So I thought I would bring up this topic just to sort of feel out the crowd on how they feel about “natural breeding and selection” versus “artificial insertion”.
Obviously this represents two huge camps. I belong to the ‘natural’ crowd in that discovering and propogating certain genotypes via normal breeding cycles and forced ‘studs and bitches’…while there is another camp that is excited to create and insert ‘meta-creatures’ via external modification/injection of genes. I know that this current strain of Steve’s are much more complicated that prior iterations (possibly on purpose…don’t ask me, ask Steve) but thoughts would be interesting from both camps.
with steves original biochenical aproach, i was looking forward to creating the most optimised keta creature possible. However since we are using a creatures style biochemestry instead, making a meta creature will be way to easy. Meaning creating interesting flaws and quirks will be the main goal.
And my aproach in creatures was always reusing older moddified ones to build uppon it and i always hated it when i had to go back ti generation zero, that’s why i really like the idea if a continous population. That will allow for real progress without constant resets. No matter if natural or man made insetions. And i assume we need an dual aproach with some “fixes” when players remove the genes for imortality and similar that will pop up in natural evolution. Because pure natural evolution in creatures always created fast aging egg producing imortals if i give them enough time/generations
