Plant Gameplay

Mixotroph wrote:

I meant moving mixotrophs.

Also, theres a plant that moves when it "hears" sound. Look up the Telegraph Plant/Dancing Plant.

Have you discussed plants that can store large amounts of water like a Cactus?

I know what you meant, and this thread is about plants, not mixotrophs. Make a thread about mixotrophs if you really want to talk about it, don't just post random stuff about it on threads that have nothing to do with it.

I looked up the plant you talked about. I saw nothing about it moving due to sound, but it does move to access sunlight. Not sure how that would be implemented.

No, we have not talked about cactus like plants, but I'm pretty sure that would be handled by the OE. This thread is focusing on how the player will control their plants, not really about specific types as of yet, so that's why we haven't talked about them.

I've noticed almost everything you post is just an idea, and then you just leave. If you're going to post something, try to elaborate on why you think it should be in the game and how it would work. Also, nearly everything you post has been discussed. You don't have to read EVERYTHING, but try to read enough that you know generally what has been discussed. If you think of something that you haven't seen at all that you think should be included, THEN you can start putting out random posts like this. That's how I started the plant gameplay topic to begin with, I knew we were having it, but no one had said anything on how it would be done. So do that with your mixotroph idea, it's never going to go anywhere if you're posting stuff about it on topics like this. It just gets in the way here.

I really like the gameplay concept so far. The monocot/dicot distinction is being stressed too much at the moment, as those are just two groups of flowering plants, and they are definitely not universally applicable. That's completely my fault though.

~sciocont wrote:

I really like the gameplay concept so far. The monocot/dicot distinction is being stressed too much at the moment, as those are just two groups of flowering plants, and they are definitely not universally applicable. That's completely my fault though.

Well, the only thing it affects is how many plants you have to control and puts limits on parts. Otherwise there's no difference, so I don't think it's as bad as you think. Also, there could be alien versions of dicots that are for non-flowering plants, right? Not exactly sure how that would work for plants that aren't angiosperms or gymnosperms since they have spores instead of seeds, but this isn't Earth we're talking about, so it is possible.

That somewhat softens the difference since Earth versions of monocots wouldn't be by themselves. Is there an evolutionary advantage to being a monocot, because than it would make sense to give the player the choice to be one, no matter what type of plant they are. You said grass is a monocot, isn't its advantage that it can rapidly regrow after being eaten since it's basically just a leaf?

Other than softening the dicot/monocot differences, are there any other major things we need to consider?

tklarenb wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

I really like the gameplay concept so far. The monocot/dicot distinction is being stressed too much at the moment, as those are just two groups of flowering plants, and they are definitely not universally applicable. That's completely my fault though.

Well, the only thing it affects is how many plants you have to control and puts limits on parts. Otherwise there's no difference, so I don't think it's as bad as you think. Also, there could be alien versions of dicots that are for non-flowering plants, right? Not exactly sure how that would work for plants that aren't angiosperms or gymnosperms since they have spores instead of seeds, but this isn't Earth we're talking about, so it is possible.

That somewhat softens the difference since Earth versions of monocots wouldn't be by themselves. Is there an evolutionary advantage to being a monocot, because than it would make sense to give the player the choice to be one, no matter what type of plant they are. You said grass is a monocot, isn't its advantage that it can rapidly regrow after being eaten since it's basically just a leaf?

Other than softening the dicot/monocot differences, are there any other major things we need to consider?

We can just say that the more complex your plant is, the less of them that you can control at once.

~sciocont wrote:

tklarenb wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

I really like the gameplay concept so far. The monocot/dicot distinction is being stressed too much at the moment, as those are just two groups of flowering plants, and they are definitely not universally applicable. That's completely my fault though.

Well, the only thing it affects is how many plants you have to control and puts limits on parts. Otherwise there's no difference, so I don't think it's as bad as you think. Also, there could be alien versions of dicots that are for non-flowering plants, right? Not exactly sure how that would work for plants that aren't angiosperms or gymnosperms since they have spores instead of seeds, but this isn't Earth we're talking about, so it is possible.

That somewhat softens the difference since Earth versions of monocots wouldn't be by themselves. Is there an evolutionary advantage to being a monocot, because than it would make sense to give the player the choice to be one, no matter what type of plant they are. You said grass is a monocot, isn't its advantage that it can rapidly regrow after being eaten since it's basically just a leaf?

Other than softening the dicot/monocot differences, are there any other major things we need to consider?

We can just say that the more complex your plant is, the less of them that you can control at once.

There we go, problem solved. What should the limits of the number of plants be? I'm thinking for huge plants like trees that we should have only one (or two if that doesn't work with the reproduction concept) and for monocot-like plants like grasses we should have around 15-20.

Actually, we need to manage by # of biopixels, not # of plants total. For the largest and most complex plants, one or two biopixels should do. for smaller things like grasses, that all depends on how big we make our planets in the long run. Probably ~50 pix.

~sciocont wrote:

Actually, we need to manage by # of biopixels, not # of plants total. For the largest and most complex plants, one or two biopixels should do. for smaller things like grasses, that all depends on how big we make our planets in the long run. Probably ~50 pix.

Wait, what's a biopixel?

tklarenb wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Actually, we need to manage by # of biopixels, not # of plants total. For the largest and most complex plants, one or two biopixels should do. for smaller things like grasses, that all depends on how big we make our planets in the long run. Probably ~50 pix.

Wait, what's a biopixel?

Sorry. A biopixel is the smallest unit of space that makes up a biome. it's just a square of a set size that allows plants to play through their evolution game according to the autotroph distribution procedure.

~sciocont wrote:

tklarenb wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Actually, we need to manage by # of biopixels, not # of plants total. For the largest and most complex plants, one or two biopixels should do. for smaller things like grasses, that all depends on how big we make our planets in the long run. Probably ~50 pix.

Wait, what's a biopixel?

Sorry. A biopixel is the smallest unit of space that makes up a biome. it's just a square of a set size that allows plants to play through their evolution game according to the autotroph distribution procedure.

Are you talking about plants in general or the player's plants? Because that's what I was talking about the number of plants the player controls.

tklarenb wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

tklarenb wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Actually, we need to manage by # of biopixels, not # of plants total. For the largest and most complex plants, one or two biopixels should do. for smaller things like grasses, that all depends on how big we make our planets in the long run. Probably ~50 pix.

Wait, what's a biopixel?

Sorry. A biopixel is the smallest unit of space that makes up a biome. it's just a square of a set size that allows plants to play through their evolution game according to the autotroph distribution procedure.

Are you talking about plants in general or the player's plants? Because that's what I was talking about the number of plants the player controls.

The number of plants the player controls is a certain amount of space, not a number of plants.

Perhaps plant gameplay will be something like a Tower Defense game- you set up your defenses and leaves, and then watch as they gather resources and deter consumers?

Perhaps you could control a population of plants, rather than a single one?

Perhaps the microbes living in the roots could be put in somehow?

An intriguing defense is that of plants which create residences for other animals, such as ants, which fight herbivores.

Planimals- some plant and some animal characteristics- would they be possible?

Read around- we've been discussing this a lot lately. The answers you seek aren't hard to find.

~sciocont wrote:

The number of plants the player controls is a certain amount of space, not a number of plants.

So you're saying the player will be controlling whatever plants are inside a set area? I guess that makes sense, since there would be less larger, more complex plants than simple small plants in the same amount of area. I just wasn't thinking of it in that way before.

tklarenb wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The number of plants the player controls is a certain amount of space, not a number of plants.

So you're saying the player will be controlling whatever plants are inside a set area? I guess that makes sense, since there would be less larger, more complex plants than simple small plants in the same amount of area. I just wasn't thinking of it in that way before.

Precisely.

it would be interesting to play as a parasitic or sentient plant

PTFace wrote:

it would be interesting to play as a parasitic or sentient plant

Parasitic plants are a definite possibility, since it would allow those plants to transcend the regular game of automata. Sentient plants are a no-go. There's really no reason for them do develop a nervous system, let alone one that is complex enough to make them self aware.

~sciocont wrote:

PTFace wrote:

it would be interesting to play as a parasitic or sentient plant

Parasitic plants are a definite possibility, since it would allow those plants to transcend the regular game of automata. Sentient plants are a no-go. There's really no reason for them do develop a nervous system, let alone one that is complex enough to make them self aware.

It's impossible to have a sentient plant. illogical (if I spelled that right)

Will it be possible to play a photosynthetic or chemo-synthetic organism?

PTFace wrote:

Will it be possible to play a photosynthetic or chemo-synthetic organism?

Of course, that's what this thread is about.

well, like a dog with leaves as ears or something

PTFace wrote:

well, like a dog with leaves as ears or something

I'm not really sure where to begin on why you wouldn't get something like that.
I guess you could just say that photosynthetic organisms wouldn't require a digestive tract, and would show now signs of cephalization in their evolution so would never need to be symmetrical assuming they stay in one place. So it would be unlikely that a photosynthetic organism would resemble a dog.

Even if you did have some sort of mixotrophic organism likre that, the photosynthetic parts would produce an essentially negligible amount of energy. You could make it in the OE, but it wouldn't evolve on its own.

Pezzalis wrote:

PTFace wrote:

well, like a dog with leaves as ears or something

I'm not really sure where to begin on why you wouldn't get something like that.
I guess you could just say that photosynthetic organisms wouldn't require a digestive tract, and would show now signs of cephalization in their evolution so would never need to be symmetrical assuming they stay in one place. So it would be unlikely that a photosynthetic organism would resemble a dog.

You are right, and Your statement is more realistic, but I think If the player wants to make it look like a dog that the player should have that choice, again Give the player choice.

MeowMan1 wrote:

Pezzalis wrote:

PTFace wrote:

well, like a dog with leaves as ears or something

I'm not really sure where to begin on why you wouldn't get something like that.
I guess you could just say that photosynthetic organisms wouldn't require a digestive tract, and would show now signs of cephalization in their evolution so would never need to be symmetrical assuming they stay in one place. So it would be unlikely that a photosynthetic organism would resemble a dog.

You are right, and Your statement is more realistic, but I think If the player wants to make it look like a dog that the player should have that choice, again Give the player choice.

Toggle manual/auto evo. Choice. Then go crazy, but don't be surprised if you have to micromanage to keep your critter alive.

Mixtrophics will definitely be possible, even if they wouldn't happen on their own in-game. Keep in mind that (semi-) intelligent design by us is going to be more variable than a computer. (Just kidding about the semi-intelligent design, btw. I have faith in your brains - but also everybody's propensity to try and push the limits here, to hilarious results.)

What? what do You mean toggle manual? As far as I know, we don't have a manual for the game..yet. So what are You talking about?