I prefer the original Fern/Paisley. It was a nice break in a busy design, and the new one majorly changes the aesthetic...
Suggestions
Make Flight Rising better by sharing your ideas!
TOPIC | revert auraboa fern/paisley
I prefer the original Fern/Paisley. It was a nice break in a busy design, and the new one majorly changes the aesthetic...
So the change was supposedly to get them in line with Coatls and Skydancers...except I don't even thing that's correct with how the change happened. For this I am using the precise scry of the Roundsey dragon. Without Underbelly, all three have their stomachs being the same.
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=160&bodygene=136&breed=12&element=6&eyetype=7&gender=0&tert=2&tertgene=5&winggene=136&wings=160&auth=a12a86dd73418e2466491e5192ecdba6ce4fbd91&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=160&bodygene=136&breed=13&element=6&eyetype=7&gender=0&tert=2&tertgene=5&winggene=136&wings=160&auth=957e0f6cfc8eb7185802635bc30cf40d48b1b751&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=160&bodygene=244&breed=24&element=6&eyetype=7&gender=0&tert=2&tertgene=228&winggene=244&wings=160&auth=361015bee74198d333b852772d127bfa91f83df7&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
The manes are still metallic on SDs and Coatls (i'm considering the weird fluff as mane on Coatls, but I could be wrong.) But not on Auraboas- which supposedly the top wings are part of the mane. And in Skydancers' case, the wings aren't connected pattern wise, allowing them to be readable. With Coatls I'm not even sure what this wing thing is...idk if I'm dumb or what.
The highlight issue should remain fixed. I don't think anyone is advocating for that. The patterns are the issue- so I'm still supporting this.
So the change was supposedly to get them in line with Coatls and Skydancers...except I don't even thing that's correct with how the change happened. For this I am using the precise scry of the Roundsey dragon. Without Underbelly, all three have their stomachs being the same.
The manes are still metallic on SDs and Coatls (i'm considering the weird fluff as mane on Coatls, but I could be wrong.) But not on Auraboas- which supposedly the top wings are part of the mane. And in Skydancers' case, the wings aren't connected pattern wise, allowing them to be readable. With Coatls I'm not even sure what this wing thing is...idk if I'm dumb or what.
The highlight issue should remain fixed. I don't think anyone is advocating for that. The patterns are the issue- so I'm still supporting this.
The manes are still metallic on SDs and Coatls (i'm considering the weird fluff as mane on Coatls, but I could be wrong.) But not on Auraboas- which supposedly the top wings are part of the mane. And in Skydancers' case, the wings aren't connected pattern wise, allowing them to be readable. With Coatls I'm not even sure what this wing thing is...idk if I'm dumb or what.
The highlight issue should remain fixed. I don't think anyone is advocating for that. The patterns are the issue- so I'm still supporting this.
support
i am the number one fern/paisley defender. the new version isnt bad... but the real issue is the change without clear warning AND the fact that a Roundsey dragon was displayed, making it seem like not a bug.
i am the number one fern/paisley defender. the new version isnt bad... but the real issue is the change without clear warning AND the fact that a Roundsey dragon was displayed, making it seem like not a bug.
support
i am the number one fern/paisley defender. the new version isnt bad... but the real issue is the change without clear warning AND the fact that a Roundsey dragon was displayed, making it seem like not a bug.
i am the number one fern/paisley defender. the new version isnt bad... but the real issue is the change without clear warning AND the fact that a Roundsey dragon was displayed, making it seem like not a bug.
Support.
I see both sides of this argument, but:
1. I think the new version has less depth and less interesting than the previous one, and therefore is a negative thing to have been changed rather than an improvement. But that’s a personal opinion, which leads me to:
2. I think that if something is considered to be part of a dragon’s mane- it should be treated like one. On all the genes. Because that would seem consistent, to me at least.
I see both sides of this argument, but:
1. I think the new version has less depth and less interesting than the previous one, and therefore is a negative thing to have been changed rather than an improvement. But that’s a personal opinion, which leads me to:
2. I think that if something is considered to be part of a dragon’s mane- it should be treated like one. On all the genes. Because that would seem consistent, to me at least.
Support.
I see both sides of this argument, but:
1. I think the new version has less depth and less interesting than the previous one, and therefore is a negative thing to have been changed rather than an improvement. But that’s a personal opinion, which leads me to:
2. I think that if something is considered to be part of a dragon’s mane- it should be treated like one. On all the genes. Because that would seem consistent, to me at least.
I see both sides of this argument, but:
1. I think the new version has less depth and less interesting than the previous one, and therefore is a negative thing to have been changed rather than an improvement. But that’s a personal opinion, which leads me to:
2. I think that if something is considered to be part of a dragon’s mane- it should be treated like one. On all the genes. Because that would seem consistent, to me at least.
Support, the original looks so much better IMO.
Support, the original looks so much better IMO.
Dragon wanted: Marigold/Vermilion/Abyss Female unbred
Support, original looks better because of the depth and stuff, also if they changed it so late (idk when fern/paisley came out forgive me and when they 'fixed' it) i dont think thats really nice either for players who use these genes, only to come back to their projects or scrys looking so much more different than they originally did.
Support, original looks better because of the depth and stuff, also if they changed it so late (idk when fern/paisley came out forgive me and when they 'fixed' it) i dont think thats really nice either for players who use these genes, only to come back to their projects or scrys looking so much more different than they originally did.
I am personally unaffected and, since I don't care, support to everyone who wants it changed back to the original, I honestly don't see the harm in it since they are somewhat floofy. But I think a middle ground would be nice aka the covert feathers to have that nice sheen like fluff of furred dragons, but the finer and thinner lines remain (they genuinely look more polished to me)
I am personally unaffected and, since I don't care, support to everyone who wants it changed back to the original, I honestly don't see the harm in it since they are somewhat floofy. But I think a middle ground would be nice aka the covert feathers to have that nice sheen like fluff of furred dragons, but the finer and thinner lines remain (they genuinely look more polished to me)
Support. Here are my concerns summarized after thinking it over.
A. I think we can all appreciate the need for stylistic choices to be made so genes can look nice on all dragons. These changes haven't done that. Paisley especially suffers from having a pattern slapped on both layers with no breaks (see: skydancer). Nevertheless, even if we were to try to treat the dragon like a skydancer, that may not be the actual answer for auras.
B. It can take time to go through the outcry and formulate a response so the community should try to understand that. However, it is valid to be concerned why there was no announcement made for any gene change ahead of time. It is a game about aesthetics. How a dragon looks in a certain skin or with certain genes can be greatly affected by such changes. Not everyone checks bug reports.
C. Lastly, I don't think change has to be destructive. It can be an improvement, but the longer it takes to make a change, the more people who will get affected. It's important to consider the community. Perhaps polling would have helped on making others feel included.
A. I think we can all appreciate the need for stylistic choices to be made so genes can look nice on all dragons. These changes haven't done that. Paisley especially suffers from having a pattern slapped on both layers with no breaks (see: skydancer). Nevertheless, even if we were to try to treat the dragon like a skydancer, that may not be the actual answer for auras.
B. It can take time to go through the outcry and formulate a response so the community should try to understand that. However, it is valid to be concerned why there was no announcement made for any gene change ahead of time. It is a game about aesthetics. How a dragon looks in a certain skin or with certain genes can be greatly affected by such changes. Not everyone checks bug reports.
C. Lastly, I don't think change has to be destructive. It can be an improvement, but the longer it takes to make a change, the more people who will get affected. It's important to consider the community. Perhaps polling would have helped on making others feel included.
Support. Here are my concerns summarized after thinking it over.
A. I think we can all appreciate the need for stylistic choices to be made so genes can look nice on all dragons. These changes haven't done that. Paisley especially suffers from having a pattern slapped on both layers with no breaks (see: skydancer). Nevertheless, even if we were to try to treat the dragon like a skydancer, that may not be the actual answer for auras.
B. It can take time to go through the outcry and formulate a response so the community should try to understand that. However, it is valid to be concerned why there was no announcement made for any gene change ahead of time. It is a game about aesthetics. How a dragon looks in a certain skin or with certain genes can be greatly affected by such changes. Not everyone checks bug reports.
C. Lastly, I don't think change has to be destructive. It can be an improvement, but the longer it takes to make a change, the more people who will get affected. It's important to consider the community. Perhaps polling would have helped on making others feel included.
A. I think we can all appreciate the need for stylistic choices to be made so genes can look nice on all dragons. These changes haven't done that. Paisley especially suffers from having a pattern slapped on both layers with no breaks (see: skydancer). Nevertheless, even if we were to try to treat the dragon like a skydancer, that may not be the actual answer for auras.
B. It can take time to go through the outcry and formulate a response so the community should try to understand that. However, it is valid to be concerned why there was no announcement made for any gene change ahead of time. It is a game about aesthetics. How a dragon looks in a certain skin or with certain genes can be greatly affected by such changes. Not everyone checks bug reports.
C. Lastly, I don't think change has to be destructive. It can be an improvement, but the longer it takes to make a change, the more people who will get affected. It's important to consider the community. Perhaps polling would have helped on making others feel included.
WOW the original looked so much better... how is that even considered a bug?
I don't normally get into it about stuff like this because it rarely effects me and I understand the need for consistency but oh my GOODNESS that "fix" was a downgrade.
It's a lot of work and would probably cause even more upset, but maybe all versions of fern/paisley should be the old one on auras. It just genuinely looks better in general.
I don't normally get into it about stuff like this because it rarely effects me and I understand the need for consistency but oh my GOODNESS that "fix" was a downgrade.
It's a lot of work and would probably cause even more upset, but maybe all versions of fern/paisley should be the old one on auras. It just genuinely looks better in general.
WOW the original looked so much better... how is that even considered a bug?
I don't normally get into it about stuff like this because it rarely effects me and I understand the need for consistency but oh my GOODNESS that "fix" was a downgrade.
It's a lot of work and would probably cause even more upset, but maybe all versions of fern/paisley should be the old one on auras. It just genuinely looks better in general.
I don't normally get into it about stuff like this because it rarely effects me and I understand the need for consistency but oh my GOODNESS that "fix" was a downgrade.
It's a lot of work and would probably cause even more upset, but maybe all versions of fern/paisley should be the old one on auras. It just genuinely looks better in general.
|
.........................................................
|
Support reverting.
I don't really see how the change improves consistency. As already noted, the new art makes the depth perception of the layers in the wing extremely confusing. This is not what the gene looks like on coatls and skydancers. It also doesn't really match what other secondary genes look like on auraboas.
I don't really see how the change improves consistency. As already noted, the new art makes the depth perception of the layers in the wing extremely confusing. This is not what the gene looks like on coatls and skydancers. It also doesn't really match what other secondary genes look like on auraboas.
Support reverting.
I don't really see how the change improves consistency. As already noted, the new art makes the depth perception of the layers in the wing extremely confusing. This is not what the gene looks like on coatls and skydancers. It also doesn't really match what other secondary genes look like on auraboas.
I don't really see how the change improves consistency. As already noted, the new art makes the depth perception of the layers in the wing extremely confusing. This is not what the gene looks like on coatls and skydancers. It also doesn't really match what other secondary genes look like on auraboas.
|
KT FRT +3 ........... 
|