As much as it makes biological sense, I don’t think dealing with different types of carbohydrates is the right direction for thrive. It’s additional complexity for little gain on the gameplay side.
Now feel free to point out if I say anything wrong here (as I don’t know a ton about the minutia of bio-chem), but this is building off what you just suggested.
Complexity-wise, the Calvin cycle (ATP + CO2 → glucose) seems to make much more gameplay sense, so implementing RuBisCo or whatever we want to call it seems to be the best first step.
Thylakoids directly making ATP seems to make sense (from a quick glance at Wikipedia) and might be an improvement to early gameplay. Might pose a balancing issue though
As far as the metabolosome goes I’m not entirely sure it does that, and even if it does, if removing that from it is a good idea.
Yep, you are correct, I think RuBisCO makes the most sense. It’s really important to specifiy the difference between the Calvin-cycle and gluconeogenesis.
I might just be confused about the metabolosome tbh. There are no obvious organelles used for digestion.
I also realized I said this part in a weird and confusing way…
Here, I mean implement the parts in this order, not that the organelles should work like this in the finished game.
The gameplay design reason we are trying to add an organelle to generate glucose from ATP is that we need some kind of longer form storage. Reworking entirely how the CO2 inside cells is handled is a much bigger problem.
We can already just add CO2 as the environmental process input. As CO2 doesn’t currently change in the game the effect is the same as it not being a meaningful requirement.
At this point I can’t fully remember why RuBisCo was entirely thrown out as an option before. If I remember right it was something to do with RuBisCo already being implied in another organelle. But I think my opinion even then was that we could add it as a separate organelle by just saying that it is an extra amount of RuBisCo.
I agree here. We shouldn’t add a bunch of intermediate products that do nothing else except for the player to place like 3 organelles in specific order to get any use out of them.
I agree. This seems like a good idea.
This should be a separate discussion that doesn’t prevent RuBisCo implementation from going forward.
For digestion there is the Lysosome which increases digestion efficiency or allows digesting different membranes. Removing the ability to digest prey from the base microbe would be a pretty big change, and likely needs a very explicit tutorial or removing the engulf ability from the base cell (but then simple iron eaters wouldn’t be viable). Touching core parts of the game causes knock on effects on many other parts of the game.
This is something I also agree on with the game in its current state. This would make a lot more sense further down the line if fermentation and other anaerobic processes were explored for example.
It was implied by the way we have thylakoids make glucose. If they were swapped from making glucose to directly making ATP it sidesteps the issue regardless of anyone’s opinion on it. It was also implied by Chloroplast, but by the time we are using real organelles I can accept that they have RuBisCo inside them anyway.
Chloroplasts do have rubisco in their stroma, so this is the correct implementation. The entire RuBisCo discussion is more important for prokaryotes. It would also fix the rustycyanine and chemoplast energy-storage issue, storing this ATP as glucose. This is what I think everyone had in mind in this thread.
Here is an updated diagram of the current carbon metabolism in the game + RuBisCO for prokaryotes. thrive now + RuBisCO.pdf (87.4 KB)
I suggest that a basic RuBisCo implementation is done first, then the other metabolism changes can be discussed further. This way @Gamedungeon can get started on adding a new organelle to improve the game’s energy storage gameplay.
Having caught up in reading all of this. I’ll firmly say that we should stay true with simplified chemistry. New compounds should be regarded as a most extreme addition as each individual addition adds significant bloat in game complexity, visual discernability, learning curve, and more in a great many ways.
By compressing and simplifying the chemical processes of Thrive, we make gameplay far more palatable and understandable for players new and old alike. This makes for a perfect gateway for those inclined to learn more about these chemical processes they are being introduced to, without making the game look like a research paper the likes of which any layman would never willingly read.
(I will add that with the new resources afforded to us thanks to the recent Thriveopedia changes, we can even elaborate on how things really work in reality in our theory section of the organelle pages for those so inclined!)
For this feature we are discussing, I wholeheartedly agree with hh that any further speculation on how we should approach metabolism going forward shall wait until the basics are implemented. This spares us from the hypothesis of what we might want, and allows us to leap straight into the theory of how it feels to play.
Once we do get a feel for it, new compounds, or any other significant leaps in complexity should be the last option if all else fails.
Question, why not just call RuBisCo, a Carboxysome, It’s funny because the bacterial microcompartment discussion actually includes RuBisCo Carboxysome - Wikipedia
Carboxysomes are BMC’s (Like Metabolosomes) but they primarily just hold RuBisCo enzymes inside them,
The carbonic anhydrase which is also in them, just makes RuBisCo’s job slightly easier by concentrating carbon.
In fact, you could set it up so Carboxysomes, can be upgraded from pure RuBisCo which woudl simply make it more efficient
Carboxysomes are somewhat analogs to C4 metabolism (just in case anyone is familiar with that concept). The RuBisCo, doesn’t matter where, suffers inhibition from oxygen, thus when there is too much oxygen it does not generate glucose properly, therefore some organisms evolved the ability to store RuBisCo into sites where O2 has a more difficult access than CO2. So a Carboxysome is not exactly the same thing as a RuBisCo.
If adding Carboxysomes then it is implied that there is RuBisCo’s inhibition from excess oxygen. Thus there should be implemented a parameter of oxygen saturation in all organelles using RuBisCo.
Which I believe could be pretty interesting actually, but naming RuBisCo as Carboxysome I don’t think would be very accurate. However creating a novel-fictitious organelle having a bunch of RuBisCo is not a bad idea, again Thrive is about accurate speculative evolution, right?
Yes, sure. I know it has been discussed, not to add more carbohydrates and to keep the chemistry simple, though I think at some point coenzymes will be important.
When this problem came out I simply thought about a cell not being able of getting rid of the glycolysis products (yet not suffering any consequence), thus having carbohydrates (since there is no need to perform fermentation since NADH does not exist) to perform gluconeogenesis. So, as coenzyme do not exist, I didn’t think that not having explicitly carbohydrates to perform gluconeogenesis was a problem.
Thylakoids as a simplified version of a completely photosynthetic capable organism is not that bad. Also for implementing an organelle able to convert light → ATP I believe that bacterio rhodopsin would be a very good candidate, as is both simpler and more efficient than Thylakoids (when thinking only about ATP).
I discussed this a bit on Discord, but I have some concerns about the implementation of RuBisCo and the Calvin Cycle as an individual part - both for gameplay purposes and on a meta level.
On a meta level - representing the Calvin Cycle via an organelle is an awkward step up in complexity that is not consistent with other implemented parts. The Calvin Cycle is inherently a part of photosynthesis - which is already a process represented by thylakoids and chloroplasts. It’s awkward to imply a separation between photosynthesis and the Calvin Cycle theoretically, for multiple reasons…
The Calvin cycle does not make much sense independent of the light dependent components of photosynthesis which occur in photo systems
Wider implications on the splitting of other systems. Do we, for example, make also make a part dedicated to the Krebs cycle as a way for the player to tweak their metabolic processing rate?
I think a lot of that is a symptom/result of the mentioned meta-theoretical issues - we imply the Calvin cycle is a universally beneficial and independent process when in reality it is specially catered towards photoautotrophic processes. In other words, we are offering a useful part in a way that is too broad for the player to really know when to use that part because of the implied separation between photosynthesis and the Calvin Cycle. Ensuring that extra ATP is not wasted is a very specific adaptation and a balancing act for photoautotrophs, but is less incentivized - or atleast, less manageable - for organisms who depend on movement heavily, such as heterotrophs.
I want to playtest some more, but my experience with the RuBisCo part so far is similar to previous comments on it - it sounds good in theory, but in practice, I’m not really sure what benefit there is in most cases and it feels a bit awkward.
I ultimately think this should be a function attached to either an upgrade or the larger metabolic process panel concept rather than as an individual part. There are conceptual difficulties which players will likely regardless dealing with this process as an individual part - for example, I don’t know how a player will accurately gauge how many parts their build would require, or the effects of adding another RuBisCo.
I disagree. The debate took a long time, and happened multiple times. I’m now perfectly happy with an organelle representing a cell doing “more” of some process. If we had switched to a protein slot system, this would be a moot point, but now we need to represent that additional cell capability with some organelle. What that is doesn’t really matter as it is realistic enough to be able to make sense. Representing the calvin cycle as an extra thing fits the bill perfectly for that use case.
I just don’t see this working as an individual organelle. Even the current implementation seems to have a feeling of awkwardness about it; I don’t think it’s really a matter of balancing either, but a question of implementation/design.
In Thrive, ATP almost always represents the cumulative end product of a player’s entire design - gather/generate enough glucose/iron/hydrogen sulfide/etc. to eventually get ATP. I think that to then add another part that completely uproots that is something that the player should assess holistically rather than just through the perspective of placing an individual part, but rather as a system entirely. Of course, RuBisCo isn’t meant to be a necessary part anyways - but such a hunk in the system I’m will probably make players feel hesitant in using it.
Considering the above, representing a non-independent process in an individual part also isn’t just confusing theoretically, it also makes it awkward for the player to deal with. Placing more thylakoids/chloroplasts represents using more sunlight, placing more mitochondria represents transforming more glucose into ATP, etc.; our currently implemented independent processes make intuitive sense.
But when you represent such a dependent process with a part instead of a function/process in itself, what exactly does adding more of said part imply? A faster Calvin Cycle? More of that process? Independent of photosynthesis or other metabolic processes, what does that really mean? Especially since ATP is not a tangible or stored product easy to measure but is instead an output, that sounds like a measuring headache for players to deal with. I just don’t see any player realistically placing down such a part as is, as they’d feel it’s not useful as an independent organelle or have no idea on how to utilize it well.
It would be easier to maintain via controls that imply process fine-tuning rather than adding an individual part and adding lump sum effects on your metabolism. If this is to be implemented, why not just focus on controls related to the process panel concept first? Why not bound that within the process panel? We have plans for that anyways eventually, entirely separate from the prior passive enzyme system. I don’t think players will know how to manage RuBisCo, even entirely ignoring it even if it might be useful, outside that context.
I have had my reservations on the concept as well.
I feel the same niche could adequately be fulfilled in as much simpler to understand manner via direct upgrades to the parts. Be that customization of the parts themselves, or a eukaryotic variant producing glucose instead of ATP directly. The Rubisco as a part is, in my view, wholly unnecessary. I didn’t like it, I bemoaned it, and my feelings only grew worse as I playtested it.
But who am I to say that others wouldn’t enjoy it? I may be a game designer, but there are games that I do not enjoy, games that others praise as the epitome of design. I may not enjoy the feature myself, but since the other developers seem so intent on it’s existence, I’ve since decided to shift my focus away from “Do we need it?” to “What can we do with it?” Afterall, I won’t have to use it, just like how I don’t have to play games I don’t enjoy.
I’m willing to give the part a try. If done right, it could provide a potentially interesting way for the more technically inclined players to further specialize and adapt their cells in increasingly efficient ways that may be difficult for other players to understand. The part could maybe create glucose at a more efficient rate than the traditional self-supporting parts we currently have. In a multicellular organism, you could pull off some crazy functions with a cell dedicated to creating and packaging glucose to send off to cells specialized to burn it all.
We could even introduce optional customizations that make our traditional parts stop producing glucose directly, and ATP instead to support this feature.
It would all be optional of course, a cell should be able to survive just fine without separating the formation of glucose between parts, and I forsee lots of players struggling to understand the balance of such a feature (Not to mention autoevo), but having the option to go beyond for those willing could be a win in our book.
If other people are determined to implement the part as is, then I’ll try to make it work too. I’m just wary of thinking like that because I wouldn’t know how to offer input on the part, and I also don’t know the core grievance this feature as currently executed addresses without adding much more confusion for the player.
I just think it’ll be an exponentially more useful implementation and less of a wasted effort if we wait on integrating it until we have an understanding of what a customizable process panel looks like.
Unless I’m massively misremembering, customizable process panel is not on the roadmap, so it might never be finished. Again if I remember right only process speed control / pausing for the process panel is on the roadmap. And if it is purely a player controlled thing to store energy as glucose, that obviously doesn’t work for AI cells and we are back where we started: there needs to be an automated ability for cells to store excess energy as glucose (and the easiest way without redoing the organelle / protein system, which also isn’t on the accepted roadmap, is to just have the ability be triggered by a placeable organelle).
If that’s the case, and if you say expanding the process panel would be a lot of trouble not initially planned on the road map, then I accept your point. I accept the part, though I still do think that the current issues we face in playtesting are fundamental to the nature of the process being implemented as a part. We can try and find a less intrusive solution.
I’m really curious what aspect / assumed functionality you are basing this on. I can’t come up with what the fundamental difference there is between having the ability enabled for all cells from the start or only having the ability enabled after placing a certain kind of organelle. The only thing I can think of is that it might be easier to balance if all cells constantly do it, but then again that requires rebalancing the start of the game, whereas a specific part giving the ability only requires balancing to work when that organelle is placed (it doesn’t affect the early game).
Reflecting on this more, I was really thinking of the graphical/information representation of the part more than anything. I wasn’t sure how well the player would be able to understand the effect of RuBisCo on their metabolism and energy output because ATP isn’t treated as a stored item. Though this is remedied a bit by the fact that we have the process panel implemented already, which gives real time information on inputs and outputs.
