conservationist issues

I was recently thinking about populations of animals that are difficult for conservationist to save like those with high susceptibility to plague and diseases or those with weak genetic diversity. Would this be a good element to add to the game?

For example rats are known to spread disease and prairie dogs are highly susceptible to plague, so for instance the rat would either be resistant to disease, a spreader of diseases or both. But there would have to be benefit to having highly susceptible animals like prairie dogs in play.

Or would anything like this do better as an extenstion if t were to be used?

This is totally missing the point of your topic, but -- did you mean "conservationist" instead of "conversationalist"? Because I can't quite figure out what conversationalists have to do with all this.

yup, the spell check must have messed it up :/

Alright. Well one thing we could do is introduce event cards that, say, give rats a plague. Then that plague that could do something to anyone that feeds on the rats.

Thats a good idea, but were going to need a way to even it out.

Agreed. It sounds from our playtest results that food chains are remarkably unstable, so perhaps we should put mechanics like this which would further destabilize them on hold, or modify how the chains work to strengthen them.

For consideration for solving this problem and the problem posed by https://phylomon.forumotion.net/phylomon-f1/playtest-report-scoring-system-unbalanced-invasives-too-good-t68.htm regarding invasives is to tie it into the points system.

I have noticed the first thing my daughter does is look at the point value of the cards.

An undesirable species like a rat or an invasive should have very low points, or possible even zero points, so the benefit of playing it is not to boost yourself but to impact your opponent.

Even then, there should be a consequence because it's not a desirable action, so that consequence might be to lose 5 points from your total score. So then the challenge is to decide whether the consequence is worth the benefit of impacting your opponent.

To take it a step further, as mentioned in another post, some event cards could be a compulsory play as soon as you pick them up. In that situation it then becomes important decision making as to how you play the card. e.g. if you pick up Drought, and you have to play it, and consider a requirement that you have to play it on yourself, then you will likely try to play so that it has the least impact on yourself which is a desireable, overall, learning outcome.

Let's consider that it is not madatory that you play it on yourself and that you have a choice, but a condition may be that if you play it on your opponent you ADDITIONALLY suffer a 5 point loss that you wouldn't get if you played it on yourself.

Using point scoring as a control mechanism could solve some of the problems about cards being considered too strong or too weak.

Cheers,
-T.

It really useful for me, thanks for the info that you guys have been discussing.

We should try to save animal life and its don't matter that they spread disease,if we want then we can mange to keep our environment clean and natural with animals:)
Watch Aladdin Online

People should try to save animal life but it is unfortunate that people only discuss and nobody do nothing.



____________________________________________________________

Hi this Paul and i've got something very interesting for you like Payday Loans. Require fast loans here is Payday Loan, quick and easy.

raghubeerdesmr123 wrote:We should try to save animal life and its don't matter that they spread disease,if we want then we can mange to keep our environment clean and natural with animals:)
Watch Aladdin Online

yes, animals are essential part of our mother earth, let's save these creatures and add our contribution to our earth.

You can not kill anyone just because you are not safe.

Nobody has this right, everybody is equal.




__________________________________________

Payday Loans | Online Payday Loan

You can not kill anyone just because you are not safe.

Nobody has this right, everybody is equal.

Agreed, but people often do so because they are attacked, because they are taking what little is left of the animals wilderness.

The compulsory play idea is interesting for dealing with invasives.

You could think of invasives as opportunistic, so that you couldn't keep them in reserve but if there was nowhere vulnerable to one within a turn of it being drawn, it went straight into the discard pile. That would make them considerably harder to use if you had decent mechanics to represent vulnerability (distance from home or habitat cards, number of other adjacent cards and number of terrains shared, cards that just moved, etc.).