Seems they changed their minds but I cant see where they told us, the aquatic species trait now costs a point.. so not really equivalent to the other species traits at all then.
- 2
so about that "zero cost" aquatic trait...
- Thread starter Paspinall
- 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.
I'm pretty sure it's way too good for a zero pointer, since as long as you're on Ocean worlds it's double the strength of Very Strong and gives you 100% habitability on your guaranteed worlds making for a very good start.
- 8
- 4
It was mentioned on today's stream - sounds like it was a very late decision.
- 2
Also, you can add the Anglers Civic to get the trait, then remove Anglers. This was helpful for one of my Aquatic builds where I didn't actually want Anglers (I went Agrarian Idyll).
Do you need to do that? Anglers makes it automatic, but any species can have the trait on its own.
Yeah, Anglers doesn't make it not cost a point, it just auto adds it.
You can manually select Aquatic once you've set your homeworld type to Ocean.
You can manually select Aquatic once you've set your homeworld type to Ocean.
- 3
i guess they balanced it because it was too strong in theyr internal test.
instead of nerfing the effect and changing it before release , they decided to change the cost.
i can see the logic behind it.
instead of nerfing the effect and changing it before release , they decided to change the cost.
i can see the logic behind it.
- 4
Ahh, it must be because I hadn't selected Ocean yet, I couldn't find it in the list.
And do not forget habitat, they ON PURPOSE make the aquatic penalties aply on them, even if it is an aquatic species who build them. It is so STUPID and do not make any sense whenever the way i am putting it. Honeslty the features are cool but the balance ruin it. It is even look like sabotage at this stage.
- 10
- 3
- 3
mhh... with a reminder that stellaris is not realistic.
we can talk about the fact that is quite harder to keep a big pressurized structure full of water, than is to keep a big structure with some oxigen and other gasses . while you can say that those gasses corrode too and make pressure ; if you want water that keep " living behing " as living , you need ... " muddy " water, and that shit corrode and create filth like nothing else.
edit: well, now.. "nothing else" was exagerate there. there are things that are worst than that for sure.
great but we dont all get to *see* the streams, they could have you know actually told people...
- 10
Yep, was making my species, set up all my traits, finished up all my other items, and realized that all of the sudden, I was off on the points...explained that one...
- 1
they did.
like all dev diary they tell you that all numbers are not final , and they can change before release. you should have watched simply the released version . the dev diary was a sneak peak at the things they made.
- 3
- 3
- 2
They do tell about non final numbers. It is however expected for there to be many disappointments when the numbers with most exposure time were better than the ones we got.
I think it would also make much more sense from marketing perspective to err on the side of over powered rather than nerfed when it comes to new features. Even though you can rebalance later, the initial reception is very important and you don't want the new features to feel pointless at the launch.
It's mentioned while they were designing civs, though I couldn't place it more precisely as it was a lot of (highly entertaining) messing about and coming up with pun-laden names.
- 1
Funny. I am the only one that noticed they took the +10% hull from the trait?
- 2
i get it , that in this period telling ppl that something is not final , or is a beta or alpha is meaningless , evrything is subject to absolute criticism .
but this should not be taken as a normal behaviour . numbers were not final , as such you should have espected that things would have changed.
funny for you to say that , if something actualy come out in the "live version" and is overpowered ppl start lamenting that they should have nerfed it before release . because the game is supposed to be in a "complete state" when released , not with the idea of continue e perpetual patching to fix bugs and balance.
i guess you are more on the side of "done is better than perfect" , patch it after.
thinking about it , you should get that is better to iron and balance it before , than to rush a patch to balance it 1 week later , like they did for the catalytic processing .
- 2
- 2