When glucose cloud is replaced with zoo/phytoplankton, the clouds would include phosphate and ammonia too.
Okay, so what about removing the phosphate and ammonia clouds like how oxygen is removed?
You could already do that by reproducing. And what determines how long you need to survive? Yes, the very game you said has problems. And the player wouldn’t understand why the game asks him/her to survive for that spesific length.
This has a simpler solution. Make the time it takes for reproduction shorter, and ask the player to reproduce more than once. This way, the long times and short times would average out.
Why not remove compound clouds completely, if most of the ammonia and phosphate don’t come from the consumed clouds?
What does mutation points have to do with the speed at which the compounds required to build another member of your species is obtained?
In cell stage, you can add a nitrogen fixing plastid, and a plant can have nitrogen fixing legumes. They both should lower the time it takes to reproduce.
Maybe the requirement for reproduction should only be ammonia and phosphate for autotrophs. For heterotrops, what exists in food shouldn’t be visible to them. The compounds (containing equal amounts of both of them, because they were sufficient for the primary producer) in the food filling the reproduction bar and the glucose increasing the energy/hunger bar.
But ammonia is the thing you need for reproduction. Getting it does prove that you are adapted. You are succesful if you can reproduce. It doesn’t matter how long it lasted.
The species you described is perfectly adapted to its environment.
What are you suggesting? There can’t be too many predators, becuse there aren’t enough cells to feed them.
Generalist species can exist in multiple patches. Anyway, enviromental tolerance isn’t related to reproduction.
Not having glucose kills. Not having phosphate/ammonia doesn’t cause anything.
That is called death due to old age.
Producers can’t produce minerals with fusion. Why should the phosphate/ammonia levels be anything other than constant or random? Decreasing glucose levels can symbolise abiogenic hydrocarbons being consumed and the iron can dissapear from patches that gain oxygen. Volcanism can increase some minerals but it doesn’t start to happen less frequently if the planet is like earth and its core isn’t solidifying.
Such as by filling the ammonia bar of a species that has enough phosphate?
If they are abundant everywhere, why should they boost anything?
This started to sound like dietary recommendations instead of a survival game. Is this more realistic?
That is a very random thing to do
Is that a good complexity to add?
The main focus was already that.
I don’t have an opinion on that, I think it should be done if it is more realistic.
These are good solutions
What I understand is, phosphate and ammonia were like the power ups in mario games, not necessary because they were abundent (and also not abundent?). Why did the power ups exist in the first place? To make the player get used to the game? Do they only become necessary later in the game? Did the early oceans on earth have a lot of phosphate and ammonia? Then wouldn’t it be toxic, how is it a power up? Was it right below the goldilocks amount?
I agree
Not really complicated. They are power ups.
Why? Is because a generation lasts shorter and there would be more generations for evolution? Does the game currently give us 50% mp discount if we enter the editor 50% faster?
What? I thought you wanted a more or less fixed time. The incentive is being able to enter the editor with a lower hp, etc. But if your species is unfit(such as slow), not only you can’t get the power ups before the others, you woud get hunted and extinct. This is the first time you are suggesting being able to enter the editor after a shorter jump, if thats what you are suggesting.
Every species is already incentivised to “just reproduce as soon as possible”. There are exceptions to it such as the grandmother hypothesis but I don’t think you are talking about that.
It is obvious that an experienced player woudn’t be able to finish the game faster if the lengths are more or less fixed.
I suggested having a fixed number of generations instead of a fixed time and I less strongly suggested all the clouds except the glucose to be removed, which would result in the same thing for autotrophs, but that shouldn’t be a problem if speeding up the game is also added, playing as a tree would be boring otherwise.
I’d say it is too much controlled
So, can this be solved by greatly increasing the glucose requirement for reproduction and added parts?
You are just undoing your idea
Why should auto evo care about something that doesn’t change a species’s chance of survival? Why do we end up having mismatchs*? Why should the ammonia help the player’s species in an invisible way? Why shouldn’t the player see that s/he is succesful after consuming ammonia, because of faster healing, etc, and why should there be an increse in auto evo numbers for any other reason than a decrease in deaths and an increase in births? Why try so hard to find benefits to ammonia from a gameplay perspective, instead of looking at the real benefits of ammonia?
I didn’t noticed what changed in this concept. The time it takes until you can click the reproduce button still depends on the
the previous one was
which means which organelles are placed. Or whatever. I don’t know.
A mouse can see the world in slow mo, and a whale can see it in fast mo (is that a word?). The time it takes subjectively for a the player can depend on how fast the player manages to hunt prey (when playing a carnivore) and therefore consume ammonia/phosphate and glucose.
The time it takes for an average player can be determined with tweaking the game’s parameters. The deviation from the average can be reduced with multiple generations.
For example, imagine that the expected value for the time it takes before reproduction was 10 minutes and the standard deviation was very high, 8 minutes.
And imagine that we replaced it with two 5 minute long generations. Their standard deviations are 4.
What is the standard deviation of playing two 5 minute long games?* It is √(42+42) or 5,65 minutes, instead of 8 minutes. If it was divided into 8 short generations, it would be √(8 x 18) or 2,82 minutes. If there are more generations, the total amout of time before entering the editor becomes more predictable. [1]
That would be an chemoautotroph, and need to get ammonia/phosphate with passive absorption
ATP is used to store energy for a short term. Glucose is used to build yourself and grow. Plants can turn glucose into lignin, carbohydrates and fats can be also be considered glucose. Proteins can be considered ammonia(could be called protein in aware stage). Every cell also needs to have some ATP/ADP, which have phosphate. So it is best to treat ATP as a middleman and make growth depend on ammonia/phosphate/glucose.
Using glucose is like using ATP, because you give carbon dioxide when you breathe out. The glucose used for growth is the glucose that can’t be used for energy. Glucose from the glucose bar can be removed for growth.
You can’t grow faster than you consume, so why not say that “grow as fast as you can”? Why would a player chose to grow slower? If you don’t want to enter the editor, if you have unfinished business, you can just not click the reproduction button, and stay a grown up for some time.
What? Is this a game exploit?
If there is a lack of glucose, why isn’t the cell dying? Magic? Ammonia can’t turn into glucose.
edit: a carbon fixator can use ammonia to make glucose*
tell me if i the maths or the assumptions are wrong ↩︎