Turin's rant on drake's size...

[turin]

[rant]
let us compare the height of the drake units with that of other races.

heights (in pixels, measured from foot to highest point on the body. weapons don't count)


drakes
glider=52
clasher=42
fighter=46
burner=50
average=47.5 pxls


humans
archer=32
spearman=34
fencer=38
heavy infantry=34
mage=33
dark adept=32
thief=37
thug=37
poacher=35
footpad=38
average=35

orcs
grunt=45
archer=32
assassin=35
average=37.3 pxls

elves
fighter=38
archer=38
shaman=38
average=38 pxls

dwarves
fighter=29
thunderer=29
ulfserker (by neoriceisgood)=33
average=30.3

undead
skeleton=39
s. archer=38
soulless=37
average=38


assorted monster-like units
troll=45
yeti=56
ogre=40
average=47


does no one else see a problem here?!? most races (other than dwarves, which don't count) are, on average, ~37 pixels in height. Drakes average ~47. drakes are, on average, taller than monster units such as the troll, yeti and ogre.

[/rant]


i know that came off sounding jerkish, but i have mentioned this several times and have never gotten a clear reason why, just "drakes are big". well monster units are big too, and should IMHO be bigger than drakes! why shouldn't they be? >(


on a side note, I am suprised by how small many of the lawful human units are... if the mage, bowman, spearman and heavy infantry had been bigger, humans would have averaged ~37 also (probably 36).

[AT]

Drakes are big!

[freim]

You might have a point, but I hardly see this as something that should have a high priority for now.

[freim]

...and if something is to be done with it there need to be spesific rules for height of units based on some predefined rules: unit of type A should have height within [X .. Y] or something like that. Someone has to propose this, then there will be countless of days of useless arguing over them etc etc

[Rhuvaen]

Well "monsters" aren't a coherent group like the others. You forgot the scorpions (which are much smaller) and the likes of sea serpent and dragon which are much bigger.

I don't think it's wrong for drakes to be somewhere close to the average size of monster-class units.

Then again, I think there IS something wrong about having drakes in Wesnoth at all

[Roel]

I like it the way it is

[Dacyn]

which are much smaller

which are much bigger.

You mean shorter and taller.

[turin]

Well "monsters" aren't a coherent group like the others. You forgot the scorpions (which are much smaller) and the likes of sea serpent and dragon which are much bigger.

i didn't claim to have chosen all of the monsters. i chose the ones that SHOULD be the most large and hulking, for land creatures.

I didn't choose the dragon or sea serpent because the comparison would have been off, seeing as how neoriceisgood drew those too...

I don't think it's wrong for drakes to be somewhere close to the average size of monster-class units.

i think its wrong for the base drake (the burner) to be taller than the level 2 troll or ogre. Those are both around 45 pxls tall, burner is 50

[autolycus]

I guess my point would be that the icons represent units, and the relative size is immaterial. Nobody thinks that a blood bat is the same size as a sea serpent, for example. If we are going to obsess about it, there are two ways we can simplify:

1) Have a rule that ALL unit pics should be 48x48. This stresses the point that a unit pic is an icon representing a unit, not the creature itself.

2) Have a standard scale (e.g. 1' = 30cm = 6 pixels). A 6' tall human is now 36 pixels and a yeti at 56 pixels would be 9'4" tall. This would explain why some monsters can only be shown neck up (e.g. sea serpents). This would satisfy people who want have a better intuitive feel to the game (although it doesn't really affect combat effectiveness etc).

[Elvish_Pillager]

2) Have a standard scale (e.g. 1' = 30cm = 6 pixels). A 6' tall human is now 36 pixels and a yeti at 56 pixels would be 9'4" tall. This would explain why some monsters can only be shown neck up (e.g. sea serpents). This would satisfy people who want have a better intuitive feel to the game (although it doesn't really affect combat effectiveness etc).

Good idea.

How can you be 7'11" and NOT be much more powerful than that 4'10" Dwarf? Size counts for a lot... are drakes naturally unskilled, to be as weak as much smaller creatures?

[Darth Fool]

It's not that they are weak. It is just that they are easier to hit...

[Shade]

Good idea.

How can you be 7'11" and NOT be much more powerful than that 4'10" Dwarf? Size counts for a lot... are drakes naturally unskilled, to be as weak as much smaller creatures?

Beacause Drakes are 'reluctant tool users'-- if they can get away with it they prefer to kick, claw, and flame their way out. Not as efficient as an axe. As a general rule they are physically powerful (Relatively high HP & Strong in spite of the fact that they like to use their hands), but this comes with the hindrance of being 'big targets'... Also, dwarves are noted as being built for durability...

[Elvish_Pillager]

It's not that they are weak. It is just that they are easier to hit...

Which is obviously a product of the unskilledness that I mentioned.

[tigrezno]

drakes looks like dragons, so they should be big. But in the other hand, attacking with bigger units adds disadventage to your opponent, psicological shock!

[Elvish_Pillager]

drakes looks like dragons, so they should be big.

This makes no sense. Baby dragons look like dragons... so they should be big?

But in the other hand, attacking with bigger units adds disadventage to your opponent, psicological shock!

Not when your opponent knows how weak/unskilled they are...