|
|
Post by Omicron on Sept 14, 2017 15:28:50 GMT
I got bored and went to the dev forums. There, I saw that the GDD was rewritten again. So, I went and read it (I was very bored). I then read this part
So, I thought that it was finally settled by the dev's whether you start with a mitochondria or not. However, later I read this part in the "Microbe progression page", where it said:
This, of course, was not very consistent. So, my question is: Will we start with mitochondria or not? (Also, if we do, I feel like the chance to assimilate one should be much higher at first, as you're mostly subjected to the currents, so it'll just be too annoying too just hope to find one, and when you finally manage to catch up to it after missing a couple, not even getting anything out of it.)
(I myself kinda feel like you shouldn't, purely for because of the fact that it will be more accurate, maybe add spawning with mitochondria as an option)
(Also, one last question: In the progression page, it said one will have to mutate a predatory pilus in the tutorial. I thought we had to mutate them ourselves a bit later in the game, or was I mistaken?(again, I feel like we should mutate it ourselves, even if it's only for the extra playtime))
|
|
|
|
Post by BiologicalSomething on Sept 14, 2017 17:54:01 GMT
Firstly, the mitochondria.
There was a thread I remember (Or maybe I'm making it up) where it was discussed that you would not start with mitochondria; instead, you'd perform a different form of energy production before oxygen-based respiration occurs via mitochondria. Whether they've decided one or the other depends on the date of these threads you've encountered. Check back, and look at the date it started. One is bound to be older than the other, and a good way to confirm/disconfirm for yourself could be judging based on the age of the thread. But word from a dev is always more reliable.
I'm going to assume it's still up in the air for now.
The whole predatory pilus thing is possibly just an early concept, like as in a theoretical tutorial. It will probably not end up that way, as the whole point of thrive (or at least a part of it) is to allow players near complete freedom to do what they want (almost in a sense of it must be scientifically accurate).
|
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Sept 14, 2017 18:46:23 GMT
Firstly, the mitochondria. There was a thread I remember (Or maybe I'm making it up) where it was discussed that you would not start with mitochondria; instead, you'd perform a different form of energy production before oxygen-based respiration occurs via mitochondria. Whether they've decided one or the other depends on the date of these threads you've encountered. Well, the issue is that I don't think the devs are entirely even about it either, but that if you spawned without, the nucleas would be able to perform glycosism, just WAY less than a mitochondrion. There's also but 4 days in between both edits, so not really a big enough difference to be able to take a conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by BiologicalSomething on Sept 14, 2017 19:25:12 GMT
Firstly, the mitochondria. There was a thread I remember (Or maybe I'm making it up) where it was discussed that you would not start with mitochondria; instead, you'd perform a different form of energy production before oxygen-based respiration occurs via mitochondria. Whether they've decided one or the other depends on the date of these threads you've encountered. Well, the issue is that I don't think the devs are entirely even about it either, but that if you spawned without, the nucleas would be able to perform glycosism, just WAY less than a mitochondrion. There's also but 4 days in between both edits, so not really a big enough difference to be able to take a conclusion. Like I mentioned, probably best to wait for a dev to comment on it. Spawning without mitochondria would technically make sense, with evolution/engulfment and all. It might even be a little educative. Which one was edited earlier? I know you've judged it to not be a big enough difference, but a lot can change in 4 days. Well, in that aspect, it could also change a lot in the time between then and now. So that's up in the air. I think a response from tjwhale or seregon (although he does not seem too active) would be best; theory team, after all. Maybe Nick, or Oliver at a long shot. |
|
|
|
Post by NickTheNick on Sept 14, 2017 22:28:23 GMT
I don't have much time right now so I can't give you a full answer, but I'll tell you that we're working on updating the wiki right now so things are constantly being edited and moved and rewritten, so for about the next week don't take anything you read on there too seriously.
Also that topic is something we need to discuss more as we go into the future because I personally believe it's better not to start with the mitochondrion and I think this is just a temporary feature that we start with it (I might be wrong).
|
|
