New concept I've been thinking about. We all like suggesting new animals for the game. But how about a standard to determine how valuable an animal is for the game? Thought it would be fun.
So let's go.
Empty template (score of 0-2 in each category):
What do you think?
So let's go.
Empty template (score of 0-2 in each category):
- Morphology:
- Biome:
- Distribution:
- Conservation
- Popularity:
- Visual appeal:
- Rarity in zoos:
- Total:
Category | 0 | 1 | 2 |
---|---|---|---|
Morphology | Looks nearly identical to an animal in the game | Similar to an animal in the game | Looks nothing like anything in the game |
Biome | Shares all biomes with an animal in the game from the same taxonomical group | Partly shares biomes with an animal in the game from the same taxonomical group | Completely unique in biome represantion for its taxonomical group |
Distribution | Shares dustribution with animal from the same group in the game | Partly shares dustribution with animal from the same group in the game | Completely unique distribution compared to any of its ingame group members |
Conservation | LC/NT/DD by IUCN standards | VU by IUCN Standards | EN/CR/EW by IUCN standards |
Popularity | Unknown to anyone but animal nerds | somewhat known to general audiences | Every kid knows and loves the animal |
Visual appeal | The animal is ugly/off putting | The snimal is bland | The animal is extremely cute/colorful/charismatic |
Rarity in zoos | The animal is regionally locked/nonexistant in zoos | The animal is found in zoos | The animal is very common in zoos |
What do you think?
Last edited: