Speaking of useless adaptations, Weapons + Armor is only useful up to 10. If your Weapons + Armor exceeds 10 the extra armor is useless. 40 submissions (7%) had Weapons + Armor more than 10. I think the idea here was to create big exciting powerful monsters.
Actually, is even worse than this. Weapons 5 + Armor 5 seems fine, but Weapons 8 + Armor 1 is strictly better (assuming you wanted a successful predator). Basically, any Weapons + Armor >= 10 combination is dominated by another Weapons + Armor >= 10 combination having +3 Weapons and −4 Armor: same cost and same protection, but with more effective weapons.
That said, I’ve submitted a Wurm with Weapons 6 + Armor 6 anyway, because my inner Dungeon Master kept saying “It’s a sodding Wurm, it should have higher Armor Class!”. Weapons 9 + Armor 2 on a giant desert predator seemed just wrong (can someone please provide real-world examples of such “low-armored” deadly predators?).
I agree it’s usually better, but I don’t think it’s always better.
Imagine a world where you have a prey animal with Armor 4, and a pure predator with Weapons 10.
If you want to be able to eat the prey and survive the predator, Weapons 5 Armor 5 is the cheapest possible way of doing that (ignoring venom for now).
Right, maybe it’s not always better. But if we restrict to “invincible” predators (Weapons + Armor >= 10), it is, since no one can prey upon you anyway. I’ve edited the previous comment.
I meant “restrict to both designs having Weapons + Armor >= 10” (which I admit may be a moot point since Weapons + Armor > 10 is out of the Pareto frontier anyway).
Weapons 6 + Armor 8 is obviously strictly worse than Weapons 6 + Armor 4 (cost less and do the same), but it’s even worse than Weapons 9 + Armor 4 (same cost and do more). And Weapons 9 + Armor 4 is strictly worse than Weapons 10 alone.
Actually, is even worse than this. Weapons 5 + Armor 5 seems fine, but Weapons 8 + Armor 1 isstrictly better(assuming you wanted a successful predator).Basically, any Weapons + Armor >= 10 combination is dominated by another Weapons + Armor >= 10 combination having +3 Weapons and −4 Armor: same cost and same protection, but with more effective weapons.That said, I’ve submitted a Wurm with Weapons 6 + Armor 6 anyway, because my inner Dungeon Master kept saying “It’s a sodding Wurm, it should have higher Armor Class!”. Weapons 9 + Armor 2 on a giant desert predator seemed just wrong (can someone please provide real-world examples of such “low-armored” deadly predators?).
A phrasing I think would be accurate:
If Weapons + Armor is > 10 (not merely equal to 10), your organism is suboptimal.
There are two different things you could do to such an organism that would be strict improvements:
You could remove 1 Armor, saving size at no cost.
You could remove 4 Armor and add 3 Weapons, improving your predatory ability at zero net size cost.
I agree it’s usually better, but I don’t think it’s always better.
Imagine a world where you have a prey animal with Armor 4, and a pure predator with Weapons 10.
If you want to be able to eat the prey and survive the predator, Weapons 5 Armor 5 is the cheapest possible way of doing that (ignoring venom for now).
Right, maybe it’s not always better. But if we restrict to “invincible” predators (Weapons + Armor >= 10), it is, since no one can prey upon you anyway. I’ve edited the previous comment.
Armor 10 cannot be eaten by anyone, whilst weapons 3 armor 6 can, so I don’t believe this is correct.
I meant “restrict to both designs having Weapons + Armor >= 10” (which I admit may be a moot point since Weapons + Armor > 10 is out of the Pareto frontier anyway).
Weapons 6 + Armor 8 is obviously strictly worse than Weapons 6 + Armor 4 (cost less and do the same), but it’s even worse than Weapons 9 + Armor 4 (same cost and do more). And Weapons 9 + Armor 4 is strictly worse than Weapons 10 alone.
There is nothing strictly better than armor 10 weapons 0, which contradicts the rephrased way you put it.