- 4
- 2
What will the next Phenotype DLC be?
- Thread starter King of Zoot
- 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 would be fine with phenotype specific events or crises. For example if a leviathan squid appeared that could only be tamed by molluscoids that would be pretty neat.
- 4
- 4
...that's stupid, though.
Like, again... why? Why should somebody's ability to dictate what their species is like be that hyper-specified? Why couldn't an Arthropoid just build subs to communicate with the squid? Why couldn't a species that you've decided evolved to have a squid-like mentality and way of seeing the world do it?
The phenotypes are just a method of categorizing art assets- Traits are what define a species' abilities.
- 10
- 2
Honestly I'd go for licensed phenotype packs, but I have a feeling that wouldn't be the most popular choice.
- 3
- 1
IMO it would depend on the series, we already have a few star trek races, but things from star wars or hitch hikers might work, with a few new ship types...(republic ships, Huttese ships, Imp ships)
It seems like alot of people are in favour of more "unique" species-mechanics. I personally don't feel well with that Idea at all. Particularly if the new, big Utopia-DLC is going anyway deep into the "Unique-Empire"-Idea. Choosing materialistic or religous paths, which will specialize your empire over the course of the game. Stellaris isn't Endless Space, and while I do enjoy the ES-Series, I hope that Stellaris will not go down that road.
As always, sorry for my beautiful english.
As always, sorry for my beautiful english.
- 7
- 4
I like the idea of truly unique species from start, but I'd rather see the as something like the Hordes or Tribes of CK2 - radically different in some basic aspects empires that themselves would not be tied to any phenotype. Rather an option to choose a species trait or whatever: "Locust" or "Lithovore", which would remove some gameplay elements and add others.
- 14
- 1
This suggestion sounds good to me, and it wouldn't piss off the people who don't want different gameplay themes for different phenotypes.
Everyone gets what they want, and everyone is happy.
I'd totally love to have gamechanger traits.
These would probably need to be free of cost, and have a limit of only one max that you can pick.
One of them for example could turn your species into a Horde-type faction, for example.
They could also be some extra option in the empire creation menu, where you can select non-standard styles such as Horde if you want to try them.
- 4
- 1
This is what I've been saying all along. I don't mind the idea of more unique species- it should just be part of the already-flexible Traits system and not tied to the portrait you picked. I don't want there to be some dumb "Molluscoid Meta" to worry about.
- 8
- 1
It's not *the portrait*, it's a different level between the portrait and traits.
You can't decide on a squid-like mentality because there isn't anything like that in the game. Specific, biological characteristics of species do not exist. Traits are extremely limited, too few and do not reflect at all a somewhat realistic species. That's the original problem, not where to put an archetype.
- 5
Let me put it this way: if the game applied particular Traits or Trait-like modifiers based on the category of portrait you picked, I would be a very unhappy camper. If its completely separate and in no way influenced by the type of portrait a species has (for player or AI), I'm fine with it (but it should probably just be part of the existing Traits mechanic than something brand new).
If the game in no way models the exact particulars of a species mindset, then we can all RP our species however we like. So... yeah. I could imagine that the reason my spacebirds with chromatic-shifting plumage managed to tame the alien space-squid was because they had some particular insight due to parallel, convergent evolution.
The idea that species that share certain visual characteristics would behave, think, or develop technology along the same lines is stupid and I hate it. Someone already mentioned naked molerats- eusocial mammals- as an example of why you wouldn't want "archetypes" to be locked to a single phenotype... but that misses entirely that making these arbitrary categories of lifestyles is stupid in the first place.
You want a eusocial species? Conformist, Communal, Rapid Breeders, whatever defect-Trait you want for flavour. Or build them totally differently! Up to you! I'd, again, absolutely LOVE to have more Traits and more unique Traits (like Decadent), but what people suggest with phenotype-locked Traits or some brand new mechanic that's not-quite-a-Trait are shortsighted, needlessly restrictive, and addressing- as you yourself admit- the wrong problem.
- 8
Because events that target specific phenotypes or ethics creates life and story to a game that is otherwise barren of any sort of narrative whatsoever?
The game is so bland when pretty much every empire and species is the same. I can never remember the randomly generated names because they're all a mass of blah and whatever. If there were more species specific mechanics than ya I think it would be kind of cool. Maybe there's some sort of brain virus that infects only a certain species and turns them into zombies. I'd rather have a giant octopus arrive in the galaxy that only eats humanoids and poops out minerals for molluscs or some shit and leaves than nothing happening. Because the latter is just boring as shit.
- 4
- 1
Ethics, sure.
But phenotype tropes are already overused in science fiction. The fact that any species can become anything is precisely why I like Stellaris. They're aliens. Trying to pigeonhole them based on earth science is boring and too predictable, and makes for poor stories.
I absolutely do not want to see insectoids portrayed as hive mind society by default, nor do I want to see reptilians portrayed as emotionless slavers, or felines as a honorable warrior race. Those tropes have been done to death.
Last edited:
- 13
- 1
Thank you. My thoughts exactly.
Can you believe, I once saw somebody suggest that Avians should have to make "nests" to gather resources in systems?
- 6
How would you even decide on what traits to give to each phenotype?
Sure insect hives are a common trope, not that hive living arthropods are very common in reality but whatever.
And the groups based of vertebrate are at least somewhat narrow so you might come up with, say a mammalian trait (furry - + 10% consumer goods if processed? But then again, snake skin is also pretty to some and everyone loves seashells)
But no, there is way to much variety in the groups, even on earth for good representative traits. Not helped by the fact that for example most molluscoids are clearly humanoid but with a squid for a head.
The only phenotype that would be remotely possible to give a trait is the humanoid groups (please, do a search on the forum for the "what would the human trait be" discussion and see how well that went).
Sure insect hives are a common trope, not that hive living arthropods are very common in reality but whatever.
And the groups based of vertebrate are at least somewhat narrow so you might come up with, say a mammalian trait (furry - + 10% consumer goods if processed? But then again, snake skin is also pretty to some and everyone loves seashells)
But no, there is way to much variety in the groups, even on earth for good representative traits. Not helped by the fact that for example most molluscoids are clearly humanoid but with a squid for a head.
The only phenotype that would be remotely possible to give a trait is the humanoid groups (please, do a search on the forum for the "what would the human trait be" discussion and see how well that went).
- 5
A race pack with built-in subspecies (as in, widely different biologies for different castes or whatnot) support would be interesting and good fodder for the modding community.
- 2
That kind of DLC should be more than just art, like plantoid are, some new mechanics should be in too.
1. Organic, but vastly different biology - ammonia, liquid methane, that sort of things, living on normally unihabitable planets.
2. Inorganic life forms - gaseous, energetic, crystal, etc. living on stars, gas giants or in open space.
3. Cybernetic or fully machine.
And of course, the pinnacle of all creation:
4. Space catgirls.
1. Organic, but vastly different biology - ammonia, liquid methane, that sort of things, living on normally unihabitable planets.
2. Inorganic life forms - gaseous, energetic, crystal, etc. living on stars, gas giants or in open space.
3. Cybernetic or fully machine.
And of course, the pinnacle of all creation:
4. Space catgirls.
- 4
- 3