My vision of Thrive

Hello folks,
It has been quite some time since I last contributed to this project. Life and work have kept me incredibly busy and I haven’t had the opportunity to properly sit down and plan out any new features except fixing the ripple effect. However with version 1.0.0 approaching a significant milestone I feel it’s the right moment for me to metaphorically sit down and share some thoughts. I would like to talk a bit about the stages ahead and offer my vision not to impose it or discredit your ideas but to inspire and provide a starting point for you all think of it more like an advice from a friend than a directive. I’ll be touching on each stage sharing some broader ideas I hope can help guide future development also i would like to discuss with you any suggestions of implementing something that I might have so that maybe some of this stuff can already be put in the roadmap and start to be developed If I happen to mention features or ideas that have already been discussed or even implemented please understand that it’s not an oversight it’s simply because they resonate strongly with the direction I envision for the project. On a more personal note after what happened with Miura-san (Kentaro Miura) I genuinely believe that everyone involved in long-term creative projects should always have something in place to preserve and carry on their vision just in case. I have thought about this quite a bit and i came to the obvious conclusion that it would really suck if something ever happened to me and I hadn’t shared my full vision for Thrive especially since I have been so closely involved with the project being part of the board and all. I don’t want those thoughts, ideas or creative directions to go unspoken. This project is something I care deeply about and being part of its journey alongside all of you has meant a lot to me. So this is in part my way of ensuring that if the day ever comes when I can no longer contribute at least a piece of what I imagined lives on with the project.


Microbe Stage:

While it has become somewhat of a thing among us devs that we “hate” this stage with a passion… Jokes aside due to how long we’ve been working on it and despite the facts that it has been in development hell for so much time I understand the sentiment of wanting to put an end to it very soon since there’s a need to start with something fresh but imho it shouldn’t be something that is rushed. I would like to remind to you all that this is supposed to be the player’s first contact with Thrive and like any good introduction whether in a film, book or game it must be engaging. Remember that a weak foundation risks undermining everything that follows. Let’s not also forget that adapting such stage and it being the first one didn’t help either, microbe world seems easy to understand and may seem very one sided since they are unicellular beings and this is probably what tricked the previous team to start with this but instead microbes are very much complex, there is a whole lot on this world we didn’t cover yeah and probably never will since new things keep on getting discovered as the years pass by we can’t represent everything obviously, but i can proudly say that what we have implemented shows real dedication and a careful attention to details, and that’s something to be proud of. I would like to weigh in first and start off by mentioning this amazing post made by Deus to start my debacle and this post highlights some problems we are experiencing regarding replayability of the Microbe stage which is something we should be very careful about, here’s the post:



One of the key challenges I have also identified is that content without meaningful differentiation loses its impact. And I also think that that simply adding more patches or metabolisms doesn’t improve replayability unless these systems produce distinct gameplay loops. I also think that we should raise more concerns about how patch diversity feels mostly cosmetic at this stage. When adding “more” we should focus on systems that enhance emergent interactions and long-term consequences. The goal should be to make every choice matter more, not just offer more choices. One of the solutions I proposed in the past and I know I may seem like a broken record but I feel like proposing again is introducing shape mechanics which would directly support replayability and variety by enhancing how movement, engulfment, and environmental interaction work. Right now part only oriented gameplay often encourages optimal builds and while playing it it really felt to belong in a niche but we should also encourage creativity too. But by tying in organism form, players would be forced to think about trade-offs: ex: streamlining for speed vs maximizing surface area for engulfment or compound absorption. This system also should introduce constraints and specialization organically without locking players into archetypes too early. Here’s some pictures on how it looks like in the real world and what @dligr was able to implement while he made his amazing 3D membrane system.


I would also like to see more chaotic events that force players to adapt, triggering more migrations or evolutionary decisions. Light could and should play a stronger role too both in visuals and in gameplay mechanics, bringing back some of the ambience we had in earlier versions like 0.2.4 Finally I think that each stage including this one could benefit from the possibility of having a “bad ending” scenario. While this may not apply in LAWK mode, it could make for a richer gameplay enabling our players to explore unexpected outcomes. Imagine having a scenario like this come into play for example:

Another thing I would like to add is that we could balance engulfment similar to how it happens in this video:

A reference on how this stage could look is this concept art that I find very cool, it will probably look even better than this one but it already captures a great sense of atmosphere and biological depth our biggest goal should be to make the world feel alive and immersive not just functional. A place where you feel like you’re navigating a living microcosm.

One small thing I would like to mention is that I think it would be better to replace the current easter egg with something a bit more subtle and original. While it was fun as a nod to another well known evolution game from the past I believe it might be time to start distancing Thrive from direct comparisons especially given the fuss that occurred around October of last year and imho it also breaks immersion a lot and feels out of place.


Multicellular Stage:

The Multicellular Stage should represent a radical shift in how players perceive their organism not as a single entity anymore but as a growing biological factory this is in my opinion the only stage that should take a lot of inspiration from Factorio.

Each cell is a unit in a complex production chain. Players should focus on managing the internal logistics of their organism like transporting compounds and balancing the needs of growing tissues all while maintaining structural cohesion . Early on the gameplay should revolve around stabilizing this fragile cell aggregation finding ways for cells to work together more efficiently, sharing nutrients, signals, and defense before they begin forming specialized tissues. Over time what starts as an industrial network of cooperating cells should gradually transform into a more cohesive biological body In this sense your early choices become the blueprint for your first “creature” not something built like in another EA game that cannot be named anymore IG. The result has to be something that emerges from all you have done so far. It’s not about assembling parts but seeing your design evolve organically from your past adaptations. All the thing that you did in these first two stages should be the building blocks of what will come forward and the culmination of this is ending where we see the first creature hatching or being born from something that will swim away like this video, the blueprint for most complex life in the planet:

Obviously the creature should look more like a Cambrian/ Tonian era one:


I wasn’t entirely sure whether to place this thought under the Multicellular or Aware Stage, I’ll leave it here in the middle because it fits with the broader idea of early body planning but also has elements that I will mention later. I genuinely think we should start embracing more complex and unconventional organism designed things too like Etacystis or other bizarre real world lifeforms. This is the point in evolution where things could start getting weird and Thrive should encourage that. Let the player get freaky build asymmetric forms or fractal-like structures and radial monstrosities. Evolution in nature didn’t follow a clean path so why should we? Since I mentioned Etacystis I would also like to share this video so others can get a better idea of what it is. It’s an interesting watch too and could offer some great inspiration for the kind of complex unconventional designs we might want to support in the game.

I would also like to add that since convergent evolution ties so strongly into the way organisms adapt across different playthroughs, I think it deserves its own small spotlight. This should absolutely be reflected in Thrive’s gameplay not just for realism, but to enhance unpredictability and replayability. This would make evolution feel less deterministic and more creatively oriented. Here’s a great video that explores the concept in more depth:


Aware Stage:

In my opinion this stage shouldn’t just be centered about making the most intelligent species it should be one of the requisites for passing on the next stage but evolution doesn’t work that way the point should be first toevolve to fit the environment and find its niche then and only then obtaining sentience. Dinosaurs for instance weren’t the sharpest tools in the shed in regard to intelligence but they thrived. The aware stage should emphasize exploration, adaptation and survival especially in the underwater part of this stage. Core mechanics should include communication even underwater, predator evasion, and choosing between being solitary or gregarious which can lead to clan dynamics. As players transition to land this could unlock deeper mechanics hunting, social hierarchies, seasonal behavior, and more all tied to brain development and environmental pressures I would be very happy if the final result would be very close to the game “Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey”. One major feature I envision is triggering mutations from the editor instead of having all the animals in the clan mutated suddenly like in the “famous” EA game I have mentioned before. I’d rather sack the traditional part-based system approach and the instant mutation. This in my opinion would make evolution feel more authentic and less artificial so that the mutated animal has to reproduce and spread its genes which would make evolving feel more earned too. The current implementation of the Aware Stage editor while functional can quickly become overwhelming and very difficult to navigate. To address this I propose a new approach, the editor should begin with a procedural skeleton structure. This would form the foundation of the organism’s physiology and animation logic.

The skeleton provides:

  • Base proportions and body layout
  • A structure to support procedural animation
  • Anchors for muscle, skin, fur etc…

Players can adjust bone placement, limb count which should be dependent on previous evolutions similar to the real life concept demonstrated here:

The goal is to move away from a rigid parts based system. With the metaball system already in place players should freely sculpt their creatures adding shaping features. This approach lets players mold their creations rather than assembling them from fixed parts. I would be really happy if we got results similar to the topic here:



Here are some visual examples and detailed explaination on how my proposed editor could look in‑game and I’m introducing The Dissonance a copyright-safe creature designed to demonstrate the system in action.

Once the skeletal frame is defined, the internal organ system comes into play. Players can add or remove organs (ex: heart, lungs, guts) from an internal schematic view. This mode should allow to adjust skin width, fur/feathers, or better pigmentation patterns procedurally. These elements could also tie to gameplay for example a thicker skin could allow more protection but higher energy cost. This follows the design already shown in here:

Each organ has a blueprint that players can edit with a cell palette, tweaking internal composition based on which kind of tissue we need. This links beautifully to the cell-based stages and it gives a feeling of continuity we should foster.

This in my opinion offers far more immersion and biological believability rather than snapping prefab parts onto a base mesh.


Awakening Stage:

This stage seems to be progressing in a promising direction. The Minecraft inspired elements are a good base but I am against making crafting the sole focus. Instead I would like to see more emphasis on expanding the species, settling new territories, and developing early culture similar to what Homo Ergaster did. Evolution shouldn’t feel completely linear and finished either players should be able to interbreed with others of their lineage, leading to genetic diversity as I would like to have mutations still happen in this stage too which could lead to lots of gameplay possibilities.


Society Stage

Personally I don’t see a need to divide these stages from Society to Industrial or vice versa I think it should be just one macro stage as history shows us that even advanced civilizations have faced setbacks while not fully aligned with the mainstream view of history i’ll attach a video that offers a lot of fascinating insight into the reuse of structures that may have been left behind by older more advanced civilizations. It’s definitely a long watch but a very interesting one nonetheless.

I think this stage could be redefined instead of becoming a SimCity-like simulator it might be more fitting for us to take inspiration from something like Plague Inc. and mix it with a concept like Power & Revolution or Crusader Kings 3. My idea for a stage like this is starting from individual influence and gradually expanding your reach. You could sway public opinion. run for office. establish political systems.or even push toward authoritarian control. This way the stage evolves with the player’s growing influence over many generations this path could eventually lead to the creation of a space program like it happened in the 60s with us humans and much later the pursuit of a utopian society progressing toward achieving Type I on the Kardashev scale. From there it would naturally transition into the Space Stage. Somewhere along the way it would be hilarious and deeply fitting if civilizations began unearthing fossils of past creatures that appeared in previous stages attempting to reconstruct them with varying levels of success. Just like in real life some reconstructions could be wildly inaccurate think creatures with tails in the wrong place or bipedal fish offering both humor and reflection on how knowledge of the past is always shaped by present assumptions this video makes a fair point regarding this topic:


Space Stage

The Space Stage to me should be a synthesis of the best aspects from games like Starfield, Starbound and Stellaris we should also go the extra mile to make a sandbox of endless potential a true payoff of everything the player has done up to that point. I believe we have the potential to do what No Man’s Sky initially couldn’t which should be the goal to create a universe that feels alive. A thing i would keep from the Unknown EA game concept would be a mission-based system that offers narrative threads and challenges tied to your species’ lore. It should also be the perfect stage to lay down deeper lore for Thrive’s universe while also advancing towards other levels of the Kardashev scale. Regarding other races and spacefaring civilizations, I personally wouldn’t want to go the Unknown game route where you encounter endless randomly generated species that quickly blur together which in my opinion really breaks the immersion a lot. Instead, we could use semi-persistent civilization templates that adapt over time.Unlike the other stages I won’t go too deep into this one not because I lack ideas as I would like to make another topic when the moment comes. Mostly because it is emotional for me to think about. Reaching this point would mean Thrive’s development is nearing completion. And while I truly hope that day comes soon, I also want to say that working alongside all of you has been one of the most rewarding collaborative experiences I’ve ever had. I hope we do reach that moment but I also hope we take the time to enjoy the process and each other a bit longer before we get there.


6 Likes

Thanks for putting these ideas out there. I think that while I don’t agree with all of them, it is nice to have this kind of overall post about potential ideas for the game.

Isn’t this already in the game? The rotation speed of a cell depends on angular momentum, meaning that a streamlined cell turns faster. But then bigger max membrane radius gives you more compound absorption area. So while no text points this out in the game, such an effect kind of already exists.

I don’t think we have active graphics artists available to make a different Easter Egg. So I don’t see this is a plausible thing.

In my opinion this is such a fun thing for players to discover and remember how fake the big S game had their “cell” stage be.

Overall I think we need to just get the microbe stage done. Even on our latest trailer there’s again someone complaining about Thrive being stuck in the cell stage forever. For the health of the project I think it is absolutely necessary to be able to call the microbe stage done this year.

We can later try to expand replayability by making changes that diversify the starting conditions leading into the multicellular stage so that the combined replayability of the microbe stage + multicellular stage will be exponentially higher (I think this is a big advantage if we can make multiple exclusive and different ways to play through Thrive. For example once we have the industrial stage and a player completes a playthrough and then they want to play a different strategy they need to then replay the microbe, multicellular, awakening etc. stages so that kind of design causes an exponential increase of replayability compared to just trying to increase the replayability of a single stage).


I’ll hold off on commenting (much) about the further stage stuff as I don’t really have time today.

Finally! Someone else who is a proponent of the “not resetting the entire world after returning from the editor” camp.

Interesting. I would expect this to result in vastly less replayability of the space stage, so I’m a bit surprised you suggested this after reading the microbe stage parts of your post.

1 Like

Hi hh thanks for your interest it really means a lot to me, I will adress all the points you raised in your reply.


I tried to emphasize the fact that the cell colony must be a organism made of gregarious cells are working together to stabilize and feed themselves in the most efficient way as possible.

Well I think that if we agree on doing something simple it could be easy to redo it, I think that the current easter egg really breaks immersion and makes us lose credibility too in a sense it also didn’t look like we were having fun of the cutsy eyes “cell” stage it fells more like a homage right now. I also totally understand the desire to finally move on from this after all it has been in development for over 10 years and I get why people are more eager to see what comes next. That kind of criticism should be taken with a grain of salt while it is a valid feedback it also comes from a place of limited perspective on just how much work has gone into making the stage as solid as it is today. That said, I think a good middle ground would be to declare the stage “feature complete” but still leave room for future improvements maybe by clearly marking some items in the roadmap as “post-release enhancements” in this way even if we consider the Microbe Stage “done” from a milestone perspective there’s still room for people to come back and polish or expand on it later. After all there are games like Garry’s Mod that continue getting major overhauls decades later their official release so it’s not so unreasonable to think we could have that kind of long tail too. As for your point about replayability I really like the idea that kind of design does create replay value and it’s something that could give us a lot of depth long term. The only thing I’d be careful about is avoiding situations where players miss some early opportunity and end up locked into a suboptimal niche for the rest of their run. That could easily become frustrating especially for newer players who don’t fully understand the mechanics yet.
And just to be clear while it might sound like I am only offering advice I take full responsibility for these suggestions. If any of this ends up on the roadmap I am more than willing to take matters into my own hands whether that means developing the features or overseeing their implementation to make sure they happen.

As a matter of fact while making this post I was thinking of a much different process for when you exit the editor, instead of having already a member of the clan already mutated I thought it would have been cool to have that mutation be triggered after some generations after the conditions of triggering that specific mutation would have been met but I thought that it would have been very confusing to new players.

What I meant is that the species themselves would still be randomized but they would start from preset archetypes in terms of appearance, ideology, behavior, and quest structure and I will add there will be some exception like the lore related ones. This way we wouldn’t have to generate fully random species every time which could be an unoptimized and possibly chaotic approach. Instead we are randomizing from structured templates.

1 Like

This is a good point in my opinion. Best metabolisms are those that have good integration with the rest of the game. Chemosynthesizers and lithotrophs function very similarly in the game (both playstyles boil down to consuming clouds), but they have different emergent, non-hardcoded qualities: different compound spread between patches, different dynamics of those compounds, and different microbe interactions (e.g. lithotrophs can’t extract energy from glucose-consuming cells as they store no iron). The more differentiation like this there is, the better.

I want to add that replayability is also about each playthrough being unique to some extent. That’s why games like Dwarf Fortress and Crusader Kings 2/3 are very replayable despite playthroughs having little variation of used mechanics. What would make Thrive playthroughs more variable are more impactful patch dynamics and events, and more variable auto-evo-generated species.

Regarding long-term consequences, I had an idea for a long time: what if there was an MP discount for organelles that the cell already has? In addition, organelles could have a higher cost by default. This way, I think, organelle choices would be more meaningful; simply growing a cell would take less MP and completely re-adapting the cell would take much more. For instance, that would make oxygenation harsher for anaerobic organisms, and making generalist cells would be harder.

Another interesting idea is that different playstyles in the microbe stage can lead to different gameplay in later stages, which would increase how much early choices can sway the playthrough over time.

I’m not against implementing the metaball-based 3D membrane system, but I have concerns regarding their effect on performance and things like engulfment animation, which would be much harder to get right given the more complex shapes. They might also make microbes’ rigidity feel even weirder than it feels now. Though I agree that metaball-based shapes are much more customizable for the player.

I like the idea of making engulfment (a core mechanic) more engaging. A sort of tug-of-war engulfment (which is shown in the video from what I understand) would be more interesting, though I have no idea how it should actually function.

On the other hand, making engulfment non-guaranteed would make heterotroph playstyle even more difficult.

I agree that the 1.0 release should be this year. The microbe stage is almost feature complete and the features that aren’t yet done probably shouldn’t delay the release further (we can just return to them later anyway). Nonetheless, enough attention should be given to polishing up and balancing the stage before it’s considered finished.

This would be interesting to see, maybe in a Victoria 2-like newspaper system?

2 Likes

Before I go on, I would like to say that I really appreciate you sharing these thoughts. I’d really like it if other developers post similar threads so that we can assess where we are as a team. I often post my take on Thrive here, but it’s less frequent that I am responding to what other people think.


First, some general thoughts on the topic you are addressing as a whole.

I will say that, though I agree with the view that we are lacking replayability, I do think we have enough content in the game to create solid replayability (besides terrain generation and some potential refinements to iron and sulfur). Our weakness in replayability lies more in the intention and synergy of our various mechanics. Because of the rush in the road map, we were very focused on implementing different significant features, and how those features optimally fit were slightly less discussed. I could have done a better job on my part in being forward thinking with that - but there’s an inherent part of game development that is an ongoing process, and it’s difficult to fully anticipate the impact or importance of every part without seeing it in game first.

In an ideal world, with limited pressure external to making a perfect game: after we’ve had this content rush, we’d have release cycles focused on refining certain mechanics to blend well together, figuring out the pacing of the game. For example, we’ve figured out that the dynamic environment early in the Microbe Stage is probably the most unique mechanic to the first stage - really nailing that down to create volatility, variation, and experimentation could result in some very significant improvements to the player experience. And balancing environmental tolerances to really nail a balance between two priorities of making tolerances approachable, while reinforcing the challenges life faces in adapting to different conditions, would further improve that. That’s why I focused a lot of writing in the “Finalizing the Microbe Stage” discussion on those two topics.

I will also note that there are certain improvements to slightly less “sexy” stuff needed to auto-evo, AI, and perhaps spawning that would strongly improve variation in gameplay. Even something like forcing auto-evo to try out various external parts/modifications, making microbes know how to use those parts, and making microbes a bit more aggressive in using them offers the benefit of enemies naturally driving variation in gameplay. Right now (atleast before Thim’s patch, which I haven’t tested yet), auto-evo can be very “reactive” in putting down abilities - largely using an external part only after the player puts it on themselves, or not having the AI to use a part - so players can have way too much influence on directing the flow of the game. Ideally, we’d have players sometimes having influence on the trajectory of their game, but oftentimes being made to react to what the game throws at them.

Now, to some discussion addressing points of your post:


I do agree that we need to be aware of the effect of our binding to the road map for the past year and a half or so, and also have some general sentiments about the state of our game: needing some decent amount of polish and intention behind our mechanics to create progression. As I mentioned above, we focused a lot on getting something working in our game which reflects our scope, while neglecting certain refinement due to either a lack of perspective or a focus on implementation itself. That is in fact a big motivation behind my Wrapping Up the Microbe Stage thread: Wrapping Up The Microbe Stage

Now, there are two big things swirling around in my head when it comes to polishing the Microbe Stage…

  1. Like you said, we need to ensure this stage is decent enough as a foundation to make sure our long-term fans believe in the quality of upcoming stages. If the Microbe Stage isn’t good enough for them, then the hype will naturally die down for upcoming stages - if a decade of development results in this, which I don’t find sufficient as a game, do I really believe enough in the project to stick around for future stages, where the development time is supposed to be shorter, and the foundations of the stage already set? It obviously isn’t fair to say that this decade of development is completely uniform, but still, that’s the general sentiment out there. Leaving the Microbe Stage as an unpolished and unrefined gameplay loop, with limited replayability, could have unintended consequences.
  2. On the other hand, development for the Multicellular Stage is not only timely - RSG could really benefit if news that Thrive has left the first stage is well received - but even looking beyond those reasons and purely at the strength of our gameplay, the next stage inherently tied to the Microbe Stage. The Multicellular Stage is based on Microbe Stage mechanics - therefore, even though it’s a different stage, progression, pacing, and gameplay of the two stages must be regarded as intertwined. And refining the Microbe Stage at this point, without knowing the important parts of the Multicellular Stage and how that gameplay will realistically look like, could lead to double work in refinement. If we focus too intensely on refining the Microbe Stage for several release cycles, and those refinements are partially undone by refinements to the Microbe Stage in the wake of the Multicellular Stage, we’re doing double work without much benefit.

To summarize: I do agree that we should seriously consider some refinements to the Microbe Stage, but beyond just finance and factors external to our gameplay itself, development on the Multicellular Stage would also give us better ideas on how to refine our gameplay loop between the two stages.

So with all that, what are some potential solutions? I see three “schools” of approaches to this.

  • Volunteers Will Save Us: In a perfect world, that solution would be to see quality volunteer contributions on the Microbe Stage while hhyyrylainen continues to trail blaze on the Multicellular Stage, allowing us to make progress forward while refining our existing game. That obviously isn’t something we should completely rely on because volunteer contributions aren’t consistent or predictable.
  • Fully Commit to Polishing: We spend a release cycle or two after the finish of the roadmap with full energy on refinements to the Microbe Stage. That could result in some awesome clean up to the game, but loses momentum in reaching our next stage of development, and, again, bumps into double work if we figure out that the Multicellular Stage requires further realignment of the Microbe Stage. That would be half a year of delaying the next stage.
  • “Two-Phase” Refinements: We have two periods of refinement - a limited one now while the Microbe Stage is finishing development, and one that is a bit more comprehensive after the Multicellular Stage finished development. We agree on three or so choice actions to implement in the Microbe Stage to polish things now, choosing items that are as low effort to implement as possible which would result in the most benefits to the game. Other areas of refinement are identified, but are either accepted to be up to volunteer contributions, or to wait and see on the need for these refinements after the Multicellular Stage largely finishes up development. Then, they may be implemented in that period, allowing us to strongly sync the entire Microscopic Stage into a cohesive experience.

Of all those options, I am leaning towards option three. I do really think some refinements should be considered before we “move on”, but that we should choose only a few options instead of going into a full “no this needs improvement, and this needs improvement, and this needs improvement, and this needs improvement” nosedive of never-ending tweaks which might be undone. Once again, the Multicellular Stage is an extension of the Microbe Stage - it will have an effect on progression, and will require some tweaks to existing mechanics to fill certain priorities.

Ah, the “holistic stats” dilemma! I also agree, and have previously suggested such approaches in a Surface Area to Volume system (Surface Area, Volume, and Ratios - #37 by Deus). It is also the premise of my Macroscopic Stage Editor Concepts (Macroscopic Editor, Progression, and Principles - #41 by Deus). So, I do agree that such stats are important characteristics for making truly engaging gameplay.

I will say that when it comes to the surface area concept, my stance has considerably softened, to the point that I now think we should introduce such a stat on the Multicellular Stage. I don’t say this lightly - I have consistently argued for more complex and nuanced mechanics in the past - but I do think we should ease off slightly on introducing such a complex mechanic to our first stage.

Again, I have my opinions on making the game with too much care for the “new player experience” at the cost of giving more experienced players less to work with, and do think we have swung too much towards the new player in some discussions. But, with the Multicellular Stage approaching, I have realized that we have a whole other section of the “Microscopic Stage” yet to be implemented, and that introducing these more nuanced stats there instead of at the beginning of the game has some benefits:

  • Something unique to the Multicellular Stage, justifying its presence as a notable “stage” of Thrive.
  • Easier to balance - I get the feeling that measuring the shape of multicellular colonies is a bit easier than measuring the shape of a microbe is, considering that individual microbes tend to have more numerous parts and that players change shape constantly as they add more parts. This should mean that balancing is more approachable here, compared to a stage where lifeforms go from size 1 to size, what, 60 or so?
  • That pesky(/s) new player experience is valuable here. We don’t want to overwhelm them with a tough-to-balance mechanic right off the bat.

Regardless of those caveats, I do agree with you here. An immediate actionable task from this here? As Hh mentioned in his reply, we do already have such a mechanic at play already, related to mobility. I think we can seriously consider bumping up the impact of that first, and find a way to represent it well in the organism stats panel. We can consider attaching another stat to it too - like you mention, engulfment size is an ideal pick - but that might be something we accept as contributed to by a volunteer instead of immediately prioritized.

I do agree that there is more uniformity in the loop across different metabolisms than is ideal. Games don’t have to vary dramatically in hands-on experience from one save to another - God of War, the Arkham Games, Civilization, KSP all generally have you do the same things for example - but those games occasionally force you to do something different, or atleast, change the order of actions. For example, God of War having enemies which force you to use certain attacks/weapons, Arkham being the same, Civilization making the environment change your order of tasks, an advanced editor game like KSP and the trial and error there naturally forcing different projects, etc.

With Thrive - the gameplay of a certain metabolism doesn’t have to be dramatically different in the immediate gameplay. But there should be something that incentivizes you to try a different route across different saves. Right now, across basically 90% of every game, you can do more-or-less the same actions and the game will play out the same way - start with iron, migrate to surface, get sunlight, wait for oxygen, done. There is no playthrough where photosynthesis is less lucrative; there is no playthrough where sulfur, iron, and glucose are not universally present in your world; there are very few playthroughs where you can’t get to the surface quickly (more interesting world gens actually delaying this results in some of the more unique playthroughs); there is no playthrough where it’s not much of a problem to become used to oxygen; etc.

Again, the script of the game being the same isn’t the sin - all those other games I mentioned before have a general rhythm. Every Microbe Stage should probably be separated into a “First Metabolism → Oxygen” progression. But currently, that first metabolism is basically completely up to the player deciding what they want to do instead of them having to improvise and adapt to what is given to them.

That is why I heavily stress increasing volatility of compounds as an important thing we should prioritize for the Microbe Stage. Introducing volatility to the point that you’re not sure which compound you’ll have to rely on at the beginning of the game, or how certain resources will change throughout time, would be a relatively simple thing to implement (simple as in not completely adding an entirely new mechanic, just tweaking an existing one) that results in an entire world of difference. Ultimately, if we don’t give players a reason to try different mechanics, they won’t just stumble into new experiences by themselves.

From that point, metabolism tweaks - sulfur being damaging to the player unless you have a chemosynthetic part, iron chunks being tweaked via siderophores, etc. - can be bonuses. But, that first step of introducing chaos is extremely valuable. Other mechanics can be discussed from that point.

This kind of is along the same point you bring up here, which I do think is spot on:

Heavy agreement here. It’s a shame that we are in a constant need for assets for terrain generation. Whenever an artist is able to provide sufficient assets for that feature, I do think it should be a priority to be implemented, making sure that there is variety across patches. Perhaps we can tweak the currents system too, to be even more pronounced in difference across patches.

I do agree here, but I think this is something that we should discuss with more of the Microscopic part of the game developed. Something that comes to mind are environmental conditions which can dramatically alter the state of a game forever. Though we need to be really mindful of a player starting the game with a certain expectation, then having that expectation taken away through a chance they can’t control. Tying it to planet customization could hopefully be a way to balance this.

Leave Ducky alone!

I do agree on the general sentiment of distancing ourselves now that we’re becoming more mature of a game. But I do personally like that easter egg. Maybe it can be made to be more rare (I’ve honestly never bumped into any easter egg though).


Some final concluding thoughts, summing certain things up and introducing new topics I want to bring up.

First - as alluded to through this post, I do think the Microbe Stage’s most unique aspect will be how dynamic the environment is. I anticipate this is something we want to exaggerate in the future, and will help drive a lot of variance for future playthroughs if we can maximize that potential there. Extending this point, once the Multicellular Stage begins development, I think we should really put a lot of intentional thought behind progression; making the Microbe Stage more volatile and dynamic, and making the Multicellular the more “deep”, optimization part of the Microscopic Stage.

Second point: we somewhat benefit from the label of being an unfinished game. Because many players understand that Thrive is being worked on, there’s a lot of roughness that they likely are excusing with the understanding that there is room for improvement. Like I alluded to above - if we rush too much without giving the proper polish to the stage, we run the risk of this backfiring on us.

Third: players who are experienced with Thrive form the majority of our community. I do understand making sure that this game is approachable to new players. But, now that we are largely feature complete and can ideally focus on optimization, we do seriously need to consider balancing in a way that toughens certain things up. We’ve often dismissed certain takes on concepts out of a fear of an upcoming feature potentially introducing too much complexity for new players - well, we’ve now reached the end of that train, and the game might not have enough depth for a decent-sized portion of our community.

More experienced players form the majority of our community and playerbase. They are the majority of our support, our momentum forward, and our goodwill. It is important that Thrive is approachable, but again, we really do need to make sure the game respects players who have the fundamentals down, who are looking for new takes and new challenges. We have implemented a new tutorial afterall, and have agreed that, as long as a player understands the basics of metabolism, we accept other challenges as something for them to figure out. Other in-depth simulators, like KSP, are renowned for being challenging.

This isn’t a huge uproar or anything in the community, so I’m not trying to say that our fans see the game negatively. But I have seen a bit more criticism recently lamenting that Thrive can have minimal replayability. We need to make sure that this isn’t a pervasive sentiment in the community - and, if it is, take corrective actions immediately.

I do recommend us considering that “two-polishing phase” timeline that I brought up earlier - select a few choice revisions right now, and accept that there will be a period of time after the Multicellular Stage where we really nail the progression behind the Microscopic Stage. And, ultimately, I do hope that posts like this encourage those very important discussions we need to have.

Regardless - if any volunteer programmer on the team does want to contribute to polishing Thrive, do please message me directly. There are numerous concepts we can discuss to increase the depth of certain areas in Thrive.


Also:

@hhyyrylainen

2 Likes

Hi dilgr as promised I found some time and I’ll answer both you and @Deus thank you both for your patience.

Imho anything that adds value to the gameplay and to make the experience of the first stage valuable is precious, I am totally not against to have the decisions you make on the Microbe Stage impact all the playthrough but I would lean more into making the first two stages very dependant on one another as the base on how your creature is based of.

As I said in the previous reply I take full responsibility for these suggestions so if you feel like it I can gladly help you out with this, it would be kind of a bad move for me to advocate for all this features to be made and then not get involved into the hard work that goes into actually implementing them.

You totally nailed the concept Pal and it would make the game far more difficult and it would actually give more advantages to have chitin or other more “sturdy” membranes as right now I don’t think that the choice of the membrane material matters much in the current meta.

Exactly, this is also why I made the Plague Inc. connection, it would also add a lot of realism and help with immersion and some of those articles could be hilarious in a lot of ways, regarding the 1.0 release we all agree on that we all want to move on from the Microbe Stage but let’s just all put our all into polishing it up and make it one hell of an experience. Thanks for the reply and the huge contribute you give to this project every time I really appreciate your work and your efforts a lot :]

2 Likes

Thanks so much for taking the time to write this all out, Deus. I really appreciate the depth and clarity you always bring to these discussions it makes me happy that despite the criticism this post has received it sparkled a bit of interest and it got some very thoughtful and meaningful replies, maybe it wasn’t as bad or useless as some people say after all. Going back to us I agree that now that we have hit most of the major features it’s time to respect our experienced players more by introducing deeper mechanics as we have got the tutorials side in order so now is the time to expand the ceiling in regards to difficulty, fully agree that replayability is not just about more content, but about how the mechanics connect and evolve together. I also share the concern that rushing the Microbe Stage to call it done without proper synergy and refinement could hurt the long-term perception of our game that is why I have made that a big matter imho we should try to refine it as much as possible and then allow revisitation of certain stuff, since there is still going to be some balancing that we may fix in the future if problems arise so that doesn’t forbid from improving it in the future. Hard agree on forcing players to adapt more dynamically I believe that unpredictability drives creativity that is why I made the point of making late multicellular/early Aware be as crazy as possible and why I am trying to push for having more variation on Microbe shapes and your examples really highlighted how the current gameplay loop can feel too safe or too scripted imho we should absolutely lean more into chaotic conditions to make each playthrough stand out and also make the experience more unique each time. Regarding the easter egg I know that you probably are attached to Ducky but after all that happened last year I don’t really think that it respects both us and the thematics of the game and as you mentioned we matured a lot and I feel we evolved from a concept derived from that game to something entirely new but I am open to ideas to solve this if you or our playerbase thinks it needs to be fixed. Once again thank you for laying this out with such care and perspective I am excited to keep pushing the project forward alongside you and the rest of the team.

1 Like

I agree with the feeling that with the number of options we have in the game, we should be able to have more differentiation in experience than there actually currently is. I think we can really benefit from a polishing push to pull the game together.

Forgive me, I don’t quite understand what is meant by a “bad ending” in this case? Nothing in that video really represents a bad ending on a Thrive multi-generational scale. The only bad endings there are for individual animals being parasitised. Overall it’s just some very interesting evolutionary paths. At the end of the day, as far as I can tell none of the animal species involved went extinct because of it.

Not so sure about the Factorio comparison. Even in real life the actual “procuction chain extending across multiple cells” concept is quite limited. This is doubly true in Thrive’s simplified metabolism.

  • Source → ATP
    and/or
    (Source into Glucose)
  • (Optionally) Glucose → ATP
  • ATP → final product/effect
    and/or
    Glucose → (final product/effect)

That’s three steps maximum, so I don’t think you can make an interesting production chain/logistics gameplay out of that. I would almost sooner compare the expected outcome to something out of a machine builder game, where different parts/constructions have their own important functions to complete the overall objective, and some of them have the function of providing energy/fuel to all the other parts.


To be honest, I still have a lot of questions on how multicellular structure should be designed. The current prototype might be a bit too rigid, and I think that starting from one cell and growing out from there (both in terms of species design and the process during each generation) is probably not the right way to go. But implementing anything akin to the ongoing cell movement, folding and cell differentiation we see in real life seems like a nightmare for designing the editor, auto-evo to use, and players to understand alike.

But I do have some thoughts on this, which I should organise some time.

Funnily enough I think this actually fits best with Macroscopic Stage, the stage actually in between those two. Multicelluar I expect will not have the mechanics to really represent “the way the organism grows” and by the time of real Aware, I think the style of body should be pretty settled (f.e. vertebrate), followed by just looking at all the variations built on that plan.
I hope we can at least end up between a selection of different basic growth principles, like:

  • blob
  • bilateral
  • sticks-with-branching (as in plants)

So that we can for example have a world where the primary photosynthetic organisms are stuck with a weird radially symmetrical pattern instead of what we expect.

Interesting! Because my worry is actually that if auto-evo specifications are made too specific and restrictive, we may end up with an excessive degree of convergent evolution. Which would in my opinion make things look more deterministic, not less.

I fundamentally disagree with moving away from instant mutations. The changes made in the editor represent millions of years, hence why they show up in the whole species after you leave the editor. You may think it would feel more authentic, but in my opinion it is actually far far less representative of reality to have just your one individual have significant differences to the rest.

The principle of “you and the AI compete with each other making edits, and then you play out how your designs compete against one another” is also firmly established in the previous stages, and by now years of people’s experiences playing the game. I think moving away from it at this point is not a good idea.


On the editor:

I agree with you that I don’t want a situation where the solution to getting to fly is “grab this wing part and slap it on”. But I also don’t see how a player would construct a wing out of metaballs, or how the game would recognize it is a wing, or how auto-evo would achieve the same thing.

I think everything, ultimately, boils down to parts, and modifications of those parts. Even a metaball is a part. It’s just a question of how featured the basic parts are, and how small the possible modifications are. Because at some level, once you look detailed enough, you reach a point where there are specific selectable options that were each designed and programmed in. Personally, I am in favour of specific basic parts (say “limb”), with a set of very modifiable statistics (length, width, muscle amount, etc.) and a set of well-designed modifications like “add another joint” or “add a membrane extending back to the body”. In some way similar to how cells in Multicellular are “modifiable parts”.

Similarly I think a very free-form sculpting editor will also not work that well. Too hard for average players to use well, and for auto-evo. So I think your skeletal structure is a good start. Though it might have to be even more “structured” than that, for example with “slots” on each vertebra where things can attach.

In general I just want to make sure designs for all the editors take into account that they absolutely need to support an algorithm like auto-evo being able to make reasonable looking creatures, continue to adapt creatures the player made, and do this at a reasonable speed. Because to be honest I don’t think Thrive can really go anywher without that. And from what I understand, auto-evo needs a reasonable amount of structure and set of rules in order to accomplish that.

I do really like continuing to tie things back to cell types and tissues!


I really like this idea, and have thought about something similar for a few years. It would turn every editor session where you add a truly new organelle into its own milestone, similar to adding a nucleus. In addition to what you said, I think it would also lead to more solid “phyla” of species developing in certain directions (because it’s harder for an outsider to suddenly overthrow them.

It’s probably a bit too big of a balance shakeup to go for now. But I would like to eventually at least set up a branch or fork just to compare how it plays.

2 Likes