[quote name="thealmightyZIM" date="2024-02-26 10:02:49" ]
could they possibly make different versions of multigaze for different tertiaries?
something like, in the art program, taking the multigaze layer(s) and erasing where they cover the tertiaries, and doing that for each one
then, in the layering program, code it so that when x tertiary shows up, y multigaze file shows up
obviously it would take some work, but i don’t think it would mess with other stuff like accent layering
[/quote]
I think the main issues with that are that right now the eye type doesn't know what genes are applied at all, so they would have to adjust the rendering system to be able to do that, which is potentially complicated or may cause other issues or such.
and another potential issue is that doing that retroactively could cause weird effects to people's existing dragons, it's kind of a specific situation but like if there was a skin layering over the tertiary with the eyes on top of that, suddenly the eyes are going to look randomly cut off which could cause unexpected changes to people's dragons or maybe suddenly some skins don't work as expected.. like if you have a full body skin for an ancient and you want it with multigaze and you want a linebreaking tertiary as well for some reason, result would just be that the eyes cut off unexpectedly at random places. so it probably wouldn't mess with skins/accents in general, but could still cause weird unexpected effects
thealmightyZIM wrote on 2024-02-26 10:02:49:
could they possibly make different versions of multigaze for different tertiaries?
something like, in the art program, taking the multigaze layer(s) and erasing where they cover the tertiaries, and doing that for each one
then, in the layering program, code it so that when x tertiary shows up, y multigaze file shows up
obviously it would take some work, but i don’t think it would mess with other stuff like accent layering
I think the main issues with that are that right now the eye type doesn't know what genes are applied at all, so they would have to adjust the rendering system to be able to do that, which is potentially complicated or may cause other issues or such.
and another potential issue is that doing that retroactively could cause weird effects to people's existing dragons, it's kind of a specific situation but like if there was a skin layering over the tertiary with the eyes on top of that, suddenly the eyes are going to look randomly cut off which could cause unexpected changes to people's dragons or maybe suddenly some skins don't work as expected.. like if you have a full body skin for an ancient and you want it with multigaze and you want a linebreaking tertiary as well for some reason, result would just be that the eyes cut off unexpectedly at random places. so it probably wouldn't mess with skins/accents in general, but could still cause weird unexpected effects
[quote name="voidsnake" date="2024-02-26 10:47:31" ]
[quote name="Almedha" date="2024-02-26 09:06:05" ]
[quote name="voidsnake" date="2024-02-26 08:13:22" ]
[quote name="Almedha" date="2024-02-26 07:53:50" ]
[quote name="voidsnake" date="2024-02-26 07:23:56" ]
they are in fact aware they could do that and they do have a reason they continue to not do it, it's not like they're purposefully making it look bad?? the devs know what they're doing, that solution has its own problems. they aren't just being lazy! it's actually a problematic solution and they don't want other things to look weird because of it!
[/quote]
I prefer to think that they aren't aware of the issues and the incredibly simple solution of simply drawing (some) tertiaries to accommodate it. Because the only other option [i]is[/i] laziness. Under what circumstances is it not lazy to simply move two Blossom flowers two pixels to the right or left?
[center][img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=6&bodygene=0&breed=17&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=148&tertgene=36&winggene=0&wings=6&auth=2705f0236a28496daf5132d0debb15707b47ec08&dummyext=prev.png[/img][/center]
The M Gaoler's Blossom clips with a total of three (or four depending on how you see it) eyes. It would not affect the gene at all to move those five flowers or whatever a tiny bit in any direction to avoid clipping. Alternatively (or in addition) create some flowers that completely clip under MG eyes so that we don't have these mythical "blank spaces" some people talk about.
[center][img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=6&bodygene=0&breed=12&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=148&tertgene=97&winggene=0&wings=6&auth=4df26de77f10db2aadd8a7b8a9fff22b6b2fb572&dummyext=prev.png[/img][/center]
Most breeds clip with Sparkle in MG an unreal amount of time. All they'd have to do is move big Sparkles like the one that intersects with the eyes somewhere else, and completely clip some smaller sparkles.
[center][img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=6&bodygene=0&breed=23&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=1&tert=148&tertgene=194&winggene=0&wings=6&auth=5d0c8d0e671d4d9f362dc99c557e7e0b331e13e5&dummyext=prev.png[/img][/center]
It would not look any more or less weird if some of these arcs going literally right through the middle of MG were either to the right or left of the eye in the space. If the fork went around an eye instead of right through it. Nobody would notice if that was the case. Do people seriously believe that there would be suggestions to change Thundercrack to shift the lines a little bit to clip because it looks weird on a dragon without multigaze?
Absolutely not. That's bonkers.
[center][img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=6&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=59&tertgene=244&winggene=0&wings=6&auth=70c3102de21f93c13e8dc688c2708753ef0854d0&dummyext=prev.png[/img][/center]
I'm just including Rockbreaker because it's especially egregious. There is exactly zero reason why these rocks have to be floating [i]exactly[/i] where they are, no exceptions.
Now of course some genes will never work with MG. That's unfortunate. But there are some that absolutely can and should work. Not having genes like this work with Multigaze is laziness or ignorance. Plain and simple. There is no excuse for this.
EDIT:
The notion that FR's artists are shy of stuff looking "weird" is additionally laughable when you have physically-impossible perspective that they include in the pose (see: m Guardian) and enforce in apparel. If they can purposefully do that, then the very notion that they're not purposefully clipping stuff like Blossom because it would somehow "look weird" if a few flowers were in very slightly different places is completely ignorant of how they've been designing things in both dragon and familiar art for ten years.
They are perfectly capable of this level of attention to detail. Expecting it from them is not at all out-of-bounds.
[/quote]
it's not a problem of attention to detail, it's a problem of having an overall lower quality of tertiary genes by shifting all line-breaking tertiaries around to accommodate an eye type most people aren't using. like having multigaze clipping means that a specific eye type looks weird with specific genes. if they changed every tertiary around it though, every dragon would have the same empty areas--[i]everything[/i] would look weird. although the point of what I was saying is that they've responded to that suggestion, they see people complain about multigaze in literally every error thread, they obviously do know about that solution, and they already fix so many other errors and constantly listen to player suggestions. which means: they aren't fixing multigaze because it would cause other problems!! just because you don't see personally why they can't fix it doesn't make them lazy for not having a solution
[/quote]
It's almost like you didn't read the post you responded to... I addressed both the "empty space" issue as well as the "all tertiaries" question. Of course it can't be all tertiaries. But there's no reason it has to be pretty much every linebreaking tertiary. I think for most species it is literally every line breaking tertiary.
You genuinely think that people would be complaining that Thundercrack's arc were shifted to miss the eyes? Even the same amount of complaints that multigaze clipping gets? Even half? No. There's no way.
I also can't see why it matters that many tertiaries (because, again, all tertiaries will never be able to work) would have similar (because I addressed how they wouldn't have the same blank spots) blank spots. Because a dragon can only have one tertiary at a time. And non line breaking terts exist and can cover any spot at all.
It is laziness for most of these genes. There is no reason whatsoever that Rockbreaker needs to clip. None.
[/quote]
my point is just that they've responded to these issues and they have their own reasons for not wanting to adjust those genes around the multigaze eyes. it's a design decision they don't want to take--they very clearly address plenty of issues and bugs with genes including small ones and things that take a lot of work to adjust in all of the gene bug threads, so they clearly are willing to put a lot of time into having their art look nice even with small issues. you can't just call them lazy because you personally don't understand why they aren't doing something--they know the issue, not shifting around genes for multigaze is a design choice for them about having the art look nice, you can disagree with it but you can't just assume the issue is nonexistent and start being rude to them because it doesn't make sense to you personally. I just think it's pretty rude to not understand their reasoning for something and call them lazy for it when the issue clearly isn't that simple and they clearly already know about the issue and decided that solution doesn't work. you can just trust them to make their own art decisions for their own site
[/quote]
I'm not 100% following the Ancient gene situation, but they have not addressed these individual suggestions. They only say that they are unable to keep clipping from happening. Which is categorically not true: in some cases, they are [i]choosing[/i] not to. In the case of Rockbreaker, it is laziness. They didn't check with MG before releasing it. If that's the case for Rockbreaker (which it must be - there is no real difference, whether in design or function, with a slight shift of the rock to make MG useable with it), then it's not unreasonable to assume the same is true of other genes.
Design decisions can be lazy. Design decisions can be made for bad reasons. Design decisions are not above criticism.
But even if we were going to go with the "you can just trust them to make their own art decisions for their own site" then we wouldn't have had the whole thing we just had with Paisley for Auraboas and Blend for Sandsurges. One of them was an error, but the other one wasn't. But if Auraboa Paisley can be criticized as a bad design decision, then Rockbreaker not respecting MG can be criticized as possible for [i]some genes[/i] to work with.
voidsnake wrote on 2024-02-26 10:47:31:
Almedha wrote on 2024-02-26 09:06:05:
voidsnake wrote on 2024-02-26 08:13:22:
Almedha wrote on 2024-02-26 07:53:50:
voidsnake wrote on 2024-02-26 07:23:56:
they are in fact aware they could do that and they do have a reason they continue to not do it, it's not like they're purposefully making it look bad?? the devs know what they're doing, that solution has its own problems. they aren't just being lazy! it's actually a problematic solution and they don't want other things to look weird because of it!
I prefer to think that they aren't aware of the issues and the incredibly simple solution of simply drawing (some) tertiaries to accommodate it. Because the only other option
is laziness. Under what circumstances is it not lazy to simply move two Blossom flowers two pixels to the right or left?
The M Gaoler's Blossom clips with a total of three (or four depending on how you see it) eyes. It would not affect the gene at all to move those five flowers or whatever a tiny bit in any direction to avoid clipping. Alternatively (or in addition) create some flowers that completely clip under MG eyes so that we don't have these mythical "blank spaces" some people talk about.
Most breeds clip with Sparkle in MG an unreal amount of time. All they'd have to do is move big Sparkles like the one that intersects with the eyes somewhere else, and completely clip some smaller sparkles.
It would not look any more or less weird if some of these arcs going literally right through the middle of MG were either to the right or left of the eye in the space. If the fork went around an eye instead of right through it. Nobody would notice if that was the case. Do people seriously believe that there would be suggestions to change Thundercrack to shift the lines a little bit to clip because it looks weird on a dragon without multigaze?
Absolutely not. That's bonkers.
I'm just including Rockbreaker because it's especially egregious. There is exactly zero reason why these rocks have to be floating
exactly where they are, no exceptions.
Now of course some genes will never work with MG. That's unfortunate. But there are some that absolutely can and should work. Not having genes like this work with Multigaze is laziness or ignorance. Plain and simple. There is no excuse for this.
EDIT:
The notion that FR's artists are shy of stuff looking "weird" is additionally laughable when you have physically-impossible perspective that they include in the pose (see: m Guardian) and enforce in apparel. If they can purposefully do that, then the very notion that they're not purposefully clipping stuff like Blossom because it would somehow "look weird" if a few flowers were in very slightly different places is completely ignorant of how they've been designing things in both dragon and familiar art for ten years.
They are perfectly capable of this level of attention to detail. Expecting it from them is not at all out-of-bounds.
it's not a problem of attention to detail, it's a problem of having an overall lower quality of tertiary genes by shifting all line-breaking tertiaries around to accommodate an eye type most people aren't using. like having multigaze clipping means that a specific eye type looks weird with specific genes. if they changed every tertiary around it though, every dragon would have the same empty areas--
everything would look weird. although the point of what I was saying is that they've responded to that suggestion, they see people complain about multigaze in literally every error thread, they obviously do know about that solution, and they already fix so many other errors and constantly listen to player suggestions. which means: they aren't fixing multigaze because it would cause other problems!! just because you don't see personally why they can't fix it doesn't make them lazy for not having a solution
It's almost like you didn't read the post you responded to... I addressed both the "empty space" issue as well as the "all tertiaries" question. Of course it can't be all tertiaries. But there's no reason it has to be pretty much every linebreaking tertiary. I think for most species it is literally every line breaking tertiary.
You genuinely think that people would be complaining that Thundercrack's arc were shifted to miss the eyes? Even the same amount of complaints that multigaze clipping gets? Even half? No. There's no way.
I also can't see why it matters that many tertiaries (because, again, all tertiaries will never be able to work) would have similar (because I addressed how they wouldn't have the same blank spots) blank spots. Because a dragon can only have one tertiary at a time. And non line breaking terts exist and can cover any spot at all.
It is laziness for most of these genes. There is no reason whatsoever that Rockbreaker needs to clip. None.
my point is just that they've responded to these issues and they have their own reasons for not wanting to adjust those genes around the multigaze eyes. it's a design decision they don't want to take--they very clearly address plenty of issues and bugs with genes including small ones and things that take a lot of work to adjust in all of the gene bug threads, so they clearly are willing to put a lot of time into having their art look nice even with small issues. you can't just call them lazy because you personally don't understand why they aren't doing something--they know the issue, not shifting around genes for multigaze is a design choice for them about having the art look nice, you can disagree with it but you can't just assume the issue is nonexistent and start being rude to them because it doesn't make sense to you personally. I just think it's pretty rude to not understand their reasoning for something and call them lazy for it when the issue clearly isn't that simple and they clearly already know about the issue and decided that solution doesn't work. you can just trust them to make their own art decisions for their own site
I'm not 100% following the Ancient gene situation, but they have not addressed these individual suggestions. They only say that they are unable to keep clipping from happening. Which is categorically not true: in some cases, they are
choosing not to. In the case of Rockbreaker, it is laziness. They didn't check with MG before releasing it. If that's the case for Rockbreaker (which it must be - there is no real difference, whether in design or function, with a slight shift of the rock to make MG useable with it), then it's not unreasonable to assume the same is true of other genes.
Design decisions can be lazy. Design decisions can be made for bad reasons. Design decisions are not above criticism.
But even if we were going to go with the "you can just trust them to make their own art decisions for their own site" then we wouldn't have had the whole thing we just had with Paisley for Auraboas and Blend for Sandsurges. One of them was an error, but the other one wasn't. But if Auraboa Paisley can be criticized as a bad design decision, then Rockbreaker not respecting MG can be criticized as possible for
some genes to work with.
[quote name="AntimatterBee" date="2024-02-26 07:37:16" ]
[quote name="CeriothOfCinders" date="2024-02-25 20:33:59" ]
Why on earth scrap an eye type that people like to use? There are way more modern dragons than ancients.
I can only imagine a riot would ensue if MG was scrapped completely.
No support.
[/quote]
Even modern dragons can have issues with multi-gaze clipping, unfortunately.
The most egregious example may be the M Coatl (observe the rear wing):
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=9&bodygene=0&breed=12&element=6&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=2&tertgene=0&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=b161eb7cccd228154a6f365ef015d1c43611592f&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
However, Gembond is also affected:
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=2&element=6&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=130&tertgene=4&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=9ef30efbb31167cf094347f8efadfea29bb28e1b&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
And Keel:
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=6&element=6&eyetype=5&gender=1&tert=130&tertgene=53&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=2ff6abfb3b2cc79e8910455fc650f84b6a528bce&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
And even Spines on certain breeds (check the neck):
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=9&element=6&eyetype=5&gender=1&tert=130&tertgene=8&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=9364c17929b57a7311ac6cd7ed64d5392e26f2e4&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
Multi-gaze clipping is *NOT* an Ancient-exclusive problem. It's even worse than you think.
[/quote]
i can understand why gembond would be hard to work around but its crazy how some of these other ones were just like "WELL...WHATEVER." [b]keel was introduced 2 YEARS AFTER MULTI-GAZE WAS RELEASED...[/b] where was the quality control...
AntimatterBee wrote on 2024-02-26 07:37:16:
CeriothOfCinders wrote on 2024-02-25 20:33:59:
Why on earth scrap an eye type that people like to use? There are way more modern dragons than ancients.
I can only imagine a riot would ensue if MG was scrapped completely.
No support.
Even modern dragons can have issues with multi-gaze clipping, unfortunately.
The most egregious example may be the M Coatl (observe the rear wing):
However, Gembond is also affected:
And Keel:
And even Spines on certain breeds (check the neck):
Multi-gaze clipping is *NOT* an Ancient-exclusive problem. It's even worse than you think.
i can understand why gembond would be hard to work around but its crazy how some of these other ones were just like "WELL...WHATEVER."
keel was introduced 2 YEARS AFTER MULTI-GAZE WAS RELEASED... where was the quality control...
Some genes definitely look like they could've easily been drawn around the Multigaze eyes and I'd certainly like to have more good options for tertiaries to use alongside any Multigaze dragons that I do have/get, but I also don't like the idea of putting the artists to try and work around the multiple-eye layout on every pose for every new tertiary gene release.
What if an option was added to the dragon customization page where players can select the order that tertiary genes, skins and eyes are drawn for that particular dragon? So instead of just the "tertiary->skin->eyes" order that we have now, we'd also have "skin->tertiary->eyes" and "skin->eyes->tertiary".
With this it'd be possible to have tertiary genes overwrite the eyes that they overlap with, and additionally skins wouldn't need to be drawn with empty space for linebreaking tertiaries since players could simply layer the tert above the skin.
Eyes cannot go under skins because many skins have the eye socket coloured in, the same might also be true for many terts since they've all been drawn knowing the eyes would always overwrite that part anyway, so a bit of deleting eye sockets from tertiary art could be necessary.
I could see some issues with people getting confused if they don't know the option exists, the customization page is pretty forgettable and I'm not sure how the selected order could be displayed on the main dragon page.
Some genes definitely look like they could've easily been drawn around the Multigaze eyes and I'd certainly like to have more good options for tertiaries to use alongside any Multigaze dragons that I do have/get, but I also don't like the idea of putting the artists to try and work around the multiple-eye layout on every pose for every new tertiary gene release.
What if an option was added to the dragon customization page where players can select the order that tertiary genes, skins and eyes are drawn for that particular dragon? So instead of just the "tertiary->skin->eyes" order that we have now, we'd also have "skin->tertiary->eyes" and "skin->eyes->tertiary".
With this it'd be possible to have tertiary genes overwrite the eyes that they overlap with, and additionally skins wouldn't need to be drawn with empty space for linebreaking tertiaries since players could simply layer the tert above the skin.
Eyes cannot go under skins because many skins have the eye socket coloured in, the same might also be true for many terts since they've all been drawn knowing the eyes would always overwrite that part anyway, so a bit of deleting eye sockets from tertiary art could be necessary.
I could see some issues with people getting confused if they don't know the option exists, the customization page is pretty forgettable and I'm not sure how the selected order could be displayed on the main dragon page.
[quote name="Almedha" date="2024-02-26 11:48:11" ]
snip
I'm not 100% following the Ancient gene situation, but they have not addressed these individual suggestions. They only say that they are unable to keep clipping from happening. Which is categorically not true: in some cases, they are [i]choosing[/i] not to. In the case of Rockbreaker, it is laziness. They didn't check with MG before releasing it. If that's the case for Rockbreaker (which it must be - there is no real difference, whether in design or function, with a slight shift of the rock to make MG useable with it), then it's not unreasonable to assume the same is true of other genes.
Design decisions can be lazy. Design decisions can be made for bad reasons. Design decisions are not above criticism.
But even if we were going to go with the "you can just trust them to make their own art decisions for their own site" then we wouldn't have had the whole thing we just had with Paisley for Auraboas and Blend for Sandsurges. One of them was an error, but the other one wasn't. But if Auraboa Paisley can be criticized as a bad design decision, then Rockbreaker not respecting MG can be criticized as possible for [i]some genes[/i] to work with.
[/quote]
design decisions can be lazy, I just don't agree with calling a decision lazy simply because you don't understand why it is made and assume the reason is that they don't want to put the effort in or whatever. and anyways, I think it's completely fine to bring up issues to them, that's important, with paisley it showed them that reverting was a bad idea and they found a solution that worked, with blend they realized a mistake and fixed that, but with multigaze they have people constantly bring up the issue and they've responded to it that they can't fix it. it's certainly possible for game devs to just ignore issues or say they can't fix stuff just because they don't want to, but with FR the devs seem to constantly fix and improve stuff, especially with their art to make it look good and fixing bugs in new genes and such. they're clearly willing to put effort in to fix stuff like this, if they say the clipping can't be fixed then they've probably already thought of the possible options and they've decided those don't work for various reasons. I just think it's rude to assume that the reason is laziness simply because you don't personally see any other reasons..
Almedha wrote on 2024-02-26 11:48:11:
snip
I'm not 100% following the Ancient gene situation, but they have not addressed these individual suggestions. They only say that they are unable to keep clipping from happening. Which is categorically not true: in some cases, they are choosing not to. In the case of Rockbreaker, it is laziness. They didn't check with MG before releasing it. If that's the case for Rockbreaker (which it must be - there is no real difference, whether in design or function, with a slight shift of the rock to make MG useable with it), then it's not unreasonable to assume the same is true of other genes.
Design decisions can be lazy. Design decisions can be made for bad reasons. Design decisions are not above criticism.
But even if we were going to go with the "you can just trust them to make their own art decisions for their own site" then we wouldn't have had the whole thing we just had with Paisley for Auraboas and Blend for Sandsurges. One of them was an error, but the other one wasn't. But if Auraboa Paisley can be criticized as a bad design decision, then Rockbreaker not respecting MG can be criticized as possible for some genes to work with.
design decisions can be lazy, I just don't agree with calling a decision lazy simply because you don't understand why it is made and assume the reason is that they don't want to put the effort in or whatever. and anyways, I think it's completely fine to bring up issues to them, that's important, with paisley it showed them that reverting was a bad idea and they found a solution that worked, with blend they realized a mistake and fixed that, but with multigaze they have people constantly bring up the issue and they've responded to it that they can't fix it. it's certainly possible for game devs to just ignore issues or say they can't fix stuff just because they don't want to, but with FR the devs seem to constantly fix and improve stuff, especially with their art to make it look good and fixing bugs in new genes and such. they're clearly willing to put effort in to fix stuff like this, if they say the clipping can't be fixed then they've probably already thought of the possible options and they've decided those don't work for various reasons. I just think it's rude to assume that the reason is laziness simply because you don't personally see any other reasons..
no support. if you don't like it just change the dragon's eye type. I'd rather new genes have good coverage of dragons overall than for them to cater specifically to one rare eye type. and no, multigaze shouldn't be changed or scrapped either. it really is as simple as just don't use it if it bothers you
no support. if you don't like it just change the dragon's eye type. I'd rather new genes have good coverage of dragons overall than for them to cater specifically to one rare eye type. and no, multigaze shouldn't be changed or scrapped either. it really is as simple as just don't use it if it bothers you
[quote name="hungryhobbits" date="2024-02-26 04:11:52" ]
the simplest solution is that the devs need to make sure multigaze is tested during the drafting phases of tert designs and the fact that they're very clearly not doing it because "well layering blah blah blah" is just a cop out that doesnt work anymore when so many genes couuld just be moved over a little bit in aspects of their design to accommodate multigaze
there's over 7million ancients on this site - and while multigaze is a rare eye type it also has a vial that is pretty accessible. out of those 7million only 41000 are multigaze - probably attributing to how badly mg looks on them and the neglect their tert designs get when taking it into consideration
[/quote]
+1
MG clipping so many genes shows the site quality in poor light as well. A new player would most definitely see it as a bug, when if fact it seems it was just poorly designed and untested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote name="CeriothOfCinders" date="2024-02-26 07:43:09" ]
Well, I am personally not bothered by the clipping. And people who have their multigaze dragons do not want to lose their multigaze dragons. You cannot just delete an entire eye type that several people enjoy using just because it has issues with clipping.
Easier to just accept that is how it is and move on, and use it where it works.
[/quote]
Shrugging at broken design that could have been easily avoided if tested, like mentioned above, on a website that charges people money (even if some may choose not to utilize this function) is not something I am comfortable with, personally.
hungryhobbits wrote on 2024-02-26 04:11:52:
the simplest solution is that the devs need to make sure multigaze is tested during the drafting phases of tert designs and the fact that they're very clearly not doing it because "well layering blah blah blah" is just a cop out that doesnt work anymore when so many genes couuld just be moved over a little bit in aspects of their design to accommodate multigaze
there's over 7million ancients on this site - and while multigaze is a rare eye type it also has a vial that is pretty accessible. out of those 7million only 41000 are multigaze - probably attributing to how badly mg looks on them and the neglect their tert designs get when taking it into consideration
+1
MG clipping so many genes shows the site quality in poor light as well. A new player would most definitely see it as a bug, when if fact it seems it was just poorly designed and untested.
CeriothOfCinders wrote on 2024-02-26 07:43:09:
Well, I am personally not bothered by the clipping. And people who have their multigaze dragons do not want to lose their multigaze dragons. You cannot just delete an entire eye type that several people enjoy using just because it has issues with clipping.
Easier to just accept that is how it is and move on, and use it where it works.
Shrugging at broken design that could have been easily avoided if tested, like mentioned above, on a website that charges people money (even if some may choose not to utilize this function) is not something I am comfortable with, personally.
I don't use MG on my dragons personally but support.
I understand the layering issue and that there will be some genes (e.g. gembound) where it's not practical to adjust the gene or MG to avoid clipping. I think there either needs to be better QC on other genes (e.g. Rockbreaker), or there should be a more robust explanation for why it's not feasible to create new low-coverage terts in a way that avoids the clipping issue.
I don't use MG on my dragons personally but support.
I understand the layering issue and that there will be some genes (e.g. gembound) where it's not practical to adjust the gene or MG to avoid clipping. I think there either needs to be better QC on other genes (e.g. Rockbreaker), or there should be a more robust explanation for why it's not feasible to create new low-coverage terts in a way that avoids the clipping issue.
[quote name="Severance" date="2024-02-26 23:32:31" ]
[quote name="hungryhobbits" date="2024-02-26 04:11:52" ]
the simplest solution is that the devs need to make sure multigaze is tested during the drafting phases of tert designs and the fact that they're very clearly not doing it because "well layering blah blah blah" is just a cop out that doesnt work anymore when so many genes couuld just be moved over a little bit in aspects of their design to accommodate multigaze
there's over 7million ancients on this site - and while multigaze is a rare eye type it also has a vial that is pretty accessible. out of those 7million only 41000 are multigaze - probably attributing to how badly mg looks on them and the neglect their tert designs get when taking it into consideration
[/quote]
+1
MG clipping so many genes shows the site quality in poor light as well. A new player would most definitely see it as a bug, when if fact it seems it was just poorly designed and untested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote name="CeriothOfCinders" date="2024-02-26 07:43:09" ]
Well, I am personally not bothered by the clipping. And people who have their multigaze dragons do not want to lose their multigaze dragons. You cannot just delete an entire eye type that several people enjoy using just because it has issues with clipping.
Easier to just accept that is how it is and move on, and use it where it works.
[/quote]
Shrugging at broken design that could have been easily avoided if tested, like mentioned above, on a website that charges people money (even if some may choose not to utilize this function) is not something I am comfortable with, personally.
[/quote]
it's not 'poorly designed and untested' they aren't testing genes for multigaze because they don't want the genes to all cater to a specific eye type because it could reduce the quality of the genes overall given that they're almost never used for multigaze. you really can't argue that the genes are untested when they literally open up threads for players to bring up any issues so they can fix them, they do internal testing and then let players continue to test genes and bring up issues and they fix all of those issues pretty quickly, they actively ask for that to not be reported because they are aware already and don't have a solution for it
also to the last part, plenty of games cost money and have bugs?? I would guess that most of the players spending money on the game actually appreciate the effort they're putting in to make the tertiaries look nice and such instead of making other things look weird because a few people are upset about some minor clipping with certain genes and an eye type most people don't use. spending money on a game doesn't mean that the devs are obliged to make every aspect of it completely perfect, and more people appreciate having multigaze as an option as is than are so upset by the clipping that they want it completely removed from the game, pretty sure that suggestion has nearly no support. so, they're doing their best already! not everything needs to be Perfect, just don't use multigaze if you don't like it
Severance wrote on 2024-02-26 23:32:31:
hungryhobbits wrote on 2024-02-26 04:11:52:
the simplest solution is that the devs need to make sure multigaze is tested during the drafting phases of tert designs and the fact that they're very clearly not doing it because "well layering blah blah blah" is just a cop out that doesnt work anymore when so many genes couuld just be moved over a little bit in aspects of their design to accommodate multigaze
there's over 7million ancients on this site - and while multigaze is a rare eye type it also has a vial that is pretty accessible. out of those 7million only 41000 are multigaze - probably attributing to how badly mg looks on them and the neglect their tert designs get when taking it into consideration
+1
MG clipping so many genes shows the site quality in poor light as well. A new player would most definitely see it as a bug, when if fact it seems it was just poorly designed and untested.
CeriothOfCinders wrote on 2024-02-26 07:43:09:
Well, I am personally not bothered by the clipping. And people who have their multigaze dragons do not want to lose their multigaze dragons. You cannot just delete an entire eye type that several people enjoy using just because it has issues with clipping.
Easier to just accept that is how it is and move on, and use it where it works.
Shrugging at broken design that could have been easily avoided if tested, like mentioned above, on a website that charges people money (even if some may choose not to utilize this function) is not something I am comfortable with, personally.
it's not 'poorly designed and untested' they aren't testing genes for multigaze because they don't want the genes to all cater to a specific eye type because it could reduce the quality of the genes overall given that they're almost never used for multigaze. you really can't argue that the genes are untested when they literally open up threads for players to bring up any issues so they can fix them, they do internal testing and then let players continue to test genes and bring up issues and they fix all of those issues pretty quickly, they actively ask for that to not be reported because they are aware already and don't have a solution for it
also to the last part, plenty of games cost money and have bugs?? I would guess that most of the players spending money on the game actually appreciate the effort they're putting in to make the tertiaries look nice and such instead of making other things look weird because a few people are upset about some minor clipping with certain genes and an eye type most people don't use. spending money on a game doesn't mean that the devs are obliged to make every aspect of it completely perfect, and more people appreciate having multigaze as an option as is than are so upset by the clipping that they want it completely removed from the game, pretty sure that suggestion has nearly no support. so, they're doing their best already! not everything needs to be Perfect, just don't use multigaze if you don't like it
@voidsnake
It should not have been implemented if it could not be made to work. It was known MG would cause issues with "technical limitations," and the response has been "oh well, do it anyways."
[quote name="voidsnake" date="2024-02-27 08:11:49" ]
also to the last part, plenty of games cost money and have bugs?? I would guess that most of the players spending money on the game actually appreciate the effort they're putting in to make the tertiaries look nice and such instead of making other things look weird because a few people are upset about some minor clipping with certain genes and an eye type most people don't use. spending money on a game doesn't mean that the devs are obliged to make every aspect of it completely perfect, and more people appreciate having multigaze as an option as is than are so upset by the clipping that they want it completely removed from the game, pretty sure that suggestion has nearly no support. so, they're doing their best already! not everything needs to be Perfect, just don't use multigaze if you don't like it
[/quote]
MG is the first instance of eyes vs gene clipping that I know of. Expecting it to work is [i]not[/i] a tall order. A lot of people in this thread DO like MG, and that's why they want it to work. [emoji=mirror laughing size=1]
But none of this conductive to the suggestion to actually fix the issue, so that's where I'm leaving it.
@
voidsnake
It should not have been implemented if it could not be made to work. It was known MG would cause issues with "technical limitations," and the response has been "oh well, do it anyways."
voidsnake wrote on 2024-02-27 08:11:49:
also to the last part, plenty of games cost money and have bugs?? I would guess that most of the players spending money on the game actually appreciate the effort they're putting in to make the tertiaries look nice and such instead of making other things look weird because a few people are upset about some minor clipping with certain genes and an eye type most people don't use. spending money on a game doesn't mean that the devs are obliged to make every aspect of it completely perfect, and more people appreciate having multigaze as an option as is than are so upset by the clipping that they want it completely removed from the game, pretty sure that suggestion has nearly no support. so, they're doing their best already! not everything needs to be Perfect, just don't use multigaze if you don't like it
MG is the first instance of eyes vs gene clipping that I know of. Expecting it to work is
not a tall order. A lot of people in this thread DO like MG, and that's why they want it to work.
But none of this conductive to the suggestion to actually fix the issue, so that's where I'm leaving it.
cillian || adult || he/they
