What did you mean to say here?
Even for this: the sphere of cells with hollow inside is quite possible in Thrive multicellular, but reproducing would always result in some partial sphere (with the only current reproduction method always just one cell) That then eventually forms a closed sphere. Biologically, that does not make much sense, and I think does not look anything like how those spheres form IRL.
I donโt think thatโs quite the same? Thatโs still a rigid structure, itโs just that the locations got a bit scrambled.
But donโt get me wrong, I am not criticising the multicellular design here. A system more accurate to IRL would have you move around your cells for each growth stage from initial to final, and I donโt think thatโs feasible to implement. And even if you could, would that even be fun? Sounds too tedious and elaborate I think.
Thrive multicellular is I think โrealisticโ enough if you squint, say โeach cell actually does represent multiple cellsโ, and youโre kind of skipping an โembryoโ phase.
But if I were to design the multicellular stage from the ground up, I might have you start the stage with a โclumpโ of cells (representing a pre-differentiation colony) that you can then start specialising, with the initial reproductive method being binary fission. Instead of the current โstart with one cell and grow out from one cellโ. Though I suppose that actually trips into the debate on different hypotheses on the origin of multicellularity.
Sorry, got a bit stream-of-thought at the end there.
4 Likes
Would this still have macroscopic unlocked at 20 cells or would you need more if this was the way multicellular was designed?
1 Like
Would having a minimum number of two different cell types as an additional requirement for Macroscopic make Multicellular more realistic and engaging? Also, would different lineages in Multicellular and Macroscopic be able to reproduce in different methods, once those alternative reproduction methods are added into the game?
2 Likes
Well the player would also need to actually have to use those 2 cell types or else nothing is really changed. Also why wouldnโt other repro types be used by various lineages when theyโre added?
2 Likes
Maybe there would a high mutation cost for changing reproduction methods?
2 Likes
I donโt think autoevo uses MP
Or maybe some drawback to prevent sudden changing of reproduction methods.
True. In real life, polarization/differentiation of surfaces of cells, or even different cells, occurs to have better function. In the Multicellular stage, it becomes an emergent gameplay from players messing around, rather than necessity.
Also, I just realized that having an โInteriorโ and โLumenโ surface would be relative for Multicellular and Macroscopic, since the stage is 2D. For instance, is a circular organism in Multicellular actually a pancake or ring in 3D, or does the organism truly have an โinsideโ and โoutsideโ? Early macroscopic organisms like Charnia and Fractofus are very thin, and might not even have an interior surface.
1 Like
If multicellular intermediate wasnโt scrapped we probably wouldnโt have this problem but oh well we canโt have everythingโฆ
1 Like
Still 20 max, from what I understand, that is just a mechanical limitation. But in theory I guess the transition can require evolving something specific that allows more growth, instead of just โcertain number of cellsโ.
That would be bypassed by just having one cell of a different type, does not make much sense. I would rather have cell specialisation be very powerful, making you want to use it. And otherwise, other species that do should beat you.
I think the current iteration does?
3 Likes
Yeah, didnโt Deus suggest strong bonuses from cell adjacency stuff a while back for this?
1 Like
Wellโฆ according to the developer forum I bullied him so belgium that (/s), that heโs reconsidering how to approach it.
As for me, I think one simple way to encourage cell differentiation is by giving cells an effectiveness bonus based on how specialised they are. A simple and extreme example:
One cell is 50% toxin vacuoles? Cool, theyโre now also producing toxins 50% faster.
4 Likes
This would have a smoother gradient than just a buff at precisely 50% toxin vacuoles, right?
2 Likes
this oneโs really funny actually. i was saying wrong, uh, spot, but if the only think between those words is a space it goes g then spot, which is not something worth filtering lmao. i mean, it is nsfw to discuss, but such a discussion would be so weird i donโt think banning one weird little phrase would stop it, i mean, read amateur belgium, or even the pro stuff, theyโve come up with thousands of ways to say every nsfw phrase or word.
2 Likes
So we need to say โbad spotโ then for this case.
Oh, of course! And also not exactly by that amount, just throwing numbers out.
2 Likes
Should there be a cap to how much can one buff a cell?
Maybe buffs should cap out at 100%? I donโt know if that would be too high, since buffs are still in the planning stages at this point.
3 Likes
I think the cap being at 100% could work, especially if getting there is already hard enoughโฆ
3 Likes
It does. After the miche-based auto-evo refactoring, auto-evo now follows the same MP calculations as the player. Though thereโs the difficulty-dependent multiplier on how much MP the AI has.
5 Likes