Building Microbe Stage

NickTheNick wrote:

I would just like to ask, I never saw anywhere how the effects of the agents you produce will be decided. Will it be procedural? Customizable? Will the effects of the agents you secrete evolve as you do? If it does evolve, is it independent of you or do you control its progression?

You can modify agents in the editor through the behavior tab. Basically, you pick what it does, and how well it does it.

And do you have access to all of the effects right away? Are there limits to the magnitude of the effects? Is there anything stopping the player from customizing an agent that decreases mitochondria efficiency in a hostile cell by 100% (which seems pretty overpowered)?

NickTheNick wrote:

And do you have access to all of the effects right away? Are there limits to the magnitude of the effects? Is there anything stopping the player from customizing an agent that decreases mitochondria efficiency in a hostile cell by 100% (which seems pretty overpowered)?

You don't have access to everything right away. What's initially available to you has a random effect and low efficiency. There is a cap on how efficiently the organelle does its job.

Then we'll have to decide how does the effects work:

• What effects are possible
  
• How and how much do they scale
  
• What is avaible for diferent species and how do they unlock new effects
  

Sounds like a reason to create  a new thread.
If I have permission?

---
edit just realized this is my two hundredth post. Yea, I am a regular.

Go ahead. It does seem to me like something that will need some discusion and polishing.

The thread is UP

https://thrivegame.canadaboard.net/t1210-agents-discussion#24824

There were still gaps in the concept that Nimbal pointed some time ago, about movement and organelle unlocking. Did it reach a conclusion? I would still like to say that the finding new parts is a bad idea we've already seen it in Spore. It's not only biologically incorrect but provides bad gameplay too, unlocking organelles mutation points is far better, gives a strategy element deciding witch upgrades to acquire to get to what specialization at the end, would it be super fast microbe with 5 flagellum and cilia all around it, would it be a killer cell producing deadly toxins or a tank with a thick cellular wall. I think that the game should encourage the players to think how to survive not to encourage them to swim around looking for parts. Except mitochondria and chloroplast still acquired from the environment.

I think a combination of the two would be best, because although unlocking encourages a more strategic approach, endocytosis encourages the player to explore, compete, and be adventurous, and as a result rewards them with new organelles for the risks they faced.

A combination of the two? You mean, the player can acquire organelles both by unlocking and endocytosis? Or do you have something else on your mind?

I know i'm changing the subject again and in the initial release there won't be auto-evo implemented but i can't find a thread about it. So here's whats on my mind, new game is started all the microbes are almost the same in the begging different only a little to color, shape and size. These attributes are randomly generated and every species has a population saved as integer, when a microbe is rendered and the player kills it the integer is reduces by 1 and saved again, when the integer reaches 0 the species is extinct but the player does not receive a message or anything just stops encountering that types of microbes. The AI microbes evolve every 10 minutes, their population integer is increased +1, at first only gaining volume so they have space for organelles later on, then start upgrading and unlocking new organelles randomly.
Every new game the environment has different properties pH, viscosity, balance of compunds etc. So AI microbes evolving aerobic feeding in game where oxygen is a scarce for instance would be less successful that ones evolving anaerobic. They would be dying more often and would eventually get extinct.

Tritium wrote:

I know i'm changing the subject again and in the initial release there won't be auto-evo implemented but i can't find a thread about it. So here's whats on my mind, new game is started all the microbes are almost the same in the begging different only a little to color, shape and size. These attributes are randomly generated and every species has a population saved as integer, when a microbe is rendered and the player kills it the integer is reduces by 1 and saved again, when the integer reaches 0 the species is extinct but the player does not receive a message or anything just stops encountering that types of microbes. The AI microbes evolve every 10 minutes, their population integer is increased +1, at first only gaining volume so they have space for organelles later on, then start upgrading and unlocking new organelles randomly.
Every new game the environment has different properties pH, viscosity, balance of compunds etc. So AI microbes evolving aerobic feeding in game where oxygen is a scarce for instance would be less successful that ones evolving anaerobic. They would be dying more often and would eventually get extinct.

There's a HUGE (and amazing) post about Auto-Evo which basically outlines everything about how it's going to work here (second post down): https://thrivegame.canadaboard.net/t933p60-population-dynamics . Your ideas about the starting position and differing conditions don't contradict this and actually sound quite good, so they'll probably be implemented too.

Sorry for detracting from the current discussion. Resume as you wish.

Tarpy wrote:

A combination of the two? You mean, the player can acquire organelles both by unlocking and endocytosis? Or do you have something else on your mind?

I mean some are obtained by endocytosis and others by mutation. I just noticed, however, that I had missed part of Tritium's post that said mitochondria and chloroplasts/thermoplasts be obtained by endocytosis, so I agree with what he said. That is actually the current concept on the topic.

Well, for just changing shape can't a simple GUI button somewhere "move hex cell" do the work or some hot-key?

I think a click and drag of hexes could work.

Tritium wrote:

Well, for just changing shape can't a simple GUI button somewhere "move hex cell" do the work or some hot-key?

I'm in with this idea. Select a tool to rearrange hexes instead of delete or create them.

I feel clicking and dragging would be the simplest and most intuitive route, instead of adding another button for something most people will attempt click and drag anyway.

As a sidenote, I think it would be good to have a right-click delete a hexagon, so you can either right/left click or click and drag to build out your cell without moving back and forth from a sidebar.

That sounds good. So long as there are no objections, I think we should go with that.

EDIT: Btw, nice avatar pic.

The problem with that system is you could go from something like this:

Spoiler:

to something like this:

Spoiler:

in only one generation - there are the same number of cell shape hexes in each. This was one of Spore's main problems: you could end up with a completely different creature to the one you started with, which is not how evolution works.

Maybe we should wait until we have something programmed and test both systems. We may not be able to visualise what would happen without it actually being implemented into the game.

Oliveriver is right maybe we don't need movable hex cells to change shape, adding and deleting cells would cost MP and changes to shape would be gradual.

Movable hex cells should be kept, in my opinion. I think an idea that might work would be that if you move a hex cell to an adjacent, empty cell, it doesn't cost any MP. However, if you move it any further than that, it will cost MP.

FalmerbloodElixir wrote:

Movable hex cells should be kept, in my opinion. I think an idea that might work would be that if you move a hex cell to an adjacent, empty cell, it doesn't cost any MP. However, if you move it any further than that, it will cost MP.

This doesn't stop Oliver's situation from happening, it just makes it more difficult to do.
I'm leaning towards all hex movement having a cost or limiting the number of swaps possible.

How about 2 MP to add or delete a hex, but 1 MP to move one?

~sciocont wrote:

FalmerbloodElixir wrote:

Movable hex cells should be kept, in my opinion. I think an idea that might work would be that if you move a hex cell to an adjacent, empty cell, it doesn't cost any MP. However, if you move it any further than that, it will cost MP.

This doesn't stop Oliver's situation from happening, it just makes it more difficult to do.
I'm leaning towards all hex movement having a cost or limiting the number of swaps possible.

If you're talking about the player just moving the hex, and then moving it again in the same editing session, I think that should be fairly easy to fix (though maybe not from a programming perspective). The editor would just need to "remember" where a hex was upon the start of the editing session.

Also, a limited number of things you can do each editor section. 25, maybe?