Pre-Tech Tech...?

I just got a kind of idea that I'm not too sure which category this would go under, but I will try to explain it for now.

I know we have a big tech tree for after you become sapient, but what about before you become sapient? Almost like researching basic brain functions with DNA resources (Spore analogy for now), I could see this being pretty fun in strategy mode.

Like, for instance, you could research pack behavior, and all your creatures would gradually start to stick together.
Or you could research hive behavior, or communication, or whatever. The thing is this - I think we kind of agreed on once you become sapient, you get to do strategy mode. But wouldn't it be fun to kind of start before you're fully evolved?

That is an interesting idea, as it sort of preparees you for researching techs. The problem is how to impliment it realistically.

Perhaps there could be a range of different branches eg. Social, Aggressive, Passive [first things that came to my mind] Im gonna give an example of how I see it happening here

So say the player selects Social [you can only select one at a time]. Then your creatures would begin to instinctively pack together over time. So they would start out as creatures going solo, wandering into anotyhers territory would get you killed. Then after a while they become slightly more tolerant of each other. Later on they may begin to 'hunt' in twos, then in threes and they continue to get into larger packs until the player decides to change what they selected on the tree. After, lets say, the creatures began to work in groups of two or three, it would unlock other things like communication, pack mentality or something, and yeah.

I'll try to explain better later on.

I'm not to keen on this (pun unintended). Research is supposed to reflect people actively pursuing new knowledge, but that's something that happens when the organism is sapient.

But you brought another valid point. How will things like evolving from loner to social orgs work?

Indeed.

However what I mean is more of you pretty much 'steering' the direction in which your species evolves by selecting an option from the, I suppose we could call it the 'Evolution tree'? There's no DNA points or evolution points involved, it's just a simple [enough] place from which to make your species as you see fit.

Yeah thats a much better explaination of what I meant ^^^ please read this instead of the above post if you have the luck to read this one first. Thank you.

Commander Keen wrote:

I'm not to keen on this (pun unintended). Research is supposed to reflect people actively pursuing new knowledge, but that's something that happens when the organism is sapient.

But you brought another valid point. How will things like evolving from loner to social orgs work?

Wouldn't it work through others copying your actions? You stick with other creatures, they do the same, and herds emerge...

I'm afraid I'm with Keen, I'm not keen. This is using the points system to evolve (behaviourally, but it's evolution), which is too much like Spore. Creatures don't use points to develop their behaviour. I'm sure all this could be done in a more realistic way.

I actually like this idea, but with one major tweak. Instead of having the good old fashioned research button, treat it like our current research tree, minus all system of gaining research points except triggers. That way, each advancement is custom tailored to have a respective and understandable cause. This would help out our planned Player-Evo system by splitting it into two systems: mental and physical changes.

Quoted from my post:

Quote :

There's no DNA points or evolution points involved

Uteens post:

Quote :

This is using the points system

I rest my case.

Commander Keen wrote:

I'm not to keen on this (pun unintended). Research is supposed to reflect people actively pursuing new knowledge, but that's something that happens when the organism is sapient.

But you brought another valid point. How will things like evolving from loner to social orgs work?

Behavior mutations, like those pointed out by Uteen.

Anyone catch my post?

I wrote:

I actually like this idea, but with one major tweak. Instead of having the good old fashioned research button, treat it like our current research tree, minus all system of gaining research points except triggers. That way, each advancement is custom tailored to have a respective and understandable cause. This would help out our planned Player-Evo system by splitting it into two systems: mental and physical changes.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Anyone catch my post?

I wrote:

I actually like this idea, but with one major tweak. Instead of having the good old fashioned research button, treat it like our current research tree, minus all system of gaining research points except triggers. That way, each advancement is custom tailored to have a respective and understandable cause. This would help out our planned Player-Evo system by splitting it into two systems: mental and physical changes.

I don't quite understand, but I think that's because I don't keep track of the Tech Tree.

Yes behavior mutations. Exactly.

I caught Rex's post - I'm thinking it can be meshed quite nicely with the "mutations" idea - letting the savvy player steer while still keeping an element of randomness.
Basically, behavioral changes (Not mutations - they are not necessarily genetic) could be triggered in certain circumstances where it is helpful to the organism/species survival and be passed on if they remain useful. Some behavioral changes could lead to others (group nesting could lead to group hunting could lead to pack structure) in a sort of pre-sentient behavioral web.
Hopefully, that's along the lines of what Rex was implying anyway.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

I caught Rex's post - I'm thinking it can be meshed quite nicely with the "mutations" idea - letting the savvy player steer while still keeping an element of randomness.
Basically, behavioral changes (Not mutations - they are not necessarily genetic) could be triggered in certain circumstances where it is helpful to the organism/species survival and be passed on if they remain useful. Some behavioral changes could lead to others (group nesting could lead to group hunting could lead to pack structure) in a sort of pre-sentient behavioral web.
Hopefully, that's along the lines of what Rex was implying anyway.

Sortof. I was hoping it would still be more accidental improvement though. I want the player to gain sentience through experimentation and curiosity.

We'd still need a cause-and-effect web.
Savvy players are going to figure out what leads to what eventually, though. (Unless we want to go overboard with random values...)

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

We'd still need a cause-and-effect web.
Savvy players are going to figure out what leads to what eventually, though. (Unless we want to go overboard with random values...)

Yup. QFT

This is making me think...
Groups like wolf packs and such can form before sapience, so shouldn't we be able to access strategy mode before then? In a wolf pack, there is a leader who leads the rest of the pack, so(most likely simplified version of) strategy mode should be available in that situation, should it not?
In all seriousness, I'm unsure of all of the features of strategy mode, so I'd rather like it if someone disagreed(with reasons, of course).
-Waap.

Waap wrote:

This is making me think...
Groups like wolf packs and such can form before sapience, so shouldn't we be able to access strategy mode before then? In a wolf pack, there is a leader who leads the rest of the pack, so(most likely simplified version of) strategy mode should be available in that situation, should it not?
In all seriousness, I'm unsure of all of the features of strategy mode, so I'd rather like it if someone disagreed(with reasons, of course).
-Waap.

Thank you. I've been suggesting this.

~sciocont wrote:

Waap wrote:

This is making me think...
Groups like wolf packs and such can form before sapience, so shouldn't we be able to access strategy mode before then? In a wolf pack, there is a leader who leads the rest of the pack, so(most likely simplified version of) strategy mode should be available in that situation, should it not?
In all seriousness, I'm unsure of all of the features of strategy mode, so I'd rather like it if someone disagreed(with reasons, of course).
-Waap.

Thank you. I've been suggesting this.

We've been over this before. Wolves don't stratgize. They function on instinct only. No strat mode for them.

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Waap wrote:

This is making me think...
Groups like wolf packs and such can form before sapience, so shouldn't we be able to access strategy mode before then? In a wolf pack, there is a leader who leads the rest of the pack, so(most likely simplified version of) strategy mode should be available in that situation, should it not?
In all seriousness, I'm unsure of all of the features of strategy mode, so I'd rather like it if someone disagreed(with reasons, of course).
-Waap.

Thank you. I've been suggesting this.

We've been over this before. Wolves don't stratgize. They function on instinct only. No strat mode for them.

We have been over this before, and they do. Where was it that we discussed this and I put up a ton of links providing evidence for animal strategizing?
Even if you insist wolves don't strategize, the player should still be able to create animals that do, but are not sapient, right? I think that's the best way to ease players into strat mode.

Ugh, I hate the idea of strategy mode being available for animals. See, here's the thing: Wolves do operate based on strategies, but they don't give and receive orders in real-time - and that mechanic is the linchpin of Strategy Mode's gameplay justification.

Wolves do work together, and they do use teamwork to carry out complicated goals. I get that, based on that, people think they should get strategy mode. However, once a hunt is in progress, each wolf is acting autonomously and making decisions independently in real-time. They're not taking orders from a central commander - and that's what Strategy mode is intended to represent.

I'm inclined in favor of more advanced AI for pack-hunters, certainly - and the issue of how behaviors of any kind will evolve in NPCs has yet to be really discussed. I just don't think you should get a suite of real-time command options. Perhaps something squad-based? I haven't played a lot of squad-based combat, but that idea just feels... better. More appropriate.

Redstar wrote:

Ugh, I hate the idea of strategy mode being available for animals. See, here's the thing: Wolves do operate based on strategies, but they don't give and receive orders in real-time - and that mechanic is the linchpin of Strategy Mode's gameplay justification.

Wolves do work together, and they do use teamwork to carry out complicated goals. I get that, based on that, people think they should get strategy mode. However, once a hunt is in progress, each wolf is acting autonomously and making decisions independently in real-time. They're not taking orders from a central commander - and that's what Strategy mode is intended to represent.

I'm inclined in favor of more advanced AI for pack-hunters, certainly - and the issue of how behaviors of any kind will evolve in NPCs has yet to be really discussed. I just don't think you should get a suite of real-time command options. Perhaps something squad-based? I haven't played a lot of squad-based combat, but that idea just feels... better. More appropriate.

What I was thinking goes with my other ideas for creature strategy- you suggest actions to creatures. They will most likely take them, but they may act on other whims, or deviate from the plan.

~sciocont wrote:

What I was thinking goes with my other ideas for creature strategy- you suggest actions to creatures. They will most likely take them, but they may act on other whims, or deviate from the plan.

I think part of the problem here is that we're talking about different things when we say "strategy mode"

I use it to mean a top-down, HUD-intensive, Starcraft-style control scheme, where the player no longer controls an individual. You seem to be talking about a kind of squad-based third-person tactical control scheme (a la Dragon Age or Mass Effect)

I kind of worry that the game will become a confusing mess, with all these different control schemes to manage. Is it really a good idea to try and throw all this stuff together?

Redstar wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

What I was thinking goes with my other ideas for creature strategy- you suggest actions to creatures. They will most likely take them, but they may act on other whims, or deviate from the plan.

I think part of the problem here is that we're talking about different things when we say "strategy mode"

I use it to mean a top-down, HUD-intensive, Starcraft-style control scheme, where the player no longer controls an individual. You seem to be talking about a kind of squad-based third-person tactical control scheme (a la Dragon Age or Mass Effect)

I kind of worry that the game will become a confusing mess, with all these different control schemes to manage. Is it really a good idea to try and throw all this stuff together?

The only real "definition" of our strat mode is controlling more than one org at a time. You could be playing it like starcraft, but I think it could also function on smaller units.

Strategy and tactical controlls should really be different. Strategy needs quick large commands on large scale, while tactics need precision. I think we should draw inspiration from tactical combat games and milsims, these usually use F1-F12 keys to select specific members of the squad and then use number keys to select orders.

As to availability, I think tactics controls should be available to packhunters and similar, while strategy would get available later (maybe in the Awakening stage?). Packhunters really don't have any form of communication, but not giving player the control would be too limiting I think.

Quote :

I kind of worry that the game will become a confusing mess, with all these different control schemes to manage. Is it really a good idea to try and throw all this stuff together?

There are still two main sets of controls (Org mode, Strategy mode), all these discussed things are just possible extensions of the main two.