I suggest adding scalable mutation points based on population size. Now the number of mutation points is always 100. But more common species are more likely to mutate. I propose to relate the population of a species to the number of mutation points. For example, if the population size is from 1 to 10,000, give 1 mutation point for every 100 species, if the population size is from 10,000, give 1 mutation point for every 1000 species(or some other balance, this is for example). And change the calculation methods based on the type of breeding in the future. It will make sense to try to maintain a large population of the species.
3 Likes
If we add MP that models evolutionary pressure, we’d rather need to do it so that when the player is rapidly losing population, they can make more changes. That would be realistic way to do it.
Another thing that has been suggested has been to give some bonus for not using all MP in an editor cycle or maybe not elapsing the full 100 million years if the player doesn’t use up all the “accumulated evolutionary changes” over the entire time period.
3 Likes
Than you can add population bonus for not using MP. With this MP calculating method it gives mediated MP number bonus.
Shorter lifespans mean more generations for evolution to take place if the age of making children also falls. It can also lead to more selection pressure, if a smaller percentage of the population survives and repopulates the patch.
The neutral mutations can increase the genetic diversity and one day be useful when the selection pressure changes. But is it realistic to store MP from 100 million years ago? A completely different species may emerge during that time. Humans increased their genetic diversity by mating with neanderthals, and we have a common ancestor 0,6 million years ago. Even the diversity stored within a group of multiple interbreedable species doesn’t last 100 million years.
It is a tradeoff. How many editor cycles do we want to force the player to go through? Imagine how unfun the game is if you only had like 10 MP and would need to “save” multiple editor cycles to get any organelle. So Thrive gameplay is a balance between giving a good amount of changes the player is allowed to make at once and evolutionary realism where changes are actually incredibly small between generations.
1 Like
I have an idea of giving temporary MP discounts to certain mutations based on environment, survival pressure, or completely random factors.
I feel that the current species variation is not gradual enough, and I hope metabolism can be more detailed and modular.
1 Like
auto-evo does need some things ironed out but i feel like it isn’t as important as the organelles for the niches that exist IRL since most people don’t pay that much attention to it but auto-evo should be given the ability to evolve multicellular organisms before the unicell stage is finished so people don’t get confused when they become the only species after eliminating all other life on their planet after becoming multicellular as i have done in at least one playthrough
This only makes sense if the genes can be taken from other species in the environment with horisontal gene transfer
MP can represent both the mutations and the natural selection. So if I start to die a lot, the game should give me more mutation points/discounts, and I should try to not go extinct using those
If only the cold resistance gene becomes cheaper after the environment becomes colder, that removes player agency
2 Likes