Phylomon

All things phylomon! (http://phylomon.org)


You are not connected. Please login or register

Scoring revisited

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Scoring revisited on Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:48 pm

It's very clear when I'm trying to build a deck with everything that the scoring needs revisiting, as Fenris has also found. Here are my comments:

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.

Plantae/photosynthetics: 2
Omnivores: 4
Herbivores: 5
Carnivores: 7

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

Habitat:-
+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

Climate:-

+1: Just Cold or Hot
+0.5: Just Cool or Warm
-0.5: Any Climate


Movement:
+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

Keywords:
-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:

Lion: 8
Ringtail: 4
MuskOx: 7
Kakapo: 6
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)

View user profile

2 Re: Scoring revisited on Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:47 pm

Invasive should probably be a little more expensive than other keywords because right now it not only gives you points, it steals points from the other person. It basically combines an event onto a creature.

View user profile http://www.rainydaypaperback.com

3 Re: Scoring revisited on Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:43 am

Individual scoring notes:
Great Capricorn Beetle: condition seems harsh so I'm setting it at 8 points.
Blue Fin Tuna: The rules ignore size on omnivores, but Blue Fin Tuna seemed to merit an extra point at size 8. I didn't for the Wookie... because otherwise it would make a fictional creature the highest scoring omnivore.
Ringtail: Doesn't get the carnivore food chain bonus for being chain 4.

For now I've treated all the Carbon cards as plants.

View user profile

4 Re: Scoring revisited on Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:48 pm

I think the plants are a tad undervalued right now. (ditto for the elemental carbon) I'd push the base up just a hair from both. The elemental carbon I'd push up just a tad bit more since its harder to make a chain out of. Easy to place, hard to integrate in.

View user profile http://www.rainydaypaperback.com

5 Re: Scoring revisited on Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:45 pm

At present, any herbivore should be able to feed off elemental carbon species, but the category is also used for viruses etc. I have tended to be a little generous with them but it's hard to gauge.

For convenience, I'll just bump both categories up a point.

Edit: I've just reweighted Elemental Carbon species with PARASITE on the basis that they can ONLY be played on their parasitic species. This makes them niche cards and worth a lot. If you go with Parasite as written (i.e. optional) they become worth 2-3 points again.

View user profile

6 Re: Scoring revisited on Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:57 am

Just wanted to double check that this scoring schematic is the way to go. Let me know, and I'll start on it immediately.

If you think, it still needs a touch more work, I'll hold off for now.

View user profile

7 Re: Scoring revisited on Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:20 am

Gonna start adjusting the scores now. I'll use the above, primarily focusing on the base scores derived from diet considerations.

View user profile

8 Re: Scoring revisited on Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:19 am

picks-at-flies wrote:Individual scoring notes:
Great Capricorn Beetle:  condition seems harsh so I'm setting it at 8 points.
Blue Fin Tuna:  The rules ignore size on omnivores, but Blue Fin Tuna seemed to merit an extra point at size 8.  I didn't for the Wookie... because otherwise it would make a fictional creature the highest scoring omnivore.
Ringtail:  Doesn't get the carnivore food chain bonus for being chain 4.

For now I've treated all the Carbon cards as plants.

Regarding scoring, please take a look at the first two cards in this page:
http://phylogame.org/?s=dolphin&post_type=card

Both cards are Lagenorhynchus obscurus species, albeit with different name: The first one is Fitzroy Dolphin while the other one is Dusky Dolphin. Why do they give different points even though all other stats are exactly the same? (Scale 8, Rank 3, Carnivore, Move 2, Cool, Warm, Ocean, Animalia, Chordata, Mamalia) Does the green border have something to do with it? What is the difference between green-bordered card and black-bordered one?

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum