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

Daniferrito wrote:

There should be nothing that can kill the player without the player being able to do sonething to avoid it. Even in hardest dificulties, no star should go supernova before the player has the hability to colonize other solar systems.

I do not agree. There must be, as in this example, some possibilities where the defeat not depend on the player.

Obviously I'm a very low percentage, but must be present. Thrive must be realistic under all points of view. I think so.

Doggit wrote:

Daniferrito wrote:

There should be nothing that can kill the player without the player being able to do sonething to avoid it. Even in hardest dificulties, no star should go supernova before the player has the hability to colonize other solar systems.

I do not agree. There must be, as in this example, some possibilities where the defeat not depend on the player.

Obviously I'm a very low percentage, but must be present. Thrive must be realistic under all points of view. I think so.

The player would have the option to turn this on and off. By default, it would be off.

Doggit wrote:

Daniferrito wrote:

There should be nothing that can kill the player without the player being able to do sonething to avoid it. Even in hardest dificulties, no star should go supernova before the player has the hability to colonize other solar systems.

I do not agree. There must be, as in this example, some possibilities where the defeat not depend on the player.

Obviously I'm a very low percentage, but must be present. Thrive must be realistic under all points of view. I think so.

Usually, having insta-deaths that are not dependant on the player are not good for the game. Say you have a very realistic first-person shooter that simulates a random war. You get droped into a zone. 30 seconds later, a bomb drops over you and kills all your squadron. Would that be fun for the player? Not at all.

We are trying to be realistic, but after all this is a game.

By climate on planet being more dangerous, i meant it would be harder to survive beacuse:
When its very cold, or very warm, plants can barely survive, which hardens your surviving if you are herbivore...
And without meat, carnivores would start starving and eat each other.
And then you can say: Goodbye Ecosystem!
Thats why it would be harder.

Daniferrito wrote:

Doggit wrote:

Daniferrito wrote:

There should be nothing that can kill the player without the player being able to do sonething to avoid it. Even in hardest dificulties, no star should go supernova before the player has the hability to colonize other solar systems.

I do not agree. There must be, as in this example, some possibilities where the defeat not depend on the player.

Obviously I'm a very low percentage, but must be present. Thrive must be realistic under all points of view. I think so.

Usually, having insta-deaths that are not dependant on the player are not good for the game. Say you have a very realistic first-person shooter that simulates a random war. You get droped into a zone. 30 seconds later, a bomb drops over you and kills all your squadron. Would that be fun for the player? Not at all.

We are trying to be realistic, but after all this is a game.

You have made ​​an example that does not make sense. We are creating a game that simulates life and the probability of death that does not depend on the player are very low (off the star, alien invasions, pollution or complete killing of their race).

In a shooter, which is based solely on killing other people and of course be killed sooner or later, it is impossible to apply this kind of mode because the game always runs out of this cycle of die-die-u killed him-u killed him-die-die-u killed him... .... ....

Well, as long as the chances of an inevitable catastrophic event are really really low, there is not too much problem.

Taking into acount the only example of evolution we have (earth), two out of tree times the star that suports life will go supergiant before life on the planet had a chance of evolving enough to go to another place, unless you rush through evolution so it only takes half the time, which would make the chance "only" one out of three times.

If someone spends two hours caring about its species, evolving and adapting them, and sudenly the planet gets destroyed, they might say: "Wow! That was amazing!". However, the second time that hapens, half of the people is going to ragequit, and the other half is going to look for a way of turning those events off.

Daniferrito wrote:

Well, as long as the chances of an inevitable catastrophic event are really really low, there is not too much problem.

Taking into acount the only example of evolution we have (earth), two out of tree times the star that suports life will go supergiant before life on the planet had a chance of evolving enough to go to another place, unless you rush through evolution so it only takes half the time, which would make the chance "only" one out of three times.

If someone spends two hours caring about its species, evolving and adapting them, and sudenly the planet gets destroyed, they might say: "Wow! That was amazing!". However, the second time that hapens, half of the people is going to ragequit, and the other half is going to look for a way of turning those events off.

Maybe you did not read what I wrote. From the beginning I said that the chances of events such as these are very remote.

If it happens a player to die because his star is definitely cooled it is impossible happens again in the next game (it is almost mathematically impossible). But if it happens again, just change difficulty.

I agree with Doggit I personally would always play with these events on, makes the game have so much more depth. Players wont get frusterated, every time you play you will get a completely different experiance due to the auto evo, the planet itself being somewhat different or some other random situation.

I am an avid roguelike player (And developer, I love making roguelikes)(permanent death, and if you die, you start over with a completely new dungeon.)
many people love this genra because it never gets boring it's a different experiance every time, and next time you come out a bit smarter. People wont be mad about dying if the gameplay is a little different every time you play (Even thouh death is basically random). (Dwarf fortress has the slogan, 'losing is fun.'. In thrive it should be 'Being completely obliterated is fun') (of course it could be only in hardcore mode that things like this happen or an option to turn it on and off)

I personally want this game to be as real as possible, and love the idea of having the sun go supernova, we could even have achievements for this sort of thing.

In my opinion, there shouldn't even be random dice throws for stars dying or entering a new phase of their life. Stars don't just explode/implode or become dwarves randomly, they need to deplete all of their fuel before they can do so. The player would start off with their home star at a random age, however this start date will always be at less than one half of the stars total life age (time between birth and death), but still must be larger than one sixth of the stars total life age. So when we get this number, we would add up a certain amount to it every certain time interval. Once the total number reaches a pre-defined value (these would depend on the star type) the star enters a new phase of it's life or dies (if it exits it's last phase).

Now, here's my solution.

Upon starting a new game, players will be able to choose a "game pace". Basically, game pace would be whether stars can die before the player can colonize other systems or not. The player could either turn game pace to "Normal" or "Relaxed"

Normal means that the system I described before works even whilst the players creature hasn't researched interstellar flight or a similar technology, while relaxed means that the evolution of the players system is frozen until the player can colonize other systems.

untrustedlife wrote:

I agree with Doggit I personally would always play with these events on, makes the game have so much more depth. Players wont get frusterated, every time you play you will get a completely different experiance due to the auto evo, the planet itself being somewhat different or some other random situation.

I am an avid roguelike player (And developer, I love making roguelikes)(permanent death, and if you die, you start over with a completely new dungeon.)
many people love this genra because it never gets boring it's a different experiance every time, and next time you come out a bit smarter. People wont be mad about dying if the gameplay is a little different every time you play (Even thouh death is basically random). (Dwarf fortress has the slogan, 'losing is fun.'. In thrive it should be 'Being completely obliterated is fun') (of course it could be only in hardcore mode that things like this happen or an option to turn it on and off)

I personally want this game to be as real as possible, and love the idea of having the sun go supernova, we could even have achievements for this sort of thing.

Thanks for the support! If we want to create a game that is based on science, we must take account of all these real factors. Otherwise we do, even in small ways, like Spore.

I said this twice already, but it appears that nobody is listening.

We need to add an option to let the player choose whether he wants this or not. I bet 80% of the people wouldn't want your star exploding while they can't do anything to prevent it. Although we still need to be scientifically correct, that doesn't mean we should just let the game annoy the player until he rage quits.

Also, the first time the player sees a supernova he would be "wow" for the next few minutes, but would get angry after that because he lost all of his hard work. Furthermore, these events won't even be interesting anymore after the first time they happen.

Tarpy wrote:

I said this twice already, but it appears that nobody is listening.

We need to add an option to let the player choose whether he wants this or not. I bet 80% of the people wouldn't want your star exploding while they can't do anything to prevent it. Although we still need to be scientifically correct, that doesn't mean we should just let the game annoy player until he rage quits.

Also, the first time the player sees a supernova he would be "wow" for the next few minutes, but would get angry after that because he lost all of his hard work. Furthermore, these events won't even be interesting anymore after the first time they happen.

But I bet that 80% of that 80%, finished a game, it will start another with that kind of difficulty called, perhaps, "realism".

Considering also that probably in 1000 perhaps only, maybe, two players will die for this reason the supernova (or other similar reasons).

This type of immunity up to a certain stage of the game (civilization or space) seems to me a lot to Spore, but that's my opinion.

it is better to give the opportunity for players to choose the type of game that he prefers.

You have a point that it is a little dumb to grant the player some sort of immunity, but then again, it may appear as if we are rushing the player towards sapience, and that is not natural. That is why I think we should give the player the choice whether or not he wants this.

Tarpy, that is basically what i was going for. When the player starts, the star is given a life, and when its life ends, it goes into its next stage (which for the sun it is turning into a supergiant, destroying the earth). And that restriction that you wrote is exactly what we need. If we leave the star's current life random, there is a high chance it will die before the player gets out of the water. However, with that restriction (must be before half of the max lifetime) we are giving the player c chance of survival.

Tarpy wrote:

You have a point that it is a little dumb to grant the player some sort of immunity, but then again, it may appear as if we are rushing the player towards sapience, and that is not natural. That is why I think we should give the player the choice whether or not he wants this.

Exactly.
This game needs to be realistic AND fun. If its to realistic, i wouldnt be fun. So we need to balance it, like you said. Also, i thinked, if star goes supernova, it (If its big enough) may damage nearby star systems with hot plazma and radiation.If its switched to normal mode, as Tarpy gave idea, and if star is big enough, of course.

Also, i have idea for ,,hard'' and ,,hardcore'' mode:

It would also, like supernovas be choosen: ,,relaxed'' (event is optinal) or normal (event MAY ocur)
Magnetic field ,,flips''. When magnetic field of planet changes position, it could cause biger danger from solar winds, compases rotating incorectly, birds going to wrong sides at winter...
Are we going to implement that into game?

I was interested to see if this topic could resolve itself on its own, but its still carrying on, so I would like to help settle this issue.

First of all, no matter how realistic something may be, we should never put the life of the player on the line when they don't want it to be. If you are to play an FPS, it would be realistic to make there a chance for the player to drop dead from a heart attack randomly during the gameplay. However, game developers don't do that since they know players would hate them for that.

When you play an RTS, it is by definition unrealistic since it since it allows you to detach yourself from the first person perspective and control multiple units and have a limited omniscient line of sight.

Remember, simplicity, science, and playability. You can't just focus on the middle one and sacrifice the others. Just because its realistic, doesn't automatically warrant it free entry as a feature of the game.

Realism is not the question here. Therefore, what is at hand is whether this feature makes the game more or less fun. Since it is clearly a split issue, just leave an option for players to choose.

Not having the option to disable planet death before space age is ludicrous. I would hate a game in which I put hours into developing my species and then all of it just ends with a factor out of my control. The realism of that event would not even remotely compensate for the frustration of having to start all over. Having said that, there are others who think differently, and so again it reinforces that it should be an option that the player gets to define. I would think it actually be an option the player be prompted for whenever they start a new game, so that they don't miss it or forget it and then pay the consequences.

Lastly, to the point that it would be a rare occurrence, that doesn't change the fact that it is an occurrence nonetheless. Say you are playing Sim City, and every minute there is a very low chance that the solar system will Supernova, and your entire city will be lost. Even if only 2 out of 1000 people have it happen to them, do those 2 people not have the right to a fair game as did the other 998? Why deny them the same rights? Those two people have a valid reason to complain if they didn't appreciate such a feature and it shouldn't be forced on them. It doesn't matter whether it happens to 2 or 2000, it happens nonetheless.

I think I might have overdone it there, but to conclude, my overall point is that it should be optional. I don't see the fun in, in essence, randomly having your game terminated due to a factor out of your control, but if some people do, they should have that option.

Hello people :D,
I havent really seen anything about it so i thought i'd bring it up.
How is subterranean going to work?

Daniferrito: I've moved this to the miscelaneous bugs and questions thread. Please dont make new threads for asking things

jay sheddan wrote:

Hello people :D,
I havent really seen anything about it so i thought i'd bring it up.
How is subterranean going to work?

Daniferrito: I've moved this to the miscelaneous bugs and questions thread. Please dont make new threads for asking things

I think iit will be similiar to minecrafts.

NickTheNick wrote:

I was interested to see if this topic could resolve itself on its own, but its still carrying on, so I would like to help settle this issue.

First of all, no matter how realistic something may be, we should never put the life of the player on the line when they don't want it to be. If you are to play an FPS, it would be realistic to make there a chance for the player to drop dead from a heart attack randomly during the gameplay. However, game developers don't do that since they know players would hate them for that.

When you play an RTS, it is by definition unrealistic since it since it allows you to detach yourself from the first person perspective and control multiple units and have a limited omniscient line of sight.

Remember, simplicity, science, and playability. You can't just focus on the middle one and sacrifice the others. Just because its realistic, doesn't automatically warrant it free entry as a feature of the game.

Realism is not the question here. Therefore, what is at hand is whether this feature makes the game more or less fun. Since it is clearly a split issue, just leave an option for players to choose.

Not having the option to disable planet death before space age is ludicrous. I would hate a game in which I put hours into developing my species and then all of it just ends with a factor out of my control. The realism of that event would not even remotely compensate for the frustration of having to start all over. Having said that, there are others who think differently, and so again it reinforces that it should be an option that the player gets to define. I would think it actually be an option the player be prompted for whenever they start a new game, so that they don't miss it or forget it and then pay the consequences.

Lastly, to the point that it would be a rare occurrence, that doesn't change the fact that it is an occurrence nonetheless. Say you are playing Sim City, and every minute there is a very low chance that the solar system will Supernova, and your entire city will be lost. Even if only 2 out of 1000 people have it happen to them, do those 2 people not have the right to a fair game as did the other 998? Why deny them the same rights? Those two people have a valid reason to complain if they didn't appreciate such a feature and it shouldn't be forced on them. It doesn't matter whether it happens to 2 or 2000, it happens nonetheless.

I think I might have overdone it there, but to conclude, my overall point is that it should be optional. I don't see the fun in, in essence, randomly having your game terminated due to a factor out of your control, but if some people do, they should have that option.

You have to give the opportunity to the player to choose. There are many people who love the realism of a game. it is right that people can choose

Apologies for interrupting an interesting discussion (though it seems to be resolved) but I have a few questions of my own.

In Spore, the biggest thing I hated was the fact that my one captain was the only one who could really do anything. I had to colonize, I had to trade, I had to conquer, I had to defend, EVERYTHING. It drove me up the wall how enemies had perfectly good fleets for protection of their planets but my citizens--citizens of the supposed superpower in their galactic area--hadn't yet figured that part out. Or how to conquer as well! It made me spend all of my time babysitting my empire and hardly any exploring, for fear of going too far when a calamity struck and ruined hard work. Not that there was much reason to explore given everyone was just one archetype out of a small pool--very boring after a while.

My point here is:

1. In Thrive's "space stage" will I be the only person colonizing/trading/conquering/defending/etc.?
2. Have you decided how you're going to handle space stage?
3. Are you going to rely on archetypes for alien personalities? Do you know how you might do that?

It's quite all right, of course, if you gentlemen/ladies don't have the details worked out since I'm sure the lion's share of work is going into churning out the microbial stage (best of luck!), and apologies if the answers were somewhere in the forums but I just missed them.

You will not be the only person, space stage will play RTS style (thinks sins of a solar empire) (so you are controlling fleets of ships and colonies)

Of course at any point you can take control of any member of your species so you can simply take control of a captain and play as him and do what you want (however your empire will be then put under AI control ) (but you can switch out of it any time you want.
it will probably look somewhat like this:

Spoiler:

(I am a programmer on the team and am currently working on a microbe stage prototype)

I've decided to collate all music, previews and other videos concerning Thrive on Youtube into one huge playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1xZFxatUbjMTzgTTI6FRxxhnS4h7hT1x
It's 3 and a half hours long and consists of 81 videos (at least so far) in reverse chronological order, so it's probably not wise to sit through the whole thing. However, it does make sure everything is in one easily accessible place, even those videos which aren't on Doggit's channel. There are a few unofficial themes and videos, so if need be I'll delete them from the playlist. I've probably also missed a few, so if anyone can think of any more I'll add them.

@untrustedlife
How close are you to the next update of the prototype? I only want to know because I need to add it to the website once it's complete, and ~scio will of course need to put it up on ModDB.

Pretty close (I have to finish up a bunch of things should have it done by tonight (tomorrow at the latest).

edit: I am having a hard time balancing the prototype.

untrustedlife wrote:

You will not be the only person, space stage will play RTS style (thinks sins of a solar empire) (so you are controlling fleets of ships and colonies)

Of course at any point you can take control of any member of your species so you can simply take control of a captain and play as him and do what you want (however your empire will be then put under AI control ) (but you can switch out of it any time you want.
it will probably look somewhat like this:

Spoiler:

(I am a programmer on the team and am currently working on a microbe stage prototype)

Something like Dungeon kepper?

You can also automate any part of your nation editor, such as the military panel, if you wish for your nation to conquer without your orders. However, if you wish to keep control over the military instead of letting an advisor automate it, you can create and give campaigns to your generals, a process involving setting waypoints and commands, giving them resources, and then they try to follow it through as best they can. Its like a more expanded version of telling units to attack-move to a target location on the map in RTS games.

EDIT: Amazing job Oliver! That playlist is a very handy compilation of all our videos so far.