More "directed" evolution

I have a more “targeted” evolution implementation, what I’m talking about are things that influence evolution than natural selection, and may have more potential:

  1. bilateral and radial symmetry
    many organisms on Earth have some kind of symmetry: bilateral symmetry (half the body is a mirror copy of the other), radial symmetry (a snowflake-like body), and asymmetry (no symmetry), many organisms with bilateral symmetry have a high degree of mobility (such as vertebrates and arthropods), whereas organisms with radial symmetry are slow, highly immobile, and sometimes setile, this can make the organisms more real and interesting in my view.

  2. the rare or common evolution of organelles depending on the organism
    In nature, you never see an evolved animal that has photosynthesis pigments or plants that have muscles, because the common ancestor of the kingdoms is so far away, the species of the kingdoms are adapted to a way of life, which is rare to evolve something from another, with that, it could be that we’re going to have more plant-like organisms more animal-like organisms.

  3. the cubic square law
    ok, so let’s imagine you have a cube and it doubles its size, its size is twice the original size, but the surface area is going to be 4X the original, and volume? 8X! this is bad, or good sometimes, like plants: they have thin leaves to maximize the area for photosynthesis, and minimize volume because more cells to feed with more volume (this is also connected with temperature), this will make plants alien have thin leaves.

these are the things i thought, if you have more ideas, feel free to Comment!

3 Likes

Well, the point of thrive is to let you do whatever you want that is possible biologically speaking, from a genius lizard empire to a rather controversial plant civilization, so most people would not like it.

yes, but, this is more for the auto evo.

(edit: may be the effects I said will scale with the difficulty)

Auto evo is largely impacted by the player’s evolutionary choices, as all organisms descend from the player’s cell. This can happen throughout the game- whether late game or early game, members will sometimes split off and form their own species. Organisms that split off early will evolve to be very different from you, but those that split later will be quite similar.

So my point is that they can’t and don’t really need to add limits to what auto-evo can do, because it would conflict with the fact that all organisms will resemble your cell in some way. It would also be weird if auto-evo followed strict rules but the player did not. You’d be weirdly different from the other organisms on the planet.

Ideally, things like symmetry will evolve either due to the player evolving it, or due to them being efficient designs. Auto-evo is designed for implicit programming. Auto-evo selects the best creatures out of a set of random mutations to continue their lineage. Since different forms of symmetry exist and have their own pros and cons, auto-evo should automatically lead to them evolving if the player doesn’t do it first.

5 Likes

Auto-evo energy cost already uses an exponential cost based on hex size.

Symmetry has been suggested to give benefits like lower MP cost. If that is implemented and we also add a similar thing to the AI species mutation, there’ll be a lot more symmetry in the game.

3 Likes