• 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:
It would be nice if some form of "Space Submarines" would be added if you are going to make hyperlane only, considering that sometimes, going through highly fortified system is nearly impossible, so some form of ship that could harass enemy economy and slowly starve them to death like Germany wanted to do with Britain would be nice, and considering that only way to go around system directly from point A to point B is end game thing, and highly nerfed, some form of stealth would be cool
 
How can adding more flavor and adding implementations for that player reduce the quality of the game. It adds playstyles and appeals to a broader public.

Because you CANNOT design a game to please everyone and every playstyle. You cannot. Period.

Games are almost always ruined by developers not narrowing their focus and trying to please everyone. I'd rather have a game do 1 thing well than 10 things terribly.

The more people you try to please, the more quality degrades of your product.
 
Wiz himself already stated it was impossible, but he already demonstated how poorly it'd affect the game.

So you believe its not possible to balance a game with multiple FTL types. Do I understand you correctly?

Also, that one FTL type is the only solution to Doomstacking...is that correct?
 
I just feel that hyper lanes is an attempt to simplify strategy in a space game to make it more like strategy in situations that we are used to, and I think that is a bad thing, especially since it has been done so much already. I would have gone with warp only, and figured how strategy would work under those sets of constraints (I would have made fleet cotnrol more hands of you send out fleets on missions where you don't directly control them like in HoI4). For an example mass effect thought about it and their solution was "You can't pin down an enemy that can move faster than light you have to find something he is willing to die defending to get him to fight you.", I'm not saying that's the only solution but I think static borders is a bit odd because while most systems fit resonantly well into the galactic plane that's only compared to galactic distances, space is inherently three dimensional.
I'm not saying Stellaris needs to be hard sci-fi but it would be interesting if not every game out there just used the first excuse they could not to think about the actualities of the setting, to ignore them as much as possible.
Also isn't this exactly the system from Master of Orion 2, the game you admitted was your first game of the genre? Way to break new ground Wiz.
Good point! Are Sol and [Inseart CoM home system name) going to get an unstable wormhole between them...?
Wouldn't make sense there were many ships in the programme.

Hyperlane chokepoints can easily be explained in lore terms, but I don't think you could justify having fleets fighting each other just because they were roughly nearby.
Yeah but that's the thing, you are inventing reasons to basically reduce strategy to 'earth strategy but in space'. The problem isn't that it's unrealsitic the problem is it's been done, to death, and it's wasn't very creative to begin with.

Besides, how would you define 'within two systems of each other' without hyperlanes? Warp drive distance calculations can get complicated if different empires have different levels of warp tech.
Why do you need to? Again letting abstractions justify abstractions is very much a shortcomming. EU4 is the same way.

What works as an element of narrative convenience might not work so well in a systematised game.
Perhaps not but just beelineing for the system everyone uses, and has used since 1996 might not be the best solution either.

Essentially they are turning the game into EU4 in space. Turning the galaxy into what is just a giant map full of provinces.
Well atleast in Stellaris navies don't autoengage when in the same seazone.
Can't say I'm a fan of losing warp-drives, but that aside...

Why would a Black Hole interfere with FTL? I'm no expert on them, but I can't think of a single reason why they'd be an issue for any sort of FTL travel.
Old sci-fi trope no FTL in a gravity well, and black holes are massive gravity wells.
You bring up another good point. It's entirely possible that the devs may add warp later on when they have the resources to do it justice.
Sort of like how they're making it only 1 owner per system in 1.9. I seriously doubt they'll keep it to 1 owner forever. Federations never having shared systems would be stupid.
I was thinking this too, warp may return in time, I hope so.
This is partly the reason I'm just a slight bit disappointed.
Stellaris is not a hard sci-fi game.
Well it's a little firmer now that you removed the interstellar teleporters... I mean 'wormhole' generators.
"You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?…It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs."
Han Solo
Which is a distance not a time.
Guys, really. Anyone starting and continuing a debate on "X change" because of realism needs to stop. Roleplay concerns? Fine, makes sense and I respect your concern.

But if your argument for or against a warp type because "it's likely not what we'll be using 100 years from now" you have killed your point in the womb.
You may not care but others do. Also it's very much not "this is how things are going to be" but more like "it's going to be diffrent" while hyperlanes is all about makign it as close to current and previous earth strategy as possible. I have no idea what will happen in the future but I very much doubt it is that and with all the wonderful possibilities it is a bit boring that they enforce boundary conditions that neither makes sense nor leads to new interesting scenarios upon it.
 
If it was a tiny part of the game this dev diary would not be a thing.

Gamers get mad easily and blow many things out of proportion.

The change itself is signifigant. The opportunities it opens up are signifigant. But currently the effects of ftl on the game is almost entirely in regards to how limiting it is.
 
So this is combining the strategic hyperlane defense playstyle of Endless Space, mid-lategame version of the gates in Star Ruler 2, and the natural wormholes that take you to a distant location in Sins of a Solar Empire?

Tell me again how this might be controversial? This sounds pretty damn awesome!
 
Gamers get mad easily.

I am not mad just disappointed that they took the easy way out instead of keeping 3 FTL in and add natural/artifact terrain that block each 3 somehow. Which would have been more interesting to me.
 
Stellaris is not a hard sci-fi game.
I don't think he was saying it is. Rather, there's a limit to the extent that you should disregard science. There's a certain point where common sense ought to be involved, and the common sense of a person somewhat educated in astronomy (say, the level of education common among people who might play games set in space for fun) is going to be somewhat related to actual science. If you're going to be giving stars fictional functions, you might as well come up with fictional types of stars as well. This applies to the Neutron stars too, though since shielding is itself fictional, the bit about pulsar stars works fine.

Although it would be super cool to have a module which allows you to be immune to the pulsar star malus (almost) entirely, and therefore use pulsar systems to ambush shield-less enemies.

So this is combining the strategic hyperlane defense playstyle of Endless Space, mid-lategame version of the gates in Star Ruler 2, and the natural wormholes that take you to a distant location in Sins of a Solar Empire?

Tell me again how this might be controversial? This sounds pretty damn awesome!
Well he kind of insulted SotS by saying it only works because it's small, despite the fact that the mechanics which make it work are currently not present or not well implemented in Stellaris.
 
So this is combining the strategic hyperlane defense playstyle of Endless Space, mid-lategame version of the gates in Star Ruler 2, and the natural wormholes that take you to a distant location in Sins of a Solar Empire?

Tell me again how this might be controversial? This sounds pretty damn awesome!

Have you ever actually play Endless Space 2 like at all? You aren't limited to hyperlane. There is a mid-game tech that grant all empires warp-like FTL and destroy what remain of hyperlane defense strategies.
 
Have you ever actually play Endless Space 2 like at all? You aren't limited to hyperlane. There is a mid-game tech that grant all empires warp-like FTL and destroy what remain of hyperlane defense strategies.

Have you ever actually played Endless Space 1 like at all? I said "Endless Space" for a reason, not the 2nd one.
 
While I generally prefer Warp to Hyperlanes I do like the shenanigans that can be used with an all Hyperlane game.

That been said I expect it will be a bit more difficult to complete some of the Anomolies and missions than with other methods of FTL due to chokepoints. Sometimes I wish science ships were excluded from military access rules.
 
For an example mass effect thought about it and their solution was "You can't pin down an enemy that can move faster than light you have to find something he is willing to die defending to get him to fight you."

If you cannot catch an enemy and cannot force them to commit to battle because everything they have is on an FTL capable ship, you get uncontrollable space pirates.
 
Have you ever actually played Endless Space 1 like at all? I said "Endless Space" for a reason, not the 2nd one.

Like what Praftd said.

You could go off hyperlane if it was faster that way even in the first one.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with your decision, it's difficult to get strategic depth in a space game without adding more structure provided by things such as warp lanes.

Hard, yeah, impossible? No.

I'm all for hyperlanes, but I think they could have just given warp a different role to fill. What I have suggested elsewhere is to make warp a civilian and (later) small-vessel only technology, so that the main offensives are still fought along hyperlanes, but warp-equipped ships can raid border systems or perform hit-and-run attacks on reinforcement fleets, for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.