I think this would be way more interesting with natural organisms. Then you could actually see which one is conquering the others, because it's not just one single purple dot... EDIT: just reached the end, apparently you're already working on that... awesome!
@@greenaumthey are created for the purpose of serializing data in order to send them over network or storing them on hard drives. That's why they are usually called serialization formats, to signify their main purpose.
@@gritcrit4385 Serialisation is taking data in more abstract formats, multi-dimensional, multiply linked, whatever, and turning them into a flat file format that can be recorded onto disks, or otherwise treated as a file. Still, all computer programs that record data have to remove the structure and store that as well, in order to fit onto sequentially-organised media. Even computer save games have to work out what variables to save and how to encode them, for example translating numeric values into ASCII, or at least sequential bytes. XML is a nice idea for storing the structure and the data together in a way that might be a little-bit cross-platform, or at least make it easier to write other software that could work with that data. It reflects the movement from C, which originated in mainframes and minis where the sequential data in -> process -> out model was used, often because that's how paper and magnetic tapes are organised; to C++, which does a god-awful job of imposing an object-based philosophy onto a language that really wasn't created for it. Sorry, that last bit isn't official CS101. Just stop reading at "philosophy". And ignore "god-awful". Really though there's better languages to add OOP to. "The simplicity of object orientation, with the friendly syntax of C!"
From what I can tell, it's a mediocre hunter but a nearly perfect 'phytoplankton,' or moving plant. None of the competitors will have as many food-producing cells, I can almost guarantee that, meaning it can just out-produce everyone else and reproduce faster as a result, and the limited hunting capability is more for killing 'normal' organisms when it can find them, not as a food supply.
List of ultimate life forms in games: MEWTWO: A clone of an ancient god-like pokemon enginered by human to be the most powerful pokemon with the strongest psychic powers but it ended up hating humanity for the horror that they've done by creating them. SHADOW: An artificial being who became an antihero after promising to a dying friend that he will do anything to protect the world, including bad actions. ELFILIS: An interdimensional god-like being that only seeks destruction and that became totally mad and crazy being trapped for millennia by some worthless primates that made them into an experimentation subject and attraction and after having all of the slight good in them out of its body. MICROQUASAR: *purple square of death*
The "unnatural" ones are essentially a stack on one pixel. It seems easy enough to make make a visual editor for this vertical line of cells, an isometric of the current 2d. Then all grids might be a stack of cells.
I'd love to see this buy without off-centring or stacking. Maybe make the arena a bit spacier for the larger organisms to get around in too. I'm also thinking maybe it would be cool to not have a cell limit, or have a pretty high one and a size limit instead, and then score based on population divided by cell count or something. Tweaking the numbers and running playtests so "should I add a fifth producer?" Becomes a real tough decision or something.
Just to say it, a competition like this would probably be a lot more visually interesting if you ban cell stacking as part of the ruleset. I'd love to see a video like that.
Awesome video, yet again :D Despite your assertions, I still think JSON is a transfer mechanism or a Notation, not a language. Saying JSON is a language is like saying, speech (in general), or written letters formed into words (in general) or carvings (in general) are a language. Letters are a Notation too, not a language, they can represent a language much like JSON can be used to represent a genome. If JSON is a language, then so are letters. Also, these two statements appear to oppose each other: 1: 01:25 "XML literally has the word Language in its name." 2: 01:38 "It's not important to have the word 'Language' in the name."
@@infiniteplanes5775 I think, it's that you can transfer many languages via different transfer mechanisms. So the difference is: A language defines *what* is said, a transfer mechanism defines *how it's transmitted*. Examples: 1. You can transfer the language of genetic coding via JSON, ... or via DNA. 2. You can also transfer the language "French" or "Indonesian" via speech or via written word. I'm open to being corrected, but that's how I think it's defined.
@@hrfordBut you can do that with languages too. That's what a language is. That's how DNA can create something more complex than itself. All languages are carriers of information, not all languages have the same quantity of rules and therefore not all languages have the same informational capacity. JSON has a relatively limited capacity to store information on its own, you'd have to make extensions to it, which you do by defining what the keys and values mean externally. In spoken languages, there are thousands of words and millions of ways to combine them all, and there are many rules, concrete ones and ones that are just there, without being defined. JSON is a language because it has grammar, there are rules, and you can communicate things with JSON. You can embed languages into other languages, but that doesn't mean that any of them are less or more of a language. You can describe all the rules of JSON in English. Though JSON has a very limited quantity of things that you can communicate compared to other languages, there is nothing that makes JSON any different from any other language, aside from that informational capacity being less than most languages. But that's the only difference, and there is no point that it stops being a language.
Also letters don't have rules or structure. Comparing JSON with letters is like comparing letters with language... One has rules and structure and conveys meaning with those rules and structure, and the other is itself a fundamental building block with no individual meaning. Letters are arbitrary. The way you put letters together in JSON is not arbitrary, it is structured.
@@Hexcede Yeah, I agree, letters don't have structure, neither in words nor in JSON. My comparison was between JSON and "letters formed into words". When I wrote "Letters are a Notation too, not a language" I think I should have written "Words are a Notation too, not a language" However, both "Words" and "JSON" define how to group letters into a format/notation best suited to transfer some higher-level information. I agree also that letters are arbitrary. My comparison was that both JSON and words , in general, define how to structure those letters. That definition of structure is not a language. I'm glad you picked up on my mistake.
You should probably create a map filter where color is not decide by the cell type, but by species, so that they don’t all look like the same purple thing.
I think a big part of your community would like another competition with some additional rules. I think that making your own unnatural organism is really cool and the still deserve thei place in this stricter competition but it you wouldnt be allowed to place blocks on top of each other and you wouldnt be allowed to porpoisely make your oganism of center. But everything else is allowed and their would also be natural organisms (maybe even some of the unluck organisms from this very competition because it makes me sad that i couldn't even get a glimpse at what they are capable of because they had absolutely no chance against enemys they cant even see because of porpoisely rearranged key value pairs
lesson: an organism with perfect defense, teleportation, and the ability to produce many, many times more food than it needs to consume to duplicate will be wildly successful
The model is very interesting. However, it begins with the usual paradigm: zero-sum games of "winners" and "losers". (I know, that is the paradigm by which most humans account the journey of life. Hmmmm.) Predictably, "everyone" dies except the "winner" - who would also die because real winning requires multiple successful species. So, the question is whether you could actually make a game that has more useful insight than "battlebots". To do that your species would require a function for making a contribution to the "environment". Various species could make differing contributions. The balance of "zero-sum game" and "contributory game" mechanics could yield potentially much more interesting and useful results (and probably improve your subscription numbers). Might be worth a try.
You know what would be really cool for you to add into the life engine? A specific barrier that behaves like water in real life[, regardless if that implemented hold on...] this water barrier When small is static, and offers a bonus 0.5 energy cost decrease of some sort. but when it is generated at a significant size to the life engine living area, it ebbs and flows. The barrier is traversable in two ways. The barrier occurs with a "shallow" lighter outer color, and an inner deeper "darker" color. the Dark part doesn't ebb and flow as much as the lighter part on these big sized water areas, but the shallow light part might grow outward about 2-10 pixels over a small cycle, half the equivalent of whatever day cycle model your using? so you will have a low tide and high tide during the cycle or two. The interesting thing you could do with this is: 1) For large bodies of water with a "tide" motion: It costs a lot energy to locomote in the shallows than on the black background so if a mover is caught in the water as it rose, then it has to expend energy to migrate out. It also offers a barrier to areas that might allow a differential in reproduction. 2) You could allow for an evolutionary trait that allows for locomotion in the shallow water, and eventually a locomotion or reproduction in the deep water. (also a evolution for traits that allow traversal of either water color) 3) Could allow for static reproducers to get a bonus from 'growing' adjacent to small bodies of water, and becoming a nutrition source for movers. There's some hypotheses that life on earth is only possible due to the tumult generated by the tide, ebb and flow allows for evolution by washing nutrients in and out of areas, promoting strength of those who stay etc etc haiku.
The stacking of cells takes away one crucial component: the spatial arrangement of an organism in relation to the environment and to itself. It mixes and confuses two levels of simulation: that of amino-acids and that of multicellular organisms. I don't know this simulation much, I am very interested in Darwin and biology though. For the little that I grasp, I consider these "unnatural" organisms to invalidate the experiment. Or, in another way to put it, it's an experiment on the program itself - a meta experiment - not on natural selection. I may be very wrong on this. I'd like to see a battle royale with natural organisms only.
Hello, I know nothing, but when I run this game locally, it doesnt utilize any of my actual cpu or gpu, and lags far before my cpu or gpu begins to lag... is this normal or have I done something wrong to be clear its not like laggy, Its just the program begins to lag, and frame count lowers, before any stress is applied to my system.
15 layers is just too much its as if my skin was made from compressed metallic hydrogen and 99% of me exists as a plant in a perfect untouchable habitat on another plane of existence. It would be harder to armor every tile of a creature when there is a limit that is probably less then 1/3 of microquasar or atleast it would be much less efficent
I usually watch in 480p since it's really enough for almost anything. Well a lot of moving pixels here. Looked like just a flicker and kinda hurt my eyes. In 1080p it's clear. Interesting and all, probably youtube compression, it's not even blurry, just flickery.
Wonder how far you could hack the json file. Like add a custom scrip tag that would let you replace the food id with a wall id. So the organism eats walls and drops walls when it dies.
@@alexrusselldev Strictly speaking, this is untrue - there's absolutely nothing stopping someone from writing something that stores and runs scripts from a json file, and some games' modding systems do exactly that. But it's also true that this specific engine probably does not do that.
Well, json is a language, but not a programming language. You can't execute anything with it. Usually we only call turing-complete instances programming languages.
Personally, I think everything on Windows is part of a programming language being run on the interpreter that is Windows, and by that logic Json is in fact a language.
I was with more and more during the language rant. When you called for deniers to be destroyed in fire I was about to stand cheer, and arm up. Then you ruined it by getting back to that battle royal. What a rip.... 😊
