I rarely post but I have to say support to having a poll or having the community choose on the end result.
I had reported a bug I had noticed on the old version and had been keeping my eye on the report thread to see when/if it would be changed. The bugs listed were only the ones regarding the highlights being too bright and an investigation one (which, I belived to be about what I had reported). Image below to show what the bug was, an inconsistency on the colour of the clawed fingers in the further wings.
[img]https://file.garden/ZW3u0mxuQg5gDIzJ/Dragon%20files/wing-hand%20different%20colour%20M%20pose.png[/img]
[img]https://file.garden/ZW3u0mxuQg5gDIzJ/Dragon%20files/wing-hand%20different%20colour%20F%20pose.png[/img]
Better shown by the F pose, I believed there was a mistake on the M pose as it looked like a patch of colour left behind (maybe missing a bit of lineart?).
I am mostly annoyed at the fact that, while they're being listed it is not made clear enough [i]what[/i] exactly is being investigated and to which degree.
As many users have pointed out, Auraboa Paisley was clearly designed to match the modern version shown on Obelisks and Tundras.
Another thing that bugs me at the moment is that, while I could understand (but still, personally, disliked) the pattering being expanded on the WINGS, there was no need and is in no way consistent to change the head and tail feathers. This is because one of the two breeds being listed as reference for consistency (Skydancer) shows the glossy second-tone of the gene on the mane, leg fringes and tail feathers exactly like Auraboas did.
[img]https://file.garden/ZW3u0mxuQg5gDIzJ/Dragon%20files/paisley%20sd.png[/img]
I rarely post but I have to say support to having a poll or having the community choose on the end result.
I had reported a bug I had noticed on the old version and had been keeping my eye on the report thread to see when/if it would be changed. The bugs listed were only the ones regarding the highlights being too bright and an investigation one (which, I belived to be about what I had reported). Image below to show what the bug was, an inconsistency on the colour of the clawed fingers in the further wings.
Better shown by the F pose, I believed there was a mistake on the M pose as it looked like a patch of colour left behind (maybe missing a bit of lineart?).
I am mostly annoyed at the fact that, while they're being listed it is not made clear enough
what exactly is being investigated and to which degree.
As many users have pointed out, Auraboa Paisley was clearly designed to match the modern version shown on Obelisks and Tundras.
Another thing that bugs me at the moment is that, while I could understand (but still, personally, disliked) the pattering being expanded on the WINGS, there was no need and is in no way consistent to change the head and tail feathers. This is because one of the two breeds being listed as reference for consistency (Skydancer) shows the glossy second-tone of the gene on the mane, leg fringes and tail feathers exactly like Auraboas did.
I don't usually go in the forums but I'm here to say put it back
everyone else has already made good points about 'consistency' and the amount of time it's been since release etc etc I don't need to reiterate these points in my post
I don't usually go in the forums but I'm here to say put it back
everyone else has already made good points about 'consistency' and the amount of time it's been since release etc etc I don't need to reiterate these points in my post
[quote name="Dottler" date="2024-02-19 12:01:49" ]
The most myterious part about these "bugs" is what the communication between the gene artist(s) between each other and the FR team was like. These aren't "the luminosity layers was too bright" or "the gradient is too dark" mistakes, this was a very deliberate artistic choice. Can artistic choices be wrong? Sure, but this is not one of them just like Obelisk Flair. And besides, the old paisley was consistant with some breeds because the deeper color part of paisley can't really go anywhere else on auraboas. Now that it's completely gone we actually created a new consistancy issue.
But back to the original point... does the FR team not communicate with the gene artist(s) involved? Can't the gene artist give their justification for this choice (to the team, doesnt need to be public but transparency could be nice) without it getting labelled as a "bug" immediately and then forced to change? Is there no review process before genes are released? [i]Why aren't they doing polls and asking for community feedback before making major changes in artistic decisions (not fixing bugs) after already releasing the gene?[/i]
[/quote]
Thank you, @Dottler, I feel like you truly captured what my original post frustrations were about.
While I am very grateful of everyone's support, I feel that there is some being lost in the weeds of semantics when regarding the "error fixing" portion of the choice to change the genes. This is an inner system communication error as much as its an external communication error. Which is to say, I do not think it would be far fetched to assume that there is no communication whatsoever outside of gene error thread updates.
To be clear, I still stand firm that there should be a complete reversion back to how the gene was prior to the change, which I do not feel is unreasonable given that it was the leading opinion when handling the obelisk flair gene.
Additionally, while I understand the attempt to empathize with potential people who enjoy the new version, the thread is specifically about how [i]existing users[/i] who enjoyed the [i]now prior version[/i] of the gene. Money has already been spent in some quota or another.
Post hoc changes to stylistic choices needs to cease entirely after the release of a gene. This is the second overt change to a gene that was noticeably different in comparison to its sibling iterations. But I agree that the best compromise is that there needs to be community feedback first and foremost before these changes go live, let alone whether they are counted as errors to begin with. Which, I might argue, is chosen based on arbitrary reasoning when deciding whether a style is unfitting or follows consistency.
(I should emphasize here that this is about genes, and I have space within these opinions to hold nuance when needed.)
Dottler wrote on 2024-02-19 12:01:49:
The most myterious part about these "bugs" is what the communication between the gene artist(s) between each other and the FR team was like. These aren't "the luminosity layers was too bright" or "the gradient is too dark" mistakes, this was a very deliberate artistic choice. Can artistic choices be wrong? Sure, but this is not one of them just like Obelisk Flair. And besides, the old paisley was consistant with some breeds because the deeper color part of paisley can't really go anywhere else on auraboas. Now that it's completely gone we actually created a new consistancy issue.
But back to the original point... does the FR team not communicate with the gene artist(s) involved? Can't the gene artist give their justification for this choice (to the team, doesnt need to be public but transparency could be nice) without it getting labelled as a "bug" immediately and then forced to change? Is there no review process before genes are released? Why aren't they doing polls and asking for community feedback before making major changes in artistic decisions (not fixing bugs) after already releasing the gene?
Thank you, @
Dottler, I feel like you truly captured what my original post frustrations were about.
While I am very grateful of everyone's support, I feel that there is some being lost in the weeds of semantics when regarding the "error fixing" portion of the choice to change the genes. This is an inner system communication error as much as its an external communication error. Which is to say, I do not think it would be far fetched to assume that there is no communication whatsoever outside of gene error thread updates.
To be clear, I still stand firm that there should be a complete reversion back to how the gene was prior to the change, which I do not feel is unreasonable given that it was the leading opinion when handling the obelisk flair gene.
Additionally, while I understand the attempt to empathize with potential people who enjoy the new version, the thread is specifically about how
existing users who enjoyed the
now prior version of the gene. Money has already been spent in some quota or another.
Post hoc changes to stylistic choices needs to cease entirely after the release of a gene. This is the second overt change to a gene that was noticeably different in comparison to its sibling iterations. But I agree that the best compromise is that there needs to be community feedback first and foremost before these changes go live, let alone whether they are counted as errors to begin with. Which, I might argue, is chosen based on arbitrary reasoning when deciding whether a style is unfitting or follows consistency.
(I should emphasize here that this is about genes, and I have space within these opinions to hold nuance when needed.)
|
•Ripley
•Queer
•He/Him
•Aquarius
•Art Shop : Working
   
|
|
__
|
It's a real shame. The Auraboas were already compliant with gene consistency!
The solid patches on the wing arms and frill matched the mane stylization on other breeds, and Auras clearly have those areas designated as that "mane" style.
The breakup gene shows this off pretty well:
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=15&element=9&eyetype=9&gender=0&tert=82&tertgene=0&winggene=58&wings=2&auth=6aeee83cd230d8e5d047861082adb26f6f94dbc8&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=9&eyetype=9&gender=0&tert=82&tertgene=0&winggene=252&wings=2&auth=00179bd86b0cfae996d128432a3d77868bd6b396&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
and now they've actually been made [i]inconsistent[/i]. Heh:
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=15&element=9&eyetype=9&gender=0&tert=82&tertgene=0&winggene=136&wings=2&auth=b576dfea5a0533133acc70173d85b789648f985d&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=9&eyetype=9&gender=0&tert=82&tertgene=0&winggene=244&wings=2&auth=258e447a7e983c5733ef78e6b693a1e135c73087&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
It's a real shame. The Auraboas were already compliant with gene consistency!
The solid patches on the wing arms and frill matched the mane stylization on other breeds, and Auras clearly have those areas designated as that "mane" style.
The breakup gene shows this off pretty well:
and now they've actually been made
inconsistent. Heh:
Imagination is the reality of our dreamscape.
Oh this is.... an unfortunate change, and another case like the obelisk incident of 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'. the 'bugged' version was more visually appealing too
Oh this is.... an unfortunate change, and another case like the obelisk incident of 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'. the 'bugged' version was more visually appealing too
Support! I can get behind fixing the highlight error but this is clearly a whole re-design/redraw of the gene. I also agree having the genes be a little different across breeds is just fine not everything has to be to completely 100% uniform. Unfortunately I can't speak for what the error thread said about this change originally because I just don't remember, but clearly there needs to be better communication all around as well.
I saw a suggestion over on another site that if a gene needs a whole re-design like this, it should either be temporarily removed from the site or at least a very clear indicator in the description, database entry, etc. etc. That the gene is going to change completely/significantly and I agree with that because not everyone keeps track of the one single mega-thread for all breed gene errors and we shouldn't have to rely on a single source in the case of a significant gene change anyway. It is good for reference absolutely but It should also be clearly communicated everywhere where information about the gene appears.
Support! I can get behind fixing the highlight error but this is clearly a whole re-design/redraw of the gene. I also agree having the genes be a little different across breeds is just fine not everything has to be to completely 100% uniform. Unfortunately I can't speak for what the error thread said about this change originally because I just don't remember, but clearly there needs to be better communication all around as well.
I saw a suggestion over on another site that if a gene needs a whole re-design like this, it should either be temporarily removed from the site or at least a very clear indicator in the description, database entry, etc. etc. That the gene is going to change completely/significantly and I agree with that because not everyone keeps track of the one single mega-thread for all breed gene errors and we shouldn't have to rely on a single source in the case of a significant gene change anyway. It is good for reference absolutely but It should also be clearly communicated everywhere where information about the gene appears.
[quote name="Zenzic" date="2024-02-19 12:35:46" ]
It's a real shame. The Auraboas were already compliant with gene consistency!
The solid patches on the wing arms and frill matched the mane stylization on other breeds, and Auras clearly have those areas designated as that "mane" style.
[/quote]
Support! I agree with this as well, i hadnt noticed the top feathers matched the mane styles- and that makes sense! put it back!
Zenzic wrote on 2024-02-19 12:35:46:
It's a real shame. The Auraboas were already compliant with gene consistency!
The solid patches on the wing arms and frill matched the mane stylization on other breeds, and Auras clearly have those areas designated as that "mane" style.
Support! I agree with this as well, i hadnt noticed the top feathers matched the mane styles- and that makes sense! put it back!
[quote name="Krok" date="2024-02-19 11:04:26" ]
I usually don't have a problem with the gene fixes they've been rolling out, but this one feels... weird? It feels weird they're going back on clear artistic choices which were approved. It's getting to be concerning when they flipflop between what stylistic choices stay on breeds and what are supposed to be changes for consistency.
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=13&bodygene=261&breed=24&element=5&eyetype=10&gender=0&tert=124&tertgene=243&winggene=244&wings=100&auth=758c58abe33511df521ce5d3a13b0e109b06e4a5&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
This scry was first made in mind with the purple on Spruce Paisley being prominent (I wish I saved the image pre-fix). The purple top of the wing once pulled everything together, and it just doesn't look the same anymore. I guess I'm glad I never started this breeding project, but it's kind of a shame the gene is affected so much now.
[/quote]
For reference for the thread in general, we can presume that spruce on the wings would have looked similar to obelisk manes. So it goes to show just HOW different some colors are now.
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=100&bodygene=0&breed=15&element=9&eyetype=0&gender=1&tert=143&tertgene=0&winggene=136&wings=100&auth=e6314912a94a9931a2c1d0c273bbe1a62af2927f&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
Krok wrote on 2024-02-19 11:04:26:
I usually don't have a problem with the gene fixes they've been rolling out, but this one feels... weird? It feels weird they're going back on clear artistic choices which were approved. It's getting to be concerning when they flipflop between what stylistic choices stay on breeds and what are supposed to be changes for consistency.
This scry was first made in mind with the purple on Spruce Paisley being prominent (I wish I saved the image pre-fix). The purple top of the wing once pulled everything together, and it just doesn't look the same anymore. I guess I'm glad I never started this breeding project, but it's kind of a shame the gene is affected so much now.
For reference for the thread in general, we can presume that spruce on the wings would have looked similar to obelisk manes. So it goes to show just HOW different some colors are now.
|
xxxFramexxx
|
x
|
|
|
[quote name="NobleLycanthrope" date="2024-02-19 08:56:33" ]
oh my gosh I just realized that my G1 has been ruined. I'm literally crying right now I adored this G1 because I loved the way the feathers looked with the black shiny part, it looked so much like a raven and now it's just ruined :(
[/quote]
@NobleLycanthrope
While I can't speak on behalf of the FR staff, I am genuinely sorry that this change has distressed you to the point of tears. I stand strong because I remember very clearly the distress from the last change of this nature, and it deeply upsets me that people who deeply invest in this site, whether it be time, money, or the undeniable emotional investment, can have the rugged pulled out from under us based on arbitrary personal taste decisions.
The only comfort that I can truly offer is that many [i]many[/i] users agree that this change should be reverted, regardless of whether they voice it on the site or not. For you and anyone else who feels similarly, I would strongly implore you to not make any hasty decisions to change the genes just yet. I do believe this change can be reverted, for a bountiful amount of reasons.
Don't give up just yet, okay? Things can still be alright.
NobleLycanthrope wrote on 2024-02-19 08:56:33:
oh my gosh I just realized that my G1 has been ruined. I'm literally crying right now I adored this G1 because I loved the way the feathers looked with the black shiny part, it looked so much like a raven and now it's just ruined :(
@
NobleLycanthrope
While I can't speak on behalf of the FR staff, I am genuinely sorry that this change has distressed you to the point of tears. I stand strong because I remember very clearly the distress from the last change of this nature, and it deeply upsets me that people who deeply invest in this site, whether it be time, money, or the undeniable emotional investment, can have the rugged pulled out from under us based on arbitrary personal taste decisions.
The only comfort that I can truly offer is that many
many users agree that this change should be reverted, regardless of whether they voice it on the site or not. For you and anyone else who feels similarly, I would strongly implore you to not make any hasty decisions to change the genes just yet. I do believe this change can be reverted, for a bountiful amount of reasons.
Don't give up just yet, okay? Things can still be alright.
|
|
•Ripley
•Queer
•He/Him
•Aquarius
•Art Shop : Working
|
|
__
|
i am unfortunately too tired to formulate a coherent response so i will say this instead: sometimes things look better when they are drawn to fit a design’s individual quirks. please revert. thank you
i am unfortunately too tired to formulate a coherent response so i will say this instead: sometimes things look better when they are drawn to fit a design’s individual quirks. please revert. thank you
