Not necessarily, assuming you are making small changes each generation, it would make sense for the yet to be changed parent to raise the only slightly different offspring. Though I guess that partially depends on how drastically different each generation is.
1 Like
Pretty sure the players would generally make relatively large changes between each playing sessions
1 Like
So Iâve been thinking on this more, and first off, you are right, at least in the current split into two adults version, the new generations have relatively large changes, as does the early multicellular version. Assuming this continues, it would be better to have the parent switch to the new adult version, but I think that could work.
That being said, I was also thinking about the differences between r Selection, K Selection, and Eusocial creatures. And while I think my original suggestion (modified in the way you pointed out) would work well with K-Strategists, something more is needed for r-Strategists, and a third altogether for Eusocial.
So here is my expanded new suggestion.
First: After a creature lays/fertilizes eggs, it would continue playing as normal until such time as the egg hatches/the child is birthed. Then, it gets the option to either enter the editor or keep playing as the adult of what it was, potentially having more children, and possibly racking up some kind of other bonus, at the risk of potentially getting itself killed before the next time it can go to the editor. If it dies with children it chose not to become, then the player could just play as the youngest child of their creature, unedited, and having lost whatever bonus it was building up by waiting to enter the editor, but with no other penalty. If the creature dies without having children, the player would suffer the same penalties they currently do.
Second, after leaving the editor, the player would be a baby version of their new creature, but the creature would be in an âImmature Windowâ, during which 2 different special mechanics would come into play.
One: During this time, if a child from that brood and one of itâs parents touched, they could switch places. If their are multiple children in the brood, the layer could go from child to parent to different child back to parent back to whichever child. If both parents were raising the child, the player could switch between child and either parent.
In all of these combinations, it would require âa parent and a child from that brood to touchâ. This means, if the player is playing the parent and goes in search of food and the baby comes under attack, the player could not automatically switch back to the baby because they need to be in close proximity to do so. Also, if the parent is a type that doesnât stick around, the player could not switch out of the baby. If the player dies while playing the parent, they would transfer to the last child they controlled.
Two: In addition to the parent/baby switch mechanic, there could also be a move to sibling on death mechanic. This would come in handy for both litter K types and for all r types.
For K types: If the player and their siblings are waiting at home for their parent/s to bring food home and come under attack, and they run different directions and the enemy chases and catches the player, or if the player controlled baby wanders to far from safety and gets killed, in either event, if they are still within their âimmature Windowâ, they could just move into one of their siblings with no penalty.
For r types: This would be even more important. If the player were a turtle like creature that lays hundreds of eggs and abandons them, when they all hatched, as long as you still have living siblings, you could have dozens of attempts to reach the ocean, and even afterwards, while you are still within the âImmature Windowâ, could keep getting moved from living sibling to living sibling without penalty as long as there is at least 1 still alive.
Both of these mechanics would stop be turned off upon reaching what is defined as maturity, at which point death would have its normal penalties.
However, an altered system would be needed to enjoy Eusociality to the fullest.
My suggestion on that regard is as follows:
First: The player could switch between their colonies Queen and all of her children by touch, regardless of age and without needing to stay Parent to Child, as well as return to the Queen at any time. For example: The player could move from the Queen to an adult Drone, from the Drone to a Worker, from the Worker to a different Worker, all by touch, and from that Worker back to the Queen without needing to touch.
Second, if the player died while playing a creature other than the Queen, they would be transferred into a nearby still living member of that caste. For example, if the player was currently a Worker and the tunnel they were in collapsed, they would become a nearby worker who was outside of the collapse who could try to help rescue other workers who are hurt but may yet be saved. If they were playing a Soldier and died in battle, they would become another nearby Soldier who could try to finish off the opponent that killed the players previous Soldier.
Third: In order to enter the editor, the player would have to hatch/raise a new Queen. At this point, the original switch between parent and child by touch rules during âImmaturity Windowâ would apply, and when the new Queen was old enough, the player would be locked into her and her future children. This last rule would effectively mean that each time the player evolved it would need to build a new colony, however, given the many benefits of eusociality:
- Having an effective hybrid r/K system
- Having multiple distinct and specialized adult forms
- Playing as an army that can build a base 2 stages early
- The potential later benefits that Castes would have when entering the Civ stage later
- The fact that Eusocial creatures are the only know stage 3 creatures that are capable of growing crops and/or raising livestock
. . . perhaps having to make a new colony/base each time you evolve would be fair compensation. Or perhaps not. A little boredom for a lot of perks.
1 Like
Would eusocial colonies still work well if they used systems more similar to what is planned for the strategy stages, that being the control of many creatures at once?
2 Likes
Possibly, Eusocial in general seems to be basically several mechanics from the Social stage without the in between. It might actually serve as a good way to refine some of those mechanics and work out a few kinks before properly getting to those stages in the game.
2 Likes
I agree. I wonder how would the transistion into awakening work like if youâre an eusocial speciesâŚ
2 Likes
I wonder how a mound/hive/den built by a colony will be distinguished from a Social Center. Could you pick up your first tool and skip the awakening stage entirely? What might that cost your species? I hope they ensure a way not to lock out Awake benefits by jumping straight into Social. And not just for Eusocial creatures either. A lot of burrowing creatures have complex dens with large families living together in them.
1 Like
I mean, primates also live in groups, some quite large.
1 Like
True, but they donât live in enclosed spaces like a mound or a burrow. They are Awake creatures who have yet to develop Social Centers as I understand the word. Although, how does one actually Define Social Center?
1 Like
I guess a social center is supposed to be a place where sapient creatures reside for longer than they can be alive; Perhaps itâs supposed to be a synonym to âsettlementâ?
1 Like
Most apes move around a lot. That definition just makes a mound/burrow used for multiple generations sound more like a Social Center.
2 Likes
Yeah thatâs the thing: Eusocial hives already have society stage characteristics in the aware stage. I can guess this will become problematic once development reaches awakening since the hives might not have to go thru this stage.
3 Likes