Maybe better cell communication? Perhaps you could even get signals from other species, and see what commands they are doing?
2 Likes
For what other minor organelles would this apply to?
One thing I will say is that the actual value of the time scale when it says something like “50 million years later” or something isn’t much else besides cosmetic flair in my eyes, but I do get the point you’re getting at. I don’t think there was ever a discussion about us limiting the number of microbes which could become multicellular, so I am in agreement with you there. I’ll have to read your other linked post to get more at that idea. But if there’s something I’m not particularly getting in the point you’re trying to make, do clarify and let me know.
As to the transition to the Macroscopic, you do bring up interesting points. I’m not sure how well “lineages” would transfer over to something like our auto-evo system, or how exactly we’ll deal with that transition yet. But I do think having a distinction between more autotrophic and heterotrophic lifestyles is important to think about.
There’s an inherent awkwardness in the transition, where for the playstyle of the vast majority of players, some sort of previously existing macroscopic organisms likely had to exist alongside you when you got to this point - or atleast, quite rapidly appear once you become macroscopic. There would probably be some sort of colonial structures, like stromatolite reefs, pro-genitors of sponge-like organisms, and basic algae/photosynthetic matter. Coming up with a way to approach that question is important.
It might have, but it definitely didn’t come to my mind when making that thread. Very, very interesting!
That also could tie very well to refining binding agent progression beyond it being just a part you place on to become multicellular. It could have similar effects on efficiency for colonial, technically still single-celled eukaryotes, allowing a stacking of bonuses. It wouldn’t be as useful of course since you wouldn’t be able to differentiate your colony members well, but it could still have function. It could also be extended to prokaryotes if we want to allow things like cyanobacteria-esque multicellularity, though not to the same maximum benefit as eukaryotes.
I’d still want a concept that does encourage players to think about where they place cells in relation to each other, but that is a great way to encourage specialization. This is definitely something I’ll be bringing up on the forums.
5 Likes
Would the B-agent then just be changed to not require a nucleus or some more ways to how it is acquired would be altered?
4 Likes
If this interpretation is followed, yes, But we would probably want to attach a separate unlock condition and some sort of cost so that it isn’t something that literarily everything wants to place down. One thing is that, since the function of your most preferred part would be prioritized, it would naturally mean that players would be creating their organism differently with a binding agent; certain functions might be less effective since you aren’t able to specialize morphologically. And the nucleus would probably have an effect of strengthening the binding agent.
We would need to put a slightly more complex progression to binding agents regardless since the current “get 5 to leap to the next stage” is a stand-in, so this could be part of that change.
5 Likes
Also prokaryotes wouldn’t be able to progress past multicellular, right?
3 Likes
One thing to keep in mind is that unless you’re in the multicellular stage, you still wouldn’t be able to spawn in with multiple cells (or be otherwise “destined” to be multiple cells, a la budding). As a Microbe Stage player, you’d still have to find and attach to fellow members of your species. AI could spawn in with multiple organisms just to make it easier to bump into them, but the mechanic would also be the same for them.
All that is to say: yes. To be in the Multicellular “Stage”, you’d have to inherently be colonial or inherently be destined to become colonial from the moment you spawn in. So prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes, who have to manually link up, aren’t in the Multicellular Stage.
4 Likes
Oh that makes more sense now, I though it would be that prokaryotes could enter multicellular but not progress past it. I suppose some tweaking might still be needed to have those microbe-colonies form straight lines of cells for instance?
2 Likes
Technically, macroscopic bacteria is a thing. Though, I am fine with that not being possible in Thrive. If we did want to include it though, making Neurons require a nucleus could prevent prokaryotes from becoming Aware at least.
2 Likes
Perhaps. Maybe if a Microbe Stage cell spawns in colonially, they can only be linked in a straight line from their binding agent. So that naturally creates the straighter appearance.
The Thrive dev team:
5 Likes
Or some other patterns if there’s time for that.
2 Likes
I think in this design (with a very “gradual” progression) that’s a bit difficult. I think such a function sounds cool, but better as an upgrade, and maybe on the chemoreceptor instead.
In the “completely ignore, even for calculating the %” category:
- Nucleus
- Binding Agents
In the “only reduce costs” category:
- Chemoreceptor
- Pilus (I don’t think scaling up the damage makes much sense)
- Signalling Agent
Glad to hear it!
I would like to emphasize right now I have essentially 0 scientific backing for how this functions. It’s purely observational based on the end result: life seems to really like to hyper-specialise cells on just one thing, even when it seems like they could serve multiple functions in their location.
I agree, I view these as two separate, but connected objectives. At least part of the current mechanics already care about the relative location of cells. Having defensive cells in a ring, toxin cells concentrated in one spot for concentrated firing, etc.
Ah, Biology. Why must you so stubbornly resist us putting you into neat little boxes?
4 Likes
I suppose if you’d want to create a neural tissue in macro+ you’d need your cell to be like a nucleus + mitochondrion and a bunch of axons? So very specialized?
2 Likes
I also think this would be the case, but to confirm it would take multiple minutes of reading through the Thrive source code.
2 Likes
Maybe it’d be better if we looked at some things as spectrums rather than isolated boxes…
2 Likes
One of the points I was truing to make was, while on most planets it would make sense if phototrophs and heterotrophs were the only trophs that made it to macroscopic, I believe that instead of making a space for “plants” and a space for “animals” (and “fungi”, should Thrive include them), having a requirement like “need x amount ratio of energy to mass” would prevent things like Thermosythesizers and Chemosynthesizers from becoming macroscopic on most planets, while leaving open the possibility that, on a non-earth like world, say one with much higher temperature and sulfur oceans, they might stand a chance of reaching macroscopic as there own groups without necessarily preventing plants and animals from also becoming macroscopic. The possibility that they can overcome there limits and succeed on rare, situational occasion would allow for some truly alien worlds, But, realistically, it should be rather uncommon, which will depend on how the game decides “representatives of these groups can move forward, and these others did not meet the minimum requirements to do so”. Alternatively, perhaps the top X groups in a particular multicellular game could make the transition to macroscopic, meaning for Thermotrophs or Chemotrophs to become macroscopic might mean, in a particular run, they actually do prevent plants or animals on that planet. Whichever works, so long as unearth-like life has a chance to prove its worth on unearth-like planets.
Edit: As a third option, you do both. Like: Only X groups are allowed to become macroscopic, but they must meet conditions ABC to qualify. So if less than X groups met condition ABC, every thing that did, and ONLY those groups, would become macroscopic, and if more than X groups met conditions ABC, than only the top X would become macroscopic.
3 Likes
Would the existance of non-lawk aliens depend on if the player chose non-lawk or would it be independent from that?
2 Likes
I wonder how large Radiotrophs could become if they reach Macroscopic? Hopefully, not Kaiju-size levels (assuming that would be even possible in the game).
1 Like
I think they might struggle to be macroscopic and active…
1 Like
I still think the game’s miche system can do this if applied properly, no additional separate system system needed. And since auto-evo is a core part of Thrive and what creates all the species, I think it would be best to consolidate things into the same system as much as possible.
Essentially: There are “slots” in the game, species compete to fill them, and gain mutations to try to fill them better. Unless a species fills one of the slots better than anything else, it’s probably going extinct. Right now there is just one slot per patch per food source, but it’s supposed to be expanded.
For example, there is a “light” slot if there is light in a patch. When there is no cell currently occupying it, any other species in the patch might mutate to get a thylakoid and fill it. But if there’s any species already in there, well adapted to it, some other species with one extra thylakoid is not likely to replace it. Much more likely that the same species or a “branch” from it will end up filling this miche again in the next round. So, there you already have essentially a “photosynthetic lineage”.
Once auto-evo is expanded to have for example a “macro-scopic photosynthesis Miche”, I would expect one species to go macroscopic, and then diversify from there, taking up all the space for “macro-scopic photosynthesis”, simply because no other lineage can compete with its head start. The exceptions would if two do become macroscopic at almost the same time by chance, or there are more miches that are not as easy to reach from the same starting point.
The same can go for any other “macroscopic + food source + certain structure” scenario. For example, there could be a “macroscopic chemosynthesis” Miche, but it either:
- Just does not show up below a certain minimum level of Hydrogen-sulphide
- Has certain minimum energy requirements that cannot be met unless there is enough Hydrogen-sulphide
With earth levels and dispersion of ionising radiation? We do have those radiotrophic fungi. And while some of them are single-celled yeast, others are multicellular. And as most multicellular IRL organisms, macroscopic by Thrive terms.
But yes, on the amount of radiation on earth, certainly not large or active.
On a planet completely bathed in large amounts of ionising radiation for some infernal reason on the other hand, it would be like photosynthesis I think. Enough to grow big, but there would also be little reason to move. So, do giant sequoia and aspen colonies count as Kaiju?
4 Likes