Stellaris Dev Diary #229 - Aquatics Species Pack

[Specknik]

To further iterate on why anglers are bad.


- hydroponics don't require a district slot. And they're arguably essential for farming worlds. Now you won't get any anglers fishing in your plant domes. (Why don't they get algae farms btw? Hydroponics make no sense for a species already living in the hydro part)

- You loose a farmer job. This is a big deal, because of the importance of district slots for housing etc. Building slots are less valuable. Districts are also needed for things like alloys, CG, minerals, EC, not just something you spam into one district type until the late game. And when you need 40% more farming districts to meet your food demands? That's a big yikes, even on food-focused planets.

- Less job flexibility. Because you are forced to take on a pearl diver, you don't get to choose your economy as flexibly as before.

- Mining guilds benefit is better than minerals saved by divers in all likelyhood.

- Artificers severely out-compete divers.

- This civic can't be combined with other civics that focus on food like catalytic/idyll. Less food per district is so bad for the early game and catalytic gets worse by the mid game, so you can't opt for taking it later..

- Can't be taken after game start. Species can't learn how to fish, apparently.

I made some calculations and let me say youre wrong. Pearl Divers are actually even better than Artificers in terms of CG per Pop. Artificers with meritocracy and Mining guilds produce as much as one Pearldiver with consumer benefits (Trade of Angler added) per Pop. I explored a Catalytic Angler build mathematically in a reddit post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/qdiywq

Loosing a farmer is no big deal because the pearl divers are amazing. I have to admit that this civic is only viable with Catalitic imo.

 

[Dire]

this is pretty awesome, however my one fear has been realized, sticking aquatics on Ocean worlds only: we know that fish and dolphins come from a Continental world IRL right? piranhas live in jungle rivers and others live in even seasonally dry places like lungfish. It would be a shame if while trying to celebrate aquatic life we underestimated it.

Everything will be forgiven if you also include an Amphibious trait for me...

 

[MadCow94]

...so um, I was surprised that it wasn't released today.

 

[Pale Blue]

Having finally read (well, skimmed for some) through everything, I have to say that this seems like a nice change. I bet we’ll get an arctic species pack next, but that!s speculation.

Anyways, I don’t mind any portrait being aquatic, even for AI. It feels weird though that the devs seem to be in a lose-lose situation, since the stellaris community can effectively be divided into 2 groups. Min-maxers, who don’t care about theme and just want to win (a broad generalization that doesn’t apply to everyone in the group), and roleplayers, who want to come up with stories about their empire and the rest of their galaxy. Those groups generally want different things from the game, so will ask devs to do things that contradict what the other group wants.

That's not a minmax Vs roleplayer conflict. It is just a conflict between RP players. Those who want to be limited by their imagination and not some arbitrary game rules an another faction who want to enforce boring stereotypes for species.

 

[Dire]

imagine desert dwelling fish who have lived in cramped oasis cities and seasonal shallows for their entire lives going nuts when they find a real ocean world and dedicating their society to Baja Blasting the galaxy, is all I'm saying

 

[majikero]

Everything will be forgiven if you also include an Amphibious trait for me...

And do exactly what? Aquatic here is literally fish people as in water breathing and not people that look like fish.

 

[Earth Dragon]

imagine desert dwelling fish who have lived in cramped oasis cities and seasonal shallows for their entire lives going nuts when they find a real ocean world and dedicating their society to Baja Blasting the galaxy, is all I'm saying

Better represented by allowing you to pick a world preference different from your starting world is all in saying

 

[Dire]

Sorry, I wasn't intending to follow up the existing conversation, I just jumped right in to POST!!, I have no opinion on how my desires should be implemented.

I agree that would be cool if there was a way to mix up preferred and starting world. Sounds like a good origin idea.

 

[Pale Blue]

imagine desert dwelling fish who have lived in cramped oasis cities and seasonal shallows for their entire lives going nuts when they find a real ocean world and dedicating their society to Baja Blasting the galaxy, is all I'm saying

Like some kind of Killifisch on Earth? They live for one rain season lay eggs and all die when dry season starts and all water disappears. The eggs survive the hot and completely dry conditions until next rain season when the new generation repeats the cycle.

In Stellaris this would be an aquatic species living on a desert planet, for which an ocean world is just an imaginary after-life place from religious texts.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

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.

I'm not sure the slug and snail exactly fit with being underwater. On the other hand, I won't object to it *too* hard.

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.

Because of course "all" the molluscs are good candidates for "completely and utterly dependent on surviving in a vast ocean".


And it would be entirely possible for many of these other portraits - although I will admit not all of them - to be in that position with regard to ocean living.
You earlier brought up sea turtles. Well, they could (on this world) be adapted to be water breathers and lay eggs on underwater outcrops. A lithoid could be dependent on certain pressures and mineral deposits only found at deep aquatic depths. *My* lithoid could be, in essence, a sapient consequence of a black smoker or other hydrothermal vent.

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.

You *are* aware of deep sea dwelling crustaceans, right? You're aware that they're not just limited to beaches?
Almost any given crustacean *could* be a deep sea species.

And, you know, you could exclude the entire mollusc category on the same principle as you're trying to exclude crustacea, plants, fungi as being able to "scratch out a living" on what's presumably their home world. Never mind that Aquatic species can *also* "scratch out a living" on non-wet worlds, if they've got even a slight habitability boost. Hell, even most of the Aquatic portrait pack can probably justifiably "scratch out a living" on most planets.

Some of the plantoids could be derived from (moderately) deep water on entirely landless planets. Specifically I'm thinking of Massive 14 and Normal 08, but others could also be freeswimming or anchored at a depth where light can somewhat penetrate (down to around a kilometre on earth in the right conditions, but possibly deeper on a world with a different sun), assuming they're phototrophic and not radiotrophic.

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

Well, if there's *that much* that bothers you about the random species, then simply make a list of species that can spawn, and make sure you've got them set to "forced". After all, it sounds like you've got a deep problem with the concept of how species are assigned in game, and you probably want to be doing that to make sure you don't get "hivemind boars" anyway.
And I find it equally non-sensical that your suggestion means that I would *never* see a random aquatic shrimp, random aquatic lithoid, or random aquatic fish-reptile dude from the reptile list.




Barring fishcats is easy actually. But you'd have to make the effort to create races you want to see game after game.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

For the final 2km of the Oceans deepest depths, the only things that can live are small worms and invertebrate. So what increasing the water level by 1.5 km (50+%) you'd increase the inhabitable portion ofthe ocean overall, while pulling the limit of large multi-cellular life up, further away from the ocean floor.

That assumes that you don't get to the 90% ocean by simply having earth, but with less protruding land (and moving that land to fill in some of the deeper water).

You don't necessarily have to have deeper oceans.

And of course, for stellaris, lithoids are a thing that could be quite happy with any depth of water.

 

[Peko?]

I’m not seeing you discuss anything.

True. I don't really care either way so I didn't see much point joining the discussion. Though I strongly suspect the devs will limit portraits for the AI.

but if you’d like you can replace them with “power gamer” and “goofball for the lulz”

Way to miss the point.

 

[Ch4rybde]

I’m not seeing you discuss anything. Don’t see any name calling, unless mix/maxer has moved to the taboo list, and I’m pretty sure spongebob destigmatized goober a long time ago.

but if you’d like you can replace them with “power gamer” and “goofball for the lulz”

The issues is that aquatic isn’t aquatic isn’t aquatic isn’t aquatic, and the trait is using a term loosely used to describe any species in, on or around water with something more specific.

In the very least the trait needs to be renamed, that way folks are tempted to pull one liner zingers like the above when they know that wasn’t the point

Be more friendly and less toxic pls bro.
No need to overeact to people who disagree with you, and if you doesn't like aquatic features, this will be a DLC, so you will just need to not buy it.
For me, as most of people here it seem, this species pack seem to have the potential to be the best (or the second best) one ever created until now.

 

[Dire]

An origin for starting with Aquatic on the wrong planet could be called "Fish Out of Water". I think this idea has legs. Or maybe fins.

 

[Earth Dragon]

True. I don't really care either way so I didn't see much point joining the discussion. Though I strongly suspect the devs will limit portraits for the AI.

Way to miss the point.

Your point is if I use a categorical word to describe a group of people I disagree with, then it has to be a pejorative, and it has to be an insult.

It’s true that I don’t like mix/maxers and power gamers meddling with games I like as it generally disrupts balance so badly you have to at least pseudo power game to at least work within the system they are demanding.

Calling them power gamers is not, and shouldn’t be considered, flinging insults

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

No.

Those who favor things being grounded in science fiction versus those who favor space fantasy.

and make no mistake that Aquatic is a trait created for min/max purposes, as the lack of that trait would have NO impact on the Space Fantasy players

Look.

You're trying to restrict the trait to only appearing randomly on the species *you* want to see it on, and ignoring where other people have species *they* want to see it randomly appearing on.

In other words, you're trying to impose your specific preference on the entire player base, and doing this by using earth biology as if it applies everywhere, and cannot possible happen differently on other worlds.

Science fiction could easily have the majority of portraits apply to a race with an entirely aquatic existence, without edging into "space fantasy" - whatever that's even meant to mean these days, since I only see it come up as a perjorative these days. Some, yes, are not suited to it. But it's not as simple as cut out an entire category

Your point is if I use a categorical word to describe a group of people I disagree with, then it has to be a pejorative, and it has to be an insult.

It’s true that I don’t like mix/maxers and power gamers meddling with games I like as it generally disrupts balance so badly you have to at least pseudo power game to at least work within the system they are demanding.

Calling them power gamers is not, and should be considered, flinging insults

The good news here is that the majority of your arguments have nothing to do with power gaming.
The bad news is that you're using "power gamer" and so on as if they're doing something wrong, and yours is the "one true way to play", as if you're the only roleplayer involved here.

 

[Peko?]

Your point is if I use a categorical word to describe a group of people I disagree with, then it has to be a pejorative, and it has to be an insult.

Certainly “goofball for the lulz” was meant in an entirely non-pejorative way.

 

[DeanTheDull]

I don't think it's actually intended to be an excess food production civic. You only get 8 (10) base food per district* compared to a standard empire's 12 (16) so an "uncapped" size 18 planet is only producing as much as a planet "capped" at 12 districts. In a standard empire those spare districts could be used for cities + a bonus hydroponics bay from the unlocked slots. You could ramp up food faster than another empire by prioritizing the boosted food producers, but at the extra mineral cost of having to overbuild districts.

*has it been confirmed it's 1 Angler and 1 Pearl Diver per district? If not this post is all gibberish and can be ignored.

It seems to me that the uncappedness is just to avoid being messed over by the RNG rather than a main selling point. The actual benefit of this civic is you are, effectively, "spending" 4 to 6 food (before modifiers) to gain 4 trade and 3 to 5 consumer goods (before modifiers). Basically an obfuscated, and better implemented IMO, CG version of catalytic converters.

I agree with your points, but I also believe that's exactly what makes it 'excess.' In my recent splurge of unmodded playthroughs, I've come to appreciate just how RNG planets with 12 districts of a single type can be. I've recently had playthroughs were half of my starting empire's mining districts were on my homeworld, a number where no district type had more than four or five districts to use, some where blockers blocked huge nominal district advantages, and so on. What Angler gives you is consistency, which means that your farmer output is going to be far more reliable and far less vulnerable to bad RNG.

Relatedly, even as the worlds produce less food on districts alone, the food-pop efficiency is going up, especially when you start using building slots for the farm buildings for the same dynamic, which in turn will help with pop-capacity growth. Even when you can provide 12 farm districts on a size 12 planet, for example, you rarely want 24 farmers because that would reduce your pop capacity ratio to below 1/2, which triggers the inferior growth curve. By the time you're reaching any ocean world's limit on natural farm districts, you can/should be using building slots for the hydroponics building, while building slots keep your capacity above the 50% capacity metric.

 

[DeanTheDull]

That lack of specialist production bonus is no issue at all. You just take the necrophage origin and still have the second civic to choose from whatever u like (slaver or mercantile for example). Add the aquatic and intelligent trait and u gain a species, which has incredible buffs in everything. Its as i said, the agrarian, industrious, extremely adaptive and ingenious traits become basically obsolete, if the ressource bonus of aquatic does not get reduced. And the malus has basically no effect, as it only applies to planets which would have been bad anyway. It just slows down their use as popfactories for ur wet planets.

At this point you're not dealing with the issue as much as avoiding it in a specific way. Yes, necrophages don't have to deal with production issues- they never have, because that's what they have prepatents and guaranteed primitives. Other origins do have to deal with it (or find a way for good pops), because they are their own workers in the early game.

Necrophage being exceptional powerful- even and especially with the new perk- is a testament to the Necrophage origin's strength, not any cost-benefit of the mechanic being bypassed.

 

[Druplesnubb]

No.

Those who favor things being grounded in science fiction versus those who favor space fantasy.

and make no mistake that Aquatic is a trait created for min/max purposes, as the lack of that trait would have NO impact on the Space Fantasy players

Says the guy who thinks Hive Minds are okay as long as they look like bugs but somehow not if they look like mammals lol.

And if Aquatic was just a min-max thing, why only for this one specific planet type. It's obviously meant to simulate species that live underwater, as opposed to living on islands.