Wow, nice!
I would love to see more terts though.
And can we please have an Ophiuchus familiar?
Wow, nice!
I would love to see more terts though.
And can we please have an Ophiuchus familiar?
Pings are disabled.
If writers are supposed to "show not tell," why are we called "storytellers" and not "storyshow-ers"?
[quote name="hungryhobbits" date="2022-01-19 06:31:33" ]
@/0rangedragon ...they literally do though - there are ancient UMA's specifically made with certain line breaking genes in mind because those are available file assets in the skin making process and can be used on that ancient regardless of whether or not they have the gene - ALSO ALSO ancient official skins AND UMA's are linebreaking ALREADY in themselves because UMA's made with the basic body in mind clip with line breaking terts
example - my gliders dragon with the skin "sewer toridae"
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/dressing-room/dragon?did=74417308&skin=37172&apparel=&xt=dressing.png[/img]
so like your argument is invalid across several spheres
[/quote]
You know I was going to respond to this, but I'm not even going to bother. Your response is rude. My argument isn't any more 'invalid' than your opinion.
hungryhobbits wrote on 2022-01-19 06:31:33:
@/0rangedragon ...they literally do though - there are ancient UMA's specifically made with certain line breaking genes in mind because those are available file assets in the skin making process and can be used on that ancient regardless of whether or not they have the gene - ALSO ALSO ancient official skins AND UMA's are linebreaking ALREADY in themselves because UMA's made with the basic body in mind clip with line breaking terts
example - my gliders dragon with the skin "sewer toridae"
so like your argument is invalid across several spheres
You know I was going to respond to this, but I'm not even going to bother. Your response is rude. My argument isn't any more 'invalid' than your opinion.
Goodbye all my money ahaha! I need these
Goodbye all my money ahaha! I need these
EHEEEEHEEEFHEJ:HFKEHPF:HEJPFHE:FPHFUHEU:FHLKVHLS
my mind just broke. too much pretty genes.
EHEEEEHEEEFHEJ:HFKEHPF:HEJPFHE:FPHFUHEU:FHLKVHLS
my mind just broke. too much pretty genes.
[quote name="0rangedragon" date="2022-01-19 06:25:53" ]
[quote name="GunMute" date="2022-01-19 05:56:36" ]
[quote name="hungryhobbits" date="2022-01-19 04:52:44" ]
that being said - if official genes are allowed to break the rules when skincent artists would get flagged for less, then the rule shouldn't be in place at all
[/quote]
This. Either have that rule in place for everything or not at all, there is no sensible reasoning behind keeping it for skins but not for genes. These genes are so hard to read they make half of the entire Spiral pure black and you can't even see Pearlcatchers hair anymore, how is that any different to using pure black on an accent that it would warrant exemption from this rule?
IMO either the gene should be corrected or UMAs should be allowed to use black.
[/quote]
By this logic, UMAs on Ancients should be able to ignore the lineart altogether since there are line breaking genes. As Undel said, Accents/Skins are not genes. We finally get a gene for Moderns that bends the rules and people have to make a fuss. It better not be 'corrected'. The only appeal for me that makes it worth being a gem gene is that it is such a dark black. And honestly I don't know what display setting that folks are using on their computers, but the lineart isn't 'totally obscured'.
[/quote]
I've checked this gene on my family and several friends device's (ranging from laptops to tablets to phones) that are all in the default color settings and the black part of these genes are all too dark to see the lineart. Maybe you have a different setting, but I know that I'm certainly not interested in changing my settings to see a genes lineart lmao
0rangedragon wrote on 2022-01-19 06:25:53:
GunMute wrote on 2022-01-19 05:56:36:
hungryhobbits wrote on 2022-01-19 04:52:44:
that being said - if official genes are allowed to break the rules when skincent artists would get flagged for less, then the rule shouldn't be in place at all
This. Either have that rule in place for everything or not at all, there is no sensible reasoning behind keeping it for skins but not for genes. These genes are so hard to read they make half of the entire Spiral pure black and you can't even see Pearlcatchers hair anymore, how is that any different to using pure black on an accent that it would warrant exemption from this rule?
IMO either the gene should be corrected or UMAs should be allowed to use black.
By this logic, UMAs on Ancients should be able to ignore the lineart altogether since there are line breaking genes. As Undel said, Accents/Skins are not genes. We finally get a gene for Moderns that bends the rules and people have to make a fuss. It better not be 'corrected'. The only appeal for me that makes it worth being a gem gene is that it is such a dark black. And honestly I don't know what display setting that folks are using on their computers, but the lineart isn't 'totally obscured'.
I've checked this gene on my family and several friends device's (ranging from laptops to tablets to phones) that are all in the default color settings and the black part of these genes are all too dark to see the lineart. Maybe you have a different setting, but I know that I'm certainly not interested in changing my settings to see a genes lineart lmao
I collect birds! All birds! Any birds! Birds!!!!
[quote name="0rangedragon" date="2022-01-19 06:50:35" ]
[quote name="hungryhobbits" date="2022-01-19 06:31:33" ]
@/0rangedragon ...they literally do though - there are ancient UMA's specifically made with certain line breaking genes in mind because those are available file assets in the skin making process and can be used on that ancient regardless of whether or not they have the gene - ALSO ALSO ancient official skins AND UMA's are linebreaking ALREADY in themselves because UMA's made with the basic body in mind clip with line breaking terts
example - my gliders dragon with the skin "sewer toridae"
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/dressing-room/dragon?did=74417308&skin=37172&apparel=&xt=dressing.png[/img]
so like your argument is invalid across several spheres
[/quote]
You know I was going to respond to this, but I'm not even going to bother. Your response is rude. My argument isn't any more 'invalid' than your opinion.
[/quote]
@0rangedragon your argument is invalid because it brings up a point that isnt relevant to the conversation and is easily debunked - not because i think my opinion is worth more. i apologize if i came off as rude, but your initial response was derailing a conversation about continued limitations in skins when staff acts differently.
0rangedragon wrote on 2022-01-19 06:50:35:
hungryhobbits wrote on 2022-01-19 06:31:33:
@/0rangedragon ...they literally do though - there are ancient UMA's specifically made with certain line breaking genes in mind because those are available file assets in the skin making process and can be used on that ancient regardless of whether or not they have the gene - ALSO ALSO ancient official skins AND UMA's are linebreaking ALREADY in themselves because UMA's made with the basic body in mind clip with line breaking terts
example - my gliders dragon with the skin "sewer toridae"
so like your argument is invalid across several spheres
You know I was going to respond to this, but I'm not even going to bother. Your response is rude. My argument isn't any more 'invalid' than your opinion.
@
0rangedragon your argument is invalid because it brings up a point that isnt relevant to the conversation and is easily debunked - not because i think my opinion is worth more. i apologize if i came off as rude, but your initial response was derailing a conversation about continued limitations in skins when staff acts differently.
[quote name="hungryhobbits" date="2022-01-19 07:14:55" ]
@/0rangedragon your argument is invalid because it brings up a point that isnt relevant to the conversation and is easily debunked - not because i think my opinion is worth more. i apologize if i came off as rude, but your initial response was derailing a conversation about continued limitations in skins when staff acts differently.
[/quote]
Sigh. The point is relevant to the conversation and has not been debunked. The claim is that the gene is far too dark and obscures lineart which isn't allowed in Modern UMAs so it shouldn't be allowed in a gene. As Undel has already stated genes do NOT follow the same rules as UMAs. If they did, then players could make UMAs for Ancients with completely new line breaking artwork and create their own fake line breaking tertiary genes. That was my point.
hungryhobbits wrote on 2022-01-19 07:14:55:
@/0rangedragon your argument is invalid because it brings up a point that isnt relevant to the conversation and is easily debunked - not because i think my opinion is worth more. i apologize if i came off as rude, but your initial response was derailing a conversation about continued limitations in skins when staff acts differently.
Sigh. The point is relevant to the conversation and has not been debunked. The claim is that the gene is far too dark and obscures lineart which isn't allowed in Modern UMAs so it shouldn't be allowed in a gene. As Undel has already stated genes do NOT follow the same rules as UMAs. If they did, then players could make UMAs for Ancients with completely new line breaking artwork and create their own fake line breaking tertiary genes. That was my point.
Whaaaaaaaat! I love these!
Whaaaaaaaat! I love these!
CILLIAN || ADULT || HE/THEY
| 'Inferior' | Male | 20 | FR 1+ | Exalt Free Lair |