The main thing here is that aquatic species will have aquatic features that non-aquatic species will not have those features even if they ARE aquatic by design.
Pre-Aquatics Aquatics and species classes.
- Thread starter Xyre255
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So I think it is safe to say that this has been answered by the dev diary.
Namely you can make any of the portraits an aquatic species. Nothing is tied to the portraits. All is good. Well except maybe the planet balance symmetry.
Namely you can make any of the portraits an aquatic species. Nothing is tied to the portraits. All is good. Well except maybe the planet balance symmetry.
- 4
Then maybe those aquatic would be shuffled into other already existing species packs? So that squids like be in mulluscoid, dolphines in mammalian, etc? I would love that.
The shrimp guys always end up being marauders and screaming about dwamaks in my games.
I think arthropods are fine where they are. The frog one also looks pretty dry even if it's based on an amphibian.
IMO what they should really do is fill out the packs that don't have the full row of species. (Except robots, I get that they get a new one for every pack now).
IMO what they should really do is fill out the packs that don't have the full row of species. (Except robots, I get that they get a new one for every pack now).
I would like to see the button that rearange species portraits based on
1. Species pack (this is default and looks like everything right now).
2. Species, where mamalian is mamalian despite of it came with humanoid, necroid, aquatic species packs.
1. Species pack (this is default and looks like everything right now).
2. Species, where mamalian is mamalian despite of it came with humanoid, necroid, aquatic species packs.
- 1
Maybe have it so that the players can re-arreange them as they see fit?
As for multiplayer games, whomever is the host would decide what belongs in which category.
Got an idea:
- Leave them as it is (older content that shouldn't not be moved behind aquatics)
- You own aquatis: Give them an option to be toggled as aquatics (? something similar? Like optional aquatics for them) When picking them. A quick mod could do that too I suppose, though not the goal here.
I clearly understand the question at hand here. Some species that we have are clearly aquatic in some manners, inspiration, by design, etc. So having the option would be nice. But one could agree that those (the one we already have), when just stopping and looking at them, you can clearly immagine/see a species that can be amphibious or even totally terrestrial after moving from the waters. They don't necessarily feel like "obligatory aquatic beings" when you look at them, I guess that's what I mean.
That's probably a reason why it's quite likely they'll be just left as they are.
When I look at it from this angle, Aquatics NEED to be aquatic, in a sense, by design, and the older ones not necessarily at all, that's why I'm okay with it if it just stays as it is.
- Leave them as it is (older content that shouldn't not be moved behind aquatics)
- You own aquatis: Give them an option to be toggled as aquatics (? something similar? Like optional aquatics for them) When picking them. A quick mod could do that too I suppose, though not the goal here.
I clearly understand the question at hand here. Some species that we have are clearly aquatic in some manners, inspiration, by design, etc. So having the option would be nice. But one could agree that those (the one we already have), when just stopping and looking at them, you can clearly immagine/see a species that can be amphibious or even totally terrestrial after moving from the waters. They don't necessarily feel like "obligatory aquatic beings" when you look at them, I guess that's what I mean.
That's probably a reason why it's quite likely they'll be just left as they are.
When I look at it from this angle, Aquatics NEED to be aquatic, in a sense, by design, and the older ones not necessarily at all, that's why I'm okay with it if it just stays as it is.
My preference is to spread out the new Aquatic portraits into existing categories, since the zero-point trait does all the heavy lifting that the portrait class would have done.
That allows the current portraits to function as aquatics if desired (including the shrimp etc. but also stuff like the Mammal sea otters and some of the humanoids with head-tubes).
That allows the current portraits to function as aquatics if desired (including the shrimp etc. but also stuff like the Mammal sea otters and some of the humanoids with head-tubes).
- 1
Don't forget the Kelpian, perfectly suited to be aquatic, and having pulled itself together just for the meeting with the Galactic Council.
What if the list just had two places to display a species when necessary. like the kelp is both a plant and aquatic and you see it in both lists, so then there's no fiddling, no gating behind new paid content, nothing.
(and then you decide whether you give it the in-game behaviour of a terrestrial plant, or an aquatic species, based on which you pick, or do you give both in some way)
(and then you decide whether you give it the in-game behaviour of a terrestrial plant, or an aquatic species, based on which you pick, or do you give both in some way)
It'd take some reworking, but perhaps it'll be something for Stellaris II (or a major number update of Stellaris) so that we have "archetype" - so "fish", "reptile", "mammal", "mollusc" etc - and "suitable habitat" - although *mostly* this would appear limited to "can it be in the ocean or not" at the moment. I struggle to find other classifications that would benefit from the "suitable habitat" without tying species portraits too closely to planet types. After all, just because it looks like a desert lizard doesn't mean it *has* to be a desert lizard.
- 1
And mermaids - we cant see their legs, maybe those "humans" has in fact a fishtail?
My most concern is that we already have mammalian species group, and mammalian portraits in necroids group, and there will be mammalian in aquatic group, and there is nowhere to interact beween those iven if both are mammals. I cant get bio ascension and turn my:
Into:
Even tho they are both mammalian.
Those species, that dont really makes new group (humanoids / necroids / aquatics vs machines / lithoids / plantoids) should be just new portraits inside already existing groups.
This is my opinion and one can try but i dont think one would change my mind.
Edit: And no. Special interacions are not a valid argument since you can flag specific portraits both - to be shown and available only when having specific DLC, and to make special interacions available only for them.
Last edited:
You see, when I first saw the thread I thought you would like to discuss Aquatics in Stone Age. You know, "Secret of Fire" in water.
Nobody here forget,
The Scyldari Confederacy is, according to it's bio, run by a species of 'aquatic mammalians' that originated from the 'deep oceans,' their early civilizations 'mostly confined to the sea.'
Are there hairy fish?
The Scyldari Confederacy is, according to it's bio, run by a species of 'aquatic mammalians' that originated from the 'deep oceans,' their early civilizations 'mostly confined to the sea.'
Are there hairy fish?
More like Otters, but they propably will be updated? getting "aquatic" trait? I dont think they fit any of aquatic dlc origins.