Macroscopic Editor, Progression, and Principles

Deus · November 8, 2022, 6:12pm

I think that’s more a question specifically related to progression more so than the underlying mechanics of the macroscopic editor. After trying to make an editor concept while trying to keep progression (specifically, early eumetazoan evolution) in mind, I can say it’s pretty difficult to create a universally applicable editor by limiting focus to a specific era of evolutionary history while trying to extrapolate these findings to other eras of evolutionary history at the same time. Like Buckly has done, I think it’s better if we create general principles and envision general mechanics first, then think of specific case studies and refine the details as we go along, which is something I’ll be focusing on.

Also something of interest: Williston’s Law. A user on the community forums in this thread (Questions about the realistic implementation of repeating parts/segments (and Williston's law) - Multicellular Stage - Thrive Community Forum) put it this way:

“most organisms have ended up with their characteristic arrangement of parts by first evolving many similar parts and then specializing or losing those parts over time.”

Hence, for example, many types of bony fish having more fins than tetrapods have limbs, or the ancestor of arthropods tending to have many more limbs than current arthropods such as was seen in trilobites. Note that Williston’s Law isn’t necessarily canon - currently scientists prefer explanations of variances in evolutionary rates more than general principles of morphological complexity - but it could be a line of thinking which is implemented well in Thrive given the more artificial nature of our evolution. It also reveals that early on in metazoan evolution, experimentation with limbs was rather frequent; it was complexity which transitioned the focus more to tweaking existing structures rather than creating entirely new ones.

I think ultimately that we’d want to have a split between how we treat the creation of limbs (initial investment) and the modification of limbs. We’ll probably want the initial investment to create a limb be more expensive than the modification of limbs in terms of MP. We’ll also probably want to vary the cost of both of these depending on the player’s morphology; so for example, a vertebrate analogue will have to spend a lot more MP than an arthropod analogue to create or modify their limbs. We’ll also probably want to balance/calibrate states related to things such as movement speed or something so that as a player’s limbs get more complex (perhaps in joint count?), they’ll be encouraged to have different limb structures. So for example, vertebrate limbs would be most efficient in terms of speed with either two or four limbs on the ground, with 3 joints in each limb. Arthropod limbs will have slightly more leeway (ants have 6 limbs with 3 joints in each limb, whereas tarantulas can have 7 joints in 8 legs), with more joints and limbs reducing speed but increasing agility for example. These two factors combined should allow us to encourage players to prefer spending MP on the editing of limbs after a while.

But in regards to more specific features that showed up later in evolutionary history, such as the evolution of fur and the such, you have a valid point. We should probably think of a sort of unlocking method in that regard.

PS: I would also like to note that’s vertebrates fundamentally have inherited a development pattern from their ancestors that makes it genetically harder to coordinate the development of additional limbs too. So we do have some grounds of, after a certain point, abstractly bumping the costs of creating limbs for organisms with an endoskeleton.

Buckly · November 19, 2022, 3:24pm

A bit late to the party, I know, but if it really comes down to it we could potentially end up hiding parts the player cannot utilize in later stages of the… stage.

Obviously we will need a way for the player, and autoevo, to create new limbs at some point, not to mention freebuild which should remain pretty unfettered. So I believe the overall features of the editor are fine, we just need to consider how it changes while the player progresses.

One idea of my own I’ve been toying with, is the idea of committing players to a sort of progression path tied to their choices. These would lock them out of certain parts, but unlock others. The first of which would arise in the transition between microbe and multicellular. Whichever membrane-type their cell possessed would become the defining type. They would no longer be able to alter their membrane type, but may gain access to new associated features. For instance, cellulose organisms would have access to bark and trichome coverings later on, but would not have fur or scales.

The development of advanced bodily support too could be a part of this. endo/exoskeletons would prevent the player from creating brand new limbs, forcing them to creatively alter the limbs they already have. It would basically be the crossroads between …whatever and a proper animal. Not sure what we could give in return though…

I’m sure we can all agree that it would suck if after progressing you just suddenly lose access to parts, it would be pretty jarring. But as organisms become more complex they can no longer throw new limbs and bones on themselves willy nilly, so we would need to make sure the player always has some form of tradeoff in return.

Whatever the case may be, it’s certainly a matter of progression that we need to consider. I think the editor concept I have outlined is fine for a general overview for the future.

MirrorMonkey2 · December 20, 2022, 9:45pm

I thought about Bucklys suggested macroscopic editor interface and overall I really like it. But I have one important gripe with the internals tab: In my opinion the left panel feels a bit empty and devoid of information when it only shows the tissue types. In my opinion it could be better utilized by integrating some information about the metaballs into it instead of displaying these metaballs data in a pop-up menu.
As I understand it, this proposed metaball context menu would pop up in front of the organism. imo this is suboptimal as I think it would be better if you see the metaball you’re editing while doing so.

I therefore propose that the left panel includes a category called “segments” (I think this may be a more intuitive term for metaballs to use in-game). This category contains all the metaballs which the player can name to keep track of their function/position. As you can see, in my example the player has named them Head, Upper Abdomen, Lower Abdomen and so on.

Each segment section, when opened in the left panel, would include a list of that panels organs, as well as the tissue types which are contained within that segment but aren’t part of an organ.
The left panel functions much like a set of spoilers within spoilers which can be opened and closed as needed, much like many of our menus function. But there is an alternative way to quickly jump from segment menu to segment menu: Clicking on a segment of the organism will bring you straight to that segments menu and close all other segment menus.

Clicking on “Add Tissue Type” would send you to the top of the left panel where you can select a type to place in this segment from a library of all tissue types in the organism.
Clicking on one of the organs would open an organ pop-up window. This organ pop-up would open to the right, in front of the organism. This is consistent with the idea I layed out before: When you click on the metaball on the right side of the screen, the corresponding menu opens next to it, on the left side of the screen. When clicking on an organ on the left side of the screen, its corresponding menu opens next to it, on the right side of the screen.

I hope that I explained my suggestion as clearly as possible. I will sketch up a organ menu pop-up if needed. If I have time I may also do a simple animation of how clicking on a segment would open that segments menu and so on. Some of these things may be more easy to explain as a series of moving images rather than some rambling paragraphs.
(Btw @Heath I borrowed your critter for this concept muck-up, I hope that’s ok)

Buckly · December 21, 2022, 3:17am

You raise a good point! Being able to avoid a popup menu would be nice as it clears up the player’s vision.

Using the left panel to display the statistics of the currently selected metaball is a pretty great idea, though I fear that listing all of the individual organ sets and such may end up feeling overly cluttered and messy.

I am personally in support of replacing the left menu with the selected part’s details whenever the user selects a part, but otherwise it would just display available tissues.

That being said, I am by no means an experienced graphics designer, so I’ll let the graphics team have the final say in the matter.

MirrorMonkey2 · December 21, 2022, 10:06am

Thanks for your reply! I think I get what you’re saying and I’m going to make an alternative mock-up which takes these changes into account. I may not fully understand what you mean by “organ sets”, but I’ll just go with my interpretation of what that means:)

Deus · March 3, 2023, 10:23pm

I had this thought train about how we can deal with developing playstyles in the late-multicellular/Aware Stage. I think this stage will be Thrive’s cool “gig” in a way, considering there are no similar games representing player-controlled evolution in as scientific of a way as possible. It is also the stage of life where evolution will happen the most quickly and lead to the most diversity of playstyles, so it is important to get it down right.

There isn’t much of a concrete mechanic suggestion here; rather, it’s a suggestion on how we can think about things going forward.

PHYLOGENY AND DEVELOPMENT

We would be interested in representing the evolution of metazoans (animals) and plants in this part of the game. Given just how much diversity there is in the body-plans of macroscopic organisms, this is a vast undertaking. So we need to be deliberate and methodical in how we approach the implementation of various unique adaptations. If we’re too shallow with what we implement, then there will be very little replayability in Thrive and many shallow mechanics - if we’re too detailed in everything we implement, nothing will ever happen.

In my mind, the best way to address things is by looking at phylogenetic trees and focusing on a specific clade as we work through upgrades.

(skip this paragraph if you understand the diagram above) Just to review phylogenetic trees quickly in case anyone in the larger community reading this is rusty on them, they basically map out the evolutionary relationship between different groups of animals. The number of “splits” there are between different groups indicates how closely related they are. So in this diagram, you can see the line leading to Cnidaria (jellyfish & coral) and Ctenophora (comb jellies) indicates that Cnidaria and Ctenophora developed pretty early in the evolution of metazoans, splitting off from other metazoans very quickly. Here is a basic introduction to the topic: Phylogenetic Tree Basics - YouTube

As far as I’m aware, this particular image isn’t necessarily the “definitive” phylogenetic tree of metazoans - there are various phylogenetic trees online, with various levels of detail. The important thing though is that these diagrams present us with a clear understanding of how different animals relate to each other.

There are also phylogenetic trees for each group of metazoans. Here is a phylogenetic tree for Cnidarians…

So essentially, by looking at the larger eumetazoan phylogeny tree, we have the complete tree of life in our hands. So, what I think will work best is to focus on a specific part of the tree for a specific series of patches. We can determine what to focus on first based on how early in the evolutionary history of eumetazoans a specific group appears.

We obviously cannot represent every single species within a family, so our job will be determining what collection of cool adaptations will best represent the phylogeny of a specific clade, and then choosing a collection of cool traits from the various subphylum within said phylum to adequately represent a given species.

So for example, this can be how we breakdown the Cnidaria…

Cnidaria

Cnidarians include Medusozoa, the group which includes all the” traditional” jellyfish and Anthozoa, which includes coral and other sessile organisms. We will likely want to focus most on Cubozoa and Scyphozoa (Medusozoans) to represent the two forms of major forms of jellyfish. We will also want to focus on coral, though they are more adequately represented by sessile gameplay and should be considered there.

Hydrozoans are the most numerous group of Cnidarians, though many are characterized by their tiny size (might not need many dedicated parts) and colonial nature (something we probably won’t simulate). There are also other forms of Medusozoans, though they are largely sessile, so there might be overlap with coral.

Medusozoa (Primarily Cubozoa and Scyphozoa)

Medusozoa tend to be motile, are radially symmetrical, and have nematocysts which allow them to sting. Some use their appendages to poison prey, though others have minimal predatory capacity and instead prefer filter-feeding using those appendages.

How to Represent Medusozoa

Their “floating” nature can be represented by allowing players to alter their mesoglea/buoyancy, and their stingers and tentacles can be represented by allowing players to develop appendages. Many of these appendages are like the familiar tentacles, though some are larger, expanding surface area.

How to Represent Scyphozoa

Scyphozoans are known as the “true jellyfish”. There are roughly 3 orders of scyphozoans, and perhaps up to 400 species. They tend to be larger than hydrozoans and contain a slightly more complex movement pattern which allows them to move at their size. Variance within Schyphozoa can focus on the presence or ratio of tentacles and oral arms. Some groups have many tentacles and no arms, some have arms and tentacles, others have no tentacles and only arms. Behavior variances also exist.

Thus, we can probably adequately represent Scyphozoans within Thrive by allowing variation in the number of tentacles and oral arms. Size will also naturally play a factor.

How to Represent Cubozoa

Cubozoans are box jellies. They are characterized by their potent toxicity and their more box-like shape. Cubozoans are known for having a rather complex nervous system and more capable sensory than other jellyfish. They can also swim pretty fast for jellyfish.

Thus, box jellies can be adequately represented in Thrive by allowing customization of the effects of jellyfish stingers (nematocysts). They will likely naturally emerge as players with Cnidarian-esque body plans enhance their nervous system and sensory capabilities.

Other

Hydrozoans exhibit a good amount of diversity in the capability of their appendages. For example, some projectiles are merely grabbing/restraining rather than poisonous. That could be a relatively simple inclusion to diversify combat, akin to the toxin system in the Microbe Stage. They are also known to be rather small at times, though this can vary.

There are various types of sessile Medusozoans. These can be used to diversify sessile gameplay, though they aren’t necessary in my opinion.

Here we have a pretty simple way of representing an entire group of animals in Thrive with just these steps…

Allow mesoglea and customization of buoyancy/density.
Include appendages akin to oral arms and stinging nematocysts.
Allow customization over the number of these appendages, the effects of these appendages, etc.
Implement other global mechanics, like the evolution of sense and such.
(Bonus) Implement some sessile gameplay capacities with Cnidarians.

That’s much more manageable than going through every single living jellyfish and throwing out some ideas, no? We can implement these and go on our merry way to represent other organisms.

I understand that doing this for every clade can look daunting, but we definitely can simplify things. For example, did you know that “worms” are represented across a huge variety of clades? There are mollusc worms, annelid worms, nematode worms, platyhelminthes worms, etc. Many shared traits exist between many groups of organisms, so we can oftentimes knock out various clades at the same time. Or atleast, be able to repackage various adaptations/mechanics for future traits. Jellyfish appendages can translate to octopi appendages eventually. It also helps to realize that players will have a lot of fun in combining various traits from various clades; we don’t have to necessarily think of things as being so specialized.

Of course, there are certain clades that will require a lot of focus. Vertebrates, Crustaceans, Molluscs, and Hexapoda as examples. But if nothing else, I think this approach to developing the macroscopic stages will be the best way to approach this daunting task from a design perspective:

Research a clade. Familiarize yourself somewhat with the orders of said clade.
Find out the defining traits of the clade and its various orders. There are many of course, but simplify your list to the least amount of traits for the most amount of diversity. Identify some traits which might be bonus objectives as well.
Then, we start developing this group of animals, focusing on them for a series of updates.
Once all “bottom-line” traits are implemented, repeat the cycle with a new clade.

Buckly · March 8, 2023, 5:20pm

I think this is a great run-down of the process of accounting for potential variety in Thrive. Maybe I’ll post a link on our wiki page to this, or condense it into a paragraph to help prime new designers on finding inspiration for features.

That being said, we must be ever mindful of casting too wide a net when it comes to creature editing, lest players become rather overwhelmed.

Deus · December 15, 2023, 8:02pm

Hello all,

As I’ve been getting more motivation to get involved with Thrive again, I’ve been dumping some thought into this topic just to get the creative juices flowing. I wanted a rough idea of the macroscopic stages - more specifically, I wanted to create an outline of how we could go about representing the most number of organisms with the least number of features necessary. So to go about this endeavor, I read a bit into phylogeny and taxonomy, and tried to characterize various groups of organisms I noticed.

I have a clade-by-clade breakdown below, but first, I wanted to note some general thoughts I’ve had as I went about this exercise…

Mechanics Over Parts - Thrive’s early macroscopic stages will likely be carried more by underlying mechanics shared by most organisms and less by unique “parts/traits” giving abilities relative to the later portion of the macroscopic stage. Before the arrival of the more complex vertebrates, arthropods, molluscs, and annelids, organisms were very weird structurally, but had relatively simple ecological niches. They were mostly filter-feeders, bottom-feeders, and very occasionally were limited predators. The first two niches will largely be influenced by fundamental mechanics, such as surface area-volume and organ systems. Furthermore, we want to make sure the player has a grasp of their basic macroscopic mechanics before throwing them to super-predators.
Progression Pipelines - I think there will generally be two “game progression styles” in the early macroscopic/late multicellular stages, which I informally/affectionately nickname the “Thrivian Jelly Pipeline” and the “Thrivian Worm Pipeline”. The Thrivian Jelly Pipeline covers clades like that of the ctenophora and the cnidarians, while the “Worm Pipeline” covers everything else. The Jelly Pipeline is more limited in progression, as most advanced organisms evolved from worm-like organisms; as such, it’ll act as a unique playstyle. The worm pipeline is likely more standard to most Thrive playthroughs, and more directly proceeds to more advanced morphologies. The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive by the way, but the more Jelly-Like you are, the harder it is to evolve advanced structures in your body plan.
Scope Limits - I think there are two things that we should declare not to incorporate within Thrive now unless implementation is very simple, and a third thing we should really think about. First, colonial macroscopic organisms, as these are a very niche and complex cases. Second, complex endoparasitic organisms, as it would be a nightmare to represent a microscopic representation of the inside of another organism. Third, we should really put some thought into the various scales we will represent. There will undoubtedly be times were we will have to cut between various “scales”, such as in microscopic multicellular organisms to the macroscopic world, and omit certain niches or organisms. Where will these cuts occur?

This post focuses on the “Thrivian Worm Pipeline”. I try to give a broad description of various clades, and infer some basic parts or mechanics we can implement into Thrive. As such, most of this will be focused on the early parts of the late-multicellular, probably before the playthrough’s “Cambrian Explosion” where more advanced morphologies appear.

By the end of this post, hopefully you guys understand what I mean, and hopefully we will have a slightly clear understanding of how we can define our scope for the early macroscopic stage.

Going through this has made me believe it is actually very feasible to represent a good amount of diversity with a large, but realistic amount of effort. I hope you guys emerge with the same feeling, and I promise that I will begin focusing on more immediate concepts soon again!

SIMPLE BILATERANS AND THE “WORM PIPELINE”

Xenacoelomorpha

Xenacoelomorpha are triploblastic and bilateral, meaning they are able to develop muscle-derived and more specialized organ systems, and are bilaterally symmetrical. They do not have a complete digestive system (their mouth filters both food and waste because they don’t have an anus).

There are two major clades within Xenacoelomorpha…

Acoelomorpha
Xenoturbellida

Xenacoelomorpha probably serves as the representation of what most macroscopic animals in Thrive will look like only a bit before they start specializing into more unique organisms. They don’t really have any unique characteristics to implement.

Xenoturbellida

Containing roughly 6 species within the same genus, Xenoturbellida represents a very small group of animals. I don’t think there is much we can derive from this clade. They notably have a mouth opening on the bottom of their body rather than on their anterior side. Above is a Xenoturbellida that looks like a churro; most Xenacoelomorpha look a lot like this, except less churro-esque.

Implications for Thrive

Churros. Having the ability to customize where a mouth part is placed would be an interesting characteristic for more simple organisms. However, if that interferes with the future parts of the multicellular stage with a more defined head and mouth at front of body, then that takes precedent.

Acoelomorpha

There are roughly 350 Acoelomorpha, representing a decently-sized clade. Being rather small animals, most of them registering on the centimeter range, they generally live either planktonic lifestyles or slither around on the benthic floor. A few of them have very simple sensory organs called ocelli, among the simplest of metazoan eyes. Above are mint-sauce worms, an example of Acoelomorpha.

Notably, some Acoelomorpha are able to integrate photosynthetic plankton within their epidermis via consumption. This allows them to benefit from photosynthesis; some of these organisms depend completely on their symbionts.

Implications for Thrive

As said above, there likely isn’t much to extract from Acoelomorpha; they just serve as a representation of what most players will somewhat look like at some point in their playthrough.

A unique ability we can implement is to get some photosynthetic capability from the food you eat. This would have to be balanced in some way to make it so that only very simple organisms with very thin membranes can possibly benefit from this adaptation. For example, reducing temperature tolerance ranges and health could work.

So, I guess the breakdown for this group after simple mechanics are implemented involves…

Implement a capacity for the player to absorb the photosynthetic ability of what they eat if they have sufficient adaptations. I would think this would be more of a bonus trait rather than a core requirement in terms of mechanics.

SPIRALIA - MORE ADVANCED WORMS AND MOLLUSCS (Not Covered Here)

From here, we can discuss Spiralia, a large group of metazoans including some more complex organisms worthy of attention.

Platyhelminthes - The Flat Worms

The flatworms. Triploblastic and bilateral, flatworms have no true body cavity, resulting in a rather simple body plan. They display cephalization (they have a true head) and have a more developed nervous system, though they don’t have a complete digestive system. Their high surface area allows them to circumvent the need for a elaborate respiratory or circulatory system, relying mostly on their digestive system for circulation. Most are rather small (the millimeter range), though some are rather visible benthic animals. Their mouth notably is found near the bottom of their body, which looks somewhat like a proboscis. This mouth can extend in some species, though not to a significant amount.

There are two major groups of platyhelminthes: the Catenulida and the Rhabditophora. The Catenulida have been rather difficult for scientists to distinguish due to their relatively small number of species and their similar morphology; meanwhile, the Rhabditophora are the more “iconic” species of flatworms. Rhabditophora include the notorious tapeworm, and many other parasitic species.

Implications for Thrive

To me, the flatworms represent another point in the “basal worm pipeline” that most players will likely end up a part of as they become more advanced organisms. They represent a “step-up” in terms of Thrive progression, with the advent of a more advanced digestive and nervous system. I think organisms such as these will emerge naturally in Thrive without the need to implement unique mechanics, and thus, gameplay for these sorts of organisms will depend on the fundamental game mechanics shared by all macroscopic organisms. I notice that this is a trend with many of the most basal, early-multicellular organisms - so we might want to pay attention to creating simple, but fun mechanics for the early stages of the late-multicellular stage.

I will say though that flatworms can be very colorful, so having nice customization options could be seen as a bonus for this clade. And of course, being able to “flatten” the metaball body plan of soft-bodied organisms would help visually represent these organisms as well.

Nemerteans - the Ribbon/Proboscis Worms

Nemerteans uniquely have a proboscis. This projectile proboscis can rapidly extend, capturing prey items and increasing surface area. They are rather similar to flat worms - however, they have a complete digestive system (the presence of an anus) and a closed circulatory system, representing one of the most basal organisms to develop such features.

The two major groups of ribbon worms include the Enopla and the Anopla. The most distinguishing feature between these two groups revolve around the presence/absence of a “stylet” in their proboscis, which essentially is a sharp needle-like structure. Enopla have stylets; they sometimes utilize it to grasp prey.

Implications for Thrive: Another point in the Thrivian “worm-pipeline”, nemerteans can be adequately represented with what has been discussed above upon implementation of a proboscis…

Implement proboscis.
Allow customization of proboscis. An “unarmed” proboscis can completely consume small-enough prey, but is rather useless against larger organisms. An armed proboscis can grab and inflict damage on larger prey items, but does less damage.
Armed proboscis can be imbued with toxins.

Gnathifera - Jawed Worms

A larger clade rather than a phylum, this group contains many smaller clades. I think it’s worthwhile to discuss these organisms as a whole before individual diving in. Gnathifera all display various forms of chitin-derived mandibles. These mandibles come in various forms and perform various functions. As such, the most basal feature which can represent the jawed worms in Thrive is…

Implement simple, chitinous mandibles as a very basal jaw structure.

Diving into each individual phylum of the Gnathifera will help us see some customization options for these jaws. We can’t really go into much depth here without a larger discussion of how mandible customization will work however, so this will likely be a rather brief section.

Chaetognatha - Arrow Worms (Gnathifera)

Placement of these organisms is a bit dubious within Spiralia, but these organisms represent a large percentage of planktonic biomass despite a relatively small number of species. These are very active predators, using their mandibles to prey on smaller organisms. They appear to be a very ancient bilateral phylum.

Arrow worms notably have bristle-like fins on the side of their body which lets them rapidly accelerate, though they do not have endurance. Many of them utilize the same toxins utilized by pufferfish in their bites. Arrow worm mandibles can likely be implemented with dedicated mandible customization. Implementing toxin capabilities to these basic mandibles should cover the rest.

Implementing mandible customization. This would likely represent the advent of the arthropod-esque playstyle in Thrive, so it is a needed feature anyways.
Implement basic fin customization for basal body plans. A lot of the uniqueness of the fins of arrow worms is their “cosmetic uniqueness”, so if it’s too hard to graphically represent such a feature without labor, it’ll worthwhile to skip.

Gnathostomulida - Lesser Jaw Worms (Gnathifera)

Gnathostomulida were recognized as an individual clade in the late 1960’s. They are a rather small group of organisms, and are also small in physical size. I don’t these organisms require a unique mechanism to be represented in Thrive as long as other fundamental systems are implemented. If anything can be jotted down…

Jaw customization feature which allows organisms to “scrape” organic material off the ocean floor. There have been prior discussions about this, as this will serve as one of the first methods of gathering food available, so this should be implicit to the late-multicellular stage itself.

Rotifera - Wheel Jaws (Gnathifera)

Among the most numerous organisms on today’s Earth, Rotifera are most known for their jaws, which allow suction akin to cilia in Thrive.

Most rotifers are tiny, meaning their suction ability might not be adequately represented in Thrive at the macroscopic level if we must concede some scales of detail. As such, it might not be worth discussing this clade currently.

Brachiopoda - Asymmetrical Clams

Will not cover now; sessile gameplay and unique feature (clams)

Phoronida - Sessile Filter-Feeding Worms

Will not cover now; sessile gameplay

Bryozoa (Ento & Ectoprocta) - Colonial Filter Feeders

Will not cover; colonial gameplay probably outside scope of Thrive

Annelids - Segmented Worms on Crack

The annelids are an incredibly large and diverse group of animals known for their segmentation and relatively complex organ structures. They include leeches, earthworms, beard worms, and many other organisms. All are soft-bodied and have a complete digestive system, as well as a pair of nerves running throughout their body. They all have closed circulatory systems and features analogous to hearts.

Most annelids have setae, which are essentially tiny extensions throughout the skin of the organism. In some marine annelids, setae can look a lot like limbs, allowing benthic dwelling. For other annelids, such as the earthworms, setae are miniscule and assist with digging. Most annelids are detrivores, though some display predation and more active dietary habits.

I think annelids can largely be represented in Thrive as being the final, most complex form in the Thrivian “worm-pipeline”. Annelids have many diverse functions and forms, so allowing players creativity in customization their soft-bodied, wormlike organisms is the best way to approach this clade of organisms without killing ourselves.

It’ll be worthwhile to address annelids phylum by phylum, but here are some traits ubiquitous to most that can help distinguish annelid-like organisms from other Thrivian organisms. A lot of what distinguishes annelid phylums from other phylums are variations in the below features anyways:

Segmentation. This will likely be a fundamental editor mechanic for soft-bodied and arthropodic organisms which distinguishes them from vertebrates.
Setae, which can assist with burrowing or act like legs. Perhaps setae can be the simplest and first available limbs.

Polychaeta - A somewhat dubious grouping of largely marine segmented worms that are known for their distinguishable setae protrusions. Include the sandworms, bobbit worms, sea mice, and many other notable annelids.

Because these organisms are very diverse, allowing decent setae customization is probably the best way to represent them. Some setae can be longer and have greater surface area, allowing swimming. Other setae can be shorter and can allow for crawling or burrowing. Other setae can have poison on them, and can serve as a defense mechanism.
Several unique organisms here have features which overlap with other groups of organisms, such as jaws and burrowing.

Oligochaeta - A somewhat old-school grouping of Naididae, Aeolosomatidae, and Lumbricidae. Aeolosomatidae and Naididae are microscopic, and are outside of the scope of this document for now. Lumbricidae include 6000 species of earth-worms. This group of organisms will likely be represented in the switch to land. They depend on a mucous layer, as well as damper conditions, to remain moist.

This group would likely be represented only when movement to land is implemented, which is in the distant future.

Hirudinea - The leeches. Implications for this group are pretty obvious, and will likely be the most defined and feasible “parasitic” niche in Thrive.

Implementing an ability for simple jaws and proboscis to have a parasitic ability, allowing hostile resource transfer but minimizing opportunity to consume organic matter whole.

Annelids are honestly an entire beast of a clade to tackle, and will likely deserve their own post later similar to the other more complex organisms in the multicellular/aware stages. However, this provides a general overview that gives us rough ideas. I still stand by my statement that annelids represent the “pinnacle” of the Thrivian worm pipeline.

Priapulida

No.

Nematoda

Will not cover now due to microscopic scale. If nothing else, nematodes will likely serve to be microscopic food for filter-feeders and bottom-feeders.

Dicyemida

Will not cover now due to microscopic scale.

Orthonectida

Will not cover. Endo-parasitic nature likely outside of the scope of Thrive.

Kinorhyncha

Also known as mud dragons, this group of animals will likely be represented by the fundamental mechanics of the late-multicellular and aware stages. They are known to be able to burrow.

Look at that; in what we covered, we have addressed a great deal of metazoan diversity already! Here is a list of all features covered.

List:

Surface-Area to Volume Ratio - This will be a very definitive feature of the early macroscopic stages, defining filter-feeding and buoyancy for organisms which do not have much morphological complexity. It will also directly feed into the metabolism of organisms, having direct influence on circulation, digestion, and respiration. Will become less important as organisms develop more advanced and thick skins, though will always have an effect. Individual discussion.
Organ System - The fundamental feature shared by all organisms. Will most correlate to progression, and will serve as the basis of metabolism for organisms. The late-multicellular stage will represent the advent and acquisition of initial organ parts, allowing players to get familiar with the system as a whole.
Mesoglea - Representing Cnidarians and Ctenophora, this will represent an immediate way for organisms to increase buoyancy and float, but will make it difficult to evolve advanced organ or membrane structures.
Nematocyst/Celloblast Appendages and Customization - Representing Cnidarian and Ctenophoran appendages. Have limited control and advancement, but allow for basic grappling, filter-feeding, and stinging.
Surface-Area/Volume Increasing Appendages - This appendages will be simple ways to increase surface area or volume, thereby increasing specific characteristics. Will be especially important in the early macroscopic stages, but less important as SA:V becomes less important. Will provide customization and flair options.
Easy Access to Bilateral Body-Plan - This will represent the “worm” body plan, and will be the basal body plan for more complex organisms. Probably a discussion of how the editor will look in general.
Burrowing - An important feature for more advanced playstyles. Should probably be discussed later.
Proboscis and Customization - Probably the simplest mouth part to be offered to the player. Allows for bottom-feeding, as well as some hostile resource transfer, filter-feeding, and limited predation
Basal Mandible/Mouth Customization - Requires its own discussion later in all likelihood.
Basic Fin Appendages - Requires its own discussion later in all likelihood.
Segmentation - As discussed in earlier posts, segmentation would likely be represented as an inherent part of the body plan/metaball editor. For certain organisms, players can group metaballs together to form a “segment”, which will be important for arthropods especially. Likely requires its own discussion, though mechanisms wouldn’t be that influential in soft-bodied organisms and basically non-existent in vertebrates.
Setae And Customization - Represent more advanced limbs with diverse functions, allowing swimming, crawling, and digging.
Bioluminescence - A notable feature of various worm-like organisms.

Doesn’t sound too bad when put like this, right? A lot of organisms can probably be represented with a combination of various organisms if we offer a decent amount of customization.

Images are important, but I didn’t want to spam them throughout the entire post as that could hurt readability. Here are images of various organisms.

Ctenophora

Scyphozoa (Cnidaria)

Cubozoa (Cnidaria)

Hydrozoa (Cnidaria)

Xenoturbellida (Xenacoelomorpha)

Acoelomorpha (Xenacoelomorpha)

Platyhelminthes - The Flat Worms

Nemerteans - the Ribbon/Proboscis Worms

Chaetognatha - Arrow Worms (Gnathifera)

Gnathostomulida - Lesser Jaw Worms (Gnathifera)

Polychaeta (Annelids)

Oligochaeta

Hirudinea

These organisms didn’t have a description for various reasons, but I’ll list them here still.

Brachiopoda - Asymmetrical Clams

Phoronida - Sessile Filter-Feeding Worms

Bryozoa (Ento & Ectoprocta) - Colonial Filter Feeders

Rotifera - Wheel Jaws (Gnathifera)

Priapulida

Nematods

MirrorMonkey2 · December 21, 2023, 3:34pm

Very evocative and sensible post. It does a good job of not making the early multicellular stage seem like an impossible thing to implement, but rather like a huge but doable task.
Since gameplay at various scales is one of the principle topics regarding the 3D stages from a graphical perspective, I wanted to ask you some more about these statements:

Which scales would you have in mind when thinking about scales which can possibly be omitted? Are you mainly thinking about a jump in scale that happens immediately after the 2D-3D transition or do you think there are other gaps afterwards which you would consider?
Personally, I’m in favor of making the transitions from scale to scale as smooth as possible. But I’m aware that this will be an issue which will be determined to a large extent by the technical possibilities.
I’m inviting you all to branch out the discussion about the technical and graphical aspects of this consideration of scale into this thread: https://forum.revolutionarygamesstudio.com/t/depicting-the-3d-environment/888https://forum.revolutionarygamesstudio.com/t/depicting-the-3d-environment/888
This way we can keep the discussion in this thread more focused on the editor and organ progression.

Deus · August 31, 2024, 7:29am

This is far off still, but I put a lot of thought and effort into this (even my own handmade paint concepts!) for two reason…

Implementation of 3D membranes is sure to draw more attention to that topic.
I’m not preparing for a tidal wave, but I’m predicting a good amount of hype being generated as we begin blazing forward and wrapping up the microbe stage. If this attention grabs the attention of More people with useful skills (thinking of animation especially), it would be nice for them to have a more developed conceptual base to work with.

I think we have a solid “base” from @Buckly’s work revolving around how sculpting the organism can work, but I want to dedicate a bit more thought to limbs, graspers, and mandibles. If these areas, which are typically brushed over and towards a future time, are discussed a bit, we’ll have a solid understanding of how exactly “sculpting” will work, which is foundational to the editor and later stages as a whole. Internal organs and the such can be informed from these larger layers of detail.

A link to the post from Buckly: Macroscopic Editor, Progression, and Principles - #19 by Buckly

Which I will likely be tweaking a bit in some descriptions I have here, but the post essentially is what baseline I am thinking of currently; particularly, with the idea that there are “central metaballs” and “limb metaballs”, and potentially other branching features.

I also want to clarify that I will give extensive commentary on what should be done with metaballs which isn’t necessarily something I am advocating for in the immediate future; in other words, this isn’t me saying “we need to change the prototype into this this and this for it to be fun”, and is more me saying “this is what we will probably need to consider when we get to this stage of development”.

EDITOR STANDARDS AND IDEALS

The macroscopic stage is where a bunch of hype has really centered in the past, and with that, a lot of Thrive’s most ambitious and dream-like concepts focus on. There have been a lot of ideals and sentiments surrounding the editor, the most prominent being…

A Focus on Freeform Sculpting: Similar to Spore, a central idea is that the player will be able to stretch, shrink, expand, and define the torso and limbs of the organism, and will be able to similarly manipulate graspers, pads, mouths, sensory organs, etc. This sculpting will need to accommodate a bit more than Spore did though - I think more specifically, better deal with sculpting creatures with exoskeletons.
Parts Only When Necessary: As a reaction against Spore, Thrive is immensely wary of dealing with things by offering an immense selection of different, pre-made models which are progressive upgrades on related parts. We don’t want to place a premade lobster claw, that looks different from a premade crab claw which has stats that are a downgrade from said lobster claw; we want to place down a grasper/claw, and dynamically warp that generic, basal claw into a lobster claw. In other words, there is a premium placed on variety through customization, not necessarily on variety through various assets.

Various ideas have emerged from these two dominant ideals, and a lot of them on the community forums - as well as previous broad and generic descriptions from the development team years and years ago - of an extensive, free-form metaball sculpting tool in the editor [mind that I am not saying that anyone is explicitly stating this is the de-facto concept, it just might be something that community members might perceive due to the language we use around this topic].

But there are some problems with a very free-reign, sculpting-based editor, which we are seeing currently in the editor prototype itself (obviously unfinished and unpolished, but still useful as a tool to illustrate these points) as well as several previous concepts.

Heavily Dependent on Artistic Capabilities - In order to make a good-looking creature, the player would need to have previous experience with sculpting programs, such as Z-Brush, Blender, and other programs. These programs are either very technical, very simple, or very expensive.
Hard to Nail Down Exactly What You Want - Relating to the above, how can the player create exactly what they want if the tools they are given solely revolve around sculpting metaballs? If they have to use negative metaballs to carve in features like mouths, eyes, etc. how can we offer decent customization without literally giving them a sculpting program to work with?
Impossible to Account for in Development - Furthermore, how can we possibly accommodate all possible wishes and desires on behalf of the player?
Issues with Membrane, Skin, Texture, etc. - Sculpting programs also come with various brushes to create topology textures, which will likely be limited in a game such as Thrive.

It is just really difficult to offer robust game mechanics by just offering sculpting tools, which is why I am very wary of concepts which fully rely on metaballs. We do really need “parts” and rules related to how these parts interact with metaballs, and I do think that isn’t a “restrictive” thing at all to take away from the notoriously unambitious macroscopic stages (/s). In fact, conceptualizing part behavior can really make Thrive pop, while allowing fun gameplay and good looking creatures to emerge naturally.

What Makes a Good Editor?

Contrary to what our immediate gut feeling will tell us, a great editor does a lot of hand-holding in a way that is subtle, intuitive, and flowy enough to allow for players to actually achieve their creativity. So in creating a great macroscopic editor for Thrive, we need to think: how do we give players the tools they need to have direction, and how do we design these tools and rules to provide a good amount of customization?

As much belgium as we give it, and as much as we aim to improve upon it, Spore did a really good job at creating a player-friendly editor. It allowed casual or new players the ability to create something that they have in mind while allowing more capable and skilled players the ability to create art pieces. Some things that come to mind which we should keep in mind in Thrive…

Clearly Defined Torso - The spinal column is the root of everything, and there is nothing which can be placed away from it. This spinal column is easily manipulatable.
Clear Boundaries and Standard - You can obviously rotate the camera, but the creature is always oriented the same direction. There is a clear forward, and though you can make your creature face backwards with mouth placement and limb rotation, the direction of your creature’s movement was always clearly marked.
Everything In Relation to an Axis - You could move the torso along the x and y-axis, but it was always stuck on the same point of the z-axis. This helped center the player. Limbs and other parts always related to this exact point on the z-axis. You may think to yourself “man, I wish I could make my creature wider at some points”, but you never think to yourself “man, I wish I could drag the torso sideways and personally organize all the metaballs to be going sideways”. Note that this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t offer tools to, say, widen/flatten/round an organism.
Clearly Defined, Yet Versatile Limb Behavior - You could place a segment of a limb and sculpt it however you want, making it a part purely for decoration; and you could make a limb, well, a limb, with a grasper or foot on it. But once you placed a foot or grasper, the limb always acted in a consistent way. Similarly, a limb without a foot/grasper always acted in a consistent way as well.
Set Manipulation Tools Designed to be Approachable - You changed the shape of a limb by moving specific metaball joints. You changed the length of the torso by grabbing at the end of the torso and adding more metaballs. Limb metaballs snapped to other metaballs, and had to be rooted onto the torso. Several things are so on-the-rails, that they end up actually giving the player the stability needed to experiment and customize things.

Though we don’t want an exact replica of Spore’s editor mechanics for various good reasons, I think all the above guidelines are great for usability.

HOW THINGS CAN LOOK IN THRIVE

Assumptions I Am Making

We can make it so that attaching a certain part designates a metaball into a specific “type” of metaball. So for example, we can make placing a grasper on a metaball extension from the torso designate said extension as a limb.
Different designated metaballs can have different textures and graphics applied to them. For example, metaball group A will have a more natural, fleshy connection between different metaballs, while metaball group B will have sharper angles and more shaped lines between segments to give the impression of a exoskeleton

The Main Idea

In as concise a sentence as possible: placing parts will allow metaballs to be designated for specific functions.

The player will start with a slug-like torso, composed of some metaballs locked along a specific z-axis. From there, players will be able to sculpt their organism, apply different membranes, apply metaball appendages onto the torso, and put parts on the torso or the appendage to create specific structures.

By structures, I mean physiological features that we will group together. Structures are related to functional pieces of organisms, and are designated by the placing of specific parts. For example, a “mouth” is a structure designated by, well, the placement of a type of mouth part. An “arm” is a structure designated by the placement of a grasper. A “leg” is a structure designated by the placement of a foot structure.

I think this is inherently a part of Spore as well. Placing a foot on an appendage instantly roots that appendage to the floor and applies animation to it. Placing a mouth steadies a specific part of the organism, generally making the torso less flabby (which is why placing a mouth on your tail makes it much less mobile).

Torso

Your torso will be the default metaball status, locked to a central z-axis akin to Spore. All other parts and segments must attach to a torso. Your torso will also allow space for organs that are found within an organism’s central segment.

Mouth & Head

Placing a mouth on your creature turns the metaball it is placed on into the “head” metaball. Biting, eating, and other functions related to the mouth are related to that metaball. So that is where damage comes from, and where you need to orient yourself to “eat” and such.

You can place it on the bottom or top part of the metaball, or the ends of either your rear or front, or in the center of your body. This won’t really matter to the metaball logic/functionality related to eating and directionality and such. Perhaps placement can affect stat efficiency in eating - for example, a downwards oriented mouth increases the amount of ingestible matter gotten from bottom-feeding at the cost of filter-feeding - but again, functionally, the mouth’s role is to designate a mouth metaball and orient damage and eating.
The placement of a mouth on the posterior end of your creature does not make your creature’s posterior the front (in the editor); in other words, placing your mouth on the metaball farthest from the “forward direction” in the editor won’t flip the movement of your creature.

There will be a few basal mouths to place on your organism to represent different strategies that organisms have. The types of mouth you have available will depend on certain conditions; for example, you will not have access to a jaw if you do not have bones, or having an exoskeleton will be the condition for unlocking arthropodic mandibles. Variations on mouths will all emerge from these basal parts.

Oral Cavity - A literal hole in your creature corresponding to a mouth. The most basal and default mouth. The first mouth to be implemented, which will cover a lot of the earliest lifeforms. Accessible to all life forms
Suction Mouth - Jawless, corresponding to organisms such as lamprey.
Mandible - Arthropodic, locked behind exoskeleton.
Beak - Correspondent to molluscs and some insects.
Jawed Mouth - Correspondent to vertebrates. Locked behind endoskeleton. Versatile vertebrate mouth allowing numerous structures correspondent to other types of mouths, such as beaks.

Presenting a very basic and artistically perfect metaball concept creature with an oral groove; the red designates a metaball designated as a head. Not so disimilar to an Arandapis, a primitive jawless fish.

Oral cavities will be available to all organisms. A suction mouth, jawed mouth, and beak will not be available to organisms with tough other layers, though they will be able to put on mandibles, which can have an immense amount of customization options.

Plating

This mechanic corresponds to membrane selection in the Microbe Stage, and will allow for the creation of features like shells, exoskeletons, and protective bony armor.

Organisms will be able to place hardened plates on their organism through two mechanisms - an individual plate or part, providing some protection, or by designating a certain length of metaballs (or individual metaball) as being completely incased by plating. Part placement allows for decoration and customization and will offer some limited protection. “Brushing” plating on metaball segments will provide insulation from any damage taken from said metaball segments.

I think there can be three types of plating:

Chitinous - This will be a plating option representing arthropodic evolution. Chitin will be the only plating option that allows segmentation, allowing for greater mobility and customization options.
Calcium Carbonate - This will be a plating option for soft-bodied organisms (maybe vertebrates if it doesn’t cause too many issues?). It will create shells akin to those of a mollusc, such as snails, squid, and cuttlefish. Calcium carbonate plating cannot be applied to the head of an organism.
Bony Plating - This will be a plating option available for vertebrate organisms, allowing the creation of features like turtle shells. Customization options can make this more mobile, representing the armor of organisms like crocodilians, or more rigid, representing the armor of organisms like turtles.

Different stats can be applied to each version of casing, with different possibilities. All forms of casing will generally act similarly, just with different appearances and different effects on mobility and protection. But generally, bony plating will offer the least protection but be the most mobile, calcium carbonate will offer the most protection but be the least mobile, while chitinous membrane will be moderately protected and offer average protection.

In the above, light green colored metaballs indicate a regular torso, while the dark brown indicates a metaball painted with calcium carbonate. The lighter brown connections indicate parts around the metaballs which appear as shelled, while the darker green areas around the torso metaball is regular flesh.

The above demonstrates chitin’s segmentation ability - more mobility can result from more segmentation, though it can result in less protection. Note that the lines in the middle segment are just representing the ability to apply different textures to different segments. Chitinous membrane would probably require the most unique handling out of all these proposed features.

Brushing is separate from skin rigidity, which will also make a return. Rigidity when applied to plating will make said plating either more or less nimble/protective.

Limbs/Appendages

Players will be able to place appendages on their organism, similar but broader than the pre-defined legs in Spore’s creature stage (it could literally be placing floating metaballs if that is fine). Appendages by themselves can be utilized to increase surface area, decoration, or very simple weapons, such as stinging parts on a jellyfish.

Placing a foot, fin, grasper, claw, or tarsal claw turns that appendage into a limb, either a foot or an arm (or both depending on the part, but that’s very situational).

The above photo illustrates a fin on the left and an arthropod limb on the right with a tarsal claw; grey indicates the metaballs, green indicates the links between metaballs and decoration, and red indicates the actual parts. This is to illustrate that different types of limbs can have different looks applied to them.

Fin
Tarsal Claw

Sensory Organs

I think sensory organs should generally be parts. The placement of eyes, ears, noses, antenna, etc. can interact with the “mouth” metaball, where placing certain sensory organs closer to it enhances the sensation.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

There honestly is a lot more I could go into detail about, but I think the basic idea is present: we can have various types of metaballs, depending on pre-defined groups or the parts placed on the metaballs, and from there, structuring the editor and creating decent organisms is much more feasible for the player.

This is already long enough and I’ve worked on this for a few days - my thought train is starting to fall off the track [apologies if there are incomplete thoughts I forgot about at any points, I jumped around a lot and am quite exhausted!], so before I decide to expand on things, I want to make sure that the base of this idea seems okay to others.

Again, I don’t expect these things to occur soon; I just think this presents an easier way to deal with the macroscopic editor, for reasons listed at the beginning of this post. It would be really nice if we have concepts for what is, in my opinion, the most unique gameplay experience Thrive will provide.

And it would be nice to have actionable concepts instead of broad principles, which allow interested programmers to think “Okay, this entire thing is overwhelming but I can try to program torso behavior, or limbs, or etc.” That way, we can get to a point where the editor seems more like a large task that is a lot to deal with, but atleast we can tackle it methodically, rather than an endless wishlist of our dreams to put all of life into a game. It would personally mean a lot to me if we can get to that point, and I am sure such a feeling would reverberate throughout the community.

If nothing else, hopefully this allows us to further clarify what concepts don’t work, and spring forward from there. If these principles are solid, then I will go further into talking about how part customization and progression can actually look like.

So I would love to hear you guys’ thoughts - after I wake up.

hhyyrylainen · August 31, 2024, 8:35am

I’m having a hard time picturing how this would work. How would the feature know where the limb starts? Would it try to estimate the joint position when it starts to see many metaballs next to each other? I’m seeing so many weird edgecases where ether a limb is really short or ends up controlling like half of the creature. This is why I think it is better to designate where the joint is, rather than trying to automatically detect where to place the joint.

Probably possible but needs to make the SCALIS algorithm parameters change dynamically based on which metaball is being processed.

I think this is swinging too hard in the direction of just cloning what Spore did but with slightly more central mody shape customization. I’m much more in favour of requiring all placed parts to be really small, like just a single eye or central part of a mouth (so excluding any mandibles etc.).

I think this is “giving up” a bit too early, in my opinion. I don’t like how many things are purely just about placing the right parts, which I think causes our editor to fundamentally be just a rehash of what Spore had. Instead I think we should try to achieve the original vision of being much better editor than Spore’s without premade parts (though stuff like eyes and other small details is starting to look like it’s maybe in the end better to make those as placeable parts, but full limbs and graspers is definitely something I’d draw the line before allowing)

I say we should first get the basic metaball shape making done with good editing tools like symmetry and potential shape guides. Shape guides could work like if the player wants a limb they can place a phantom guide that then snaps the metaball placement to the recommended positions. Or maybe placing a “limb” would place just a tiny stub that the player could progress each editor cycle and the editor would automatically place new metaballs and position them. This would be kind of a hybrid approach between placing premade parts in a single editor cycle and gradually building everything manually from metaballs. After this is done and released I think then we can re-evaluate the plausibility of making limbs from metaballs. At the same time we should also investigate animation for creatures. My idea here again is that the player would designate where they want their joints so that any joint placement algorithm doesn’t do something completely silly (though I now realize that for auto-evo we either need this or much more controlled limb generation algorithm). With joints defined I think we could have a system where the player then designates that limb as what they want. Initially we’d want limb types like legs and arms (and probably decorative?). Once all of those parts are done I think then we can have this discussion fully, because at this point we don’t have all the necessary information to make any hard decisions.

Deus · September 1, 2024, 7:30am

I just have a really hard time seeing how proper structures and shapes could be made through a predominantly sculpting basis in players who do not have sculpting experience - which is probably the vast majority of the community. Though I do acknowledge that you are typically the one telling me that something is too ambitious, so me being on the side of “we should simplify things” and you saying “we can be more ambitious than that” makes me reconsider a bit.

I can atleast envision your point about limbs working I think, where a player decides an optimal length for their desires, and experiments with placing joints to see what gives them the speed, mobility, or agility needed in their use case.

Thinking about it more, I can see things working more in a more freeform editor, though we’d need a lot of guiding tools to assist players in making decent looking creatures. I’ll sit down soon and try to think of that a bit more to see if we can have actionable concepts. I know you mention that this is something that will probably be decided once we actually get to this point in development, but again, I would like for there to be something that we currently say “okay, this sounds good enough for a try.” That way, if someone on the team currently or a future applicant reads it and wishes to, they can tackle a part of the issue, perhaps reducing the awkward development time between the macroscopic and microscopic phase.

hhyyrylainen · September 1, 2024, 10:47am

I think we are talking about slightly different things. When I talk about like the freeform editing, “sculpting”, I mean just placing metaballs wherever the player wants to define the structure of their species. This isn’t full on talking about implementing a sculpting system like actual 3D editing software has.

Still I agree that it is a potential issue that placing metaballs to define a fine shape may be too difficult for the average player. But I think that making big parts is the wrong solution because that breaks the core idea that Thrive is trying to simulate evolution by only allowing the player to make gradual changes. So we avoid the unrealism of Spore where you can slap on like 4 arms in a single generation of your species.

Quite a lot of future stuff is actually problematic because earlier game is either not complete or not even designed. This means that even if a later part is fully planned out, it might be impossible to fit the pieces together once the earlier part of the game is complete. It will help a lot once we have quite fleshed out all the stages so that only more depth and content is required instead of needing to work on the core systems.

In this case that doesn’t fully apply as I don’t think the way the editor is made will make it incompatible with the game, but what I think does apply is like an overall complexity / difficulty curve of the game. Depending on how complex the early multicellular editor ends up being, it might prime the players to be fine with much more complex editor than we currently think. This is because the early multicellular editor is pretty bare bones right now and not fully done.

Deus · September 3, 2024, 9:21pm

Here is a more free-form interpretation of the editor.

Constants from Prior Concept

The torso should be a central axis and the beginning part, with the organism starting as a soft-bodied slug-like mass with metabolisms inherited from the Microbe Stage.
I still think that the “Plating” Section would be the best way to demonstrate shells, different skins, and exoskeletons.
Symmetry on by default to make the player - the player would specify which parts are asymmetrical, or what form of symmetry they want if it isn’t bilateral.

Main Issues I See With Freeform Organisms

A distinction between the structures of an arthropod - with more defined edges and skinnier segments to their body - and other organisms could be difficult to represent, though might be solved with handling.
Creating very fine parts, such as fingers, jaws, etc. would still be very difficult with just metaballs. In Spore, you can see issues of creating things that are too narrow in that surfaces just blend together or animate weirdly (such as not having enough space between the limb and the torso, thereby creating what is essentially a skin flap). Even the current metaball structure does seem pretty high resolution and capable of doing that, but would it animate and move in a way that is sufficient?
Uniting how more free-form tools operate and how stats interact could be very difficult. I’m sure there are creative solutions to some problems, but what if the player wants to create something specific but isn’t being rewarded statistically the way they think they should be? For example, the player adds what they think should be armor to their limbs, but the algorithm disagrees and wants them to create a shape that is entirely against what they have in mind?
How would auto-evo consider all this while still creating organisms that appeal to our sense of logic? I do understand that “logic” isn’t necessarily objective and limited to Earth’s evolutionary sense, but nonetheless, the majority of players will have a very Earth-based view of what makes sense. Again: Thrive is meant to represent what we know of evolution dynamically, not discover entirely new dynamics of evolution. As such, we as developers and players won’t know when something is a legitimate evolution to a novel situation or a weird tendency that auto-evo has.

Issues We Have With Spore’s Part-Based System

Spore’s parts are incredibly rigid, meaning that what parts are offered are essentially the only thing that is possible in the game. Sure, there might be customization of parts, but the part ultimately looks the same regardless of what arrow you pull and how much you scroll the mouse wheel. We would desperately need much greater options when it comes to shaping the structures on your organism.
Spore overtly makes parts superior than other parts in all aspects, implying a very engineered form of evolution with there are flat goods and flat bads. This is a pretty big no-no in Thrive, as it doesn’t represent various niches well.
There ultimately was not much variety to the metaballs offered in Spore. Organisms all generally looked like vertebrates - there were arthropod-themed parts, but limbs and the torso ultimately assumed the presence of a endoskeleton.
The community has demonstrated that they really are interested in defining their own parts, which is something that we must consider.

Solution

In essence…

Parts will be present, but will be extremely minimal, more like shape guides than actual pre-made assets. Players will alter the shape guide to alter their stats, and will add metaballs to configure the form of the structure from this shape guide. This will allow us to understand exactly what the player intends to do, attach stats to the part, and still allow players generally create what they wish.
Limbs can be defined by the placement of joints. Stats will be effected by the placement/number of joints, as well as the proportions of the limb. Graspers and feet will be dealt with the same shape-guide part principle.
Different guide shape templets will be used to allow players to create what they wish - for example, more arthropodic appendages and mandibles, etc.

Here are some examples…

Mouth

A mouth part will allow the player to direct where exactly abilities related to an organism’s mouth are, including biting and grabbing. Players will place shape guides demonstrated by the top row of the below photo, which represents a top-view outline of an arthropodic mandible shape guide. Placing a shape guide automatically indicates where an oral opening is meant to be.

Players will stretch, widen, shrink, and increase the size of this shape guide, which adjusts stats - for example, stretching a jaw will generally weaken the bite, but increase range. Then, based off this shape guide, players will utilize metaballs to define the shape of the jaw, allowing them to design their organism’s features with flexibility. The shape guide will provide some hard limits on exactly how long, big, narrow, and wide a jaw can be, but within these bounds, the player has complete control over the shape of the jaw, as demonstrated by the bottom row of the image above. And if a player isn’t confident applying metaballs themselves, the shape guides can be automatically filled, providing them a base to work off of.

Another example below, showing organisms with an endoskeleton having different structures with respective shape guidelines.

The shape outline will allow the modification of certain fine features - for example, the number, form, and diversity of teeth, which will automatically fill out the shape outline’s guide, or the addition of storage pouches on the face.

Limbs

Limbs will be defined by the placement of a metaball extension from the torso. The player will then be able to define the motion of a joint (ball-joint vs. directional vs. general flexibility) The below concept indicates the treatment of an extension before and after the placement of a joint, going from a more decorative and flowy appendage to something that more resembles a fin.

The proportions and placement of joints will dictate player stats, as well as the thickness between each joint. Here is a reference to a website looking at biomechanical differences, and a concept below indicating a sprawling vs. vertical gait: GEOL431 - Vertebrate Paleobiology

Note that the placement of a “joint” doesn’t indicate the presence of a skeleton - i.e, placing a joint on a soft-bodied extension can result in a mollusc-esque tentacle. Though joints will behave differently depending on the characteristics of an organism. For example, an organism with an exoskeleton will generally have skinnier joints that cost a bit less to produce and have different stats/proportions when compared to organisms with an endoskeleton.

Placing a joint on a torso indicates the presence of a motile element. For example, placing a joint on an extension of the posterior body for an underwater organism will indicate a tail used for propulsion, and directing the tail will determine whether the organism flaps its tail vertically or horizontally to propel itself.

Graspers will work similar to mouth parts, with a shape guide utilized to define stats and general characteristics. I will go into them in more detail in a future point if this concept sounds okay.

Lingering Questions

Looking over this doesn’t seem so bad, though obviously we’ll have to see what the person programming and animating things says. I think we can make this functional, though two questions exist.

Exoskeletons - Exoskeletons have a distinct carved look to them. How well can the player represent this, and can we offer tools to create this effect for the player to design themselves? Or will the presence of an exoskeleton change the behavior and graphics applied to a metaball?

Auto-Evo - How will auto-evo meaningfully create organisms that seem logically appealing and aren’t just blobs with a mouth attached to it? If we apply dynamic stats to the shape guides and the shape of the torso, perhaps auto-evo can have some direction if it automatically fills in the shape guide. But how do we ensure that organisms visually don’t look bland and repetitive if they do fill in shape guides? How will it know when to evolve decorative curves, structures, and other dedicated structures without the presence of defined parts?

hhyyrylainen · September 4, 2024, 7:17am

I think the shape guides maybe need to be optional. I foresee that being very hard to do with auto-evo but, if the player is also required to use shape guides for functional parts, we are in effect requiring this visual similarity rule to player creations as well.

I feel like this is not going to be much of a problem. Thanks to the metaball structure we’ll know exactly what is part of an arm for example thanks to setting the joint on a metaball that it rotates around. If visually the metaballs don’t cause the arm to blend into the body skin, animating the skin with bone skinning weights applied to the vertices just on the arm should be fine. The harder part with animations is generating the actual animation motions in a way that they look good, and try to avoid intersecting other parts of the body when animating an action.