oook. A lot of people are complaining about Stained being a gem gene (usually because it's simple). I think that gem vs treasure genes has less to do with the difficulty of making the gene, and more to do with how it plays. Stained is simple yes, but it has the potential to completely change how you balance your colors on a dragon.
oook. A lot of people are complaining about Stained being a gem gene (usually because it's simple). I think that gem vs treasure genes has less to do with the difficulty of making the gene, and more to do with how it plays. Stained is simple yes, but it has the potential to completely change how you balance your colors on a dragon.
It's fun new genes are released pretty often nowadays. Too bad stained doesn't look very good on my dragons but maybe in the future? Those new familiars are gorgeous tho~
It's fun new genes are released pretty often nowadays. Too bad stained doesn't look very good on my dragons but maybe in the future? Those new familiars are gorgeous tho~
I actually really like this gene. Not every gene will look good with every color, but this opens up a lot of possibilities. I also never liked how much plain white piebald and paint left, so this is a fantastic fix for that making both genes usable for me.
I actually really like this gene. Not every gene will look good with every color, but this opens up a lot of possibilities. I also never liked how much plain white piebald and paint left, so this is a fantastic fix for that making both genes usable for me.
All the new stuff looks great. Stained seemed nice in theory and I'm glad it will make some people happy but I personally can't imagine choosing it over Glimmer or Circuit if buying it out of pocket.
It does however look great if someone wants to dull or blend colors. That is so cool if someone is trying for an incredibly specific color that isn't on the color wheel. The actual only disappointment I have is it makes the other genes under it loose detail.
All the new stuff looks great. Stained seemed nice in theory and I'm glad it will make some people happy but I personally can't imagine choosing it over Glimmer or Circuit if buying it out of pocket.
It does however look great if someone wants to dull or blend colors. That is so cool if someone is trying for an incredibly specific color that isn't on the color wheel. The actual only disappointment I have is it makes the other genes under it loose detail.
I'm back but don't remember anything...
IS ANYONE GOING TO FANGIRL WITH ME ABOUT HOW CURRENTFINDERS LOOK LIKE FEFERI?????!!!!
(rushes to go get one, I'll be in the waterway for a while,lol)
IS ANYONE GOING TO FANGIRL WITH ME ABOUT HOW CURRENTFINDERS LOOK LIKE FEFERI?????!!!!
(rushes to go get one, I'll be in the waterway for a while,lol)
I am Subbed to all topics I create. If on another user's forum, Ping me @PhysIIk
[LF] Soil/Jungle/Coal Female
|
|
About Stained, I agree with others that considering this is often a very subtle gene I'd have prefered to see it cheaper (I know for sure I won't buy any now), and in the cases that it actually works with an otherwise totally unusable tert, I'd say it's more like poison and toxin if anything since those can make unexpected colours suddenly match. That's why I think this would have been an excellent candidate for a Baldwin tert.
We have 11 primary, 13 secondary, and 10 tertiary genes. A new tert seems perfectly reasonable.
But out of 11 primaries, 2 are gem genes, 1 is from baldwin, and 8 are treasure genes.
Out of 13 secondaries, 3 are gem genes, 1 is from baldwin, and 9 are treasure genes.
Out of 10 tertiaries, 3 are gem genes, 7 are treasure genes and there are no baldwin ones.
Obviously this might not be how the staff chooses what to add to the site so my assumptions might be misguided, but it would make sense to keep a general balance in how many genes are acquired in what way. For example there are fewer terts than primaries, yet more tert gem genes than primary gem genes.
Poison and toxin are unique in that they bring something new to each colour, often adding new shades we didn't have before. It would actually seem pretty fitting that a gene that changes the colour shade of the dragon by layering the tert would go hang out with them under Baldwin's cauldron. And even if not, adding it as a treasure gene would still keep things more balanced.
In any case, I can definitely see why this gene can be great in some cases and maybe I'd get a new dragon with it when they're cheaper, but just wanted to add some thoughts as to why it might seem a bit misplaced in the gem marketplace.
About Stained, I agree with others that considering this is often a very subtle gene I'd have prefered to see it cheaper (I know for sure I won't buy any now), and in the cases that it actually works with an otherwise totally unusable tert, I'd say it's more like poison and toxin if anything since those can make unexpected colours suddenly match. That's why I think this would have been an excellent candidate for a Baldwin tert.
We have 11 primary, 13 secondary, and 10 tertiary genes. A new tert seems perfectly reasonable.
But out of 11 primaries, 2 are gem genes, 1 is from baldwin, and 8 are treasure genes.
Out of 13 secondaries, 3 are gem genes, 1 is from baldwin, and 9 are treasure genes.
Out of 10 tertiaries, 3 are gem genes, 7 are treasure genes and there are no baldwin ones.
Obviously this might not be how the staff chooses what to add to the site so my assumptions might be misguided, but it would make sense to keep a general balance in how many genes are acquired in what way. For example there are fewer terts than primaries, yet more tert gem genes than primary gem genes.
Poison and toxin are unique in that they bring something new to each colour, often adding new shades we didn't have before. It would actually seem pretty fitting that a gene that changes the colour shade of the dragon by layering the tert would go hang out with them under Baldwin's cauldron. And even if not, adding it as a treasure gene would still keep things more balanced.
In any case, I can definitely see why this gene can be great in some cases and maybe I'd get a new dragon with it when they're cheaper, but just wanted to add some thoughts as to why it might seem a bit misplaced in the gem marketplace.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/W2T9xaX.jpg[/img]
In light of all the negativity, I do want to say I really love the familiars and the Hydra accent is really phenomenal. I'm excited to get my grubby paws on them :) Good work!
[quote name="jellyfishprincex" date=2016-01-31 13:24:35]
@gymnopaedy thats the whole point
[/quote]
No.
In light of all the negativity, I do want to say I really love the familiars and the Hydra accent is really phenomenal. I'm excited to get my grubby paws on them :) Good work!
jellyfishprincex wrote on 2016-01-31:
@
gymnopaedy thats the whole point
No.
I really don't understand the people who try to squash all critical discussion of Stained. I've seen a lot of "If you don't like it, don't buy it, and don't waste your time complaining about it."
Of course I'm not going to buy it if I don't like it, and of course no one is forcing me to buy it. No one criticizing the gene is saying that.
But, if the vast majority of the userbase thinks that a gene is objectively poorly done, from an artistic viewpoint (it's not just a "It works on some dragons, and not others!" kind of gene), isn't it important for staff to know? The whole point of criticism is for the receiver to learn from their mistakes and consider acting differently going forward.
Criticizing FR staff's choices isn't "rude" or giving them "hate", it's criticizing how they are choosing to run their business, as customers of that business. It's completely different than giving a random artist on the internet unsolicited criticism on an art piece they've shared.
Anyways, I'm happy to discuss this with others, but I would appreciate if it could be done so calmly.
I really don't understand the people who try to squash all critical discussion of Stained. I've seen a lot of "If you don't like it, don't buy it, and don't waste your time complaining about it."
Of course I'm not going to buy it if I don't like it, and of course no one is forcing me to buy it. No one criticizing the gene is saying that.
But, if the vast majority of the userbase thinks that a gene is objectively poorly done, from an artistic viewpoint (it's not just a "It works on some dragons, and not others!" kind of gene), isn't it important for staff to know? The whole point of criticism is for the receiver to learn from their mistakes and consider acting differently going forward.
Criticizing FR staff's choices isn't "rude" or giving them "hate", it's criticizing how they are choosing to run their business, as customers of that business. It's completely different than giving a random artist on the internet unsolicited criticism on an art piece they've shared.
Anyways, I'm happy to discuss this with others, but I would appreciate if it could be done so calmly.
Just Scryed every one of my dragons and it looks terrible on all of them! They all kinda went the same color of mud. xD
But, I have seen a few other people's dragons that do look good with it, so I guess it's just my tastes/color preferences. That said, I cannot see me ever using it. And I'd certainly never buy it, even before I realized it was a gem gene. Oh well.
Gorgeous new familiars though!
Just Scryed every one of my dragons and it looks terrible on all of them! They all kinda went the same color of mud. xD
But, I have seen a few other people's dragons that do look good with it, so I guess it's just my tastes/color preferences. That said, I cannot see me ever using it. And I'd certainly never buy it, even before I realized it was a gem gene. Oh well.
Gorgeous new familiars though!
