for me the biggest problem is my VGA performance. I particularly did not like playing with hyperlanes, because its need much more performance from the VGA driver. So will you guys consider optimize, or change it, making it less flashy, or from now on i have to live with that, and not just swallow the gameplay changes, i also have to swallow the performance issue?
 
Hm, while i havte to wait for the release of this patch to make a final decision, for now it seems to me that Stellaris is becoming just another Space 4X Game and is giving up its fascinating uniqueness:(
 
Is the different forms of FTL the problem here, or is the problem that I put my defenses in the wrong place?

The problem in the current version is that it is impossible to put defenses in the "right" place. There is no predicting where the enemy will go or when. If i have 100 systems, I'm not going to build defenses in all 100. It is too expensive.

The current meta is to basically ignore fleets entirely. The warscore you get from them is minimal and they are too hard to pin down.

Suddenly with hyperlanes, the number of potential systems goes from 100 to 4 or 5.
 
If Gateways propagate sensors then by late game any empire which has even one is likely to have near-galactic coverage. That's near the level of Sentry Array. So at the very least make it require a rare and expensive - perhaps even dangerous because while you were watching you could be seen (Uninvited?) - tech.

Presumably, in line with the travel restrictions you wouldn't be able to see through gateways that are controlled by enemies or those who have closed their borders to you. That would significantly cut down down your coverage unless you are friends with everyone.
 
The problem in the current version is that it is impossible to put defenses in the "right" place. There is no ptedicting where the enemy will go or when. If i have 100 systems, I'm not going to build defenses in all 100. It is too expensive.

Suddenly with hyperlanes, the number of potential systems goes from 100 to 4 or 5.

Again, why not just defend your planets?

Edit - or, better yet, just play Hyperspace-only mode?
 
But a galaxy with only hyperlanes doesn't make any sense. If we look to IRL, warp drive is probably what we humans will come up with. And the whole galaxy using the same warp doesn't make ANY sense. Just like on our planet where some people drive on the right side and others on the left, they are completely different, but they do the job.


You do realize that in IRL science, nothing can go FTL...save for neutrinos, and humanity still can't agree whether those even exist, let alone truly move at FTL speeds. And as another soul stated, this is a game set in a -fictional- universe, therefore it is absurd, and boring, to force it to play by IRL rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.