• 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 works for me by thinking hyper lanes are a much simpler tech than warp or worm hole tech ~ a naturally occurring exploitable phenomenon. Personally I’d add extremly slow “warp” type travel and have it just be ineffective until way later in the tech tree = if I can travel at near light speed via conventual methods I can get to alpha Centauri wo hyperlanes it’ll just take about 5years. This would make it “realistic” but still get what you want = a fleet like that could easily be countered long before it arrived but wouldn’t totally cripple a advanced species by lane placement

Maybe even throw in hazards when traveling the gulf between systems in this fashion - like attrition in eu4 in deep seas
 
I'm a major wormhole-player, it's always been my preference but I look forward to this update nevertheless. Although, I am curious as to one thing.

With the "natural wormholes" phenomenon, in regards to the cost it will take to claim a system (through starbases) from one side of a wormhole to the other. It piqued my interest, as the idea of an empire split between two sides of the universe seems very sci-fi. I hope for stabilising a wormhole to essentially break the distance cost of attempting to claim systems across a wormhole, although the latter would be understandable!
 
I'm in the disappointment camp since three ftl methods WAS part of appeal pre release promotion wise :p I understand that its easier to design gameplay with hyperlanes being standard, but I'm still disappointment paradox didn't figure out how to make it work. Won't stop me from playing the game yeah, I'm not as melodramatic person as some are.

I'm bit annoyed at people in earlier pages just aggressively disagreeing with everyone who is disappointment by their main playstyle being removed though. Like, I myself pretty much use all three with all ftl being enabled, I'm not very strategically minded, but then again I don't do warring and don't really care about win conditions, my only goal in game is to survive until crisis and afterwards really. People play the game differently, so would be nice if people would respect other people's opinions more.
 
Love it (even though I never usually play hyperlane).
But I do hope you don't do away with warp completely, because we still have awakened empires and crisis and stuff that can be a fun challenge if they use warp instead.
Just think of if a awakened empire causally drops by your defenses. Suddenly they don't always have to be stronger than you, just massively more advanced.
 
My takeaway from all of this is that the days of ground combat are limited, because Wiz is known to dislike that as well.

I do not like how ground combat works right now. I want to make it into something that actually adds to the game, not remove it.
 
I was concerned this was going to happen. To be fair, while I am unhappy about the decision it's probably for the better because the FTL design clashed with how borders and other mechanics worked in Stellaris and that you can't make mechanics too complicated because you have limited resources to develop the game.

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.

However I don't agree with this, I believed that the main issue with the FTL system was that it clashed too much with the border system, the defense stations and how they worked. Personally I felt that you could keep track of fleets easily enough, A minor improvement would be to give fleets an icon to show what type of FTL they had at a glance so you didn't have to go to the ship menu to find that out.

What I would have liked would be that the borders and sensors followed on with the Empire's FTL, and that you removed Jump drives instead as well as adjusted the method of FTL into a direction where you still could expect where they would arrive. So you had a better understanding of the 1.8 system rather than re-purposing wormholes and removing warp entirely. Borders could have been dealt with by providing a scenario where you could freely attack fleets belonging to an empire that has inside your borders without having to declare war first. It's more difficult to keep track of but I'm a fan of the complicated and messy. Like I said initially I'm not a fan of what this dev diary entails but I can understand why you are doing it.

I'll continue to play Stellaris and to see how this new update plays out at the very minimum. I`ll probably continue to play Stellaris as well.
 
Last edited:
Hyperlane networks? Mysterious natural wormholes? Tactical jump drives that can be used on special missions to jump fleets without the use of hyperplanes? All that's missing is an in system warp system.

We EVE online now.

I love EVE online :D
 
So... here I was playing Stellaris when Steam told me the new Dev Diary is up... now I read it and kinda don't want to play anymore because I want the changes mentioned here NOW! ;)

I get the people that complain. In many cases more options are better but I think making this choice will change Stellaris for the better.... much better.
Personally I enjoyed Wormhole travel tech but hyperlane is by far my favorite as it provided more need for strategic thinking when expanding. Add to that the new Starbase and border system and it could be really great.
Also those mechanics combined hopefully solve the problem that hyperlane had, that because of the "huge" boarders an empire could get locked in when all neighbors close their borders.

I am really looking forward to it.
 
I'm a major wormhole-player, it's always been my preference but I look forward to this update nevertheless. Although, I am curious as to one thing.

With the "natural wormholes" phenomenon, in regards to the cost it will take to claim a system (through starbases) from one side of a wormhole to the other. It piqued my interest, as the idea of an empire split between two sides of the universe seems very sci-fi. I hope for stabilising a wormhole to essentially break the distance cost of attempting to claim systems across a wormhole, although the latter would be understandable!

A system that is two hops away via wormhole but 20 hops away via hyperlanes will count as two hops for things like cost to claim the system, so long as you're able to go through the wormhole.
 
Well, now everything depends on Combat changes. Hyperlanes are great until you have big *ss Empire and forced to a war on two fronts. Moving around a single fleet back and forth is a real pain. I know, we already saw a sneak peek on combat changes and new a DD on Static Defences, but i ithe end, it's still unclear if we'll be really able to wage a two fronts war without constantly massing fleet\fleets in a single system\nearby systems.
 
I disagree; the game has always had a strong focus on roleplaying existing space-themed franchises, be it Star Trek, Star Wars, Aliens, Warhammer, etc. This change sacrifices that roleplay-ability for improving combat engagements.

My point is that there are other ways combat engagements could be improved that don't sacrifice people's ability to roleplay as they've been doing since the game launched.

If you're dependent on game mechanics in order to roleplay, I'd argue that you're missing the point; you can roleplay in whatever medium you want, be it a videogame or a tabletop game or a discussion forum like this one. The only thing damaging players' ability to roleplay is the players themselves.
 
I feel like you could just make inhibitors restrict movement of fleets within the system's gravity well (and incoming fleets appearing within the well instead of outside), thus giving a reason emergency FTL, which would just be your normal FTL but from within the gravity well, works the way it is instead of being an unexplained extra FTL technology.
 
As far as i understan it you can turn up the hyperlane slider to have every system conenct to every other within reasoonable range. This way you might be able to salvage the freedom of travel feeling.

Yes, but it will still be hyperlanes forcing you to stop in every system along your travel path which itself will be highly erratic due to the hyperlane network you're forced to travel along.
 
So if I understand it correctly, instead of having to deal with just the enemy doomstack I'm gonna have to deal with an enemy starbase + doomstack. In other words, I'm gonna need a bigger doomstack. Or am I missing something?

At a guess? You are. Not your fault though.

A big issue that Stellaris has had for a while is fundamentally based around doomstacks. The Starbase change does not actually change the dynamic of doomstacks; it just changes the number. The bigger doomstack still wins; you just need enough bigness to beat the starbase *and* the enemy fleet, rather than simply rolling the dice and coming up the winner in a current doomstack v doomstack battle.

War and peace changes, and mobility changes, offer the possibility to go to the combat dynamics that other strategy games use in regards to fast v strong armies. There's a mention of border skirmishes in the diary, which I think is a small element that's not being read enough. That accumulation of small advantages is what you'll use to win over the enemy doomstack+starbase.
 
Hmm i hoped we would get away from the one fleet doctrin eventualy.
But with thouse very restricted borders and attack lines one fleet will be just fine.

I've gone back and forth on this notion. I currently feel that we have one fleet because fleets enjoy unrestricted movement through empire space. Battles favor the larger fleet, and since fleets can't get "pinned" on one side of an empire, it is best to consolidate into the doom stack and risk minor damage to your empire while you maraud about with it.

These changes can help because 1) you very likely won't have only one entrance to your empire. 2) It will be slower for your fleet to move around your empire (because you have to cross the gravity well to get to the next system in a chain. Assuming that static defenses are more viable, this means it could be a viable strategy to break up your fleets into guards to assist your base, wait for the enemy to commit resources to an attack and to then go into their empire with a strike fleet from another direction. Yes, the enemy might bring a doomstack, but if your defensive stations + smaller fleet can hold the line against them, it frees up a portion of your fleet to attack elsewhere.
 
I do not like how ground combat works right now. I want to make it into something that actually adds to the game, not remove it.
IMHO you guys could make a rock, paper, scizors thing in a automated way so we don't need to pay attention while we're dealing with other things in real time, for example:

3 kinds of formations vs 3 kinds of defenses
3 kids of troops (artilhery, calvary, infantary) vs 3 kinds of defenses

Stuff like that, simple but strategic.
 
I'm a major wormhole-player, it's always been my preference but I look forward to this update nevertheless. Although, I am curious as to one thing.

With the "natural wormholes" phenomenon, in regards to the cost it will take to claim a system (through starbases) from one side of a wormhole to the other. It piqued my interest, as the idea of an empire split between two sides of the universe seems very sci-fi. I hope for stabilising a wormhole to essentially break the distance cost of attempting to claim systems across a wormhole, although the latter would be understandable!

maybe there should be a rare variant of an 'ultra-stable wormhole', that allows this kind of travel from the start?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.