Stellaris Dev Diary #229 - Aquatics Species Pack

[Lord Valdyr]

No I'm not. I'm sure I can make a list I wouldn't mind it appearing on, but that list is different for everyone.

My point is there are possibly immersion breaking situations where 3-4 aquatic species show up and NONE of them look the part. So having it only applied to species on the aquatic list just prevents those clashes. Some of us don't spam through games and appreciate a more immersive approach. This is no different from having 3-4 high minds stem up from cloth wearing species with hair styles, showing obvious signs of individualism.

Leave it to the players to pregen what aquatics they are okay with if they want. Don't leave it in the hands of the AI. It's just not that difficult of a concept are a tall ask. YOU are the one ignoring what others want. I recognize we all have a path to get what we want

Except your entire argument revolves around "Immersion", which is entirely subjective.
What is "Immersion Breaking" to you might not be for others, and your proposed solution might very well be Immersion breaking for another.
Your argument implies that all species in the galaxy must comply with earth-like biology and earth-like evolutionary tracks. There is absolutely no reason for that to ever be the case. Seeing a species of Aquatic Butterflies is more Immersive for me, since it would feel so much more alien - and isn't that what an Alien species should be?

Yet your argument would mechanically force that to never happen - which would inherently weaken my Immersion by forcing aliens to comply with earth biology, which alien species would have no reason to do.

You aren't looking to make the game "More Immersive", you're looking to mechanically enforce YOUR immersion standards on everyone else.

The examples given don't even really make sense. Even sticking with earth biology, there are examples that break your standards anyway. Aquatic Does not mean "Breathes Underwater". Dolphinoids are confirmed, which inherently proves that idea wrong - they don't breath underwater, they breathe air. So the trait must inherently mean a species that lives in and around water to a large extent. So with that idea settled, lets see:

Mammals? There's already a Platypus portrait, which is a creature that spends its entire life in water. Otters do as well, and many species of seal have fur too, though it's hard to tell because it's always slicked back and they are generally not amenable for people to pet them to find out. Those are all most certainly aquatic.

Reptile? There's a couple amphibian portraits in this category, and things like Marine Iguanas are a reptile that is very much an aquatic species in real life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_iguana)

Avian? Seabirds are an entire category of bird species, plus penguins are inherently an aquatic species as well. (Not to mention the parrot with the dome helmet, which would technically work but is more of an amusing aside.)

Arthropods? There are tons of aquatic arthropod species in real life. Some of the portraits are even based on them already.

Molluscoids? 23% of all the known forms of sea-life on earth are molluscoid, so again, no brainer.

Fungoids? Aquatic fungal species are extremely common. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123706263001290)

Plantoids? Should be obvious. There's already a kelp-based portrait.

Lithoids make sense as there are rocks in the ocean, after all.

Necroids are a special situation, as they are basically just spooky humanoids.

As for humanoids, we don't have real world examples, since the few that exist that could be classified as such are inherently non-aquatic, but the popular cultural ideas of things like Merfolk and Sea Elves more than explain most of these possibilities.


As you can see, literally every category makes sense as possible aquatic animals.
I hate to be a bit blunt with this, but every single "My immersion" argument always breaks down to either a lack of imaginative creativity of the possibilities (Such as a race of Sea-Elves for the Elven portrait with the Aquatic trait, which is well within the realm of plausible science fiction, and thus easily justifies that portrait taking that trait) or a simple misunderstanding or lack of understanding of real-world counter examples.

Restricting portraits like that is inherently uncreative - it's forcing earth-based biological rules onto something that has absolutely no reason to follow them. We already are a bit restricted in the fact that all the portraits in game are kind of inherently based on real-world animals, which "real" aliens, should they exist, probably don't look like anything we could even think of, let alone put into the game. We have literally no reference point for what the "average" alien looks like. (Yet, as of this post.) There are many sci-fi stories about this very idea; about both truly alien aliens, and aliens that look like earth animals yet have an entirely alien biology. Maybe on their homeworld, conditions were so different that the most successful biological form for an aquatic species to evolve might just look very suspiciously like a cat here on earth. Hence, justified Fishcats.

Don't force others to be mechanically compliant with your immersion standards simply because you can't think of why they would make sense. Instead of limiting others, try expanding your own definitions. It's better for everyone involved.

 

[Segek]

I simply love this!

 

[Lord Valdyr]

I'm not sure the slug and snail exactly fit with being underwater.

Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_snail

 

[TheDungen]

Except your entire argument revolves around "Immersion", which is entirely subjective.
What is "Immersion Breaking" to you might not be for others, and your proposed solution might very well be Immersion breaking for another.
Your argument implies that all species in the galaxy must comply with earth-like biology and earth-like evolutionary tracks. There is absolutely no reason for that to ever be the case. Seeing a species of Aquatic Butterflies is more Immersive for me, since it would feel so much more alien - and isn't that what an Alien species should be?

Yet your argument would mechanically force that to never happen - which would inherently weaken my Immersion by forcing aliens to comply with earth biology, which alien species would have no reason to do.

You aren't looking to make the game "More Immersive", you're looking to mechanically enforce YOUR immersion standards on everyone else.

The examples given don't even really make sense. Even sticking with earth biology, there are examples that break your standards anyway. Aquatic Does not mean "Breathes Underwater". Dolphinoids are confirmed, which inherently proves that idea wrong - they don't breath underwater, they breathe air. So the trait must inherently mean a species that lives in and around water to a large extent. So with that idea settled, lets see:

Mammals? There's already a Platypus portrait, which is a creature that spends its entire life in water. Otters do as well, and many species of seal have fur too, though it's hard to tell because it's always slicked back and they are generally not amenable for people to pet them to find out. Those are all most certainly aquatic.

Reptile? There's a couple amphibian portraits in this category, and things like Marine Iguanas are a reptile that is very much an aquatic species in real life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_iguana)

Avian? Seabirds are an entire category of bird species, plus penguins are inherently an aquatic species as well. (Not to mention the parrot with the dome helmet, which would technically work but is more of an amusing aside.)

Arthropods? There are tons of aquatic arthropod species in real life. Some of the portraits are even based on them already.

Molluscoids? 23% of all the known forms of sea-life on earth are molluscoid, so again, no brainer.

Fungoids? Aquatic fungal species are extremely common. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123706263001290)

Plantoids? Should be obvious. There's already a kelp-based portrait.

Lithoids make sense as there are rocks in the ocean, after all.

Necroids are a special situation, as they are basically just spooky humanoids.

As for humanoids, we don't have real world examples, since the few that exist that could be classified as such are inherently non-aquatic, but the popular cultural ideas of things like Merfolk and Sea Elves more than explain most of these possibilities.


As you can see, literally every category makes sense as possible aquatic animals.
I hate to be a bit blunt with this, but every single "My immersion" argument always breaks down to either a lack of imaginative creativity of the possibilities (Such as a race of Sea-Elves for the Elven portrait with the Aquatic trait, which is well within the realm of plausible science fiction, and thus easily justifies that portrait taking that trait) or a simple misunderstanding or lack of understanding of real-world counter examples.

Restricting portraits like that is inherently uncreative - it's forcing earth-based biological rules onto something that has absolutely no reason to follow them. We already are a bit restricted in the fact that all the portraits in game are kind of inherently based on real-world animals, which "real" aliens, should they exist, probably don't look like anything we could even think of, let alone put into the game. We have literally no reference point for what the "average" alien looks like. (Yet, as of this post.) There are many sci-fi stories about this very idea; about both truly alien aliens, and aliens that look like earth animals yet have an entirely alien biology. Maybe on their homeworld, conditions were so different that the most successful biological form for an aquatic species to evolve might just look very suspiciously like a cat here on earth. Hence, justified Fishcats.

Don't force others to be mechanically compliant with your immersion standards simply because you can't think of why they would make sense. Instead of limiting others, try expanding your own definitions. It's better for everyone involved.

I think the real problem is he's asking for them to blanket set it one way and for people to have to do work to get it in a different way if they want it differently. I really think an in game system where we can tune how random empires are created is a better idea.
Or an out of game file for it which does not affect checksum.

Grekulf (I think it was Grekulf) actually said something interesting earlier about creating lists of portraits where a portrait could be on more than one list. This I think is the real solution. That way we could have different traits, civics and orgins each have a hidden list of which portrait they work with and we could just go in and modify that list. The trick is to do it in a way so it doesn't mess with checksum.

It may also require the rewriting of the randomisation algorithm, if it today starts with a portrait and then adds other possible things what it would need to do under this version is generate an empire and then at the end add an appropriate portrait to it.

 

[majikero]

The examples given don't even really make sense. Even sticking with earth biology, there are examples that break your standards anyway. Aquatic Does not mean "Breathes Underwater". Dolphinoids are confirmed, which inherently proves that idea wrong - they don't breath underwater, they breathe air. So the trait must inherently mean a species that lives in and around water to a large extent. So with that idea settled, lets see:

The trait specifically refers to being waterbreathers. The dolphin people doesn't prove anything. If dolphins grew arms and legs, they'd move on to land and live there because its easier to build civilization. They're at least an ocean habitability, not aquatic. An air breathing dolphin isn't going to have a 30% increase in housing because they need to live inside a water dome and take up more space because they breath air and not water to actually live.

 

[James Fire]

Did you guys ever fix the thing where increasing a planet's size will physically increase its size in system view?

Fix? Why would you fix that? That's one of the things Planet Size affects.

Or an out of game file for it which does not affect checksum.

Yeah... that's not going to happen. Such a file would *have* to affect checksum, as it changes how the game operates. If 2 people wanted to play multiplayer, their settings in that file would have to be the same, otherwise you'd get a desync. (Or you'd have to have some system to have the Host's files used, and then also change multiplayer to be allowed with others that have a different checksum, which would defeat the point of having the checksum in the first place, cause the whole point of the checksum is to ensure you have the exact same version of the game, so that you don't get desyncs.)

 

[TheDungen]

Fix? Why would you fix that? That's one of the things Planet Size affects.

Yes but it should not affect it linearly, planet size is surface area which is A=4pi*r^{2}. So the radius of the planet would be sqrt(Planetsize/4pi)=Radius. Meaning that there is diminished returns, the bigger a planet is the less an increase in planet size should increase the actual visual size of the planet.

Yeah... that's not going to happen. Such a file would *have* to affect checksum, as it changes how the game operates. If 2 people wanted to play multiplayer, their settings in that file would have to be the same, otherwise you'd get a desync. (Or you'd have to have some system to have the Host's files used, and then also change multiplayer to be allowed with others that have a different checksum, which would defeat the point of having the checksum in the first place, cause the whole point of the checksum is to ensure you have the exact same version of the game, so that you don't get desyncs.)

Oh I forgot you can play Stellaris multiplayer. Don't think this is insurmountable though since it's only a setup thing and again only visual. Or you can have it just revert to generic on multiplayer. My concern was really ironman.

The trait specifically refers to being waterbreathers. The dolphin people doesn't prove anything. If dolphins grew arms and legs, they'd move on to land and live there because its easier to build civilization. They're at least an ocean habitability, not aquatic. An air breathing dolphin isn't going to have a 30% increase in housing because they need to live inside a water dome and take up more space because they breath air and not water to actually live.

You do realize gilled creatures need oxygen to live too right? They just filter it out of the water. Another reason why the ocean depths are dead and the surface is where you find life.

I mean ok there are creatures capable of anaerobic respiration but I don't think anything except bacteria actually does that. This is because the alternatives have lower reduction potential and thus are less efficient thus work for small creatures but not for multicellular life forms. While life on another planet could evolve differently this is basic chemistry. They'd have to have whatever they use for respiration in greater quantities than the 21% oxygen gas we have in our atmosphere to compensate.

 

[NilsFabian]

Speaking of Ice asteroids? Since when have they been a thing? I've just noticed them yesterday while playing a game.
Never really thought of them.

 

[James Fire]

Yes but it should not affect it linearly, planet size is surface area which is A=4pi*r^{2}. So the radius of the planet would be sqrt(Planetsize/4pi)=Radius. Meaning that there is diminished returns, the bigger a planet is the less an increase in planet size should increase the actual visual size of the planet.

Sure, but what I responded to had no nuance of the sort

Oh I forgot you can play Stellaris multiplayer. Don't think this is insurmountable though since it's only a setup thing and again only visual. Or you can have it just revert to generic on multiplayer. My concern was really ironman.

It's... not just visual though? It's not even visual at all? Changing the code for how random empires are generated is not visual at all. And it being "just a setup thing" really has no bearing. Changing what the Galaxy Setup options do(And yes, you can affect them with mods) changes the checksum, because that changes how the game functions. Same thing with changing how generating random empires works.

Anyway... the checksum is first and foremost a tool for facilitating multiplayer.(It just also happens to be used for Ironman.) And in order to do that, any game-affecting files needs to be taken into account, lest the desyncs take over.

Something purely visual would be modifying the UI. UIOD (The base mod) is ironman compatible, because UI is local to your instance, and not shared between everyone.

 

[TheDungen]

Sure, but what I responded to had no nuance of the sort

It's... not just visual though? It's not even visual at all? Changing the code for how random empires are generated is not visual at all. And it being "just a setup thing" really has no bearing. Changing what the Galaxy Setup options do(And yes, you can affect them with mods) changes the checksum, because that changes how the game functions. Same thing with changing how generating random empires works.

Anyway... the checksum is first and foremost a tool for facilitating multiplayer.(It just also happens to be used for Ironman.) And in order to do that, any game-affecting files needs to be taken into account, lest the desyncs take over.

Something purely visual would be modifying the UI. UIOD (The base mod) is ironman compatible, because UI is local to your instance, and not shared between everyone.

Well no but that would change for everyone, the output is what's mostly visual.
And yes obviously every code change changes checksum, I am saying portrait modding shouldn't change checksum. If it didn't there would be no point in saying it shouldn't.

Like I said just have it revert to standard when playing multiplayer then, I've never player stellaris multiplayer and likely never will so my suggestion was aimed at single player. I mean the procedure for empire generation would change for everyone but it doesn't matter since it would be a patch that everyone has. It's also why I think these lists should be handled in game so the game would know to read the altered lists in case of single player and not in case of multiplayer.

You could fix it like that though, if I have disallowed a certain portrait from my game it just generates a new one of the same type that I see instead of the one everyone else sees, you see the butterfly but since I have banned it to work with aquatic I see the mantis shrimp instead. Like how some people had counterstrike mods that made people run around and shoot each other with different kinds of fish. But really it would mean keeping the types of portraits and I agree with Grekulf having multiple different lists is a better solution. Though I guess you could keep the phenotype lists as one of the types of lists.

 

[majikero]

You do realize gilled creatures need oxygen to live too right? They just filter it out of the water. Another reason why the ocean depths are dead and the surface is where you find life.

And you do realize I said air and not oxygen?

 

[TheDungen]

And you do realize I said air and not oxygen?

Doesn't really matter, oxygen comes primarily from the air. The deep divers of nature are airbreathers like whales not water breathers like fish (yes there are deep sea fish but they work by operating on a very low metabolic cycle allowing them to function on the limited amount of oxygen in the ocean depths). And why would dolphins live in air filled bubbles? They don't in reality they live in water and only venture to the surface for air when they need to breathe. They live in their layer of the ocean just like every species does. Even a aquatic species would not be able to inhabit the entire depth gradient.

 

[majikero]

Doesn't really matter, oxygen comes primarily from the air. The deep divers of nature are airbreathers like whales not water breathers like fish.

And that doesn't really matter since the intent is clearly that they are water breathers which needs water to survive in. If they don't have it they're just air breathers with ocean habitability.

 

[TheDungen]

And that doesn't really matter since the intent is clearly that they are water breathers which needs water to survive in. If they don't have it they're just air breathers with ocean habitability.

But Dolphins and wales need water to survive in, a beeched whale dies. Doesn't matter if they are airbreathers or water breathers, a whale even with arms and legs would be designed (by evolution) to work in buoyancy of water and could not function well outside of it. Look at how much quicker a crocodile is in water than on land (not that they are slow on land, but they are much better adapted to water), and that's a semiaqautic creature, ceteans are fully aquatic and them having legs would not change that. Ceteans used to have legs, they are legged creatures who returned to the ocean and lost their legs.

 

[majikero]

But Dolphins and wales need water to survive in, a beeched whale dies. Doesn't matter if they are airbreathers or water breathers, a whale even with arms and legs would be designed (by evolution) to work in buoyancy of water and could not function well outside of it. Look at how much quicker a crocodile is in water than on land (not that they are slow on land, but they are much better adapted to water), and that's a semiaqautic creature, ceteans are fully aquatic and them having legs would not change that. Ceteans used to have legs, they are legged creatures who returned to the ocean and lost their legs.

I'm talking about creatures capable of building civilization. I don't care about any of those examples of yours. The more technologically advance an air breathing aquatic creature becomes, the less dependant they are to water. The less can be said for waterbreathers, which the aquatic trait pretty much implies.

 

[Lord Valdyr]

And that doesn't really matter since the intent is clearly that they are water breathers which needs water to survive in. If they don't have it they're just air breathers with ocean habitability.

By that logic, Dolphins should be locked out of taking the aquatic trait. They don't breathe underwater, which is your condition for that trait.
When you use blanket logic, you dont get to pick and choose.

 

[Lord Valdyr]

I'm talking about creatures capable of building civilization. I don't care about any of those examples of yours. The more technologically advance an air breathing aquatic creature becomes, the less dependant they are to water. The less can be said for waterbreathers, which the aquatic trait pretty much implies.

That's a pretty bold implication that your entire logic is relying on.

 

[TheDungen]

I'm talking about creatures capable of building civilization. I don't care about any of those examples of yours. The more technologically advance an air breathing aquatic creature becomes, the less dependant they are to water. The less can be said for waterbreathers, which the aquatic trait pretty much implies.

Yeah so am I why would a creatures who's muscular structure is evolved to live in water decide to build their civilisation on land?
And waterbreathers would also become less dependent on water as they advance, they would simply need to wear some sort of breathing apparatus, that's much easier than fixing the problem of muscles being adapted for the "lower gravity" of living in the ocean.
Look at our space program which is the big problem getting people to breathe in space of the damage zero G does to their muscles? If you know anything, you will know it is actually the latter. Heck one of the main obstacles of colonisation of places like mars is fetal development may not work the way it should in reduced gravity. You think it would work in increased gravity? Because that is essentially what the removal of buoyancy would amount to.
You make far to big a deal out of breathing as part of a creature being adapted to aquatic living.

 

[oreopirate]

And that doesn't really matter since the intent is clearly that they are water breathers which needs water to survive in. If they don't have it they're just air breathers with ocean habitability.

How does this imply filtering Oxygen from water only?

To be honest, this makes me think that you do not understand how gills work.
Gills can pull oxygen from air. Really, really easily. However, if they dry, they can't pull oxygen out of the air. In a sufficiently humid environment, they are several fish species on earth that can live outside of water for hours if not days. Mudskippers (subfamily Oxudercinae) can spend up to two thirds of their lives out of water. The Epaullette Shark of North Australia can survive for over an hour in ~90 F (Give or take 39C) water, with no oxygen. Similar to many other tidepool fish species. Hell, to be even more specific, the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic Tarpons (Megalops cyprinoides, and M. atlanticus) are ocean dwelling fish who are also obligate air breathers. Their gills are poorly developed and their swim bladder functions like a lung. So they have to surface to breathe by gulping down air, similar to a beta fish, or a lungfish.

Now at around medium dog size, a fish's organ start to crush each other, when out of the water because they use the buoyancy of water to support their organs within their body cavity. This is also why Cetaceans and Sirenians die when on land. So "Like a fish out of water" could easily refer to this, instead of oxygen.

 

[Cassilda]

I just thought, with the technological development reached in Stellaris, that "fish out of water" was meant more to indicate that supporting the life of aquatic lifeforms will be costly and unpractical, more than explicitly lethal.