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

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.

Yes, I will soon have a period of free time in my schedule in which I will make significant changes to the wiki's content. For now, I'll add in a short blurb to the homepage saying that the wiki is currently a WIP and not all things in it are accurate.

Well Nick, biotics isn't magic, it is just science that is advanced enough that it merely mimics magic. I am in agreement with not having Element Zero (haven't played ME), but I am just saying that it is all about the perspective of things.

And with the TE combining artificial exoskeleton, and bionics that can conduct energy, would that be able to mimic such abilities without relying on an Element Zero-esque material?

Biotics is magic, in terms of ME, as I just said, because its based off of an element that doesn't exist. If you don't like the word magic, call it something else, but my point is that since element zero doesn't actually exist, any derivations from it (biotics) also cannot exist.

Yes, that's what I just said, that technology will fill those purposes that ME needed element zero for.

Right, right, my bad.

EDIT: And, I am likely to have asked this already, but, is immortality for your species in Thrive possible to achieve separately from turning into energy/Ascension?

What comes to my mind is a race that has replaced their bodies with machinery, a race that has bioengineered their bodies to resist entropy, maybe taking traits from cancer cells (naturally immortal if they have nutrients), or even a clone society, where no one can truly die since they can be uploaded to a new clone body.

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

Right, right, my bad.

EDIT: And, I am likely to have asked this already, but, is immortality for your species in Thrive possible to achieve separately from turning into energy/Ascension?

What comes to my mind is a race that has replaced their bodies with machinery, a race that has bioengineered their bodies to resist entropy, maybe taking traits from cancer cells (naturally immortal if they have nutrients), or even a clone society, where no one can truly die since they can be uploaded to a new clone body.

I'm pretty sure there are some micro organisms one earth that can only die via being killed by another organism, so those are basically immortal.

Lightning_Scarz wrote:

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

Right, right, my bad.

EDIT: And, I am likely to have asked this already, but, is immortality for your species in Thrive possible to achieve separately from turning into energy/Ascension?

What comes to my mind is a race that has replaced their bodies with machinery, a race that has bioengineered their bodies to resist entropy, maybe taking traits from cancer cells (naturally immortal if they have nutrients), or even a clone society, where no one can truly die since they can be uploaded to a new clone body.

I'm pretty sure there are some micro organisms one earth that can only die via being killed by another organism, so those are basically immortal.

What do you mean by not being able to be killed by the environment? If you put it in molten lead, I doubt anything would survive longer than a second.

Tarpy wrote:

Lightning_Scarz wrote:

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

Right, right, my bad.

EDIT: And, I am likely to have asked this already, but, is immortality for your species in Thrive possible to achieve separately from turning into energy/Ascension?

What comes to my mind is a race that has replaced their bodies with machinery, a race that has bioengineered their bodies to resist entropy, maybe taking traits from cancer cells (naturally immortal if they have nutrients), or even a clone society, where no one can truly die since they can be uploaded to a new clone body.

I'm pretty sure there are some micro organisms one earth that can only die via being killed by another organism, so those are basically immortal.

What do you mean by not being able to be killed by the environment? If you put it in molten lead, I doubt anything would survive longer than a second.

My bad,i meant that it basically can't die due to old age. everything else could kill it though.

Past the RTS stages nothing ages anymore, its basically turned off.

I'm bringing up an old question of mine that I never really got a clear answer to.

In Spore, creatures know your a predator after you kill at least one of their nest mates (Then they do the worst fleeing attempt you ever saw) and when you catch them, they fight back.

I want a simple answer.

Will other animals automatically know you're dangerous as a predator? You may encounter a new species of prey for the first time. How would they be programmed to react to something they've never seen?

That's up to the AI designers and coders to create. Ideally, there would be some inherent degree of intimidation in any creature based off of its size, appearance, behaviour, etc.

There hasn't been a devblog in over 6 months. Has it just been uneventful, or did something happen?

Well that just means none of the devs have taken the time to write a devblog. It doesn't mean nothing has happened.

In the real world, when a species is separated by a natural barrier, it will evolve into two different species.
Can this happen to our creatures? Like as time goes by, will different variations, so to speak, evolve off our own creature creating two separate, but similar creatures?

Lightning_Scarz wrote:

In the real world, when a species is separated by a natural barrier, it will evolve into two different species.
Can this happen to our creatures? Like as time goes by, will different variations, so to speak, evolve off our own creature creating two separate, but similar creatures?

hybrids or convergent evolution?

I think hybrids were determined to be too complex.

Convergent evolution is the same answer for the same problems over different species.

Speciation I think is planned to be able to happen, and a notification is possible when it does happen if the player wants to switch.