The Isle Modification

Seems fair and logical and if anyone complains then they are obviously biased.

I've gone back and made a few edits to the original mod I posted above. I could either re-post the entire thing (ridiculous), or simply edit the original (practical).

Beyonder wrote:Seems fair and logical and if anyone complains then they are obviously biased.

I suppose anti-balance shows bias. Criticism should still be considered though so long as it has a good reason (though I would argue that there's probably no good reason to be anti-balance).

Nuclearshroom wrote:

Beyonder wrote:Seems fair and logical and if anyone complains then they are obviously biased.

I suppose anti-balance shows bias. Criticism should still be considered though so long as it has a good reason (though I would argue that there's probably no good reason to be anti-balance).

Criticism should be taken only if its structured and creative and not no rant about it not fitting their ideal of dinosaurs.

I know someone gonna comment about my "Tyrannosaurus need bleed" as a "counter-argument" even when my points are logical and actually pretty much testable in-game but its the bias of people sadly....I have seen this a lot in the isle community and its a very big flaw right now.

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:

Beyonder wrote:Seems fair and logical and if anyone complains then they are obviously biased.

I suppose anti-balance shows bias. Criticism should still be considered though so long as it has a good reason (though I would argue that there's probably no good reason to be anti-balance).

Criticism should be taken only if its structured and creative and not no rant about it not fitting their ideal of dinosaurs.

Yeah. But if they provide a good reason, a really good reason, then it could be taken into consideration. Of course, even then, we couldn't have some monster-sized, say, Spino, even if someone gave unexpectedly good evidence for said mega-spino. Instead of making it a 6 meter tall, 20 meter long Spino, I would have to tone it down, to still maintain some balance. We can't have a normal predator the size of a Hypo.

Nuclearshroom wrote:

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:

Beyonder wrote:Seems fair and logical and if anyone complains then they are obviously biased.

I suppose anti-balance shows bias. Criticism should still be considered though so long as it has a good reason (though I would argue that there's probably no good reason to be anti-balance).

Criticism should be taken only if its structured and creative and not no rant about it not fitting their ideal of dinosaurs.

Yeah. But if they provide a good reason, a really good reason, then it could be taken into consideration. Of course, even then, we couldn't have some monster-sized, say, Spino, even if someone gave unexpectedly good evidence for said mega-spino. Instead of making it a 6 meter tall, 20 meter long Spino, I would have to tone it down, to still maintain some balance. We can't have a normal predator the size of a Hypo.

That is still impossible the person would have to be some good liar to find some bs documents to even make such a claim.

"Unexpectedly good evidence." I have little to no expectation that evidence for such a large Spinosaur exists. In fact, some people speculate that Tyrannosaurus was pretty much the maximum size that a theropod could reach. Due to different proportions, certain aspects could be significantly larger than T. rex (length for example), but the overall size would never really exceed that of Tyrannosaurus.

Nuclearshroom wrote:"Unexpectedly good evidence." I have little to no expectation that evidence for such a large Spinosaur exists. In fact, some people speculate that Tyrannosaurus was pretty much the maximum size that a theropod could reach. Due to different proportions, certain aspects could be significantly larger than T. rex (length for example), but the overall size would never really exceed that of Tyrannosaurus.

Some experts believe Tyrannosaurus rex kept growing more than we believe before.

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:"Unexpectedly good evidence." I have little to no expectation that evidence for such a large Spinosaur exists. In fact, some people speculate that Tyrannosaurus was pretty much the maximum size that a theropod could reach. Due to different proportions, certain aspects could be significantly larger than T. rex (length for example), but the overall size would never really exceed that of Tyrannosaurus.

Some experts believe Tyrannosaurus rex kept growing more than we believe before.

Such size would have probably been very rare, and would mist likely have been a result of some sort of Robert Wadlow (Robert Wadlow Wikipedia page) type genetic defect. Since Sue was found with arthritis, plus the fact that Tyrannosaur growth slowed as they aged, it would be pretty unlikely for any regular Tyannosaurus to get much larger than Sue.

Nuclearshroom wrote:

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:"Unexpectedly good evidence." I have little to no expectation that evidence for such a large Spinosaur exists. In fact, some people speculate that Tyrannosaurus was pretty much the maximum size that a theropod could reach. Due to different proportions, certain aspects could be significantly larger than T. rex (length for example), but the overall size would never really exceed that of Tyrannosaurus.

Some experts believe Tyrannosaurus rex kept growing more than we believe before.

Such size would have probably been very rare, and would mist likely have been a result of some sort of Robert Wadlow (Robert Wadlow Wikipedia page) type genetic defect. Since Sue was found with arthritis, plus the fact that Tyrannosaur growth slowed as they aged, it would be pretty unlikely for any regular Tyannosaurus to get much larger than Sue.

Sue was young for her size tho so i dont think it would slowed but just didnt have that much of a growth spurt.

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:"Unexpectedly good evidence." I have little to no expectation that evidence for such a large Spinosaur exists. In fact, some people speculate that Tyrannosaurus was pretty much the maximum size that a theropod could reach. Due to different proportions, certain aspects could be significantly larger than T. rex (length for example), but the overall size would never really exceed that of Tyrannosaurus.

Some experts believe Tyrannosaurus rex kept growing more than we believe before.

Such size would have probably been very rare, and would mist likely have been a result of some sort of Robert Wadlow (Robert Wadlow Wikipedia page) type genetic defect. Since Sue was found with arthritis, plus the fact that Tyrannosaur growth slowed as they aged, it would be pretty unlikely for any regular Tyannosaurus to get much larger than Sue.

Sue was young for her size tho so i dont think it would slowed but just didnt have that much of a growth spurt.

Sue was 28 years old. It might not sound that old, but that's the second oldest specimen we've found. And yes, the growth slowed as they aged. They never stopped growing, but it did slow considerably once they reached maturity.



Also, read back your post. "young for her size," "just didn't have that much of a growth spurt."

Yes i read what I said lol.

I was 16 years old at a very short height and one good night i grew from a 5'6 to 5'10 and my sister and my mother could tell you the same thing as me.

Age=/=Height
Sue was 28 years old that isnt even middle age and even still she is the biggest specimen we have so far that is "technically" young.

Yes i agreed that the older she got the more chances of her growing was slowed in some form.

Beyonder wrote:Yes i read what I said lol.

I was 16 years old at a very short height and one good night i grew from a 5'6 to 5'10 and my sister and my mother could tell you the same thing as me.

Age=/=Height
Sue was 28 years old that isnt even middle age and even still she is the biggest specimen we have so far that is "technically" young.

Yes i agreed that the older she got the more chances of her growing was slowed in some form.

If the oldest and largest specimen was only 30 years old (Trix), how do we know what middle-aged was? And wouldn't the fact that Sue was found with signs of arthritis imply that she was at least kind of old?

"Age=/=Height" Of course it doesn't equal it, but it gives us a general idea of it. There will be 14-year-olds taller than 18-year-olds, but in general the 18-year-old would be bigger, if only slightly.

Nuclearshroom wrote:If the oldest and largest specimen was only 30 years old (Trix), how do we know what middle-aged was? And wouldn't the fact that Sue was found with signs of arthritis imply that she was at least kind of old?

"Age=/=Height" Of course it doesn't equal it, but it gives us a general idea of it. There will be 14-year-olds taller than 18-year-olds, but in general the 18-year-old would be bigger, if only slightly.

Young individuals could develop arthritis its called "juvenile idiopathic arthritis" this could apply to both kids or teenagers.

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:If the oldest and largest specimen was only 30 years old (Trix), how do we know what middle-aged was? And wouldn't the fact that Sue was found with signs of arthritis imply that she was at least kind of old?

"Age=/=Height" Of course it doesn't equal it, but it gives us a general idea of it. There will be 14-year-olds taller than 18-year-olds, but in general the 18-year-old would be bigger, if only slightly.

Young individuals could develop arthritis its called "juvenile idiopathic arthritis" this could apply to both kids or teenagers.

True, but the fact they had arthritis means that it's much more likely they were an older individual.

I would take 40-50 as old more than 20-30

Predators, even large ones, typically don't live very long. Lions and Tigers, for example, rarely live longer than 20 years.

Nuclearshroom wrote:Predators, even large ones, typically don't live very long. Lions and Tigers, for example, rarely live longer than 20 years.

Well that depends because because studied tests have been that a wild adult lion lives about 10-13 years or even if they are perfectly fit a 14 year but the rarely 20 years is likely due to more of them being within zoos because the oldest lion on record was nearly 29 years olds and the other if you didnt hear was a lioness named Zenda who died at the age of 25 in a zoo.

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:Predators, even large ones, typically don't live very long. Lions and Tigers, for example, rarely live longer than 20 years.

Well that depends because because studied tests have been that a wild adult lion lives about 10-13 years or even if they are perfectly fit a 14 year but the rarely 20 years is likely due to more of them being within zoos because the oldest lion on record was nearly 29 years olds and the other if you didnt hear was a lioness named Zenda who died at the age of 25 in a zoo.

This really just proves my point more. It's not like T. rex's lived in zoos. So Lions rarely live longer than 13-14 years.

Nuclearshroom wrote:

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:Predators, even large ones, typically don't live very long. Lions and Tigers, for example, rarely live longer than 20 years.

Well that depends because because studied tests have been that a wild adult lion lives about 10-13 years or even if they are perfectly fit a 14 year but the rarely 20 years is likely due to more of them being within zoos because the oldest lion on record was nearly 29 years olds and the other if you didnt hear was a lioness named Zenda who died at the age of 25 in a zoo.

This really just proves my point more. It's not like T. rex's lived in zoos. So Lions rarely live longer than 13-14 years.

But it also proves that age doesnt always mean bigger trix is older than sue but isnt bigger.....this is likely genetics of sue and that her parents had the superior genes than other tyrannosaurs.

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:

Beyonder wrote:

Nuclearshroom wrote:Predators, even large ones, typically don't live very long. Lions and Tigers, for example, rarely live longer than 20 years.

Well that depends because because studied tests have been that a wild adult lion lives about 10-13 years or even if they are perfectly fit a 14 year but the rarely 20 years is likely due to more of them being within zoos because the oldest lion on record was nearly 29 years olds and the other if you didnt hear was a lioness named Zenda who died at the age of 25 in a zoo.

This really just proves my point more. It's not like T. rex's lived in zoos. So Lions rarely live longer than 13-14 years.

But it also proves that age doesnt always mean bigger trix is older than sue but isnt bigger.....this is likely genetics of sue and that her parents had the superior genes than other tyrannosaurs.

Yes they were. Sue was most recently estimated at 12.3 meters. Trix's size isn't certain, but it could be as high as 13 meters.

But yes, it's possible that Sue just happened to have better genes than most other Tyrannosaurs.

My trix statement was more or less a assumption.

You know what they say about making assumptions.

Jumping to conclusions I know bro LOL.

Yeah. What I meant though was the saying:

"Assumptions, they make an -ass- out of -you (u)- and -me-."