Von Neumann machines, and oxygen

[Rudolf]

You have the original colony, lets all say with well rounded equal stats. The seedlings scout the asteroid, find out what kind of resources it has, and then chooses the best way to spend those resources in the three stat areas. 15 of them then reconfigure themselves into a Dyson tree that absorbs the resources and produces new seedlings to best utilize the asteroids resources. Then those seedlings navigate to a different planet, scout the resources, plant a new tree, and start production there.

I know you didn't really mention resources or anything, but I figured that would be the easiest way to explain the stats of the seedlings being generated because of the asteroid.

This is pretty much how the game works now. The original design has explicit resources in the asteroid, minerals, water, and metal alloys, and this is what causes the seedling diversity across the different asteroids. The tree roots in the original design would actually burrow to pockets of resources, which explains their wiggly trajectory. The resulting paths were to function as playable "dungeons" the player could enter and explore. Due to the original competition time limits however we dropped this idea but the trees still act accordingly. :-)

[crazeh.monkeh]

so they are like... semi-organic robots? lol

Or are they just powered by the minerals, water, and metal alloys?

and if they are powered by those which ones were originally intended to power which attributes?

[wogan]

so they are like... semi-organic robots? lol

Or are they just powered by the minerals, water, and metal alloys?

and if they are powered by those which ones were originally intended to power which attributes?

Well, my idea was to make them completely robotic. Nanotechnology designed to emulate trees and seedlings, which is the only viable way a human scientific breakthrough would be able to create a Dyson Tree. They'd either be powered by sunlight or oxygen, but it looks like oxygen/water would be the first available minerals to these trees and seedlings.

[axussriddare]

Here comes MR know-it-all!

I'm getting rather spooked by your usage of the word "mutate". The proper word would be metamorphosis or simply "change". Mutate implies a change in DNA (or equalivent).

My point is that you don't need DNA for every single thing you create/set loose. If Dyson trees are mechanized (which they'll probably have to be), then the seedlings wouldn't carry any genetic code - just instructions on how to create the base for a new tree.

Why would they have to be machines? A organic creature could theoretically function in vacuum, as long as it can get energy to move and reproduce. A Dyson tree  would gather energy, possibly from a sun or the asteroid core, and reproduce by creating seedlings.

This is my theory about how a Dyson tree would work:

First we assume we have a tree on an asteroid. It grows out a couple of seedlings, and at some point there are enough seedlings (say, 15) to grow another tree. One of the seedlings undergo a metamorphosis and turns into a "seed". The others work as food for the "seed" until it can reach the core and produce its own food. Then the process is repeated. Finally a tree mutates to send a seedling to a different asteroid. That is a beneficial mutation, and that species can spread much faster than it would by spreading to passing asteroids. That breed might be the one you control in the game. Then there is the question of intelligence. A single seedling could be rather dumb, but these are obviously colony-building life-forms, and they might have a "collective mind" that is relatively intelligent (a single ant is really dumb, but a whole colony is much smarter). Or perhaps the trees are intelligent, and control the colony.

As for sexes, there is no need to divide everything into "male" and "female". There are types of fungus with hundreds of sexes, and surely reproduction can be accomplished with only one sex (hermaphroditism).

[wogan]

mu·ta·tion
n.
1.  The act or process of being altered or changed.
2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.

There is mutation outside of genetics. To mutate is to change, that's all. And it's a lot easier to type than metamorphosis.

You should check back to my previous posts in this thread. The attributes of dyson seedlings and attack spores is determined by the composition/stats of the asteroid - so there is no need for a genetic structure. Genes ensure that attributes for complex life forms are passed on despite radical changes in environmental conditions - plus, Dyson seedlings are hardly complex life forms: They don't metabolise, they don't respirate or reproduce.

Why should they be mechanised? Plants grow thanks to four primary inputs: Water, to transport materials. Sunlight, to provide energy, Carbon Dioxide, from which carbon (and hence cellulose) is synthesised, and nitrates from the soil. On an airless asteroid, you'll satisfy everything except the need for CO2. You probably couldn't mine it, either: asteroids are more likely to be composed of metals and silicates, possibly frozen water too, but very little carbon.

Producing a plant based on a silicate compound might be possible, but it would be far easier to mine and use existing ores in the asteroid - something that sunlight-powered machines would be able to do, and eventually build seedling factories out of.

Also:

Well, my idea was to make them completely robotic. Nanotechnology designed to emulate trees and seedlings, which is the only viable way a human scientific breakthrough would be able to create a Dyson Tree.

A thing with intelligence - you're underestimating the power of distributed intelligence. The only time a need arises to have an intelligent overseer is when the body has to achieve something against and beyond the calls of the current circumstances. Since Dyson seedlings only need to seed, spread and fight, and all of these functions can be triggered by environmental conditions, there's no need for a centalised intelligence.

[axussriddare]

In my model (or whatever you would call it) the seedlings are just a stage, that then becomes the tree. To create a tree it needs a way to give the tree all the knowledge it should have. The tree DOES reproduce after all. What are the seedlings otherwise? A larval ant carries the DNA instructions needed for a full-grown queen, but those genes are not active at that stage. If a robot is to construct a factory, it also needs the information that the factory is to use to build robots.

All known organisms on earth (and some viruses) have DNA. Even the smallest, single-cell organisms. And a Dyson is extremely complicated in comparison. It needs to be capable of flight (that is probably very complicated in vacuum), fighting (with lasers?), finding enemies to fight (suggesting some kind of eyes or other light-sensitive organ), discerning friend from foe, deciding when to "plant", reproducing and so on. A single-cell organism needs to eat and reproduce. Simple. Well, not that simple, but still.

There is also the fact that Dysons seem to be capable of strategic thinking (sure, the AI is pretty dumb, but not intentionally). That certainly implies intelligence, or a VERY complicated system of instincts. And what sounds more likely?

Also, you just seem to assume that a plant can't run on just sunlight and minerals. This is alien life we are talking about here. Why should it be so limited? Is there any limit in the laws of physics?

[totally]

Hi guys,
hm, this thread is still active?

From players perspective, which of the options creates more motivation and helps to associate with making emotional connection? (Making the game more exiting and fun to play)

1) nano-robots
2) organic species
3) other


I'd go with organic, but that is just my opinion.
Dyson species appears to be a mix of insect colony mentality and tribe mentality (leaderless and with a leader). In this case a female tree is the leader capable of judging the situation and giving orders to dysons. One mission ends with words something like "you serve the mother tree well" which indicates that a complex relationship between a dyson and a tree is present. Every dyson wants to become a tree (and every dyson has the potential of becoming a tree) and rule the surroundings but few dysons actually achieve this goal. So there is also competition inside colony.


Now what would be really interesting (I mean REALLY interesting) to implement is the possibility of a rogue trees. One central tree is the commander (grows bigger, more hitpoints and so on) while the others are being commanded. Commanders tree's dysons presence dictates how well other trees obey commander tree inside colony. For example if you had 0 commander trees dysons present of one asteroid, that tree might also become an commander tree and start a colony, becoming an enemy. So there would be all kind of competition: inside a colony (master tree vs slave tree), colonies vs colonies (master tree vs master tree), dysons vs dyson (1 from 15 become a tree), dysons vs trees (renegade dyson groups if left unchecked?) and so on. Easiest mode would be master tree vs master trees, hardest would be a rogue dyson group escaping from a master tree dominance and starting own colony and you play as a dyson...

Now THAT would be EXTREMELY interesting to play.



*waiting for the next version*

[axussriddare]

Here is my new, somewhat revised and greatly improved version of my "theory":

First new thing is the seedling anatomy. I realize that the quality is comparable to cow dung, but blame it on my choice of drawing program (MS Paint). I hope it is interesting enough to take your attention from the low quality though:

The seedlings fly through space using a form of combustion engine, for which the fuel is created from water and various gasses (the oxygen is taken from the water). A lot of the energy is received by solar power, but the propulsion is combustion-based. The idea for this was partially stolen from Alien planet (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extraterrestrial_life_in_Alien_Planet#S).

The seedling is covered by a chitin-like material. A hole is quickly filled by the body fluids that contain some cells and fluids capable of repairing holes. The firing (yes, I noticed my spelling mistake on the picture) is done by a yet to be described process (perhaps we should leave it at that, in order to avoid technobabble) in the organ behind the "nose". The "nose" targets the shot and also contains certain sensory organs.

The seedlings have three senses: balance (to know what's down and what's up), smell (to find certain gasses) and sight (probably needed to detect enemies in space). They communicate with pheromones (or an equalivent) and visually. If a seedling runs out of resources, it dies.

When seedling is ready to become a tree, it signals to the others that it needs help. When enough have gathered, they "merge" by lining up and running nose-first into each others (the first one into the ground). The final seedling survives and becomes a tree. It feeds from the others to do so. The trees produce a lot of the gasses needed by the seedlings, and take up the remains that they need for themselves.

Well, what do you think?

[wogan]

This is alien life we are talking about here. Why should it be so limited? Is there any limit in the laws of physics?

I'll be honest here. I am so, so tired of the SF cliche that it always has to be some far-off superior alien race that comes up with the weird and exciting stuff. Why can't the human race, for once, come up with something like this? Honestly, it was a human scientist that came up with the idea, we have the technology to implement it, why do we have to resign it to the aliens?

Seedlings don't need to carry a lot of data to produce trees - especially since the trees have no real influence on the seedlings produced. That influence is carried by the composition of the asteroid. All the seedlings need to be able to do is plant a factory - and if the data is fragmented across many (say, 15) seedlings, you don't need to give them much memory at all.

The ant argument is invalid, because it contains genetics capable of producing different offspring - something which seedlings don't need to be able to do.

Run down to your local library, pick up "Prey" by the now late Michael Crichton. It'll explain a lot of the backtheory I'm applying here. And don't worry - it's fiction. Doesn't bite

[wogan]

In this case a female tree is the leader capable of judging the situation and giving orders to dysons. One mission ends with words something like "you serve the mother tree well" which indicates that a complex relationship between a dyson and a tree is present.

They're seedlings, not dysons, btw. I find it easier to refer to things by their name

The main objective of an ant colony is to survive, as it is for a bee colony and a termite colony. The main objective of a Dyson seedling colony is to spread - so don't you think they'll do things differently?

It makes no sense to have competition of any sort between your seedlings, as it will slow them down and make them a less effective force. It also makes no sense to invest a significant amount of intelligence into any one seedling, since all it does is move, shoot and breed. Termites, for instance, have to play offensive, defensive, have to construct incredibly complex dwellings, tend to a queen, etc. Bees build and maintain hives. Ants grow gardens. Dyson seedlings don't have to do any of these things.

Well, what do you think?

I think you're over-complicating it, lol. Also, bear in mind that the resources harvested from an asteroid will mostly be silica, nickel, iron, and maybe the odd patch of ice. It's difficult to construct a chitin-based seedling from that - chitin is a polysaccharide, requiring carbon, oxygen and nitrates to produce (and you only have 1 of 3 there).

A ferrous drone with a quartz laser, powered by sunlight/oxygen? That's something more likely to be produced from the raw materials offered by an asteroid.

[totally]

The main objective of an ant colony is to survive, as it is for a bee colony and a termite colony. The main objective of a Dyson seedling colony is to spread - so don't you think they'll do things differently?

If you think that objectives end there, you are mistaken. To survive and gain control over surroundings is more accurate summary of objectives. The objective of a dyson tree is to gain control over asteroids. Because other trees have the same objectives there is also objective to neutralize other dyson trees. Conflict of interest.

It makes no sense to have competition of any sort between your seedlings, as it will slow them down and make them a less effective force. It also makes no sense to invest a significant amount of intelligence into any one seedling, since all it does is move, shoot and breed. Termites, for instance, have to play offensive, defensive, have to construct incredibly complex dwellings, tend to a queen, etc. Bees build and maintain hives. Ants grow gardens. Dyson seedlings don't have to do any of these things.

There is lots and lots of competition inside species which makes it stronger as a whole. Competition to mate, competiton over food, competition over control and so on. The reason ants are so ineffective is because there is no centralized leadership, queen is just a copying machine (in other words there is no competition over control). And every ant cannot become a queen. However dyson spieces is more efficient because every seedling can become a tree, and that is very important. So a seedling wants to become a tree.

I don't really see dysons as tools, because their behavior resembles more an independent spieces (alpha predator) than a vacuum cleaner. Also it lowers the motivation to care about them if they are just tools (atleast for me).

 

[totally]

Nice drawing axussriddare.

There was much debate about the source of energy that gives life to the species. I think it is cores that gives food to the dysons, Wogan thinks that it is solar (if I remember correctly). The original concept of developers was (again if I remember correctly) that cores are the sources of energy, but they probably changed it.


edit: Also don't listen to Wogan who thinks that he knows components of asteroids  The word "asteroid" here is used to describe the round things on which trees live, they could very well be in alternative universe whith different minerals than our own.

[Rudolf]

This is alien life we are talking about here. Why should it be so limited? Is there any limit in the laws of physics?

I'll be honest here. I am so, so tired of the SF cliche that it always has to be some far-off superior alien race that comes up with the weird and exciting stuff. Why can't the human race, for once, come up with something like this? Honestly, it was a human scientist that came up with the idea, we have the technology to implement it, why do we have to resign it to the aliens?

Seedlings don't need to carry a lot of data to produce trees - especially since the trees have no real influence on the seedlings produced. That influence is carried by the composition of the asteroid. All the seedlings need to be able to do is plant a factory - and if the data is fragmented across many (say, 15) seedlings, you don't need to give them much memory at all.

The ant argument is invalid, because it contains genetics capable of producing different offspring - something which seedlings don't need to be able to do.

Run down to your local library, pick up "Prey" by the now late Michael Crichton. It'll explain a lot of the backtheory I'm applying here. And don't worry - it's fiction. Doesn't bite

We are still at GDC so this is going to be a short message,but I need to say something about this post and the forum in general.
First, this post (and the whole discussion in this thread) is one of the most awesome ones I can ever imagine seeing in response to a game we are developing. It is so awesome that words fail me and I am tempted to resort to interpretive dance. :-)

Second, you guys/gals on this forum absolutely rock. The only reason we are not more active on this board than we are now is because we are so incredibly busy due to the escalating popularity of Dyson and our development goals we want to meet in order to make the final game is good as we can.

Thank you all. We will tell all about GDC when we come back in a few days and have recovered a bit. At the moment we are still talking to tons of people at the booth.

[axussriddare]

Seedlings don't need to carry a lot of data to produce trees - especially since the trees have no real influence on the seedlings produced. That influence is carried by the composition of the asteroid. All the seedlings need to be able to do is plant a factory - and if the data is fragmented across many (say, 15) seedlings, you don't need to give them much memory at all.

You would then need to have 15 sexes, one for each type, all acting in the mating. It would simply not be necessary to make things so complicated. If every seedling carries the instructions needed then there is no need for that.

Well, what do you think?

I think you're over-complicating it, lol. Also, bear in mind that the resources harvested from an asteroid will mostly be silica, nickel, iron, and maybe the odd patch of ice. It's difficult to construct a chitin-based seedling from that - chitin is a polysaccharide, requiring carbon, oxygen and nitrates to produce (and you only have 1 of 3 there).

A ferrous drone with a quartz laser, powered by sunlight/oxygen? That's something more likely to be produced from the raw materials offered by an asteroid.

Hey, it's my own theory, right? I personally don't think that it is complicated enough yet.

The seedling is covered by a chitin-like material.

I said "chitin-like material" not "chitin". It is similar in shape and function, not in composition. These don't even need to be carbon-based life-forms (though I imagine that it would be the best).

Now, I wish to revise my theory further (got some better ideas). Sadly I cannot stay with the game "lore" any longer, since I really can't find a realistic reason to why fifteen seedlings would be needed. I'll stay near the way it works in the game though. I'm only modifying the last part (about turning into a tree).

There are four "sexes" among the seedlings. There are two "female" sexes, regular and defensive, and two "male", regular and defenders. The male is your ordinary seedling (see the picture). Both females are three times larger than the males. They cannot "shoot" with their nose, instead it is used to burrow into the ground and start "planting". Behind it there is a large "root" instead of the firing processing organ. They also have an additional, smaller, propelling organ near the base of their wings. That is turned the opposite direction and used to slow down when "landing". The seed organs are larger (in proportion to the rest of the body), and work fundamentally different.

When mating, the female calls for males to "seed" her. They release their seeds onto the female (a process that is fatal to them). The female collects them with her collection organs. After that she "lands" and plants herself. Her body becomes the base of the tree. The two sexes each form a different type. The regular females form a regular Dyson tree, and the defensive females form defensive trees.

The trees produce a lot of the gasses needed by the seedlings, and take up the remains that they need for themselves. Regular Dyson trees produce all female seedling types and the regular males. The defensive trees produce defensive male seedlings.

Defensive males have an even more primitive "brain" than the regular males. They sit on their trees until given the signal to attack. They find a target and follow it until they ram into it. They have much larger fuel processing organs than the other males, and have three small "wings". These wings contain "fuel". When they ram into a target, they shoot their wings into it and then start an explosion, usually destroying both. A defensive male cannot land, and it destroys itself if it can't find enemies. That way the other males and the females can take up the gasses and materials for their own use.

I might give you some pictures of the other sexes later.

[wogan]

You would then need to have 15 sexes, one for each type, all acting in the mating.

15 sexes? Types? Lol, I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. Imagine the design for a tree's root took up the equivalent of 15Mb of memory. Would you rather invest in 15 15Mb cores (1 in each seedling), or 15 1Mb cores (1 in each seedling), and then simply select the correct 15 seedlings at planting time? That's distributed intelligence (or in this case, information).

Hey, it's my own theory, right? I personally don't think that it is complicated enough yet.

Heheh, to each his own

I said "chitin-like material" not "chitin". It is similar in shape and function, not in composition. These don't even need to be carbon-based life-forms (though I imagine that it would be the best).

You can't have carbon-based lifeforms in a carbon-void environment. I know, we take it for granted here on Earth, but we're dealing with ferrous/silicate asteroids here.

Now, I wish to revise my theory further (got some better ideas). Sadly I cannot stay with the game "lore" any longer, since I really can't find a realistic reason to why fifteen seedlings would be needed.

Because if the seedlings were composed, at their core, of nanobots (or micromachines), they could be reconfigured at planting time into a root generator, cannibalizing themselves as they go. And it would most likely take the mass of 15 seedlings to start the process.

I might give you some pictures of the other sexes later.

No pr0n D:

I still can't quite grasp why Dyson seedlings have to be living organisms. Living organisms require inordinate amounts of energy, are prone to decay, genetic degradation, chemical/hormonal imbalances, even disease. And if you're trying to oxygenate (or even mine) an asteroid belt, the last thing you'd want is for your tools to go completely haywire in 3 generations.

If you think that objectives end there, you are mistaken. To survive and gain control over surroundings is more accurate summary of objectives. The objective of a dyson tree is to gain control over asteroids. Because other trees have the same objectives there is also objective to neutralize other dyson trees. Conflict of interest.

Ants don't actively seek to spread and cover more terrain - if they did, they'd be a bigger problem than what they currently are. And yes, of course there's conflict - conflict between different races/clans/tribes/owners, not internal conflict between seedlings/trees of the same kin.

And the only reason there'd be conflict between different tribes of the same seedlings would be defined in a game plot device, not as a function of their design and purpose. Just as the divides in human culture are defined by religious beliefs and geography.

There is lots and lots of competition inside species which makes it stronger as a whole.

Based on what evidence? The human race has been competing with itself for the last 3'000 years - and look what its done to us, our moralities, beliefs, relationships, and even the planet itself. Gaza, Rwanda, WWII, anyone? Have we become a stronger race for it? I don't think so. And no, building bigger bombs doesn't make you stronger, it just makes you more liable to do something really stupid.

I know you're invoking natural selection here - the idea that the strong survive by getting rid of the weak. What evolutionists fail to realise is that even the "weak" species play fundamental roles. Earthworms, for instance, aren't particularly strong, and would lose in just about any fight - but without them, our soils wouldn't be nearly as fertile as what they are.

Just remember that the purpose of the theory of natural selection was to explain how the current species spread came to be. In Dyson, we already know exactly how the species is to behave, the environment it will act in, how it will need to respond to stimuli, and how it will reproduce and spread. Introducing further competiton at this point is insanity - all it will do is promote counter-productive individualism, which (as I'm sure you've learned when you need 400+ seedlings to take an asteroid) will severely hamper your efforts.

edit: Also don't listen to Wogan who thinks that he knows components of asteroids  The word "asteroid" here is used to describe the round things on which trees live, they could very well be in alternative universe whith different minerals than our own.

Still with the alternate-universe thing? I honestly can't see why it has to be that way - we have plenty of asteroids in our own universe already. Just because they're represented with circles in the game doesn't mean that they're circles in real life Plus, it was a scientist in this universe that proposed the idea, and an author in this universe who proposed the technology.