Not being able to colonize toxic worlds annoys me.

[Lor]

I am disappointed with toxoids. I get that having habitable toxic worlds would be a bit OP, but I just assumed they'd lower the numbers of toxic worlds or add unique worlds in a similar vein to Tomb worlds for Toxoid species, but nah they just have normal worlds like every other species, begging the question what exactly makes them Toxoids when they live on the exact same planets as every other species in the galaxy?

[Ryika]

Originally posted by Naylor:

begging the question what exactly makes them Toxoids when they live on the exact same planets as every other species in the galaxy?

At baseline, they're just a portrait, just like most other species packs. Combine the portrait with some of the toxoid-themed civics and origins, and there you have a very thematic toxoid empire.

Being able to inhabit toxic worlds would be a completely nonsensical direction to go into in my opinion. Having a world type that's only relevant to a very specific type of species makes no sense in terms of the grander picture of the game.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Being able to inhabit toxic worlds would be a completely nonsensical direction to go into in my opinion. Having a world type that's only relevant to a very specific type of species makes no sense in terms of the grander picture of the game.

I disagree that it's nonsensical. I think the nonsensical move here was making a species pack called Toxoids, and giving them an aesthetic which (imo at least) heavily suggests they inhabit toxic worlds that other species would not be able too, but then not adding said worlds. There are innumerable ways they could have done this and made it work well with the game, making them similar to Tomb worlds for instance (in terms of spawn rate) and giving them the ability to convert worlds into toxic worlds. All other species packs didn't really give an opportunity to provide a new type of world, (except maybe Machine worlds), but Toxoids did, they just didn't and that's annoying.

[adobo]

They also added in aquatics and you can make them live in a desert.

At the end of the day, its just a portrait. You actually have to commit to the traits and even the ascension if you want to play as an actual toxoid.

[Lor]

Originally posted by majikero:

They also added in aquatics and you can make them live in a desert.

At the end of the day, its just a portrait. You actually have to commit to the traits and even the ascension if you want to play as an actual toxoid.

Yeah, but desert worlds still have water on them. It's dumb but still kinda makes sense. The aesthetic behind toxoids implies they inhabit worlds toxic to everyone else. It's a pretty dumb decision by paradox and missed oppertunity imo to add a species pack like this, but not intend to also add unique worlds for them to inhabit.

[Ryika]

And then we get a species that fits with Asteroids, one for Gas Giants, one for stars, because we all know we need those, then we get creatures of the void, who inhabit black holes, and at the end of the day, the entire galaxy is covered in "habitable" planets that are irrelevant for almost everybody?

How's that sustainable?

[Lor]

Originally posted by Ryika:

And then we get a species that fits with Asteroids, one for Gas Giants, one for stars, because we all know we need those, then we get creatures of the void, who inhabit black holes, and at the end of the day, the entire galaxy is covered in "habitable" planets that are irrelevant for almost everybody?

How's that sustainable?

that's why I said they could have reduced the number of toxic worlds, or added unique toxic worlds specifically for habitation. Or maybe paradox could have made a different species pack, one that doesn't imply the presence of new habitable worlds like this one very clearly does.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by Naylor:

that's why I said they could have reduced the number of toxic worlds, or added unique toxic worlds specifically for habitation. Or maybe paradox could have made a different species pack, one that doesn't imply the presence of new habitable worlds like this one very clearly does.

Or maybe the current implementation is just fine the way it is and you're just complaining for the sake of complaining.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Originally posted by Naylor:

that's why I said they could have reduced the number of toxic worlds, or added unique toxic worlds specifically for habitation. Or maybe paradox could have made a different species pack, one that doesn't imply the presence of new habitable worlds like this one very clearly does.

Or maybe the current implementation is just fine the way it is and you're just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Nah, I'm complaining because I'm disappointed in this species pack. If you're not interested in talking about this why are you replying in the first place? Seems like you have the chip on your shoulder here, not me.

[lidku716]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Having a world type that's only relevant to a very specific type of species makes no sense in terms of the grander picture of the game.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the case with Aquatics with Ocean Worlds?

[Ryika]

Originally posted by Naylor:

Nah, I'm complaining because I'm disappointed in this species pack. If you're not interested in talking about this why are you replying in the first place? Seems like you have the chip on your shoulder here, not me.

I am interested in talking about it. Specifically, why I think it's a bad idea.

Originally posted by lidku716:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the case with Aquatics with Ocean Worlds?

No, everybody can inhabit ocean worlds, and aquatic portraits gain no bonuses from living on ocean worlds. Ocean worlds also already existed, so it's not like they introduced a new world type for them that is irrelevant to most other species.

[Ashling]

I assume the species are toxic not the worlds. Like how I can't eat toads but I can live on Earth somewhat.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Ryika:

I am interested in talking about it. Specifically, why I think it's a bad idea.

Alright, so read and respond to what I posted then.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Triangle:

I assume the species are toxic not the worlds. Like how I can't eat toads but I can live on Earth somewhat.

Yeah, but all their portraits and ship designs seem to imply they inhale toxic gas or need it for some reason. Which doesn't really make any sense if they just live on the exact same planets every other species can live on.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by Naylor:

Alright, so read and respond to what I posted then.

I already did respond to it. Your last post essentially summarizes at "Yeah, so... here are my suggestions to mitigate the problems you've brought up a little. Let's please pretend that fixes them.", which I think is self-evidently nonsensical.

The core problem is that you cannot create a bunch of special worlds that are only useful to specifically one species type, and then simultaneously have them be common enough that this species type finds enough of those worlds to play with, without polluting the galaxy with those worlds for everybody else. Those goals are directly opposed to each other.

I do not believe that the goal of having a thematic planet type for Toxoids is more valuable than not having to deal with Toxic Habitable spawns each time you're not playing a Toxoid species.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Ryika:

I already did respond to it. Your last post essentially summarizes at "Yeah, so... here are my suggestions to mitigate the problems you've brought up a little. Let's please pretend that fixes them.", which I think is self-evidently nonsensical.

The core problem is that you cannot create a bunch of special worlds that are only useful to specifically one species type, and then simultaneously have them be common enough that this species type finds enough of those worlds to play with, without polluting the galaxy with those worlds for everybody else. Those goals are directly opposed to each other.

I do not believe that the goal of having a thematic planet type for Toxoids is more valuable than not having to deal with Toxic Habitable spawns each time you're not playing a Toxoid species.

You absolutely can create a bunch of special worlds that are only useful to a species with a specific origin though? Like I said there's no reason Paradox couldn't have added another planet type similar to Tomb worlds with a similar spawn rate, plenty of opportunities for unique world mechanics there. Something for Toxoid species to inhabit but could be terraformed by another species. If you don't agree fair enough, but you're not giving me a reason why, just "I don't like it". Yeah I can tell, I'm curious as to why you're so opposed too it?

This essentially already exists ingame with the post-apocalyptic origin, there are loads of ways paradox could implement this in game so that it's balanced, which is why I'm disappointed that they didn't. And why i'm surprised people are opposed too it.