Suggestions

@Amut I didn't clarify that sentiment that well, what I mean is that you're suggesting they look over each individual dragon color which means thousands of images per gene set. And what I'm saying is that it would be multiple people all having to do that, including every single time an adjustment was made, to achieve the level of quality control you're criticizing them for not having.

I'm not saying you were saying they should be crunched, I know you didn't suggest that. I wasn't saying "What you're advocating for is crunch time." I only brought it up to highlight that no crunch time (No working outside of scheduled hours.) means they likely have a preset schedule that is pretty rigid, so the time to work on things outside that schedule is minimal, which is why it takes so long to get to non-critical bug fixes like stray cosmetic errors.

Point being, they aren't churning out content that quickly and that isn't the problem. There will never not be errors like these under this current system with this current team size. There are currently 5 people who are credited as artists on the development team. Most likely, only a few of them are actually focused on genes specifically. Errors will happen, and they will take time to fix. This is not preventable.

Its more productive to focus on communicating to the staff how we actually want them to address these errors. Not harp on them for making them at all. They hurt no one in any way simply by existing.

[quote name="Ulises" date="2022-01-02 14:17:34" ] There will never not be errors like these under this current system with this current team size. There are currently 5 people who are credited as artists on the development team. Most likely, only a few of them are actually focused on genes specifically. Errors will happen, and they will take time to fix. This is not preventable. Its more productive to focus on communicating to the staff how we actually want them to address these errors. Not harp on them for making them at all. They hurt no one in any way simply by existing. [/quote] Agree with this, what's far more important to me is that the devs alert players before they make a major gene change. Errors are just going to happen, and that's okay. Not to mention that everything with Flair is very weird to me, namely how heavily Obelisks were featured in the gene announcement. To me, this says that it's less than a simple error that "should have" been fixed before release, and more a miscommunication or disagreement between devs. Would it be nice for miscommunications and disagreements behind the scene to not happen? Of course, but the devs are only human, so I don't think suggestions like that are very reasonable. What can be done is keeping the userbase involved. From my reading of Staff's posts on the Flair situation, that is the gameplan going forward when it comes to gene fixes.

@Ulises I still think you're missing my overall point, I certainly wasn't harping on them for making mistakes. I'm noting where I think the mistake might be and suggesting a secondary review before making something live. That's a pretty normal expectation from any business that makes a consumable product.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Mind, when they make a gene then color it, it's just that one gene that needs to be looked at, and if we have people that'll do it for free, one would think the person who's actual job it is to do that, would? But, to for full disclosure, I'm very accustomed to combing over my work to make sure it is the way I want it to look and hold others to a similar standard (people's health relies on me doing my reports right). Might I miss a comma in an in-line citation or accidentally put a space in between referencing journal and volume? Yes, pretty often, actually. But I've never just forgotten to insert a table or accidentally lopped out my abstract or measuring criteria, or let a graph populate behind the text without correcting it before I hit Send. And then I have an editor to send things back for me to fix, if it breaks on delivery. He reads at least 20 manuscripts a day, but he's murderer of typos or wonky run-ons with the pdf comment function. Because that's his job and it helps me do my job.

Like I said, a stray pixel is an easy to overlook mistake: by human error or their coloring machine. But when we get big gene errors on nearly every release like Bane Alloy missing an entire layer, Obs Flaunt literally being the "wrong" color all the way through the creation run, Ridge Current missing it's left wing in all color iterations, Shamrock making wings invisible. This isn't something that happened all at once, it happened, individually, to each gene/color, and no one saw it until it was live in public production.

It means someone pushed print and didn't check to see that the printer didn't jam half-way through it's cycle. And then the Publisher didn't bother to look inside to see that the middle pages were printed sideways, half-blank and backwards, and sent it off to tour and market as is. When they then try to do a recall and reprint, months later, when someone in the office had the book fall open and they all went "oops". Well, at this point everyone though the sideways pages were intentional and wrote essays about how it subverted the standard reading experience and how it was a great thing. That is a heck of a mistake to try to walk back all because no one was watching the printer during the coloring cycle. < - that was the Flaunt example. (But in Flaunt's case, it ended up being a great "mistake" for us.)

There's no one needed to be dedicated to fixing bugs, if the bug is caught before it becomes a bug. Print your test copy, spot an error, adjust and look again, then when everything works, then you don't need a "transparency team" to apologize and tell everyone not to get attached to non-existent mess-ups.

I'm saying slow down, proofread then release, because something is causing repeat coloring errors in their current system. That's not an unfair thing to ask. You don't need to apologize or scramble to fix a mistake that's not made.


Edit: If all you want is "more communication" The better option would be to have a few of us sign NDRs and try to break genes before they go live so they all get fixed (not that that would've caught Flaunt though). But that would be the same as having someone proofread/check them before they go out.

I'm not sure if you've worked before in customer service or a end user-facing position, but one thing business hate doing is letting the customer think they don't have everything under perfect control. That's why you'll never be told something is broken, "it's down for maintenance" or "we're currently updating our systems". And usually only after something big and impossible-to-gloss over has happened.

[quote name="Amut" date="2022-01-02 14:46:33" ] @Ulises I still think you're missing my overall point, I certainly wasn't harping on them for making mistakes. I'm noting where I think the mistake might be and suggesting a secondary review before making something live. [b]That's a pretty normal expectation from any business that makes a consumable product. [/b] An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. [/quote] (Bolded is mine.) @Amut I don't disagree with this sentiment, but this is actually not really the case when it comes to game development, especially what is essentially a small indie-dev team. I'm struggling to articulate why exactly it can't work that way, but the scope of these things makes it nearly impossible for a small team to have that level of quality control for a game. Ironically, things like stray pixels would be the easiest and most straight-forward (but low priority) thing to address and prevent because they're completely objective. The problem with these genes specifically lies in the same reason the userbase gets frustrated when the staff does end up changing them. A lot of the errors are completely subjective. Again, these are assets that get passed around between multiple people. But not all those people are actually "in charge" of what they look like. Meaning, yes, although they could theoretically have someone who's job it is to look at every single image before launch, that person might not even know specific things [i]are[/i] errors. That would require the Art Director's input specifically, who is most likely way too busy to do something like look at every single image before launch. (Not to mention that this would be really difficult regardless, because again, staring at the same image with the same patterns for hours clicking through thousands of versions of the same thing in slightly different colors is not an easy or low-effort job. Even if someone did this, they would miss things inevitably.) And lets say the Art Director did quality inspect every picture, and gave the go-ahead for launch. It takes 1 single person accidently hiding a layer or handing off the wrong file version to the coder for something like Banescale Alloy to happen. There are too many factors, and therefore points of failure, to expect it to be that easy. [quote name="Amut" date="2022-01-02 14:46:33" ] It means someone pushed print and didn't check to see that the printer didn't jam half-way through it's cycle. And then the Publisher didn't bother to look inside to see that the middle pages were printed sideways, half-blank and backwards, and sent it off to tour and market as is. When they then try to do a recall and reprint, months later, when someone in the office had the book fall open and they all went "oops". Well, at this point everyone though the sideways pages were intentional and wrote essays about how it subverted the standard reading experience and how it was a great thing. That is a heck of a mistake to try to walk back all because no one was watching the printer during the coloring cycle. < - that was the Flaunt example. (But in Flaunt's case, it ended up being a great "mistake" for us.) [/quote] This whole metaphor is way off-base because again, art is subjective. Its not as simple as "The pages were printing sideways." Like I do understand your point, but that's not what happened. When it comes to color-mapping for a gene, you literally don't know exactly what it will look like in every color until you finish mapping it then run it through the color-generator. Likely, there are a ton of adjustments that get made during this period and its probably run through multiple times to make sure it looks good. Clearly, at some point, someone didn't realize they were [i]supposed[/i] to only use specific color inputs from the preset pallets while mapping the gene. What they made was something that looked good and visually presentable to everyone, including the art director. And it was probably only later (Maybe not even that much later.) that it occurred to them that the mane was supposed to be restricted to certain values, as was the case for most other breeds, because of the way they try to standardize the color mapping process for development streamlining. Its possible that there was even internal discussion about which they should go with, and it was just not really communicated well what the verdict was until it was already post-launch. Even the Art Director could have missed, or simply forgotten that they made that call for standardization. Because these people are human beings. This stuff is subjective. To use your own publishing metaphor. It'd be more like nobody noticed they were supposed to have used one font over the other, and the person who had decided to use a specific font either forgot at some point or was not able to communicate the change last-minute, and the version that was sent to print was the one with the incorrect font. Then people discuss how interesting such an unconventional font was and how it effected the tone of the writing, only for the publisher to reprint it with a more standard/generic font afterwards. Stuff like this happens literally all the time in every form of coordinated media production. And even that is a grossly over-simplified scenario to compare it to, because it still does not account for all the different factors of having so many different genes and colors to account for. I understand your viewpoint, genuinely I really do. Its just that literally isn't how this type of development works. Its not a realistic expectation. Plus, this whole system is something they developed in-house. This isn't a standardized form of game/art development. They made the color-generator themselves, and are still hammering out the kinks. Probably part of their whole desire to move towards standardization in the first place is in order to do exactly what you're asking for, to make quality control easier and more objective. Edit: [quote]Edit: If all you want is "more communication" The better option would be to have a few of us sign NDRs and try to break genes before they go live so they all get fixed (not that that would've caught Flaunt though). But that would be the same as having someone proofread/check them before they go out. [/quote] This is actually a lot more feasible, game/art development wise, than "proofreading" because of how game development works. Like if I were to advocate for more quality control in general, it would be for beta testing servers to exist. That's how actual video game companies test their games. Because it's just not feasible for the developers themselves to do this while also working on the game still. Its a very time-consuming process. That said, I don't think its that feasible or necessary for such a small team. Edit again: Just to emphasize my point I did the math because I was legitimately curious. So genes are released in pairs usually (Ignoring a tertiary.) Lets assume its for a modern breed. So that's 2 genes, on 3 different poses, for 15 different dragons, in 177 colors. Even I was baffled at these results, but if I did the math right, that is a whooping [u][b]15,930[/b][/u] individual images per gene set. Presumably they would also need to look through to make sure they thread together properly too, so you can add another 7k to that if they did another pass to see the gene paired. That is what you're suggesting they look through every time, probably multiple times per iteration. For multiple people. Just some food for thought.

I think releasing a gene in the scry shop for x amount of time before actually releasing the gene is a really good way for the userbase to find errors. It takes us no time at all to break stuff haha

[quote name="Amut" date="2022-01-02 13:10:33" ] My main observation from the Flair situation is, there seemed to be no quality control. This wasn't a gene like Ghost, that had been teased forever. No one was waiting on Flair/Flaunt. We didn't know the gene was coming, we had no expectations for it. I think therefore, how could we be applying pressure to create crunch for something we didn't even know what coming? With that in mind, the staff made the gene, ran it through the coloring engine and... what? The second it ticked to 100% they made it live? Does their color bot have that much control that it auto-announces as soon as it's done on a job? This isn't the first time a gene has been released with a big coloring error that someone, I don't know, maybe the person who pushed start on the coloring bot should have noticed the second it was made. Bane Alloy was another one, it was missing an actual layer of art, but it got released and sat around for quite a while before being "fixed", like the staff didn't immediately see that their bot had made a boo-boo. But... who made the gene live in the first place, without looking it over? Is it annoying to have to look over 177 colors over all these breeds in each gene? Oh heck yeah, it is. But that is the job. If we have people in our forums, who -for absolutely free- will sit down and coordinate which glass tint on capsule goes best with the accent color of each gene, create a spreadsheet and manually create a directory post for everyone. I'd like to think someone who's paying job it is to check to see if a gene comes out colored right from their engine could at least have big monitor to see the colors as they populate out to pause and catch any errors. And if there's a problem, fix it before shipping it out? We don't know something got delayed a day or week when it comes out. The gene coloring errors in particular are weird and almost like there's a agi or something that has the releases automated too, so the admins/devs have to run and try to catch up to a problem that's already out the door. No shade on the devs, but something's happening too fast between the product output and implementation schedule and I think that's the part that needs to be reevaluated. [/quote] absolutely correct. there's no reason the gene should have even made it to release with such an egregious error. it's one thing to have a minor color whoopsie that slips past quality control; it's another to release a gene looking absolutely nothing like it was intended to look. there needs to be some extra care taken in the process of releasing genes if they're coming out completely wrong like this. not that it looked bad (it looked better, actually) but it clearly didn't look anything like it was intended to look, and i don't understand how it got released that way. i think the devs handled the mistake pretty well, but preventing mistakes in the future should take precedence. like you said later, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. this shouldn't have happened to begin with.

No support

[quote name="SCB" date="2022-01-02 16:00:33" ] I think releasing a gene in the scry shop for x amount of time before actually releasing the gene is a really good way for the userbase to find errors. It takes us no time at all to break stuff haha [/quote] I think this would be a great idea, both for preventing further gene errors and for creating hype. How I'm picturing it is that the gene announcement thread is made as standard, but it announces a "Beta" version of the gene that's only available in the Scrying Workshop. After X amount of time, the gene is fully released. This might still have the issue of users getting attached to bugged versions of genes, but at least this way no one will have spent currency/money on the gene.

No support
the art errors should be fixed, because they are bugs, not features

[quote name="Amut" date="2022-01-02 13:10:33" ] My main observation from the Flair situation is, there seemed to be no quality control. This wasn't a gene like Ghost, that had been teased forever. No one was waiting on Flair/Flaunt. We didn't know the gene was coming, we had no expectations for it. I think therefore, how could we be applying pressure to create crunch for something we didn't even know what coming? With that in mind, the staff made the gene, ran it through the coloring engine and... what? The second it ticked to 100% they made it live? Does their color bot have that much control that it auto-announces as soon as it's done on a job? This isn't the first time a gene has been released with a big coloring error that someone, I don't know, maybe the person who pushed start on the coloring bot should have noticed the second it was made. Bane Alloy was another one, it was missing an actual layer of art, but it got released and sat around for quite a while before being "fixed", like the staff didn't immediately see that their bot had made a boo-boo. But... who made the gene live in the first place, without looking it over? Is it annoying to have to look over 177 colors over all these breeds in each gene? Oh heck yeah, it is. But that is the job. If we have people in our forums, who -for absolutely free- will sit down and coordinate which glass tint on capsule goes best with the accent color of each gene, create a spreadsheet and manually create a directory post for everyone. I'd like to think someone who's paying job it is to check to see if a gene comes out colored right from their engine could at least have big monitor to see the colors as they populate out to pause and catch any errors. And if there's a problem, fix it before shipping it out? We don't know something got delayed a day or week when it comes out. The gene coloring errors in particular are weird and almost like there's a agi or something that has the releases automated too, so the admins/devs have to run and try to catch up to a problem that's already out the door. No shade on the devs, but something's happening too fast between the product output and implementation schedule and I think that's the part that needs to be reevaluated. [/quote] I agree with this. There needs to be better checking on these genes before they come out. I'd rather have less errors on a gene that takes longer to release. There really shouldn't be this many issues after 8 years of doing this.