Stellaris Dev Diary #229 - Aquatics Species Pack

[AmericanViking]

I am loving these species packs, and how they are bringing a diversity to the game. I'm sure it won't get a reply, and I don't want to sound like THAT guy, but I do hope that we will see updates to older species. I would love an update to Reptilian species.

 

[Tamwin5]

If they had a more sophisticated system where they could knock out specifically unsuitable portraits for a given scenario, then that might work, but restricting it to the (random) AI only being able to have aquatics from two classes seems overly restrictive.

That's my point: It's better to be overly restrictive (for the AI), then not restrictive enough. And every single one of the molluscoid (and I assume aquatic, could be wrong here though ) fits with being underwater. Plus, something quick like that wouldn't take much coding at all, compared to something more sophisticated. The only bad thing about it would be that aquatic species would be a little rare to find, but that would just make them all the more special.

 

[Earth Dragon]

"Ocean" planets canonically have islands. (" Oceans cover more than 90% of the surface, with scattered islands making up the remaining percentage. ") These could provide the land required for a sea turtle. Or perhaps *this* world's sea turtles are hatched as water breathers rather than air breathers. Perhaps they lay their eggs on storm debris from the said islands, but spend the rest of their time in the deep ocean, living a water-breathing lifestyle *because they're not earth turtles*.

An "otter" which has developed on an ocean world might well be able to sleep in water, breathe underwater, and eat and breed there too. You're thinking in too limited terms and assuming the alien species has earth biology. And of course we have examples of sea mammals that live exactly that sort of life here on earth.
Perhaps though the otter only has to sleep, eat, and breed under water, and is a deep diving air breather. There's a lot of possible alternatives, and we shouldn't necessarily be limited to just "deep ocean fish" and the like.

And of course limiting it to molluscs and aquatics means you'd never see a random shrimp from an aquatic world, despite them being, you know, based on an aquatic species.
You'd never see an aquatic lithoid by this measure either.

Not all the molluscs are necessarily aquatic-suitable either, with the snail and the slug (although yes, there *are* aquatic snails and slugs, but that argument goes for the shrimp, the more "crabby" and "spider-like" arthropoids as well. The frog and fish reptilloids fit fairly well with an oceanic/coastal life style too. And of course, plantoids could be formed from drifting algal/seaweed forms, and lithoids could be either deep sea or island based.


I don't think it's quite that bad. Some are going to be more out of place than others, but *most* can be justified - even some of the apparently winged species.
You seem to object specifically to the butterflies in some of your posts - well, perhaps those "wings" in that case are used to "fly" underwater, with the "butterfly" actually being a large bulky creature rather than a tiny little insect. Perhaps the membrane of the "wing" is more like the bell of a jellyfish than an insect wing. Not everything has to work by earth biology.



But in the case of what's suggested, we'd *never* see a random aquatic mantis shrimp, an aquatic lithoid, an aquatic kelpoid, or an aquatic version of Massive 12 (the reptiloid that looks a bit like a deep sea fish).

This is honestly turning into a nonsensical merry go round.

What most of you are asking for is already perfectly represented in game by giving any random species "Ocean" preference. "Aquatic" is referring to something that is completely and utterly dependent on surviving in a vast ocean, not just having water to function and feed, and so many of your examples, like Lithoids, don't firmly fit what's being presented.

Crustaceans, Plants, Fungus, and all these other things make perfect sense to be able to scratch out a living on almost any artic world, where as "Aquatic" functionally shuts that down. Having ocean shrimp can still be created just like they are now, and while I agree there are some where locking them also may make sense, I'd rather leave it be as far as ONLY the AI randomly throwing stuff together to not make Aquatic cats, birds, and trees, then to land on a handful that seem to fully work.

This game has always drawn me in with theme, and having hive mind boars on my left and Aquatic Dwarves on my right is just plain off putting. Ocean preference is just flatly good enough of a representation to catch all of these things. There is already enough non-sense in the game, and adding more doesn't make it better, it just, well, adds more non-sense.

And I say again, if you want a chance for Aquatic shrimp to show up, it is extremely easy to set that up. Barring "fishcats" is much more difficult

 

[oreopirate]

An Otter isn't going to sleep in water, breathe while under water, and for the most part, isn't going to eat or breed under the water. So even if they are from an Ocean planet, they still need land mass. They can make it work on a Tundra planet with a lake or an Alpine planet with wide rivers full of fish with their dwellings on the land beside it. Again, that's how it's currently presented in game. The aquatic trait doesn't make any true sense to limit them as "exclusively on water planets". They are more likely to find Ocean worlds that don't fit their exact needs, even when that's where they come from, then to find a cold weather planet that has no biome they can operate in whatsoever.

I mean... I hate to break it to you, but Sea Otters spend most of their lives in the water. In fact, they really only go on land when there is a storm coming.


Am I the only person who has fun coming up with the biology of aliens in this game? Made even more fun by contrasting occurrences. Like if I got a horse with Aquatic as an AI empire, I'd have a lot of fun coming up with a workable evolutionary history. With a lack of fins, that means either air bladders, or they are demersal and live on the bottom. They have little reason to get off the bottom, everything they need, evolutionarily speaking is on the bottom.
Like for all the complaints coming from people who want some portraits locked, do you not do this?

 

[Bezborg]

So no new planet graphics, the aquatics just build the city on top of a regular ocean world? No representation of fluid in the room graphic. So it’s just a paid skin. Nothing new

 

[Peko?]

So no new planet graphics, the aquatics just build the city on top of a regular ocean world? No representation of fluid in the room graphic.

These things are purely graphical and would also fall under the umbrella of a skin.

 

[oreopirate]

So no new planet graphics, the aquatics just build the city on top of a regular ocean world? No representation of fluid in the room graphic. So it’s just a paid skin. Nothing new

So what does a new civic, two new origins, a trait, and an ascension perk count as? Mind you, this is more content and unique gameplay than any other species pack.

 

[Earth Dragon]

So what does a new civic, two new origins, a trait, and an ascension perk count as? Mind you, this is more content and unique gameplay than any other species pack.

True at time of release, but when you add in the fact all the old ones got bolstered, it does seem like it's about standard fare at this stage (which is a good thing. Much better bang for you buck across the board)

 

[Bezborg]

These things are purely graphical and would also fall under the umbrella of a skin.

Sure thing, but at least it wouldn't be creatively bankrupt. A dolphin head on a humanoid body, in clothes, standing in a dry room that looks like all others, with a background of a city on top of an island, on top of an ocean world. This is an “Aquatic”, a brand “new” thing in Stellaris.

It shows you the attitude... Creative bankruptcy. Was it really that hard to make a background that is on the bottom of the sea? A sea scape and the city in it? Was it difficult to make the dolphin a non-humanoid that floats in its environment? It shows you the half-hearted approach.

As are other things in this DLC, which I just didn't have the energy to mention. A "unique" species trait that gives percentage bonuses. Etc, whatever... It's just nothing new and nothing bold. They just don't have it in them to do something bold.

 

[romothecus]

@grekulf
Does "Frozen World" refer to the celestial body type of uninhabitable planet "Frozen World" or does it refer to the "Frozen" category of worlds like Alpine, Arctic, Tundra?

Because your game uses the same word for both things. Why is that?

 

[oreopirate]

True at time of release, but when you add in the fact all the old ones got bolstered, it does seem like it's about standard fair at this stage (which is a good thing. Much better bang for you buck across the board)

Honestly, my favorite origins are 1) On the Shoulders of Giants, 2) Clone Army, 3) and Necrophage. If Ocean Paradise plays how I imagine, it may take 3rd, or even 2nd place.

As are other things in this DLC, which I just didn't have the energy to mention. A "unique" species trait that gives percentage bonuses. Etc, whatever... It's just nothing new and nothing bold. They just don't have it in them to do something bold.

I think you should define what you think is bold.
Because I think a terraforming colossus is bold. I think the idea of adding water to your planet to make it bigger is bold. As for new, the idea of adding more water to a planet is bolder than the idea behind both Lithoids, Necroids, and Clone Army. While I love all three of them, I won't hesitate to admit that they basically "rock eating silicon-life" (Featured in almost every sci-fi show since the 70's), "Space undead" (Take your pick of references, vampires, zombies, ghouls, etc), and "Star Wars Army of the Republic".

 

[Bezborg]

We looked into it, but there was no reasonable way to significantly change the appearance of the planet views or diplomatic screens to be dynamic and underwater.

I would absolutely love to hear what constitutes a "reasonable" solution to this graphical issue and why was it deemed outside of PDX's resources.

You say "significantly change"... what, the background picture? Something with an aquatic trait can't have an underwater picture in the diplo screen? How about the "dynamic" part? We already have the floating robot portrait, an aquatic could also "float" on the screen.

As for the background, nobody asked for whales to pass by the president's window, just make the aquatic background to be underwater, and not a city in an island on top of the ocean world hahah

 

[majikero]

Is it just me or is Angler just an outright better Agrarian Idyll? Not limited to pacifist and has consumer goods and trade value. Stack it with catalytic and you make both alloy material, consumer good and energy from one district type.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Is it just me or is Angler just an outright better Agrarian Idyll? Not limited to pacifist and has consumer goods and trade value. Stack it with catalytic and you make both alloy material, consumer good and energy from one district type.

Limited to Planet type, while the other is limited to Ethic. Don't forget, Agrarian ideal also has things like housing buffs for that civic, while Angler won't get those.

I don't think they can be directly compared as much as some are doing, other then just comparing any two civics period.

Catalytic is also better with Agrarian as there is going to be much more excess food to work with. With the reduced food production per district, you may start running into issues with Angler, depending on what's available in the immediate vicinity, and your industrial districts you'd normally be able to make will end up being more Agriculture districts.

It's all theory crafting at this stage. The real test will be to see how it plays out

 

[oreopirate]

Limited to Planet type, while the other is limited to Ethic. Don't forget, Agrarian ideal also has things like housing buffs for that civic, while Angler won't get those.

I don't think they can be directly compared as much as some are doing, other then just comparing any two civics period.

Catalytic is also better with Agrarian as there is going to be much more excess food to work with. With the reduced food production per district, you may start running into issues with Angler, depending on what's available in the immediate vicinity, and your industrial districts you'd normally be able to make will end up being more Agriculture districts.

It's all theory crafting at this stage. The real test will be to see how it plays out

Yeah, I'm actually wary about pairing Catalytic processing with Angler. Less food and what not. That said, I do look forward to pairing it with Masterful crafters, because pearls.

 

[malakhglitch]

Oooh! I can't wait to take a look at the code for Here Be Dragons. I imagine that it can be used to make other Origin civics that involve Space Fauna and Leviathans have a smoother integration than the existing mods.

 

[LizardCommander]

Looks great, I can't wait to play it

 

[DeanTheDull]

So. A few more thoughts on Angler after musing on it more.

Anglers should be thought of first and foremost not so much as a farming district but a replacement for early consumer-good industrial districts, where the analysis centers around what is required per 12 CG of output. Set aside the farmer for now, focus on the CG.

For most empires, the 12 CG from the homeworld requires 2 industrial districts due to the homeworld's guaranteed split. Each CG worker takes 6 minerals for 6 CG in output. But it's not just the mineral input, but the pop and energy upkeep: 2 industrial districts is 4 energy, the mineral district for 2 miners is another for 5 energy total. 3 energy and at least 4 pops for 12 CG, setting asside the mineral cost and the CG upkeep of 2 specialists and 2 workers. Call it maybe 4.5 pops of upkeep per 12 CG, with an upkeep of at least 1.5 CG in pop upkeep.

But forget about the pop saving from the miners for now. It doesn't matter.

The Pearl-diver job gives 2 trade value and 3 CG each. To get 12 CG, you need 4 farming districts. In upkeep alone, that's 4 energy a month, 1 less than the 2-industrial/1-miner setup from earlier. It's 4 worker pops on the nose, but actshually it's a bit less than 4 pops to get to 12: with it being a worker-strata job, that means worker-strata bonuses apply. Such as Chattel Slavery +10%, Authoritarian +5%, or Very Strong 5%. Worker bonuses are easier to get than specialist bonuses, that's all I'm saying. (Aquatic perk probably does NOT help, since it specifies food/energy/mineral, not worker-jobs.) Those 4 workers are almost certainly taking less CG in upkeep as well, ranging from .5 to an entire CG per 12 CG produced. And- even more importantly- those 4 pearl divers are also producing 8 trade, which early-game translates to 8 energy, which stacks with that 1-energy-upkeep savings from district upkeep.

A net 9+ energy, +.5-1.0 CG, and ambiguous pop fraction saved per 12 units of CG produced (or per 4 pops put towards CG) is quite good. Especially when it's freed from any need for more miners to feed the alloy-half of the Industrial districts.

And the thing is, savings add up in other areas as well. With the 50 mineral discount, farming districts cost 250 minerals. That's half the cost of an Industrial district (500), which these pearl divers are producing half the output of. Meaning the mineral upstart cost is actually less than the cost of the normal homeworld CG plan- 4 farming districts is 1000 minerals, the cost of 2 industrial districts, but the 'normal' route also needs another 300 minerals for the mining district. The real cost that is accrued in the homeworld economy phase is the net 1 admin sprawl from having 4 districts instead of 3. Your feeling on that may differ. Compared to


On its own, this alone would make the Angler civic quite good for a Science Rush build. Not needing to build Industrial Districts for CG would not only save 300 minerals a 12-CG set (300 minerals that could go into an urban district or science lab instead), but the energy and CG savings would help cover the building and employment cost of those labs without needing to re-invest in, say, energy workers. Save on the alloys and energy, spam pearl divers and science labs, and every pearl diver is basically paying the upkeep of a scientist.



And this is just the start of a potent combo with Catalytic Converter, by freeing up the early-game from any dependence on the RNGs of the mineral economy.

As-is, Catalytic Converter is a civic that boosts your early-game science potential by removing the alloy burden from your mineral economy. By offsetting a healthy amount of alloys to your starting starbase hydroponic bays, you preserve the rest of your minerals to go into consumer goods you can use for scientists, without worrying about how Industrial Districts crater your mineral economy and delay investments. In theory, Angler could work the opposite way- by taking the CB-burden off of minerals, you can put those minerals into alloys.

But if you take both angler and catalytic converter, you're able to escape the RNG tyrannies of the early-game mineral limits entirely.

In current stellaris, when your alloy and CG production are limited by your mineral economy, they are really limited by three things: your pops, your number of mineral space deposits, and the number of mining districts on your worlds. Only pop growth is inevitable, while mineral deposits are RNG: it's not uncommon to have systems with 0 mineral deposits, and worlds with only 3-ish mineral deposits. Your industrial district potential is limited by your mineral districts and mineral deposits.

Angler-CC blows this limitation out of the way by the un-linking this from the mineral deposit RNG entirely.

First, Angler food. 8 food per farming district isn't as district-efficient to a pure farm, but 8 food per food-job is more pop-efficient than a regular farmer. As pops are more often the limiting factor early on, you will be producing more food for the same number of pops. Further, if you're already building the districts for the Pearl-CGs, which is as pop-efficient as the equivalent CG upkeep, you're also getting 4x 8 food farmers. 32 food would take 1 less (3 districts) to produce with pure farmers, but you'd need another farmer (and change) to reach it. Admin sprawl wise, it's a wipe, if not a win, because you aren't building farm districts solely for food, but to also negate half the need for industrial districts, producing savings there.

Angler will be very nice for Catalytic Converters, however, because it's far closer to the 1-to-1 pop-upkeep-to-alloy-worker ratio that people think of when dismissing catalytic convert'ers mid-game conversion ratio. Between the base 8 food and easy/early worker modifiers- Including the Acquatic perk you really should be taking with an Ocean world- and you're realistically looking at 9-ish food even before your colony designation bonuses kick in, and no less than 10-each when it does. This is nice, because it's basically the Catalytic Converter alloy upkeep cost. 1 Angler more-or-less upkeeps 1 alloy worker, same as 1 six-mineral-miner upkeeps 1 alloy worker, except 10 food is easier and more reliable to reach than 6 minerals. Just put farm designatio non an ocean colony with Aquatic trait, and you're at 13.75 before stability buffs or anything else.

Put it another way, and going back to the 4 farm district/12 CG standard, Pearl Divers are equivalent to the 2 CG workers chain. 4 Anglers can support 4 catalytic technician: not just the food upkeep of the job, but pretty much the pop food upkeep of everyone involved as well. Pearl divers are covering the CG/energy upkeep responsibilities of them all. Your only need for minerals- any minerals- is the start-up cost of these districts and buildings, who are otherwise covering most of their own costs. And as your mineral income will never decrease, you only need a few mineral districts and space deposits to get, well, everything you need for healthy construction.

And this is guaranteed for your first three worlds, as Acquatic species will get 100% habitability on their same-biome worlds, which is itself another 10% output and growth they wouldn't already have. Which can make up for your penalties on non-biome colonies until you get migration treaties, and/or be leveraged into an early alloy-rush fleet build, etc. etc. Use those inferior colonies for administrators, or for the marginal energy you need, as your core three colonies support a larger alloy and equivalent science economy without any mineral chokepoint.



Then factor in the prospects of bio-ascension for further genetic mastery, or Hydro-centric to get another 5% of your resource economy (more than garden worlds!), or employing Aquatic chattel slaves, etc. etc. etc.

The economics will be strong.

 

[Lidhuin]

The more I think about it, limiting aquatic to ocean world is a tad daft.

Earth is 70% ocean. But somehow an aquatic species does better on 30% land than they would in 70% ocean.

 

[Bezborg]

The more I think about it, limiting aquatic to ocean world is a tad daft.

Earth is 70% ocean. But somehow an aquatic species does better on 30% land than they would in 70% ocean.

Surface of the earth is 70% ocean.

Perhaps, within the conceptual world of Stellaris, an “ocean” world is orders of magnitude more water, and a very different evolutionary factor than our oceans.

Which is why I think aquatics should have been a COMPLETELY different and unique thing. Planet type included.