Hyperlanes are Hyper Lame

[omnius]

The feature of Hyperlanes limiting travel between stars is truly one of the worst features ever in a 4X space game. All this does is give us humans a crutch we don't need for beating the pathetic Artificial Ignorances. It's just too simple to cut off AI empires by making certain systems yours that block travel for an AI empire to expand further out in that direction.

I like Distant Worlds far better because we can travel from whatever star to whatever star we want to as long as we have sufficient fuel. That brings me to hating the totally fake travel system that does not take fuel consumption into account, it's like a kiddie training-wheels feature that I certainly don't need. Ships should have to refuel periodically, not this phony-baloney unlimited travel feature currently employed. That's for babies!

[Finwe Uwetil]

Not sure of adding the Z-axis but,fleet tactics like many other 4x would benefit game greatly, now that we have gotten less of death stacks. Still it's just all ships piling on each other. really. Giving orders to fleets like stay long/medium/short range, attack strongest/weakest ships, warp off at this % of damage, that would make it meaningful that we have to separate ships to fleets. That would also make it more of a choice who to add admiral to what fleet based on his perks.

[DankDansk]

Originally posted by twistedmelon:

Originally posted by Energist:

2) In theory, space battles would either never happen, or they'd be really lame. In space there's no concept of terrain, nor is there really any concept of choke points. Since this is a game, finding a way to add such strategy gives it a fun and thought provoking layer which would otherwise not exist.

4) It was removed for a reason. Not like the game hasn't already been tested with it.

Number 2 is exactly what happened. You didnt have battles. If you wanted to make your life difficult, you went hyperlanes, else you went wormholes or warp drive. With either, you could circumvent any defence anybody put up. Now there usually was one or two systems that were heavy fortresses covered with placed defence fortifications and turrets with a warp anchor to kill box, but that was it.

If you did manage to get a fight then usually that was the only one. There was no evasion or escape. Fleet retreated, or it was everything died.

If there was a loss, it was this sense of scale, massive epic fleets squaring off vs the tiny by comparison battles we have post 2.0. My beef is the battles now are small and removed. No epic fleets facing off anymore. Yeah, removal of the murderballs were needed, but still wish fleets were bigger visually.

Following screenshots are no mods, pre 2.0 fleets, defences and battles.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1150659771

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1302747698

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1306122531

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1306122590

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1306158795

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1306158958

Those last ones, battle of the citadel was the deciding one where my inward perfection agrarian Idyll finally was able to break a determined exterminator's fleet once and for all.

But reality is, these types of battles were few and far between. Only possible if you can spring a trap and ambush that other fleet. But that was pretty much the only battle. After I took that fleet out, cannot rebuild from that. But if you are aware and keeping an eye on the other fleet. Single fleet, rarely needed more than one, then you never got trapped, never got into a fight.

People complain about hyperlanes, but then imagine if you only had five fights in a whole game and the game became nothing but bomb the planet.

This is very accurate.

But when you look at settings like Star Wars and Halo, battles tended to take place around large and important locations like political centers, manufactories, shipyards and super weapons. There were not many random space battles that just happen because hyperplanes exist for no reason.

Retreat is also pretty common. Ships tend to escape. The way Stellaris does it, however, is nonsensical. I thought we didn't have warp drives at that point?

I personally like the hyperplanes system, and it works for me, but it kinda takes away from the concept of space being space, and making it feel like a 2D map, like I'm driving from Dallas to Nashville. There is no sense of space in this game.

[DankDansk]

Originally posted by Finwe Uwetil:

Not sure of adding the Z-axis but,fleet tactics like many other 4x would benefit game greatly, now that we have gotten less of death stacks. Still it's just all ships piling on each other. really. Giving orders to fleets like stay long/medium/short range, attack strongest/weakest ships, warp off at this % of damage, that would make it meaningful that we have to separate ships to fleets. That would also make it more of a choice who to add admiral to what fleet based on his perks.

I like that to.

[Finwe Uwetil]

Moo3 and several other games have had more 3d version of galaxy, with hyperlanes and it worked well enough but systems were 2d in moo3. But homeworld style 3d systems with big battles would be awesome. Would possibly even work better in stellaris than homeworld, cause no resource gathering while in battles needed.

[Markus Reese]

Originally posted by mccartneyconnor280:

.

But when you look at settings like Star Wars and Halo, battles tended to take place around large and important locations like political centers, manufactories, shipyards and super weapons. There were not many random space battles that just happen because hyperplanes exist for no reason.

Retreat is also pretty common. Ships tend to escape. The way Stellaris does it, however, is nonsensical. I thought we didn't have warp drives at that point?

I personally like the hyperplanes system, and it works for me, but it kinda takes away from the concept of space being space, and making it feel like a 2D map, like I'm driving from Dallas to Nashville. There is no sense of space in this game.

If we metagame it, there is a performance benefit. The game files run on the XY coordinates system. Quite simple. Adding in Z is more than plausible and does exist in the star plane. Distance calculation on a Z also isnt dramatically different in terms of mathematica. But adding that Z to everything is still 50% more to run for the calculations. So probably a 25 to 33% increase in system demand.

As for warp, hyperdrives ride along the hyperlanes. Think of it like a rocket. Guided and directed, straight line. But just activating it for emergency? A rocket engine alone going off. Could go anywhere. Animation for emergency retreat same as hyperlanes. If some fleet still there, have perhaps a fleet beacon to find way back.

[DankDansk]

Originally posted by twistedmelon:

Originally posted by mccartneyconnor280:

.

But when you look at settings like Star Wars and Halo, battles tended to take place around large and important locations like political centers, manufactories, shipyards and super weapons. There were not many random space battles that just happen because hyperplanes exist for no reason.

Retreat is also pretty common. Ships tend to escape. The way Stellaris does it, however, is nonsensical. I thought we didn't have warp drives at that point?

I personally like the hyperplanes system, and it works for me, but it kinda takes away from the concept of space being space, and making it feel like a 2D map, like I'm driving from Dallas to Nashville. There is no sense of space in this game.

If we metagame it, there is a performance benefit. The game files run on the XY coordinates system. Quite simple. Adding in Z is more than plausible and does exist in the star plane. Distance calculation on a Z also isnt dramatically different in terms of mathematica. But adding that Z to everything is still 50% more to run for the calculations. So probably a 25 to 33% increase in system demand.

As for warp, hyperdrives ride along the hyperlanes. Think of it like a rocket. Guided and directed, straight line. But just activating it for emergency? A rocket engine alone going off. Could go anywhere. Animation for emergency retreat same as hyperlanes. If some fleet still there, have perhaps a fleet beacon to find way back.

when you think about it, it does run on a very thin XYZ plane, as some systems will be lower than others.

another thing to mention is having a 3d plane would definitely not effect the game the same way the massive populations do. Most of it would be empty space, same as always. Just a minor graphical change.

[Markus Reese]

And I guarantee that mechanically wouldnt offer benefit. From the game's operation, there are no turrets. Just dots shooting at dots. Only the graphical engine giving the appearance of orientation and placement. What can you do with a Z axis really? It gives the sense of choice, but unlike homeworld, a star system lacks usually enough to be relevant.

Look at Elite Dangerous. True 3D and complex systems, but on a system scale, players still run in the 2D plane with limited in scale on the Z.

Looking at that in terms of hyperlanes? We can throw buzzwords like choice and such around, but it is a game. Trick is to make a competitive game environment both PvE and multiplay which is believable. If it is just theorycrafting that makes dislike, then lorecraft what you like. If is gameplay, consider the change to play.

We know what having free travel with wormholes and warp speed was. It was hyperlanes if you want to lose, else...

Doomstack Murderball fleet.

[Finwe Uwetil]

IMO hyperlanes added the tactical/strategic choice to stellaris, special resources made system to be more or less important not all the same. And I really like the new population system very much, cause tiles had very limited meaningful choices. I really didn't like stellaris at the launch because of the lack of meaningful mechanics and stuff to do in overall was lacking. Now game is becoming very good, I mostly wish for more complex diplomacy, fleet tactics and espionage to be added. And AI to be improved even more.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

Most sci fi empire games I've played have hyperlanes. Stellaris was one of the few that had alternatives (it still has them, just need to tech it).

Actually playing the previous versions though, it wasn't great.

People would just nose dive your capital.. I was one of the players who did hyperlanes before it was 'forced on everyone'.. it was a pain traveling around to catch fleets but it was tecnically faster, most of the time.

Now they've combined warp and hyperlanes for normal movement (hyperlanes didn't require moving through a system before).

and wormholes are unlocked through a technology, which is quite fair because most people grabbed those with it being more powerful.

The way they currently have it works best for a game stand point because then it let star bases, defenses, and putting claims actually matter and make sense.

Though with the right future tech you can also bypass them, with jump drives.

[A.J]

1.9 is the best version of the game. The forced hyperlane stuff was Paradox simply overdeveloping the game. It happens to all games. At some point they just have to have the devs do _something_ and that something destroyed the game. The game was made simpler in order to cater to casuals, that's all.

[Finwe Uwetil]

Originally posted by AmirosBambiros:

1.9 is the best version of the game. The forced hyperlane stuff was Paradox simply overdeveloping the game. It happens to all games. At some point they just have to have the devs do _something_ and that something destroyed the game. The game was made simpler in order to cater to casuals, that's all.

I agree to disagree with you completely, game didn't only lose variance with loss of warp everywhere, it did also gain it with chokepoints and which lanes go where.

Game wasn't destroyed it is only your opinion not a fact.
Also there is no need to try to make some divide of casuals and someone "better" than them, which really isn't there.

[Bozobub]

Ehh. I don't hate most of the new ideas of 2.x. Rather, it's the *execution* that's often wanting.

The change to 2.0 happened exactly when I was about to buy my own copy, literally a day or two before. And guess what? The almost-finished game had metamorphosed directly back to the buggy mess of several years before.

I'm sure PDX will eventually fix most of the nastier bugs in 2.x But then what? Abandoned just before completion, exactly as 1.9.2 was?

Meh.