Miscellaneous Bugs And Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

How linear will scientific discovery be? Will different creatures be limited to one tech path? Is it possible to lose?

There is a whole tree for technology research, and creatures will only be limited to techs by their cost, and how they are implemented on the player's planet really.

What do you mean by lose? You can't lose tech, but you can lose the ability to make Tech Objects I think, even if temporarily.

If you mean lose as in a game over then that is possible when your species goes extinct, or your nation is entirely exterminated.

I meant lose as in game over. Sorry for confusing you.

It's no problem, that's why I answered both possibilities.

EDIT: Although now I have a question too.

1. Can clothing be made from the hides of other creatures, and similarly if they have fur?

I had a second question but I seem to have forgotten it.

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

Although now I have a question too.

1. Can clothing be made from the hides of other creatures, and similarly if they have fur?

I had a second question but I seem to have forgotten it.

As of now, no plans for actual clothes exist that I know of. Amour is a feature that will be added in the middle stages of society development, once the bulk of the tech editor and combat systems has been made. These would obviously have a function in combat. Regular citizen clothes would be pointless and hard to implement.

Thank you for answering to the best of your knowledge Tarpy.

I was discussing my idea for life on gas giants with my sibling, and they offered some insight. A very small creature could actually survive near the core due to its small size allowing it to resist the pressures. Thermosynthesis could actually work down that far due to the insulation of the gas and friction of the heavier gases. Photosynthesis could work as a supplement to filter feeding on the higher levels of the gas as well.

And again, I know that the focus for now is on terrestrial life, but I believe it wouldn't hurt to share this. And if anyone has something to improve or make this more correct scientifically, that would be most appreciated.

Tarpy wrote:

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

Although now I have a question too.

1. Can clothing be made from the hides of other creatures, and similarly if they have fur?

I had a second question but I seem to have forgotten it.

As of now, no plans for actual clothes exist that I know of. Amour is a feature that will be added in the middle stages of society development, once the bulk of the tech editor and combat systems has been made. These would obviously have a function in combat. Regular citizen clothes would be pointless and hard to implement.

True, but it would be awkward to see an entire empire running around naked. maybe the devs could come up with something like auto-evo, but a lesser version for clothes?

Lightning_Scarz wrote:

Tarpy wrote:

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

Although now I have a question too.

1. Can clothing be made from the hides of other creatures, and similarly if they have fur?

I had a second question but I seem to have forgotten it.

As of now, no plans for actual clothes exist that I know of. Amour is a feature that will be added in the middle stages of society development, once the bulk of the tech editor and combat systems has been made. These would obviously have a function in combat. Regular citizen clothes would be pointless and hard to implement.

True, but it would be awkward to see an entire empire running around naked. maybe the devs could come up with something like auto-evo, but a lesser version for clothes?

Well, it would also be weird for being able to advance from the stone age to space in something like 3-4 hours (probably, we're still not sure how long an average society stage game would take).

This would be quite hard to implement unless we just took a texture and put it over the creature. It would still be hard due to the fact that the game would have to determine where to put the textures. Also, since you would be in birds eye view, you would very rarely get to see such a small detail.

Remember, programmers cannot just wave a magic wand and implement such features. There are also other much more important features, and clothes will be at the bottom of our todo list once we get to the society stage.

While trying to keep up with the information overflow I experience by aiming to get to a status in which I might finally become somewhat helpful for the development of Thrive, there are some more or less sporadic questions that jumped into my mind which I would like to ask here (sorted loosely by topic):

- Microbe / multicellular stage:
1. What exactly will be the difference between microbe and multicellular stage?
2. What kinds of effects will the characteristics of the planet you play on have during the microbe / multicellular stage?

- Creature / organism stage:
3. Is there going to be some sort of an immune system system in the game?^^
4. In which way will the gameplay in creature/organism stage affect the evolution on the planet?

- Society stage and higher (possibly including space stage):
5. Would it be possible for (computer controlled) creature species to become so large and/or dangerous that they would still impose a threat during the society or higher stages?
6. Would it be possible to create some sort of zoo or exhibit for creatures? Aside from being a fun element, this could bring boni for domestication by cattle breeding, science by examining the creatures or straightforward entertainment of citizens.
7. Would it be possible to create some sort of surveillance state? If yes, what effects would that have? Would the effects also be dependent of the current level of technology your species has acquired? (This is also a thought inspired by the brain plug thing discussion from page 35)
8. Would it be possible to use carnivorous or otherwise dangerous plants to strengthen fortifications with them?
9. Assuming that there will be some sort of government system: Will there be a political oppisition in some cases? If yes, what gameplay effects would that have?
10. Would your equipped soldiers still be able to use their "creature" abilities originating from the creature/organism stage to fight each other? If yes, would that also enable more spectacular infantry battles between opposing space nations? (Admittably, the last sentence seems rather redundant. But I like the imagination it creates in my mind, so I will just leave it there :P)
11. Would it be possible for vehicle desings to have multiple autonom engines to offer a substitute-mode-of-movement once the currently used engine becomes too damaged / inappropriate for the terrain type of the path the vehicle is told to cross?
12. Would corruption play a role in the game?
13. Regarding big cities / metropoles, it would seem a bit awkward to me if they were consisting of the same type of appartment building repeated numerous types. On the other hand, having the player to create every single fragment of a whole civilization seems a bit overkill to me, so the question is: How many types of creations would the player have to create in the editors and to what extent will there be a possibility for the player to give his species "voluntary" unique and variated in-depth designs in terms of infrastructure, industry, aforementioned fortifications etc. ?

- Space stage:
14. Would it be possible for an extremely highly technologised AI-controlled nation to reach ascension?
15. Would it be possible to attach engines to comets to get a mobile template that could be further expanded to a mobile space fortress (depending on the comets size) / special kind of space ship / just a piloted projectile to crash into your arch-enemy's home planet?

- Miscellaneous:
16. What if you control a species that can look into different directions with its eyes? Would that be represented on the screen by splitting it in parts? Otherwise, what effect would that have on gameplay?
17.

NickTheNick wrote:

I don't think we will have a dynamic system keeping track of air flow and scent wafting.

Is that still the case? I am by no means an expert, but afaik air flows from cold to warm areas near the ground and in the opposite direction in higher levels. Taking the planet's temperature zones in count, wouldn't that enable a primitive, but seemingly efficient estimation of named air flow and scent wafting?
18. To what extent is there going to be a liquid simulation / variation by different types of liquids?
19. As far as I have read yet, an endangered population has a higher chance of evolving due to the small number of specimen and the resulting higher impact of an occurred mutation. However, discussing the topic of evolution in my biology class, my teacher was of the opinion that a reduced number of speciment would rather decrease the change of evolving because the consequently reduced number of births would lead to a smaller [number and thus] probability of mutations to occur. Regarding that you have had quite certainly a deeper contact with such topics than me, what is your opinion to this controversy?

The Multicellular stage begins when your cell first bonds with another cell of its species to form a colony or organism.
The planet you are on will not really affect the first two stages because they mostly take place in the ocean near a hydrothermal vent.

Immune systems and disease are currently not planned, but can be added in in a future release once the groundwork for the aware stage is finished.
The population dynamics system would most likely answer that, and I'm not well acquainted with it.

Yes, but it's not very practical for an organism to go past a certain size because the amount of energy they would consume would not be able to be realistically supplied from their environment or their body's ability to hunt.
Yes, animals can be both domesticated, studied, or just kept in exhibits.
If you mean like a dystopian state such as Orwell's 1984, you can achieve such a thing but it will not go into that much detail. Freedom sliders for religion, social, and economic freedoms reflect the policies of your state.
Yes, if your species planted them in strategic positions to attack any organism that passed through. However, it's not a very practical defensive technique.
No political opposition. Only the possibility of rebellions in cities with low stability.
Yes, they can still use their creature abilities. 
More engines will only mean more horsepower. It will be the wheels/tracks or whatever that determine movement on terrain.
Corruption won't be in the game.
The player can design buildings, but they can also choose from presets. Cities can start automating construction of buildings once the player discovers a certain tech. 

No, only the player can reach ascensions. Otherwise the player could potentially lose in the Microbe Stage, plus it's only meant for the player to be able to manipulate the galaxy from a God Mode POV. There's no point in letting AI get there.
Possibly, that concept hasn't been fleshed out yet. Probably not at first but to be added in to a later release.

Yes, it would split the screen, but that would be really disorienting so I would recommend to any player not to do that.
Only the part of the planet in the vicinity of the player's organism is simulated at a time, while the rest undergoes population dynamics. Also, simulating the flow of air across an entire planet seems like an extremely difficult thing to code in or even conceptualize, and I don't know if the warm-cold rule is enough for that. Weathermen today can barely predict the weather accurately more than a day in advance, with most of it being assumptions.  
There is some discussion to have simple fluid dynamics in the microbe, multicellular, and aware stages.
The last question I'll leave someone better qualified to answer.

NickTheNick wrote:

Huge Post of Awesomeness and Awnsers

While I know that when we will be able to become a multi cellular organism, Can we stay as a Single cellular, and then be like a Plague or Virus, and just infect a multicellular organism and use their body as their own? One example of this would be Cymothoa Exigua ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymothoa_exigua ) Or another example being Ophiocordyceps unilateralis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis ) Where they use the bodies of other organisms, while being relatively small to them, and use them to its advantage in reproduction, feeding, or any other works?

No.

EDIT: Let me elaborate, yes you can stay as a single cell, but you will eternally be in the primordial tidepool. Adding a whole new path to the game where you become a virus or bacteria is both not possible because those are different than what the player is playing as, and it would also require the internals of other organisms on a cellular level, which is not only ludicrous to expect but would make your computer commit suicide.

So were still using ogre or do you want to use overgrowth's engine?

Jimexmore wrote:

So were still using ogre or do you want to use overgrowth's engine?

This is a zero budget game. Therefore, no proprietary engines such as Phoenix.

AlexaiZ wrote:

Jimexmore wrote:

So were still using ogre or do you want to use overgrowth's engine?

This is a zero budget game. Therefore, no proprietary engines such as Phoenix.

I have connections. I could get it then distribute it.
I asked that question because of that advanced melee combat system it has.

I have two things here that, they wouldn't really fit in the organ design thread in my opinion because they aren't necessarily organs, but I am wondering where they would fit.

Sphincter
Use: distraction, defense
Description: these are muscles that contract to constrict blood flow to a limb so that the creature can detach that. Must be placed between bones or vertebrae. (for simplicity's sake)

Folded Phalange
Use: weapon
Description: This is a piece of bone that naturally folds over the phalanges behind it, and has a claw. Flesh automatically creates a sheath for the claws, and muscle will automatically allow for it to be retracted or unsheathed at will. Length of the claw can be adjusted.

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

I have two things here that, they wouldn't really fit in the organ design thread in my opinion because they aren't necessarily organs, but I am wondering where they would fit.

Sphincter
Use: distraction, defense
Description: these are muscles that contract to constrict blood flow to a limb so that the creature can detach that. Must be placed between bones or vertebrae. (for simplicity's sake)

Folded Phalange
Use: weapon
Description: This is a piece of bone that naturally folds over the phalanges behind it, and has a claw. Flesh automatically creates a sheath for the claws, and muscle will automatically allow for it to be retracted or unsheathed at will. Length of the claw can be adjusted.

So, basically alien geckos and cats.

Well, if a pinning and grappling system is added in, as I heard before, the Sphincter could be very useful, but at the same time, this could be dangerous for the creature. They didn't plan on diseases, at least on initial release if I remember correctly, but if those are added in, the creature runs the risk of catching an infection since it just lost a whole part of its body. Plus, the lost part would have to grow back, keep that in mind, or else it's a one time defense.

The phalanges depend on if the animal's claws can wear down. (And teeth as an assumed second) If so, then there's an option for the player. Sharp claws but less grip, making it harder to chase prey but easier to kill it. Or dull claws and better grip, so that it's easier to maneuver to keep up with prey, but you better not rely on killing by using claws.

A point that I want to bring up is when you're chasing prey. If prey doesn't flee, and flee for its artificial life, I will never forgive the developers. We don't want the fleeing system like Spore, do we? They're likelier to cower in fear, and when they do run, an eighty year old lady could outrun them.

The point I have to bring up is camera issues. This is assuming we can have a first OR third person view, depending on what the preference is. The player will have a wonderful time trying to keep the direction of the camera and their creature focused when in pursuit, or fleeing.

For first person, we are, as the name implies, seeing as the creature sees. This one isn't so problematic. Someone who wants to move to a better spot but keep an eye on their target could easily do so, I would think. Just use a 'strafe' (as many games term it) while keeping the vision focused on the target, you can move almost any direction and keep your vision focused. Watch out for trees though.

The problem begins in third person, where we can see out creatures in all their glory, preparing to catch lunch for the day. So the hunt starts, a target is picked and the predator can close in, but what if the prey makes a sudden left turn? My concern is in how the camera control will work with the creature movement. I have thought of a few things.

1. You can lock the camera behind your creature, so that mouse movement contributes to creature movement. (Good luck keeping up with your prey when you can't turn on a dime otherwise.)

2. Lock the camera onto the target, so that you can see where it goes and allow you to react. The camera would unlock either by your command, the death of the target, or too far of a distance from the target.

3. Camera movement and creature movement could also be the same. A camera function like Primal Carnage, for instance. (For those of you who have played it, you'd understand.) For those of you who've not played, I'll explain it, and this is only in relation to the way the camera would move for the dinosaurs in that game, since they are strictly third person. When not moving, you can make the camera face any which way, and your dino's head would follow to the best of its ability, or face straight forward if you face straight back. When moving, turning the camera turns the dinosaur. Some of them much quicker than others, I might add. This allows you to move any which way (using 'strafing') and keep an eye on one certain point.

I brought this up because I'd not seen anything on it yet, and bad camera controls can ruin a game. (Overlord and Overlord two, hard to move camera without moving minions.)

Anyway, that's just my thoughts. Good day.

I think an option to switch the camera modes is in the books.

After reading some of the Thrive Wiki, I am a little concerned about the direction this game is going. Since so many people are working on this project, and many people have different areas of expertise and knowledge about nature, it is likely that these people will wish that the phenomena they understand are going to make it into the game. Conversely, phenomena that do not happen in real life may end up being unwelcome as features in Thrive.

As a small example, in the Wiki, under "Arbitrary Mechanics" in the Media section, I see seven ways for media to be circulated, including the mostly redundant Internet, radio, and televised. While I understand that media circulation is highly complicated in real life, the end result ends up being about the same. Some people receive information, and then they tell others about it. I feel like such features would add very little to gameplay and only postpone the completion of the game.

For an example of the converse situation, there have been countless discussions about underwater civilizations, all ending in a negative response. I hate to bring it up again, but it serves as an excellent example. The consensus usually ends up being that you can't create fire underwater, so you can't do metal working, so aquatic creatures cannot become advanced. However, the idea of a civilization developing underwater with completely different house designs (no need to worry about gravity) has the potential to open up new dimensions of gameplay. While I do not necessarily endorse the specific feature of underwater civilizations, I do recommend that we do not simply dismiss ideas because we have not observed them in real life.

I have thought about this for a while, and I have come to believe that the real fun of a game comes from the learning aspect. If by playing the game, the player continuously learns about new features or gameplay dynamics (especially gameplay dynamics), the game will end up being a lot more fun. When I say gameplay dynamics, I am talking about the way features work together to add a new dimension of strategies and other activities. For example, this is what makes Chess fun. The way that the different pieces work together in thousands of different ways makes every game a learning experience.

So, in terms of the development of Thrive, I believe that we need to design gameplay aspects not necessarily because they make the game more scientifically accurate, but because they open up new gameplay options. I am not saying that realism needs to be discarded completely, since a game that has more realistic elements can be more immersive. I am instead saying that we should not add realism just for the sake of realism, and we should especially avoid sacrificing too many gameplay opportunities in favor of realism.

With that in mind, does anyone have anything to add?

I merged this with this thread since I'm pretty sure this is one of the well established principle of making Thrive. It is true that realism cannot come at the sacrifice of fun, nor the other way around, but a balance of simplicity, science, and playability, as ~sciocont's signature says.

The wiki is actually pretty inaccurate in some areas, such as choosing forms of media, which is cut from the concept because it doesn't have much effect, as you stated.

With underwater civilizations, the player is free to build houses as they want underwater, because shelter was something that societies had in the stone age. However, the dismissal of underwater civilizations is not based on lack of observance, but of lack of compliance with science. Underwater species can trade or get uplifted for metal, or a species can be amphibious to get fire/metal, or they can begin as terrestrial and then when technology permits it build cities underwater.

However, I do think realism has a lot to offer in and of itself. Adding realism can in many ways indirectly increase the fun and immersion of the game. Of course, it is true that realism cannot come at the price of making the game less fun or engaging, but something like studying allometry and animal locomotion as observed in nature to come up with a realistic as possible simulation of it in Thrive would be very thrilling, particularly to see how it would affect the gameplay, to see how organisms would evolve to move in the game in ways that we have not seen on Earth, etc. It would make how the player designed their creature really impact the gameplay in a meaningful way, as opposed to what Spore had. However, once you get to the Awakening Stage, scientific simulation mostly goes out the window, and the focus is mostly just to make a good RTS.

Nonetheless, I understand what you're saying. At one point, if I recall correctly, the consensus was that the player could not guide the evolution of their species. However, this was changed because it meant that the player would not get to evolve their creature, which is half the fun. Another example is that there was a suggestion to make the RTS parts of the game completely locked to the perspective of a general or a leader, which would be terrible gameplay-wise because the semi-omniscience of an RTS game is necessary to allow the player to enjoy managing a large group or country.

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

I think an option to switch the camera modes is in the books.

Who downvoted this

Immortal Dragon wrote:

It sounds good to me, using the digestive system as mode of infection.

So say this just causes a drain to the infected organism's stats, like its stamina? And since it acts like a venom or toxin, I think it would be implement-able.

this

Immortal Dragon wrote:

Thank you for answering to the best of your knowledge Tarpy.

I was discussing my idea for life on gas giants with my sibling, and they offered some insight. A very small creature could actually survive near the core due to its small size allowing it to resist the pressures. Thermosynthesis could actually work down that far due to the insulation of the gas and friction of the heavier gases. Photosynthesis could work as a supplement to filter feeding on the higher levels of the gas as well.

And again, I know that the focus for now is on terrestrial life, but I believe it wouldn't hurt to share this. And if anyone has something to improve or make this more correct scientifically, that would be most appreciated.

this, and 10 more of your posts, ImmortalDragon? Someone was obviously trolling, so am I going to go and fix your reputation since you do not deserve losing so much rep.

I am also going to try and figure out what troll did this...

EDIT: I just discovered who did this, I will send a PM to the administration and ImmortalDragon

They say that sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, so i was wondering...
would it be possible to implement a form of magic or, as it's known in the Mass Effect universe, Biotics? cause the Asari in mass effect aren't particularly strong physically, but their the best biotics in the galaxy. so you could evolve these biotic abilities in your creature, allowing them to lift stuff, create shields and shoot balls of energy. And then they could use it in the later stages?

Or will it have to be really advanced science that allows you to do it?

Or will this idea never exist in thrive at all?

@Tarpy

Thanks, I'll let administration handle that how they see fit.

@Lightning_Scarz

It would be scientifically possible with advanced technology. It would just have to follow the rule that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the energy would have to come from somewhere.

So, advanced technology may be a yes, but I don't know the devs' opinions on this.

Lightning_Scarz wrote:

They say that sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, so i was wondering...
would it be possible to implement a form of magic or, as it's known in the Mass Effect universe, Biotics? cause the Asari in mass effect aren't particularly strong physically, but their the best biotics in the galaxy. so you could evolve these biotic abilities in your creature, allowing them to lift stuff, create shields and shoot balls of energy. And then they could use it in the later stages?

Or will it have to be really advanced science that allows you to do it?

Or will this idea never exist in thrive at all?

Element Zero does not exist, therefore biotics in terms of ME cannot exist. However, there is technology that allows organisms to lift greater loads, called artificial exoskeletons, and there are techs for shields and firing energy beams as well. Magic is not necessary.

NickTheNick wrote:

The wiki is actually pretty inaccurate in some areas, such as choosing forms of media, which is cut from the concept because it doesn't have much effect, as you stated.

OK. I am definitely more comfortable with how this game is going if the wiki does not represent the current consensus. That being said, for newcomers, perhaps the wiki should be updated, or a tag should be attached that says that it contains inaccurate information.