Stellaris FTL changes are in the warp pipes

Chaos is a lapser

Paradox is packing everyone onto the space-highway, and reworking how FTL travel works in their galactic 4X game, Stellaris. While you can currently choose either Warp, Hyperdrive or Wormholes as your space empire’s means of travel, Paradox have decided that having asymmetrical movement methods – while “an interesting idea on paper” – creates too many problems for features they’d like to implement. Once the Cherryh update hits, every player will start with Hyperdrive technology only. That means every player will (with a few exceptions) be limited to travelling via pre-determined space lanes, which constitutes a major change to the game’s core systems. One of those X’s does stand for (shudder) Xploration, after all.

Paradox sound like they have solid reasons behind making the changes. In their weekly dev diary post, they highlight how Warp and Wormhole travel allow players to easily circumvent static defences. Once everyone is limited to hyperdrive lanes, empires should have the ability to ‘lock down’ their borders by placing defensive systems at the natural choke points that those lanes create.

The new system also allows Paradox to introduce ‘Galactic Terrain’: “systems with environmental effects and hazards that have profound tactical and strategic effects on ships and empires.” While they’re keen to stress that they’re only on the first iteration of the idea, some of the examples they give include black holes that increase emergency FTL drive spin-up time, pulsars that nullify shields and nebulas that block sensors from other systems. That last one will be a tasty way of setting up ambushes, or hiding the extent of your military power.

For people who still prefer the less limiting form of movement that Warp offers, Paradox are increasing the customisability of how those lanes are generated – so you can make a hyper-interconnected galaxy should you choose. The other forms of travel haven’t vanished from the game entirely, however. The mid-game technology ‘Psi Jump Drives’ will remain in a tweaked form, which will let you make occasional Warp style jumps – but those might leave you stranded and vulnerable. You’ll also come across natural wormholes, which might connect one side of the galaxy to another. In addition to those, I’m most excited by the introduction of Mass Effect style relays – each galaxy will start with an existing network of ‘Gateways’ built by ancient aliens, which can be used once you’ve researched the right mid-game technology.

On their next blog post, Paradox say, they’ll talk about the planned rework of the “wargoal” system that’s made possible by the FTL changes. There’s no release date for the Cherryh update yet, so there’s still time to get a few games in with the existing mechanics if you want to.

70 Comments

  1. SuicideKing says:

    In addition to those, I’m most excited by the introduction of Mass Effect style relays – each galaxy will start with an existing network of ‘Gateways’ built by ancient aliens, which can be used once you’ve researched the right mid-game technology.

    Of course such gateways predate ME, for example: link to wiki.hard-light.net

    • Someoldguy says:

      Even better, C. J. Cherryh’s first published book “Gate of Ivrel” (1976) is an early exemplar of the use of interstellar travel by gate.

    • iniudan says:

      The thing is that in ME that gate system is not a wormhole system, gate in ME are basically humongeous railgun that are linked together through corridor of quantum magic (mass-free space-time tunnel), so you can be shot at FTL speed, without all matter instantly turning into plasma, from the friction that would cause.

  2. biggergun says:

    Ah, so they intend to fix core gameplay after all. And here I was thinking that buying all the DLC on release day was a gigantic waste of money. Sort of a pleasant surprise.

  3. Eightball says:

    *Sword of the Stars looks on smugly*

    • Arcanestomper says:

      They actually specifically mention that it works in sword of the stars because there are relatively small maps with only a handful of players or npcs involved in any given war.

    • TTex says:

      I wish Sword of the Stars II hadn’t been such an utter failure.

      • Jay Load says:

        It’s hard to know what went wrong. Such a great first game, and a lovely new graphics engine….produced such a monstrous turd for the second. Poor old Kerberos. If SOTS2 had been successful they had some games in the wings that sounded awesome.

        • malkav11 says:

          Kerberos have never been great at execution, as far as I can tell. That sometimes you get something cool anyway (e.g. SOTS 1) appears to be luck more than something they have been equipped to reliably replicate.

        • vahnn says:

          SotS was the first 4x that I TRULY loved, playing easily 1000 hours of it. It was a pretty so-so game at first, but the expansions really fleshed it out and made it something special.

          Did you guys ever visit the forums? 70% of the lead dev’s posts were just shitting on players asking questions or making suggestions. If you weren’t actively licking Mecron’s ass and dared to post, you’d better be prepared for a lashing from the smuggest of smug sons of butches. But I waved it all away because of my love for the game.

          But yeah… SotS 2 is probably my greatest gaming disappointment of all time. And they just completely abandoned it and basically said FUCK YOU LOL you everyone who supported them over the years. So they could make a roguelite.

          Admittedly, I really enjoyed The Pit.

          • khamul says:

            Yeah, so, Mecron *is* a great designer. The systems in SotS and SotS2 are *very* clever, both in how they work, and how they interlock.

            And design is hard, and it’s hard to do it when you’re constantly doubting yourself, so I do have a little sympathy with Mecron’s behaviour on the forums. And between him and Erinys, they also make some damn good points – SotS is a game that fundamentally changed my thinking on what machine intelligence means, which is not something I can say for many games.

            But yeah, everything you say is also true.

            I think it’s unfair to call SotS2 a total turd – it’s a different game to SotS1, and you have to rethink how you play it. Which, commercially, is a bad idea. And a bunch of the things it did are either just incomplete (like the fleet captains), or while solid ideas, just don’t work cohesively with the rest of the game, and are too hard to understand (fleets). There’s about 75% of a total gem in there… it’s just the remaining 25% makes it nearly unplayable. Plus, it’s too hard for the AI to cope with, so it’s not a great singleplayer experience.

            I think the problems with Kerberos aren’t design, but project management – they kept biting off more than they could chew.

            Lack of support is not really their fault: if you have a bunch of dudes working for you, whatever you would prefer, picking gigs which mean you’ll be able to pay their salaries every month kind of has to be the priority, right?

          • FriendlyFire says:

            The problem with Kerberos was their unending arrogance and utter lack of respect for their fanbase. They made one good (but not extraordinary) game and thought they had turned into the best thing since sliced bread. That kind of ego shatters quite dramatically, and so it did. Good riddance.

  4. Premium User Badge

    Drib says:

    Ugh, this sucks. There was already the option to play hyperlanes-only if you wanted chokepoints. Why are they forcing people to drop the more fun drives? Having variety is important, it’s core to the game’s design. Removing choices in race design is a terrible move.

    0/10.

    • EvilMonkeyPL says:

      While wormholes were fun, and the whole idea of different drives was indeed great on paper, it broke combat to the point everyone just had to stomp around with doomstacks.
      I for one am hopeful, if they’re willing to gut one of the core systems and re-do it, there may yet be hope that waging war will actually involve something more than just pitting your entire fleet against your opponents entire fleet in a single fight and than just tediously taking over their planets or trying to hurriedly rebuild your fleet.

      • Premium User Badge

        Drib says:

        Yeah, but hyperlane-only doesn’t remove that requirement. If anything it just means you’ll have to focus your forces even more so, as defense will actually be possible.

        • MiniMatt says:

          So worst case scenario is that it’s still the same doomstack game but we do without the tedious Benny Hill chase around the galaxy that normally precedes it.

          Best case is that by introducing, or forcing, geography to the map they can flesh out those systems so war has some of those tactical considerations EU4/CK2 have.

        • Flavour Beans says:

          Defense is possible to an extent. You are limited to how many starbases you can build, and unless you build them for generalist purposes, you’re going to be making tradeoffs between using them as defenses, shipyards, economic engines, and more. If you’re on the attack, you might need to doomstack just to break the outer shell of your enemy, but once you’re through the door, you can scatter as you please, especially since the level 0 starbases lead to a much stronger “taking ground” focus to wars. Give this and last week’s dev diary a read and you’ll have a good feel for what they’re going for.

      • jakinbandw says:

        In another RTS, Star Ruler 2, the game has 5 differant methods of ftl (and I almost forgot a 6th that anyone can research), and also let’s you use sub-light if you enjoy stories like the Bobiverse. In that game you don’t need to run around with doom stacks, and it can be played on a scale similar to Stellaris.

        Of course you aren’t stopping to read little text bubbles every 10 seconds so the general consensus was that it had no personality.

        Bleh, I’m done with stellaris. I own all the dlc, but this just makes it impossible to roleplay my favourite fictional civs.

        • Darloth says:

          But doomstacks are unequivocally the most -effective- way to win a big fight.

          And, due to all of the numerous ways of FTLing wherever you damn well please (and sublight travel that’s honestly just TOO GOOD, so you don’t even need to spend FTL some of the time) defending is nigh impossible!

          You get hit all over your empire, several planets deep from the front, and basically have many of the same problems Stellaris has except on an RTS timescale instead of a 4x timescale, so at least the pain is over quicker.

          Also the ship design is better in SR2.

          • jakinbandw says:

            See, I find the loyalty mechanic meams that if you get attacked far from the front line it takes forever for your opponent to take the system. It gives you a decent amount of time to mount a defence.

            Also I use gates, so I guess I just find it easier to defend when I have a centralized army that can reach any key planet in seconds without spending ftl.

    • Someoldguy says:

      If you decide that the changes make the game worse then you can always roll back and stay at an earlier version. One thing I like about Paradox is that they maintain all the older versions on Steam so you can stay at one you prefer. I’ve done that with EU IV.

    • bacon seeker says:

      Totally agree. I can’t stand space lanes, which seem completely contrived. Sword of the Stars and Distant Worlds did fine without them, why can’t Stellaris?
      It seems like Paradox is the rare studio whose updates can make their games worse. Their decision to add ridiculously long truce timers to Europa Universalis 4 killed any desire I had to play that game even though I loved it before. Hopefully modders will be able to reverse this star lane bs, although I’m not going to hold my breath.

    • bacon seeker says:

      Personally, I think they should try fixing the combat by adding some level of manual control during battles, I know they want to maintain the feel of grand strategy but really, if you already have ships as models in the game rather than abstracted, why not make the combat a bit more like Sins or Homeworld? It seems like a huge waste.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      I play wormhole only and I still welcome this change. Wormholes are overpowered, no way around it. All of those FTL methods prevent proper territorial control from ever being a thing since you can just hop over frontiers and hit the capital straight away, so defenses remain pointless. That’s especially true against Fallen Empires, both when the player does it and when the AI does it.

      Combined with their new starbase design, they clearly want to make it so wars are less about beheading a civ as quickly as possible with a doomstack, and more about piercing through an enemy’s defensive perimeter so you can take control one system at a time. The numerous limitations they impose should make territory control a lot more important and a lot harder as well, which is good. I’m really looking forward to the patch.

  5. RayEllis says:

    Hyper-lanes….chokepoints.

    In other words, Paradox can’t figure out how to make the game more interesting without artificially restricting the options. Got it.

    I’m sure people who enjoy the freedom of unrestricted movement will be just fine with this.

    • Flavour Beans says:

      Except they openly state that they’re only putting in this “restriction” to make a ton of interesting new features possible, both in this update and in the future.

      • Replikant says:

        Like, say, forts. And then you cannot fly past forts, instead you have to siege them. And if you happen to get stuck behind a fort, you’ll have to get back to your hometurf by taking a detour via Bohemia.
        Oh, and if an enemy fleet gets defeated they are flagged as “broken” and ghost-retreat through half the galaxy at increased speed to stop you from chasing them.

        Paradox’s idea of “exciting and/or interesting” tends to be quite different from mine. I’ll give them the benefit of doubt, but not my money.

  6. BTAxis says:

    There’s just… so much drama over this. People are acting like it’s the death knell for Stellaris, which seems like a gross exaggeration to me. Okay, you don’t like hyperlanes. Fair enough. But if unrestricted movement is what makes or breaks the game for you, then maybe, I dunno, play an exploration game instead?

    • Premium User Badge

      Drib says:

      Stellaris IS an exploration game. At least the first half or so. It’s the base of the entire game’s design, it’s why there’s anomalies everywhere and exploration ships.

      Besides, removing more from the already limited differentiation between empires is just a bad idea in general.

      • darthfergie says:

        Truth. Exploration is the “fun” part.

        People just keep losing interest when most of the galaxy is explored, new tech upgrades are just %s, you’re colonizing worlds that you think “meh,” you attempt diplomacy / wars without a lot of fun behind it, and your science ships are fairly useless.

        The endgame has issues. This is clearly aimed at making wars a lot less annoying which is fine by me. But honestly, as long as you can jump to the next system without having to go through the current system to the arrow enter/exit point, you’re still going to end up with lots of chasing small stacks around.

        At least with the robots xpac I can finally keep around a leader long enough to care if I lose them.

        • Flavour Beans says:

          You might find a pleasant surprise if you read the Dev Diary. You will need to go to the exit arrow to get to the next system. They are going to increase sub-light travel speed a bit to keep typical movement from being a total slog, but yes, you do need to go to the proper end of the system to go to the next one.

        • ninjapirate says:

          “People just keep losing interest when most of the galaxy is explored, new tech upgrades are just %s, you’re colonizing worlds that you think “meh,” you attempt diplomacy / wars without a lot of fun behind it, and your science ships are fairly useless.”

          This describes my experience to a T. Once the galaxy is explored, I’ll keep playing for a few hours, but eventually I lose all interest.

          • Horg says:

            It doesn’t seem like removing unrestricted travel will harm the exploration portion much, if at all, and has potential to make the post exploration phase much more engaging. For the early game it just changes the path you take moving around the unknown, and adds strategic potential to getting far out quickly to find the good defensive spots. For the mid and late game, it should add structure to the galaxy. I can certainly see the end game improving if you have a framework to make a plan around, rather than being faced with an amorphous blob of a map with threats on all sides.

          • FriendlyFire says:

            It should make exploration interesting for longer, actually. Combined with the very significant changes to territory control, border expansion will be a lot slower and a lot more deterministic, which in the end will slow down the rate of expansion, making open, explorable space a thing for much longer.

            They’ve also stated that there will be pockets of space only accessible through natural wormholes, giving you a sudden rush of new explorable space if you happen to stumble on one.

  7. Laurentius says:

    Hyperlanes are meh, I mean I don’t like them since MoO2 could do without them. Still as my problems with Stellaris it is a minor change. Game need whole slew of new events shaking up your empire in a vein of Horizon event chain, but not one but whole bunch of them. Paradox doesn’t care about SP though so it won’t ever happen.

  8. poliovaccine says:

    That shudder at Xploration rings true all the way over here. I don’t know if you Brits have this acronym, but here in the States we have schools emphasizing the importance of learning “The Three R’s: Reading, Riting, and Rithmetic.” I mean, that’s so bad that it’s one of those things where it goes beyond a shudder, like it makes my sphincter constrict. It gets those bonus points because this is the ubiquitous saying *in schools.* I get that it’s relying on kids to actually know the difference and that fact is meant to be part of the cleverness, but frankly that line was coined back in the 40s at least, at a time when Americans were broadly a little smarter, and you can’t even take that much for granted anymore. In particular, believers in the Mandela Effect add a whole new dimension to the world of *adamant* misspelling (“Since when it is VolkswagEn? It was always VolkswagOn in MY reality!” – yes, your reality where you failed to notice for most of your adult life that it was spelled with an E, and still currently fail to realize that’s because it’s a German word, because holy jesus you were born down a flight of stairs or something, except what the hell cus you can’t all have that excuse).

    Anyway yeah, I donno why that particular deliberate misspelling bugs me so much (especially when I frequently use ones of my own, like “donno”), but it totally does. I guess actually, even though The Three R’s get bonus points for being in school, Xploration gets just as many bonus points for being one with a sisterloving *X*.

    • Premium User Badge

      Earl-Grey says:

      I’m sure someone might dare lob the good ol’ “You must be fun at parties” line your way.

      But know this: I like you.

      And I’d rather run into ten of you at the afforementioned parties than one you-must-be-fun-at-parties-tosspots.

    • jonfitt says:

      Why does 4X have to mean four words that begin with the letter X? Couldn’t it just be four words which begin with the sound “ex” written as X?

      • Flavour Beans says:

        Because decades of marketing material often writes it as “Xploration, Xpansion, etc,” or “eXploration, eXpansion, etc.”

      • Bomarty says:

        Why does it matter? You understand it, I understand it, we both understand it so it works. That is the point of language. It only becomes a problem when your point does not come across.

    • modzero says:

      but frankly that line was coined back in the 40s at least, at a time when Americans were broadly a little smarter,

      Well what do you know, people educated after 1940s can find sources and call you on your elitist bs.

  9. Bomarty says:

    I’m so stoked about these upcoming changes! Stellaris is a great game with a fun species creation and general great atmosphere. But it lacks in certain areas and warfare is one of those. It just did not make sense and I hated having to constantly and incoherently chase fleets down. Also I always picked wormhole because it was obviously superior so in my mind there was already only one FTL choice to begin with. Any who, I comend the devs for such a bold move, obviously you will never please everyone but this will probably upset a lot of folks. I respect what they are trying to do, at least I agree with their changes, this all sounds great to me.

  10. khamul says:

    ‘Cherryh’ update, and no reference in the article to link to en.wikipedia.org ?

    FOR SHAME.

    Go and read one of her books (Heavy Time is a good one to begin with), and understand why you have let the side down so badly.

    If the Cherryh update is not a very good one, I will be extremely cross. Also, not the best focus for that title? Picking Cherryh as the release codename for a release about warfare is a bit like Total War picking Charlemagne as the release codename for a Medieval War update focused on improved flower-arranging mechanics.

    • Morat Gurgeh says:

      Good heads up mate. Banks is well worth a read too.

      • khamul says:

        Yeah, well, recommending Banks is a bit like recommending breathing. Those likely to enjoy it have probably already given it a go. And those that won’t… are probably fish?

        Um. I feel my metaphor may have let me down a little here. But you get my point.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      An even more significant part of the update than the FTL changes are the system ownership changes which are thematically related to her work. It’s not a random choice by any means.

  11. zulnam says:

    I always played singleplayer with Hiperdrive only anyway, specifically for the added defense gameplay. Hope the rework doesn’t screw me over by having all AI teleport whever they want 200 years into the game.

    • keithzg says:

      Yeah, I’ve been playing that way myself for a while, and been annoyed that inevitably folks get jump drives anyways eventually; sounds like this will fix that to at least some degree. Combined with the changes to static defences, sounds like borders are thankfully going to start being a lot less porous.

  12. mitrovarr says:

    Oh, come on now, this isn’t fair. I retreated to Stellaris when Overwatch was completely ruined out from under me, and now they’re going to ruin Stellaris out from under me, too?

    I hate hyperlanes from both a thematic and gameplay perspective. Roads in space just show you didn’t bother to treat it as a unique environment, you just slapped a space-themed skin over your traditional planet-based game. And plotwise, they’re an obvious, transparant contrivance. And how did the progenitors get into deep space to make the bloody things? I like thinking my species could have made it into space without a precursor society or a delivery from the convenience dimension.

    • rochrist says:

      Because there aren’t literally 100s of thousands of Sci-fi books that use the same mechanic?

    • gi_ty says:

      Hyperlanes are not only explainable by precursor civilizations. There are plausible theories that naturally occurring weaknesses (for want of a better term) exist within the fabric of space time that would make forming a hyper dimensional path require far less energy. Given that we have only had a single archaic probe reach interstellar space, we can only speculate at the types of phenomena that exist there.

      • mitrovarr says:

        I suppose not, but they are canonically explained by Stellaris as being created by a precursor civ (and something that predates all known other precursor things in the galaxy).

        • gi_ty says:

          This as explained in the article is not cannonically the only reason for the existence of hyperlanes. There was the description of relays that are rare that exist but they are not the norm.

  13. gi_ty says:

    These sound like superb changes! Warfare is definitely quite bland for the most part. Adding “geography” to the galaxy would certainly liven things ups. Also finally some use for giant space defense stations and mine fields! I am excited by this!

  14. SaintAn says:

    Really bad changes that will further ruin the game. Shame we can’t get refunds for the money dropped on this game because they’re taking away paid for content and making the game completely different from the one I bought. This game is about role play and they’re smothering that out with each update. There needs to be legal protections for consumers when corporations screw their customers over, like Bethesda did with paid mods and Paradox does by ruining their games.

    • rochrist says:

      You’re being a tad hysterical.

    • Hogans heroes says:

      You are right we need an international convention backed by domestic laws that prevent developers from updating or changing their game. It should be enforced by a multinational paramilitary police force (Licenced to kill, naturally). Sure some people might say there are bigger issues to focus on like North Korea and Syria, but they just do not understand. Developers are RUINING OUR GAMES!!!

    • Bomarty says:

      Your point is completely mute since 1. There is a refund in steam in case you bought a game and changed your mind and 2.
      You may choose not to update the game and play on the same version you bought as pdx will always offer beta of previous versions. So they do not force you to update. So please explain what is wrong for them to update their game when you can choose to not partake in the update, in case I’m missing something?

  15. Hyena Grin says:

    This is a necessary change. Lotta people are Mad about it, but the different movement types never quite stopped breaking the game.

    I’ve played a lot of games of Stellaris and the most interesting games I’ve played have been hyperlane-restricted. It brings a lot of other features of the game into sharper focus, it creates a galactic topology that is missing with other movement types, and creates strategic obstacles that make war more interesting and defined.

    If they double-down on the idea and use it as an opportunity to create new ‘terrain’ style features that can be exploited in wars, it will add a lot to the experience and make wars less rote and numbers-based. And it will give the galaxy itself a much-needed injection of character.

    It won’t solve the doomstack problem but it will give people some options for dealing with superior doomstacks, of which there were scant few before. (Building a heavily armored and armor-breaking defensive fortress at a pulsar to support a defensive stack, and catching a shielded fleet without its shields, would be worth far more than its relative firepower rating)

    • gi_ty says:

      This exactly! There are so many interesting tactical options that open up when you have restricted movement lanes. The shield example you use is a perfect one. Stellaris to me is great in all ways except warfare is extremely rote, and bigger numbers always win. I would love to see smaller fleets be able to win battles through superior tactical maneuvers. I am hoping for a morale system as well that could offer interesting challenges. Emergency FTL could work more like an auto retreat to a neighboring system instead of just disappearing for a month or two.

    • Someoldguy says:

      It sounds good in theory, but that defensive fleet is effectively trapped in its own system because it’s easy pickings anywhere else. That’s a huge amount of investment for a single chokepoint. I’ve never had a game yet where the enemy had only one access route into my territory.

      In practice I fully expect people to build just enough defensive infrastructure to delay any incoming fleets to allow your own doomstack to get headed in that direction before they can do too much damage.

      • Hyena Grin says:

        It’s been a rare war in Stellaris where I didn’t know where the enemy fleet was and which direction it’s coming from. It’s possible to simply move your defensive fleets around to defend the borders which need defending. Especially since battles tend to last a long time in Stellaris-Time and you have plenty of time to ‘join the fight’ with a fleet stuck in with a defensive station.

        • Hyena Grin says:

          (I should note that ‘it’s not hard to move defensive fleets to where needs defending’ applies only to hyperlane-restricted games. Part of the issue with other kinds of FTL is that you couldn’t make those predictions with much reliability, as especially in the mid-late game wormhole and warp allowed travel from such a distance that it was difficult to get prior sensor coverage of their positions prior to arriving, and there was a much wider area that they could potentially be attacking from. With hyperlanes they have to move through territory you can see before they can get to territory you want to defend.)

  16. Tikigod says:

    After reading the blog, get the feeling it all just comes down to “We could make it work… but fuck it, why should we?”

    They keep going on about border chokepoints as the basis for what works and doesn’t work. But unless they really really reeeaaaallly want to box Stellaris into a more repetitive linear experience every session so it always plays the same, there’s no reason that everything should be orientated around border chokepoints.

    Instead, have them as one option of many to react to a potential situation, not what it seems Paradox are doing now and restrictively thinking “Oh it’s all about them border chokepoints, that’s the game!”.

    So, border chokepoints could work for lane-based races. But introduce some kind of ‘substance disruption’ module for their new starbase mechanic that allows a projection that slows Warp capable vessels by a variable amount that can be increased via research/upgrading to make navigating around such regions counter-productive to a hostile force.

    So an attacker could try to just go around the chokepoint using warp to directly hit a key target… but it would take much longer to get there if they don’t actually deal with the border defenses first, which gives the defender more time to organise a defensive fleet… and as ships in warp can’t change destination… it can work against them.

    With wormholes, they’ve always been stupidly overpowered and could really do with some negative side effects from travel as it stands. Like ships traveling via wormholes must disable their shields before entering a wormhole… so whilst leaving a system and just arriving in a system they’re more exposed.

    • dstar says:

      What do you expect from a company who has a lead developer call anyone who points out that a major mechanic is flat out broken,
      no room for dissent unless you’re one of the ones who has it work for them (sectors, which may or may not have ever been fixed) ‘trolls’, and flat out say that they don’t care?

      I’ll never buy another game from them again — and if I discover that he’s moved to another developer, I’ll never buy anything _they_ make, either.

  17. Premium User Badge

    MajorLag says:

    I got a $1 that says Stellaris will still be a boring and tedious game after this update. Not the game’s fault really, it’s a 4x and that’s pretty much the genre description, but they keep adding things and making changes to try and fix it without addressing the core problems of the entire genre.

  18. UmbraDrake says:

    I think what would be more interesting is for everyone to use the Hyperlanes as standard, APART from Fallen Empires. You’d think the fact that they are so far advanced, that they would have overcome that restriction. Would make wars against them far more interesting (if not stressful to the point of headbutting the keyboard over and over again)

    And, to those who don’t like the changes, I’d keep an eye on the Steam Workshop, I doubt it would take long for people to just mod Wormholes and Warp Drive back into the game.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>