Trample balance discussion

[Agema]

Your first two paragraphs are the worst act of reductio ad absurdam I've seen in a long time. Please at least try to view my argument with at least some reasonable spirit.

I'm not going to second-guess KO or assume I know his motives. But to me the elephant graphic looks damn large enough to be size 5 or 6. I don't honestly see what the problem with its representation is, or with Titans, krakens, and the rest of it. You know there are 6 sizes. If they look big, you check the size stat to make sure, just like you see a knight and check to see quite how nasty it is. The "feeling" is fine to me, and I suspect most other Dom3 users.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Agema

Your first two paragraphs are the worst act of reductio ad absurdam I've seen in a long time. Please at least try to view my argument with at least some reasonable spirit.

I'm not going to second-guess KO or assume I know his motives. But to me the elephant graphic looks damn large enough to be size 5 or 6. I don't honestly see what the problem with its representation is, or with Titans, krakens, and the rest of it. You know there are 6 sizes. If they look big, you check the size stat to make sure, just like you see a knight and check to see quite how nasty it is. The "feeling" is fine to me, and I suspect most other Dom3 users.

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.

Regardless, I don't really disagree with your second post. Elephants look size 5 or 6 graphically speaking. Or put another way, considering they're size 6, their graphic looks of an appropriate size. It would also be appropriate for a size 5.

[Xietor]

Btw, I still think MA Arcos is one of the better MA Races. But it is based on their strong astral magic, mind hunts, communions, and reverse communions. But they need elephants to survive early. If Elephants were nerfed, they would no longer be one of the better MA Races. They are in fact better than LA Arcos because astrologers get more s magic then sybils.

Both arcos races are hard to play, as they need much pregame planning. They need thugs to survive in the midgame due to elephants becoming obsolete, and no decent national summons or sacred troops. I am quite happy with the Lich as a pretender for LA Arcos.

[Agema]

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.