Flight Rising Discussion

@KoloKitten That's so neat, thank you for linking it! [emoji=familiar heart size=1]

@Naeryl [img]https://64.media.tumblr.com/ed54ff1ec7cf656023edafd4aecd2e9a/tumblr_nshnjqUJHw1rq519io1_400.png[/img] It was a crazy night that basically went like Undel: ... Undel: ... Undel: ... Undel: Robin Playerbase: [img]https://media.tenor.com/7m9Q-Rf2v_kAAAAC/pitowontwt-crowd-cheering.gif[/img] On repeat. :'D

This makes me incredibly fearful. I'm glad a heads up will be given for the future, but that doesn't mean it won't be painful every time we have to change another pair. Plenty of us go out of our way to pick a 50/50 gene split for a reason, and to have the looming threat of "one day, you'll have to totally revamp this pair out of the blue" is nauseating. Even with a heads up, it can totally break some pairs. This time it was a tert, but what if next time it's a primary, the main focus of the dragon in most cases? Terts are easy enough to switch, but primary and secondary genes needing change can destroy the flow of the dragon.

I would much prefer genes be left alone if they've had a rarity issue for 5+ years. They're what we're used to at this point, and I think it's fine if they're a little inconsistent because of it. There are several other limited mp options, and I think it's okay for players to have some consistent limited options even if that's not quite intended. I view rarity more as a "dragons are found naturally with these genes less commonly" though, so take my opinion there with a grain of salt.

I'm sorry to bring the topic back to being upset, but I needed to voice these concerns :c
It's been hard enough for me to put effort into my hatchery, and this makes me want to quit dealing with breeding pairs entirely

(And that's not even mentioning the project pairs trying to breed specific genes, though that's less of an issue because that doesn't come with a group of players excitedly waiting for the hatchlings)

[quote name="GlitchyOddy" date="2023-03-23 22:10:12" ] I would much prefer genes be left alone if they've had a rarity issue for 5+ years. They're what we're used to at this point, and I think it's fine if they're a little inconsistent because of it. There are several other limited mp options, and I think it's okay for players to have some consistent limited options even if that's not quite intended. [/quote] Agreed. Consistency with any genes going forward is a good plan, but altering rarities of long-established existing genes feels like unnecessary, too big a change for very little benefit.

[quote name="Skyspeed" date="2023-03-23 23:23:48" ] Rather than changing the gene rarity, perhaps the method of acquisition could be changed instead? Move them from MP to Baldwin etc. [/quote] if a previously common treasure mp gene were relegated to alchemy (which a lot of players are walled out of doing at higher levels) or some other once-in-a-while big event I'm sure people would riot just as much over that too

[quote name="Skyspeed" date="2023-03-23 23:23:48" ] Rather than changing the gene rarity, perhaps the method of acquisition could be changed instead? Move them from MP to Baldwin etc. [/quote] As a lover of Gembond and Runes (which apparently have the issue too), no. I like being able to buy them, and tbh, I hate a lot of the baldwin genes because they keep using stuff like purple sludge. Please no.

[quote name="kallimabutterfly" date="2023-03-23 22:26:35" ] [quote name="GlitchyOddy" date="2023-03-23 22:10:12" ] I would much prefer genes be left alone if they've had a rarity issue for 5+ years. They're what we're used to at this point, and I think it's fine if they're a little inconsistent because of it. There are several other limited mp options, and I think it's okay for players to have some consistent limited options even if that's not quite intended. [/quote] Agreed. Consistency with any genes going forward is a good plan, but altering rarities of long-established existing genes feels like unnecessary, too big a change for very little benefit. [/quote] agreed. i'm not personally affected by the spines change since i haven't bred a pair with spines in a while, but i think changing gembond and runes rarities would affect even more people for a not very strong reason. making such a decision should involve weighing the pros and cons, and here the "consistency of the rarity" doesn't outweigh the gene being a certain rarity for so many years imo.

[quote name="@Undel" date="2023-03-23 14:23:15" ] Our apologies. Upon reading this we agree that this change was more far-reaching than just a categorization fix, and notice should have been given. Our reasoning for the change was that Spines was a treasure marketplace gene, but had crafting/site activity rarity. It was an error, but one that was around for a long time. Notice (and quite a bit of it) should have been given before making the change. We intend to correct item errors when we find them, but this is definitely a larger change than a typo error or minor price correction. We will be auditing our existing genes for rarity errors in the future, and before we implement any changes to rarity genes on that have been around for more than 3 months, we will be giving a multi-month notice that the change is coming so that players can make plans for their breeding pairs. Thank you for the feedback on this issue. [/quote] So is it obtaining method is critherias that determine rarity? Please I'd really appreciate if we get pinned thread with full list of critherias. This is Win-Win! On one hand players will be warned and stop live in fear of unkowness that tomorrow their beloved dragons turned into pumpkins with no reason and warning. On another hand players post in this thread about all inconsistency isues thus it will not takes from you years to discover mistake!

If we're upending multi-year breeding programs for the sake of "consistency" could we at least get some consistency in the marketplace pricing within rarity levels? When I just looked at the marketplace there were three Common terts - 130k, 150k, and 155k. Then there were four Uncommon terts - 155k, 160k, 190k, 190k. Why are there such hugely divergent prices within the same rarity levels? Why is there a Common tert that's the same price as an Uncommon tert? And don't get me started on the price disparities between breed changes within the same rarity levels. Why is Bogsneak an Uncommon breed if we have to brew it with Baldwin? Shouldn't it then be a Limited breed? And why is Imperial a Limited breed? You can't even buy the breed change, it was only available through the kickstarter. Should Imperials be Rare then? They're even more rare than Wildclaws or Coatls since those breeds at least have the scrolls occasionally available in the gem market.

There are so many inconsistencies with the way rarities are handled in this game that it feels like a slap in the face for the devs to wreak such widespread havoc over the fact that players can buy limited genes with treasure.