Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombre
You don't have any argument. Or rather you've changed it to the extent that I have no idea what your position actually is. You first stated graphics were irrelevant to size and are now say elephants look size 5 or 6 so there isn't a problem. No-one has said elephants should be below size 5. The talk has been of setting them at size 5 to nerf them a bit and whether or not that is sensibly justifiable in terms of graphics, realism (to the extent that it's useful) and flavour.
The rest of your post suggests to me you haven't actually looked at the kraken graphic. Not the ancient kraken. The regular summon. I believe the shark is also size 6. It doesn't seem intuitive to me, but being underwater it doesn't come into play that much. It's not something I'd go on and on about.
|
You seem a bit unnecessarily aggressive. You've chucked around terms like "silly" and "ludicrous", misrepresented my opinions, and stuff like "suggests to me you haven't actually looked at the kraken graphic" comes across as a bit insultingly dismissive (never mind wrong).
I didn't say graphics had
nothing to do with the creature: you extrapolated that unfairly. Similarly I don't know why you are implying I thought elephants should be size 4 or under. I feel like you are putting words in my mouth and arguing against them instead of what I've actually said.
If I can clarify, I read the file and saw people arguing size stats for some units are "wrong" or need reconstructing to 12 sizes. I don't find some of the arguments about 'realism', graphical niceties, and so on convincing. I think the important arguments are about game balance. That's where I'm coming from, even if I didn't just stamp that statement down straight away.