In general, I think terrain and climate are overweighted at present. Unless we decide to really reward diversity, a given deck-build is unlikely to have much problem with matching them so they are really only relevant to events. Instead the main weight should be around diet.
Carnivore chain bonus: +2 if #Foodchain is 4
Size: I'm not sure how we should weight size. For your own chain, having small herbi/omnivores and large carnivores is good but it's also good for your opponents chain. I like the idea of people playing a deck of large herbivores which opponents can't use. So, I'll suggest:
Herbivores - 6-7 : +0.5 ; 8+ : +1
Carnivores - 1-4 : + 1 ; 5 : +0.5 ; 6 : +0; 7+ : -0.5
+1: Restricted to sparse habitat (Tundra/Desert ; while ocean and freshwater are thin at present they'll expand)
+0.5 : Single Habitat (can combine with +1)
-0.5 : 4-5 habitats
-1 : Any habitat
+1: Just Cold or Hot
+0.5: Just Cool or Warm
-0.5: Any Climate
+0.5 plants without spread - ignore rest below
+1.5 for no move
+1 for #Move 1
-0.5 for Flight
-0.5 for #Move > 2
-1 for Invasive
-0.5 per other keyword (Parasite, Pollinator)
By default, round down but if the card feels harder to play then it can be rounded up.
I'm sure there is room for improvement and I have no idea how to score Carbon, but that gives:
Bold Jumping Spider: 8
Maori Octopus: 4
Dumbo Octopus: 8
Peacock Butterfly: 3
Pacific Dogwood: 2
Policemans Helmet: 1
We don't have any plants that score more than +0.5 at the moment, but that seems right from what they are.
I realise it looks more complicated than Fenris's previous system but the results seem ok to me at least - for the most part players are encouraged to reach to the top of the foodchain. What do people think? Fenris, how does that compare to the actual playability of the cards?
Last edited by picks-at-flies on Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : rewrote somewhat for clarity; included Invasive adjustment as suggested by Fenris below)