Beginning Concepts on The Multicellular Stage

[Deus]

@Rathalos

This is essentially size-related costs, just for the multicellular organism instead of cells, right? Maybe we can look more in that direction, rather than explicitly making the binding agent consume more?

It basically is, yes - with this concept, as the size of your colony increases, so does the cost associated with binding agents. We can just assign that as size-related costs associated with colony activity, but since this would apply to unicellular organisms which can exhibit colonial behavior as well, it might be difficult to present that as its own thing.

I realize that problem would still be present with binding agent costs as well; but if we include intracellular size-related costs as well, could that lead to some confusion or crowding for the player to look at? Atleast with binding agents, players pretty clearly associate that with multicellular activity.

@Rathalos

Also, does this apply to unicellular colonies? If not: will that be confusing and hard to justify? If yes: can we adequately communicate this to the player? Especially since colony size can be very dynamic. (Multicellular organisms to a lesser degree also, come to think of it. Would the penalties grow with you, assuming you are born as one cell?)

This would apply to unicellular colonies in accordance to the progression from 1st to 2nd stage concept, and communicating that cost could be difficult.

Perhaps one way to approach it is to have binding agent costs act a bit differently for Microbe Stage organisms, where each additional bond adds a flat cost instead of one that might be more dynamic for Multicellular colonies. So the initial osmoregulation cost of a binding agent is 5 - binding with another organism adds another 5, another bind adds another 5, etc. So with this math, the player could somewhat intuitively figure out that a colony of 5 would require atleast a 25 ATP margin to fly.

This cost can be less for a prokaryote if we want to allow colonies a la cyanobacteria (a stacking cost of 2 with each agent instead of 5). They can’t progress to Multicellular without a eukaryote anyways, so progression there looks different.

That is a good point about whether or not the penalty grows with a multicellular organism or if it is just applied from birth to every cell. I think it would be best to just have it be applied from the beginning for multicellular organisms so that your initially productive cells don’t just start dying after a certain part of your growth. Though that does bring up questions related to player intuitiveness.

@Rathalos

I would rather look into decreasing the effectiveness of all the processes that require outside (evenly distributed) compounds, as an exaggeration of the problems multicellular organisms face.

I think that’s very valid, I just wonder how intuitive it would appear to the player. I think costs are more intuitive for the player to understand (could be my own intuitive biases) because they tend to be more explicitly tied to a sort of baseline, whereas generation can be affected by dynamic rates. I’m definitely not against this interpretation, I was just focused on costs since they seem more immediately understandable.

The “eh here’s some jargon” explanation that immediately came to me was that multicellular organisms tend to have more complex enzyme feedback/regulation because they need to both optimize specialized performance and still make sure that every cell exists in the ideal state for the colony as a whole. So perhaps that cost represents the additional upkeep needed to keep everything regulated and optimal.

One of our old Theorists, Bird, explained this better than I can in an old message:

Keep in mind however the context of that answer is in regards to why macroscopic organisms can’t just rely on enzymes as much as unicellular organisms to adapt to environmental conditions - so this isn’t me trying to say that my jargon is a theory-approved idea. You have a stronger theoretical background than I do, so if you think what Bird was describing is a different phenomena and doesn’t pass the sniff test for that concept, I’ll take your word for it.

I think if anything, something like this:

@Rathalos

P.S. We could also have f.e. the nucleus increase in upkeep with each additional cell type, because that is more and more genetic complexity that needs to be maintained.

Could be a good alternative, since it has the more intuitive effect to costs as opposed to generation while still presenting some sort of that scaling effect.

@Rathalos

Hmmm, having essentially an “achievement unlock” to progress is quite different. My first feeling is that I would still prefer some fundamental addition, like we have with adding the nucleus and binding agents.

That could also work, but I do think about how exactly that would work if adding this part results in the stage transition. Do you just build up to this expensive part, and if you reproduce x amount of times with it, you become multicellular? That could be more in step with how progression related to the nucleus works - but what would incentivize a player to actually utilize binding agents if the placement of a part is the definitive source of transition, and not action related to the agents?

I definitely think the current stage transition is flawed in that it is very easy to fulfill once you place down a binding agent, but I atleast do like how it forces you to mirror an action or behavior fundamental to the stage you are trying to get to.

@Rathalos

Perhaps instead we can instead make creating a new cell type quite expensive? Especially if we also require that each cell type needs at least one edit to make it unique and require at least one cell of that type in the organism in order to save. Then all of that should be made to have a total MP cost that is quite high.

Also, I feel like maybe that type of specialisation where you are just deleting unnecessary functions shouldn’t be too expensive? It’s something else for creating specialised cells that do entirely new things. That should be expensive.

Good points here, I agree.

@Rathalos

Definitely support [size-related costs], but both for individual cells and the whole multicellular organism. Question remains what these costs would actually affect?

I agree - I think size-related costs should apply to a unicellular organism, and that same cost should be present for members of a multicellular organism.

I think Size-Related Costs should be their own “box” in the ATP bars for Organism Statistics, if that makes sense. Another interpretation involves just scaling osmoregulation costs, but I’m not really in favor of that. I think it is important that players understand exactly how much their size is costing them, and if that is bunched with osmoregulation, that isn’t very intuitive: what part of osmoregulation is just because of my parts, and what part is because of my size?

@Rathalos

I could see the MP cost for making an additional cell type rising for each cell type you already have. That puts a limit on the complexity. I feel like tweaking the individual cells doesn’t really need additional costs? Editing your cell in microbe stage is already plenty expensive.

I think that’s a good point. Mutations to individual cell types are discounted currently in the editor. We can look at that discount when it comes to progression.

---

Responding to some of your prior points…

@Rathalos

Of course, it might be slightly odd for binding agents to unlock [altering efficiency of your most frequent part] when it doesn’t actually enable the ability to individually specialise cells. Feels a bit like a disconnected effect perhaps? I had it in my mind as a small bonus to the previously existing effect, but I am not sure if it still makes sense if it’s the first time you encounter this mechanic.

Fair point - there are some pretty weird and cool behaviors, like quorum sensing, that allow unicellular organisms to accentuate or mitigate certain functions if conditions allow. But that might be too much to wrap into a single part.

@Rathalos

I am not sure how easy it would be to implement engulfment take into account the size of not just the target cell, but the whole colony. But that would be a strong benefit that is very tightly integrated into our existing mechanics. And in my opinion quite intuitive to players.

I also have heard that, and very interesting - perhaps cells need a bigger size gap to engulf cells in a colony. This would incentivize the development of cell functions and abilities as opposed to just relying on engulfment when engaging with other colonies, mirroring the development of more complex adaptations. Like you mention though, it might be difficult to implement.

@Rathalos

My first thoughts on this for it to be a many-step process. Either through additional organelles, or upgrades on the Binding Agent organelle. As a demonstrative example:

1. Unlock binding at all.

2. Get a osmoregulation cost reduction for binding.

3. Start sharing compounds.

4. Reduce movement penalty for being large.

5. Start getting the efficiency bonus you mentioned.

6. Multicellular stage.

I do like the iterative nature of this, but two things:

• Since we don’t really have some sort of “linear upgrade” system for any other part of the game, this could stray too far away from our core design principles.
• These could perhaps be represented as parts - but that would be a large number of parts for a very specific phase of the game, which clutters the editor and could confuse players.

Perhaps these bonuses could be applied to unique parts in the Multicellular Stage instead of a mandatory bunch of parts you must place on a unicellular organism to progress? Through either things you place on your cell, or extracellular parts as you mention.

@Rathalos

[referencing sexual reproduction not necessarily being tied to growth/reproduction strategies] So maybe it’s a good idea to entirely separate the evolution of (a)sexual reproduction from the selection of “juvenile form + growth pattern?” Sexual reproduction would slightly complicate the reproduction process in return for the mp discount or other bonuses. Independently, you would select the option for how the offspring starts off and develops.

That is a good point. Perhaps sexual reproduction is tied to the placement of a part on either your colony or your cell (sexual reproduction did evolve with eukaryotes afterall), and your growth strategy is something different. Or it could just be a toggle in a sort of reproduction strategy menu, such as the basic one we already have which only lets you select budding.

@Rathalos

I’ll have to come back to the different reproduction types. It’s a bit difficult, because I do think we’re stuck to some limitations in this stage: Cells that you start with probably have to stay in the same form, in the same place. We can’t change and move cells around as it grows. (So the typical vertebrate “more-or-less” mini-me form is not attainable in this stage) So whatever the offspring juvenile looks like, those cells will still be there in the same shape in the adult organism

I do wonder if we could atleast have it so that certain parts in a cell disappear at different life cycles, since if any stage could have a pretty dedicated breakdown of a life cycle, it would be this one. Though like you said, it entirely depends on whether or not this feature could be demonstrated intuitively, and if it is worth the labor.

@Rathalos

• Feasibility of implementation: I imagine locking membrane types once you hit this stage is an easier change than propagating this change across all cell types. We’d also have to figure out how to price that mp-wise, but that’s a simpler point (To be frank though, at this scale that’s such a massive change it might be 100 MP)

• As far as I can tell on earth this never happened. Is that maybe an indication that we should regard it as extremely unlikely? (Biologically speaking, my theory here is that the cell connection system is fundamentally adapted to the membrane/wall type).

• Having the lock might actually be a really interesting differentiation point between playthroughs. Similar to how your macroscopic editor concept ties things to the skeleton type. For example, muscles really only work when the cell membrane can be really flexible, not if they all have cell walls.

1. I agree with the pricing.
2. I wonder how frequently membranes change within eukaryotic species as opposed to multicellular species - could membrane switching in eukaryotes to the extent we have it in the Microbe Stage be similarly not based on sound science?
3. I agree, but that could also lead to some frustration on the player’s behalf if they realize that they are restricted upon entering the Multicellular Stage and beyond. My concepts for the Macroscopic Editor does have the integumentary system be binding in some cases, but atleast with that, there’s a possibility for change if you “de-evolve” certain parts. For something as fundamental as a stage transition, I wonder how possible it would be to offer that “revert-point”.

@Rathalos

Could definitely work. Maybe we also want some option here to give protection here in return for giving up engulfment. Because I think “dedicated mouth area” is something we definitely want to have as an emphasised option. (and uniform membrane type removes that)

That is very interesting - perhaps more rigid membranes increase the size discrepancy needed for engulfing things, and fluid membranes do the opposite.

@Rathalos

Part of the idea was to replace some things that different membrane types on different cell types currently do. For example, protection where you don’t need a mouth. I am not entirely sure how that would work with effects on the general statistics? The point of them is to still be located in a specific hex, both functionally and visibly. For example, with a shell-producing organelle, I would still expect the shell to be placed around/near where that cell type is located.

Those are good points.

I think a good approach here would be first to create a list of some potential abilities we can represent in the Multicellular Stage (like you mentioned, some examples of shelling, mesoglea, utilizing very powerful currents to engulf, etc.)

Then from these abilities, we can discuss whether or not these parts can be fit into traditional part placement, or if it would require something like extracellular parts. Again, I’m not necessarily against this concept, just wondering if it is a layer of complexity that should be added in this way. If we come up with abilities that would really benefit from this interpretation, then its case is much stronger.