Multiple Saves Dialemma

Djohaal wrote:

Actually what if the galaxy itself was a persistent meta-save, and your "saves" would just be webs of interaction that added extra detail?

There'd be a reset galaxy button around for obvious reasons though. Persistent metaworlds can get interesting.

If you mean something like Minecraft (where sectors not used are not simulated at all), that could work.

Commander Keen wrote:

Djohaal wrote:

Actually what if the galaxy itself was a persistent meta-save, and your "saves" would just be webs of interaction that added extra detail?

There'd be a reset galaxy button around for obvious reasons though. Persistent metaworlds can get interesting.

If you mean something like Minecraft (where sectors not used are not simulated at all), that could work.

It'd need a time-dependant seed so when you explore those areas they seem coherent, but yes. But if you visit the region of another of your saves, your stuff will be there. I don't think minecraft does that (well if it does its world is so huge noone ever found their own stuff lol)

I have an idea-
You guys know the suggestion about the 'shatter' menu? The one where the logo shatters etc.?
What if, say, each shard represented an alternate reality or something? The menu would have a little video or picture from each save in each corresponding shard. Each shard would be handled as an entirely different save, with the game considering them to be linked in no way.

This would also work for the simple 'branch-reality' saves people sometimes do in games, wondering 'what if' and creating a new save to see how it turns out. Every save that was deleted could even have a pretty shatter effect and it would probably be a lot easier than the galaxy menu or anything - just a few steps up from the regular text menu, but still pretty.
Also, I'd just like to add that the shards from the shatter logo should definitely be used in the Ascension.

EDIT: Adding on this, perhaps, when you reached Ascension, you could go to another save and play from a new/existing species' perspective, as well. Just throwing out an extra idea, here!

Demongoat wrote:

I have an idea-
You guys know the suggestion about the 'shatter' menu? The one where the logo shatters etc.?
What if, say, each shard represented an alternate reality or something? The menu would have a little video or picture from each save in each corresponding shard. Each shard would be handled as an entirely different save, with the game considering them to be linked in no way.

This would also work for the simple 'branch-reality' saves people sometimes do in games, wondering 'what if' and creating a new save to see how it turns out. Every save that was deleted could even have a pretty shatter effect and it would probably be a lot easier than the galaxy menu or anything - just a few steps up from the regular text menu, but still pretty.
Also, I'd just like to add that the shards from the shatter logo should definitely be used in the Ascension.

EDIT: Adding on this, perhaps, when you reached Ascension, you could go to another save and play from a new/existing species' perspective, as well. Just throwing out an extra idea, here!

Not sure how popular the parallel worlds thing will be, but it seems the best way to stop any inter-save problems. If no other solution is found, this should be done. But at least it'll look cool.

On the edit, I think when you ascend there is a possession tool, so this should be possible already.

Remember that last sentence, but re-reading I realise I read it slightly wrong... I think ascension is currently going to be cross-save, and even if it is a parallel world... Well, ascension is already a gameplay orientated content, so this shouldn't be too much for it to handle.

And shatter shards in ascension... I'm not sure how they could be included in ascension, but I do agree it would be good to include somewhere.
The rift! The galactic core rift! It doesn't currently have a confirmed appearance, maybe it could have a shatter effect on the boundary!

Now we just need to work out what aspect of the rift the 'boundary' is... The outer edge? The center of the ascension gate through which you pass? Who knows...

Uteen of the formerly-present past, stop getting retrospectively off-topic! I'll take over from here.


Well, one solution to this problem would be to just not worry about the consequences and let the player blow themselves up. If they do, it serves them right if they kill themselves in another save. The real problem then is what happens when you reload your save and your entire species/planet is destroyed, which leads the discussion over to this thread.

Well, If we just save the universe on the same file, you just keep playing with whathever you have left of your species. If no member was left alive, just a game over screen when you return to the game. Or some kind of thing like "A few hundred of your species escaped the massacre, rebuild from there"

Another easier option woud be the kind of thing Dwarf Fortress does, which is alowing you to create a world (galaxy) and play at that galaxy with as many fortresses (species) as you want, but only one at a time. If you want to start a new one on the same save file, you have to abandon (mass suicide or just let be AI controlled) the species.

Daniferrito wrote:

Well, If we just save the universe on the same file, you just keep playing with whathever you have left of your species. If no member was left alive, just a game over screen when you return to the game. Or some kind of thing like "A few hundred of your species escaped the massacre, rebuild from there"

Thanks for the suggestions, but:

A game over screen in a simulation game…
And as for the other one, maybe in an RPG.

Just my opinions. Even being forced to control a species from the nearest life-bearing planet would be better than a game over screen…

Yes, i know the game over option isnt the best one, but still, there should be some way of losing the game.

What about the other idea? The one save at a time. No matter how hard we try, there will be problems if we allow saves to interact.

Daniferrito wrote:

Yes, i know the game over option isnt the best one, but still, there should be some way of losing the game.

What about the other idea? The one save at a time. No matter how hard we try, there will be problems if we allow saves to interact.

There will be problems, but we don't have to avoid them - they are just a tradeoff for being able to choose between multiple species, and the exchange is optional.

We already have a god tool allowing the player to control different organisms, saves can just work in a similar way - you load a save, the simulation resumes and you take control of whatever organism is linked to that save. If it's dead, another organism can be selected, in the same way as when your organism would die during gameplay. With this method, no tricky solutions are necessary.

The only problem then is that the AI controls all species from the saves not selected, but even Spore had that, and there isn't an obvious solution. The player can always decide they don't want this and only use one save at a time if they want.

Also, if the player wanted, they could always manually switch the saves folder in the game files to avoid alteration when they're not in use. To put it another way, having multiple galaxies.



I don't it's vital that there is a way to lose, since there are plenty of games in which you have infinite lives, or only have a minor setback like having to restart the level from the beginning. Generally it's challenge games which have a ‘Game Over’ scenario, and Thrive really isn't meant to be a challenge, it's just a free virtual universe for players to enjoy.

The player will have their own form of game over, anyway - such as trying to become sapient but getting domesticated, trying to reach space but becoming aquatic (just an example, no rants please), or just trying to live peacefully but getting their planet blown up. Coding in a fixed Game Over really isn't necessary; there are still ways to fail.

The biggest problem I see is with the HUGE time scale changes. If all the time in a save goes at the same rate, in the time it takes a specie to evolve to sapient, an alredy evolved specie could get to ascendance many times if we let a decent AI control it. This will make playing with two saves in the same time line impossible, as leting an Ai play the game for you is (usually) not fun.

With the game over, i was more focused towards extintion. That is something we should account for. Like the sims. Killing sims, althrough not the focus of the game, is something they allow the player to do.

Daniferrito wrote:

The biggest problem I see is with the HUGE time scale changes. If all the time in a save goes at the same rate, in the time it takes a specie to evolve to sapient, an alredy evolved specie could get to ascendance many times if we let a decent AI control it. This will make playing with two saves in the same time line impossible, as leting an Ai play the game for you is (usually) not fun.

With the game over, i was more focused towards extintion. That is something we should account for. Like the sims. Killing sims, althrough not the focus of the game, is something they allow the player to do.

Time-scale… That is a big problem. Very big. Erm… Yeah.

Moving swiftly on, since I have no clue how we can do anything about that, extinction! The only probable ways I foresee a species could become extinct is through natural disaster and the actions of a more advanced civilisation. Neither of these possibilities are the players fault, so making them have to start again from a single cell seems a bit unfair, in my opinion, when we could at least provide an option to take control of another species/civilisation of a similar advancement.

Or they could always resume from the most recent save, which might be preferable. I suppose it doesn't matter much what happens upon extinction if this is what they're going to do most of the time…

Yes, that's something that i agree on. We shouldn't include any kind of death, extintion, or any other terminal state that is not the player's fault. But something like starting a war against another civilization and losing it, or trying to evolve to a niche that is not avaible should be the kind of mistakes that in my opinion are valid reasons to extint a species. As long as it is the player's fault, I think it is allright.

I say we use alternate dimensions. Once you interact with a planet another save is on, it creates another universe which is basically a backup of the world you interacted with, and so in one save (the godly one) you can mess with it, but in the save of the interacted with planet, nothing changes.

Calfeggs wrote:

I say we use alternate dimensions. Once you interact with a planet another save is on, it creates another universe which is basically a backup of the world you interacted with, and so in one save (the godly one) you can mess with it, but in the save of the interacted with planet, nothing changes.

I think it is a good idea, worth looking into. In that case we should warn the player before they do the action that will separate the saves.

Daniferrito wrote:

Calfeggs wrote:

I say we use alternate dimensions. Once you interact with a planet another save is on, it creates another universe which is basically a backup of the world you interacted with, and so in one save (the godly one) you can mess with it, but in the save of the interacted with planet, nothing changes.

I think it is a good idea, worth looking into. In that case we should warn the player before they do the action that will separate the saves.

Agreed.