Creature size inconsistencies

[Ewierl]

Sombre said:Oh dear. "Why doesn't someone do X?"

Here's the stock response: Why don't you do it? You're the one who wants it done.

It's easily moddable you know.

As I said in my initial post, I'm absolutely willing to do the work. If there's enough demand, I'll go through the monster list and come up with a revised list of creature sizes.

That being said, I haven't gotten into modding, and I'm probably not going to learn modding just for a way to implement this, so I will need a little help.

But this seems more of a "bug" (no, not a technical bug, but a misconstruction/inconsistency of the game) than an issue of play preference, so a mod may not be the right solution. And who would take the time to utilize a mod for such a gameplay-trivial alteration?

Anyways, the impression I'm gathering from this thread is that most people are happy just the way things are, so unless I hear more voices otherwise we'll all just keep on enjoying our size-6 sharks.

[MaxWilson]

The way I see it, the OP was not so much demanding a fix as asking the community whether a fix was needed.

-Max

[Archonsod]

I've always thought the size rating was comparitive rather than absolute. In other words, size 2 or so is around man height, size 1 is tiny (child, small dog, rodents etc) and size 6 is "large enough that it makes no difference how big it is, anything mansized is still going to end up as a red stain". Hence Dragons and Elephants are the same size level, but not necessarily the same size.

As for sharks, I've always thought of the Giant Shark as being something more akin to the prehistoric 'double decker bus size' beasties rather than the comparitively small modern equivilent.

[thejeff]

Ah yes, Megalodon: 40-50' long, 20-30 tons. I'd say that's a size 6.