• 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:
This is going to sound mean.

I am amazed that the Stellaris managed to stumble into good design choices. There are so many fundamental problems with this game that relate back to poor design choices, that, despite being a popular and successful game, I had thought Stellaris would be forever a poor game.

I am now optimistic. Stellaris has been a slurry of interesting ideas that did not pay off. Hats off for trying them in the first place, but I have been suggesting this as an FTL fix for ages. I tried to figure out how to make it work, but to no avail.

I would note that, despite some emotional attachment to the tech tree, that should be the next thing on the chopping block. It hinders the game immensely and the negative impact seems to be tacitly acknowledged by PDX, by adding in traditions to give the player more control over the direction of their empire. The tech tree is so problematic that it causes problems in other systems. Ever notice that ships and planets are only about twice as powerful at the end of the game than at the beginning? This is because they can't allow the tech tree not giving weapons or industrial tech can't be allowed to affect the game too much. Therefore, tech can only be allowed to have a gradual effect on progress. This is dumb. Let me rephrase that. In context, it's not dumb. It's a reasonable work around for a problem. However, that PDX is putting bandaids on a bad system is dumb.

I would also do away with multiple weapon types. You have a tactical system where the player gets zero feedback on their designs, especially considering the game enourages combined arms. Custom ships in MOO2 worked, because you commanded each ship in combat and saw how the designed did. Stellaris is not such a game. It wouldn't be so bad if the AI didn't build worse ships for you than it did for itself. It will also only design one type of ship for you. This would all go away if you only had one weapon type. You could have shields, armour and weapon. You wouldn't need point defence, you wouldn't need all of these different roles for different ships (which the game never attempts to educate you what those roles are). Simplification is good for a design that doesn't allow players at the nuance.

I would also get rid of influence and make governments completely open. Make leaders something you can have unlimited of and for free, but you only discover their traits as you play the game (so you have no incentive to roll dozens of them), and, for god's sake, don't make us build the farms from the beginning of the game to access higher tech farms. It should be quicker and easier to set up "contemporary" infrastructure on a new world without taking the colonists on a tour through the last couple years of agriculture and mining facilities.

tl;dr There are a lot of problems with current Stellaris, but I am happy to see this is a step in the right direction.

Hang on, let me see if I am reading this correctly... "Remove Tech, different weapon types, influence, goverment types, unlimited leaders". So basically, you want a very boring game with no choices at all?
 
Everyone who followed the streams and Dev Diaries could see something like this coming, but I have to say the real plans proposed here are even worse than I feared.
Not only will I be forced to play hyperlanes in the early game, but they will be an integral piece of my FLT all throughout the game. Gates and wormholes as I understand the proposed changes will be exceptions to the rule and not the main way of travel. This completely ruins my immersion, because I always have to look at the stupid hyperlane network, and I can't drive my spaceships the direct way. Space looks like a game of snakes and ladders now.
I'm happy for all you people who play hyperlane only, but you did so already. I don't understand why I have to play exactly the one FTL that never grew on me, no matter how often I tried it.

The trick to enjoying hyperlanes is to restrict everyone to hyperlanes. When everyone has the same set of restrictions they make a lot more sense.

I tried that, it didn't help. It was infuriating in MP games, and even in SP games, it disrupted my roleplay, because friendly aliens I had no intention to go to war with cut me off by taking the wrong system. That happens really easy in hyperlane games. Also fun stuff like one of your 5 guaranteed perfect biome planets is out of reach because some fallen empire.
It would be ideal to have at least warp - even if they nerfed it AGAIN - to fall back on at start and maybe wormholes later. But only hyperlanes? Humbug.
Also I don't care about the wars getting more tactical. I try to not get into wars. I would prefer to claim my territory in space and participate in the game via diplomacy and politics. Why not fixing that instead? That would be nice. Real empire politics with factions that aren't just some lists of demands, but that really do stuff. Pacifist factions in your empire that interact with the pacifist factions of a rival empire. Something like that. I was ok with the way the FTL worked, and if I wasn't I always could limit the game to one FTL only.

Do people ignore this + gateways and wormholes on purpose? :confused:

No, but a slider for "more hyperlanes" doesn't really help if you can't stand the whole concept of hyperlanes to begin with. And gateways and wormholes are described by Wiz as "kind of extremely long hyperlanes", so they are hyperlanes too.
So, you don't like hyperlanes? How about hyperlanes but longer? Or even more hyperlanes? I'm feeling like I am in the spam skit from monty python.
Eggs, eggs, beans, sausage, spam and hyperlanes.
No, thank you.

I have to agree. I understand what @Whiz

But this just tastes like bad medicine - even if it helps in the end.

It's not bad medicine it's amputation of the foot because the shoe doesn't fit right.
 
Last edited:
@Riftwalker I've played them multiplayer with other people and all I heard was people nagging and complaining to eachother they were locked in. All I ever heard for 30 minutes of gameplay. Then they ragequit and I was the only one left... Hyperlanes are for close minded people. Space is open, No Walls, no natural tunnels specially generated by nature or something else. Just jump and of you go to where you wanna go. Why do you all want to heavily fortify the border and that's the only thing you gotta do. You people claiming only warp drive adds strategy: IT DOES NOT. You have to stop taking into account empire with other technology than yours that can easily surpass your defenses. Hyperlanes makes it only easier to play as a pacifist empire focusing to inward perfection, that is it.

if we're going to make grand generalization with lame metaphors

open space/warp, is only for people who can only deal with blank canvasses.

seriously I don't heavily fortify my border. I have like a few gate systems around my empire at choke points, sometimes i quickly rush to colonize or claim an area to put a bulwark there. when you have no structure to space, defense is meaningless and offense is king, there's no reason to defend unless you're like 3 systems and boxed in, which apparently is impossible with warp.
 
When I heard about FTL overhauls, this is about what I expected. Warp and Wormholes completely dominate Hyperlane Empires in the base game, and the only way to make Hyperlane even viable is to make everyone start with it. And in my experience, Hyperlane-forced starts was the most 'fun' because it meant getting those Jump Drives was a huge game changer for your empire or to make FEs really extra scary.

That and from a technological standpoint, Hyperlanes seem the most 'simple'. Wormholes are some crazy advanced technology and even warp seems vastly more advanced then simply using naturally occurring phenomena. That and really warp/wormhole isn't gone, but rather removed as the only way your empire knows to go FTL.
 
For the gateways and wormholes will ships automatically chose to go through them if they would make for the shortest travel time? What about the new jump drives will they automatically engage the jump whenever the cooldown timer is ready(preferably with an option to either enable or disable the auto jumping)? I like the direction of these new changes but I hope that they don't add more micromanagement.
 
So you basically take Star Wars‘ approach on FTL and add Mass Effect‘s Mass Relays for Vast Distance shortening during Mid to Late-Game? I know I‘ll be pretty alone with this opinion but I honestly think that’s an improvement over what we have right now. The FTL system as it is renders borders as fortifications completely useless - as stated on the Dev-Blog. In fact Hyperlane Empires have a huge disadvantage here as they are the only ones who could be intercepted right at the border while other Empires will just fly straight to your Core Worlds and wreak havoc there. Warfare will no longer be a game of interstellar hide and seek between huge fleets.


The player is also required to spread his fleets along his borders now, to carefully evaluate who is friend and foe - which borders are relatively safe and where to focus his defenses.
 
Its like all the people latch onto the Hyperlane Only stuff and totally ignore both natural and artificial wormholes...

Frankly, i usually played Wormholes or Warp, and i am still happy about this change. And i frankly cant understand how people can honestly tell me that the current system is "deeper" and "more tactical". Apart from the fact that every endgame empire uses Jump Drives anyway, what exactly is so deep about spamming several wormhole stations in every system you own?

Also, the "realism" argument is ridicolous. Every single FTL-Drive violates fundamental laws of physics, and causality to boot. So none of the FTL methods is more unrealistic than others, thats like complaining that Demons are okay, but Undead really break my immersion while playing Skyrim.

It will be difficult for the Star Trek: New Horizons guys, though.

in terms of feasability warp is the most realistic. warping isn't ftl it just gives the illusion of ftl in real terms its scruching up the paper infront of you and traveling over it which looks to the outside observer to be faster than light when in reality its well within the laws of physics, we even have hypothetical designs of warp drives.
 
As mentioned, in the Cherryh update. all empires will now start the game with Hyperlanes as their only mode of FTL.
I'm saying this as a hyperspace guy: why remove choices? Right now, someone who wants the choke-pointy goodness of hyperlanes is free to set up their games as hyperlane only. I do it all the time. Why remove the ability to choose otherwise?

The only answer I can come up with is "it lets us focus our manhours (read: save money) on hyperspace-only solutions to various issues" and... well, shit, I know you've only got the income you've got, but that sounds fucking awful from a PR perspective. "We're removing features from your game so we don't have to support them anymore." That's what it feels like, and it feels bad.
 
First at all: I unterstand the changes from a game-mechanical-view and i really appreciate your ongoing improvements on the game. However i have to admit, this is the first dev diary which makes me really sad. I love Stellaris because its a real space-sim, without synthetic limitations of the room, or "magic" movement lanes. Because, you know, space is a big empty room with no "hyperlanes" and no narrow points.
Like I said i unterstand your goal behind this changes, but i don't unterstand your way to reach this goal? Wouldn't it be easier to combine Warp- and Hyperlane-Travel? For example: Make the Warp-traveling very slow and with high cooldown times. The Hyperlanes are regions in the space, where it is easier to warp-travelling. So you leave the players the freedom of traveling via warp and "force" them to use the hyperlanes. I always prefer a softcap (slower warp-travelling) than a hardcap (cut out the complete mechanic).
The wormhole-stations put into the endgame, because you need a t5-generator to generate Wormholes...
And i think it would be okay, if the late-game-wars will be completely different to the early-game-wars.

I unterstand that you want to change the Jump-Drives to work as a "pseudo-warp-drive", but in my opinion it shouldn't be a late-game-tech. It should be a starting tech, with improvements in the tech-tree.

I am going to give the "new" FTL a try... but at the moment i am very sceptic.
 
Is this another paid DLC?

I don't mind as long it have the options to switch to the classic FTL, since we have 2 factions here.

Something like this seems like the simplest answer. Like, you've already got CK2 and EU4 with major mechanics gated behind DLC, so why not simply maintain a mechanic, namely the ability to choose FTL type for yourself, other players, and the AI, that already exists? A sort of "wild" mode, to borrow a Blizzard term.
 
@Wiz In the midst of all the fire and ash of "why did you change FTL?", I just wanna ask questions about the galactic terrain. I really like the ideas about the terrain like nebulas and pulsars, but I was wondering if it would be possible to create a new line of end game technology related to terraforming that would allow you to create your own galactic terrain. Maybe make this line of technology come after mega - engineering and the final terraforming techs? I think it would be interesting for late game wars between large empires.

Also, Would it be possible to change how stars work? Where a star's color and size could have varying effects on the system it is in? (Any thoughts on that Wiz?)
 
I'm saying this as a hyperspace guy: why remove choices? Right now, someone who wants the choke-pointy goodness of hyperlanes is free to set up their games as hyperlane only. I do it all the time. Why remove the ability to choose otherwise?

Because it makes balancing and improving certain aspect of the game impossible.

His ftl intradictor example was a good one. The game experience would definitely degrade if you tried to make a system to appease all ftl types.
 
Hi Wiz am a little apprehensive of the change, though I understand it. The main issue is how do you prevent getting locked in. In every hyperlane game I had the following happened.

1. Problems exploring the wider galaxy if you arent a particularly freindly empire its very easy to be locked in through hyperlanes.
2. Automated exploration dies due to spaceborn aliens.

I guess the spaceborne aliens is the biggest problem already I find the whole manual exploration game terribly tedious and the automatic exploration being one of the first techs I always research wouldnt this kill the automation.

On a similiar note please please please automate contruction ships!!! later in the game it is a massive chore to get your contruction ships to work.
 
gosh darn dandy, i have nothing to say against any of those changes (probably bias'd too, since i always played hyperlande myself)

anyways, good changes in my opinion
 
I'm saying this as a hyperspace guy: why remove choices? Right now, someone who wants the choke-pointy goodness of hyperlanes is free to set up their games as hyperlane only. I do it all the time. Why remove the ability to choose otherwise?

The only answer I can come up with is "it lets us focus our manhours (read: save money) on hyperspace-only solutions to various issues" and... well, shit, I know you've only got the income you've got, but that sounds fucking awful from a PR perspective. "We're removing features from your game so we don't have to support them anymore." That's what it feels like, and it feels bad.


so this right here, Its like the devs are like we don't want to support choices anymore so lets remove choices completely and force everyone to play how we the devs want the game to be played
 
Thanks for the heads up. Turning off automatic update now. I have handled every update and change up until now with relative equanimity, and was even prepared to deal with the significant change coming with starbases, but plodding through space one system at a time, and having to tediously slog across a system to get to the next hyperlane entrance point will eliminate maneuvering and create WWI in space. Everything about this change creates less maneuverability. Even jump drives now sound like a mess. Which negates the whole point of this being a space-based game, at least for me (and probably for most other fans of warp drive as well). It is (remotely) possible that I will download the update just to confirm that I hate it as much as I think I will, and then go through the process of rolling back to a previous version, but that seems like a lot of work. Probably more than I want to bother with.

Most of the other features, like galactic terrain, natural wormholes, gateways, etc. have already been done by other games (MOO2 comes immediately to mind), and I didn't particularly care for them then, so I won't miss those either.

So I think I will stick with the game I have now, which works well enough for my purposes. Of course, that means that none of the bugs that still exist will ever be fixed (precursor anomalies firing but then not showing up on the map comes immediately to mind), and there really won't be much point in coming here, because I will be playing a legacy version of the game and will have no common frame of reference for comments, unless PDX creates a 1.8.3 space to talk about mods, etc. Which I guess is what I would suggest as a parallel development. Although the people using that forum won't be buying any more content packs, and thus represent zero revenue, so that probably won't happen.

And speaking of revenue, it seems odd that PDX would make the decision to implement a very restrictive change like this, which will alienate some percentage of their users and reduce their paying user base. I'm not saying everyone will agree with me, but at least some will and that means less income over time.

So I guess this is a "so long, and thanks for all the fish" moment.
 
Because it makes balancing and improving certain aspect of the game impossible.

His ftl intradictor example was a good one. The game experience would definitely degrade if you tried to make a system to appease all ftl types.
It is not impossible. The devs just want to go the easy way and will sadly enough, probably unintentionally dumb down the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.