death by assassination or just a tree fell one you

How about becoming the next born creature of your species, who is born after you died, as long you haven't unlocked observer mode?

Please don't bumb these threads, they are old, no need to.

Actually its the newest thread i found about it, second the last post before my posts was less then 1 month before. So tought a thread, with a post younger as one month is still a go. Sorry for the case, that it is different here, then i will avoid it in the future.

Bumping a relevant thread is better than making a new one, and it's fine as long as you add to the discussion (rather than just saying something like 'Bump').

I thought we had come to a decision on this, but that seems the best option. That or the most recently born infant, both seem good options. We could also go with nearest living member of the species. I think letting the player choose would be preferable, none seem to give too much of an obvious advantage over the other and I don't think this would take too long to program either.

Note: What happens when the player dies is relevant in cell stage too, if this hasn't been already been decided now is the time to do it.

Indeed. I have also tought about the possibility. Some problems i noticed here, also if you have a species with some subspecies (if this is possible in the early state), where the one you want play is very rare, could become a bit difficult, if we don't have additional possibilities.
Same problem would have my favorite species aswell.
By the ponies, we have 4 subspecies. One of them are the royal alicorns who are also the leader and the strongest one. But they make less then 1% of the population and are very long living (in fact immortal, but i don't know if this would work by subspecies). So a new Alicorn foal would be a very rare event.
So we have to be able to select the subspecies and the waiting time for a new birth. Eventually the game can set up the birth of another member of such a rare species (if we want to play as a new born) in this case. Donno how it will be programmed.

Silver Sterling wrote:

Indeed. I have also tought about the possibility. Some problems i noticed here, also if you have a species with some subspecies (if this is possible in the early state), where the one you want play is very rare, could become a bit difficult, if we don't have additional possibilities.
Same problem would have my favorite species aswell.
By the ponies, we have 4 subspecies. One of them are the royal alicorns who are also the leader and the strongest one. But they make less then 1% of the population and are very long living (in fact immortal, but i don't know if this would work by subspecies). So a new Alicorn foal would be a very rare event.
So we have to be able to select the subspecies and the waiting time for a new birth. Eventually the game can set up the birth of another member of such a rare species (if we want to play as a new born) in this case. Donno how it will be programmed.

You have to remember, even in long-living species, there are always other causes of death than old age. Humans can currently live generally up to 100 year old, but early humans would rarely make it to 40, due to constant a much higher risk of starvation, attack from predators, lack of antibiotics, and so on. These factors also cause differing life expectancies around the world:

Wikipedia, Enemy To Encyclopaedia Salespeople wrote:

There are significant differences in life expectancy around the world. The developed world is generally aging, with the median age around 40 years. In the developing world the median age is between 15 and 20 years.

To maintain the population, births will still have to occur. Additionally, naturally, the birth rate is higher than the death rate, to increase population; long life plus high birthrate equals a thriving species, so evolution will make sure a species breeds, even if it means overpopulation (See Humans for more info ). Either way, the birthrate wont end up too low.

Simply put, I don't think that will be a problem. If a problem ever arises, we can always worry about it then.

Yes indeed. Think one ways to be able to control the birth rate would be as a behavor (AI Editor) of the subspecies (should only work, if we already have a nation, otherwise they woudn't know how many other of their species are there), or a direct regulation in the nation editor (this sounds very China like now ^^). But think best way to have such a species i plan will be in god mode. What leads to another question, but because i didn't want to move everything offtopic here, i post it in the other general thread.

Silver Sterling wrote:

Yes indeed. Think one ways to be able to control the birth rate would be as a behavor (AI Editor) of the subspecies (should only work, if we already have a nation, otherwise they woudn't know how many other of their species are there), or a direct regulation in the nation editor (this sounds very China like now ^^). But think best way to have such a species i plan will be in god mode. What leads to another question, but because i didn't want to move everything offtopic here, i post it in the other general thread.

I don't think one would be able contol birth rate of his Species, I mean, His own Species, Only if he uses the china model...

Depends of the AI and the thinking of the species and you can define it free, what i heard. Could be like: The species is a bit conceited and thinks, it is special and that there shoudn't be so many of itself. We don't know how other species could think.
And the nation system will indeed look like china. So don't expect your peoples to be happy about it.

So are you able to pick a new species, or just go to a new individual of you own species?


If you can pick any creature, you should make 'bookmarks'. So you can bookmark your species you made, and say, some other thing you like to play as a lot.

So, our options:

Closest living relative - Good, but hard to implement, required tracking of the entire planet's population's relationships, or more, in case of super-extinctions.

Player's choice - Easy to implement, since it is already planned for a god tool, and doesn't require much complicated code. However, it could make gameplay a bit easier in some cases.

Random - Random creature from the species/planet/galaxy. Good choice if it only scales up when necessary.


So, we seem to have two viable options. Can anyone think of any others? If not, we'll stick with those.

In my opinion it should depend on what phase you are at. If the user has acces to strategy mode, it should just move you back into strategy mode, and from there you can choose another creature to control. If the user doesen't have strategy mode unlocked yet, just place him in the next born creature of the same species, or a random one, preferebly in the zone he died.

Even without god tools the player is able to switch between the two modes if he chooses a creature of his species, right?

In order to make player death more significant, I think it should affect its species. Something like losing 10% of the species population when the player controlled creature dies.

Daniferrito wrote:

In my opinion it should depend on what phase you are at. If the user has acces to strategy mode, it should just move you back into strategy mode, and from there you can choose another creature to control. If the user doesen't have strategy mode unlocked yet, just place him in the next born creature of the same species, or a random one, preferebly in the zone he died.

Even without god tools the player is able to switch between the two modes if he chooses a creature of his species, right?

In order to make player death more significant, I think it should affect its species. Something like losing 10% of the species population when the player controlled creature dies.

Actually, that's a good idea. Though maybe the next born in the player's area - the game doesn't simulate entire planets at once.

Yes, the player can switch freely, but only control their species. Though, I think they can choose which species to control when their species branches, of the two new species produced.

I think we shouldn't force the player to not die - games are meant to be fun, so in my opinion punishing the playing for not playing well or in the way we want them to isn't the thing to do. Playing normally is more fun than constantly dying, I know that from gaming experience, so I think players wont play the game to do that anyway.

Yes, I was meaning the closer one.

Ok, you convinced me about the death. I was thinking about death in minecraft, when for example you are hungry, you can just store everything you have, suicide, and be instantly healed up and full hunger. But still, people dont do that, just because of the feeling that what they did wasn't right.

Daniferrito wrote:

Yes, I was meaning the closer one.

Ok, you convinced me about the death. I was thinking about death in minecraft, when for example you are hungry, you can just store everything you have, suicide, and be instantly healed up and full hunger. But still, people dont do that, just because of the feeling that what they did wasn't right.

Precisely.