Update 2/21/2024: In light of further changes being made, and seemingly no ear to staff as these changes continue to go through, I encourage others to make use of the Contact Us with the category Suggestions. Please do not abuse this feature to insult, berate, or harass staff in any form.
Examples of what might be fitting to include in your ticket: Your preference to how these changes should be handled moving forward, your opinion on breed release speed (if relevant), and in general what you would like to see prioritized.
Please refrain from using other people's posts, as they might prefer to speak on their own behalf. You additionally do not need to rush writing your ticket, even if the slated changes continue to pass through. Please be constructive in your writing, which will aid the continued and future relationship between playerbase and staff.
It continues to be genuinely disheartening and disappointing that style choices are changed and categorized as bugs. the old version added depth and visual break to an already visually cramped design that, while very loved and enjoyed by many, benefited from the old stylistic choices.
This is a reoccurring event where a decision is made in favor of consistency much to the chagrin of players that have spent money on plans that gave no intuitive indication that implied it was an error.
I have spent money on the site, in support of the site and its services, and forwarded in game funds to artists that bolster the community. I would love to continue that show of support, when i have available spending funds, if not also showing my support of the art produced by the site itself, and to the idea of Ancients as a whole. This is another blow to my confidence in the idea that I can truly trust my plans and that money can be faithfully spent, but this is not unreminiscent to the obelisk flair choice in favor of "consistency"
I, as of current, own the UMA shown in this image, but the gems spent both on the acquisition of the dragon, and for the uma of itself, are only half for naught because i cant trust a scry of the dragon i currently own, on site.
As of making this thread there were 3,232 Auraboas that existed with the old rendition of Paisley (picked for the simplicity of numbers) and 1,520 of that number were G1 Auraboas that needed the deliberate application of the gene.
While it is not a significant number in comparison to either the existing number of dragons on the site as a whole, nor in comparison to all Auraboas on the site regardless of the application of Fern or Paisley, I deliberately bring that number to attention because there were people that enjoyed the older version — and not unlikely, still prefer it — and sought it out. These numbers, notably, do not include the existing plans that people have made in anticipation of acquiring said genes.
In addition, the mention of the swirl pattern changing width and consistency feels incongruent to other modern breeds that have a thicker width and consistency than Skydancers and Coatls. I am of the opinion that Skydancers and Coatls could even be improved with the reverse decision, but I did not come here to suggest a change to a gene that has been on the site for a number of years now. The sentiment goes both ways, in which people have planned and coordinated around a version of the gene that they grew accustomed to, and there would likely be backlash for the very same reasons.
This is why there was such an uproar regarding the change of style regarding Obelisk manes and the Flair gene. The lead choice of the poll was for the change be reversed specifically for Obelisks, not for the style to suddenly be applied to all breeds in retaliation, or style preference. This change to Fern/Paisley leads me to believe that the understanding or comprehension to what people were saying was not held to high enough esteem that it would be remembered when even considering these types of changes moving forward.
[edit: follow-up thoughts on this tangent have been consolidated here for convenience]
I have also been reminded that there was a point made that ancient parallel genes can look different from modern versions. Why is there preferential treatment to some genes and not others when deciding to revert stylistic changes?
Examples of what might be fitting to include in your ticket: Your preference to how these changes should be handled moving forward, your opinion on breed release speed (if relevant), and in general what you would like to see prioritized.
Please refrain from using other people's posts, as they might prefer to speak on their own behalf. You additionally do not need to rush writing your ticket, even if the slated changes continue to pass through. Please be constructive in your writing, which will aid the continued and future relationship between playerbase and staff.
It continues to be genuinely disheartening and disappointing that style choices are changed and categorized as bugs. the old version added depth and visual break to an already visually cramped design that, while very loved and enjoyed by many, benefited from the old stylistic choices.
This is a reoccurring event where a decision is made in favor of consistency much to the chagrin of players that have spent money on plans that gave no intuitive indication that implied it was an error.
I have spent money on the site, in support of the site and its services, and forwarded in game funds to artists that bolster the community. I would love to continue that show of support, when i have available spending funds, if not also showing my support of the art produced by the site itself, and to the idea of Ancients as a whole. This is another blow to my confidence in the idea that I can truly trust my plans and that money can be faithfully spent, but this is not unreminiscent to the obelisk flair choice in favor of "consistency"
I, as of current, own the UMA shown in this image, but the gems spent both on the acquisition of the dragon, and for the uma of itself, are only half for naught because i cant trust a scry of the dragon i currently own, on site.
As of making this thread there were 3,232 Auraboas that existed with the old rendition of Paisley (picked for the simplicity of numbers) and 1,520 of that number were G1 Auraboas that needed the deliberate application of the gene.
While it is not a significant number in comparison to either the existing number of dragons on the site as a whole, nor in comparison to all Auraboas on the site regardless of the application of Fern or Paisley, I deliberately bring that number to attention because there were people that enjoyed the older version — and not unlikely, still prefer it — and sought it out. These numbers, notably, do not include the existing plans that people have made in anticipation of acquiring said genes.
In addition, the mention of the swirl pattern changing width and consistency feels incongruent to other modern breeds that have a thicker width and consistency than Skydancers and Coatls. I am of the opinion that Skydancers and Coatls could even be improved with the reverse decision, but I did not come here to suggest a change to a gene that has been on the site for a number of years now. The sentiment goes both ways, in which people have planned and coordinated around a version of the gene that they grew accustomed to, and there would likely be backlash for the very same reasons.
This is why there was such an uproar regarding the change of style regarding Obelisk manes and the Flair gene. The lead choice of the poll was for the change be reversed specifically for Obelisks, not for the style to suddenly be applied to all breeds in retaliation, or style preference. This change to Fern/Paisley leads me to believe that the understanding or comprehension to what people were saying was not held to high enough esteem that it would be remembered when even considering these types of changes moving forward.
[edit: follow-up thoughts on this tangent have been consolidated here for convenience]
I have also been reminded that there was a point made that ancient parallel genes can look different from modern versions. Why is there preferential treatment to some genes and not others when deciding to revert stylistic changes?
|
•Ripley •Queer •He/Him •Aquarius •Art Shop : Working     |
|
__
|
