Suggestions

Support. Changing for "consistency" is a weird reason to me. The old version is more consistent with manes on other breeds AND with fern on Auraboas. [img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=135&bodygene=244&breed=24&element=2&eyetype=1&gender=0&tert=115&tertgene=0&winggene=244&wings=135&auth=8e2f8ae09068380e98733b8a328d7b7a7c85fc03&dummyext=prev.png[/img] With the old paisley, the top part of the wing would match the underbelly of fern. With the current version, it feels unbalanced.

Full support, this has majorly altered countless dragons who are already gened due to the major delay it took in installing this update, and people are unanimously displeased with the change regardless. The upper half of the feathers are designated as a mane, which this change fully disregards. I think the previous stylistic choice did nothing but enhance the design, which has been stripped from it now.

Glad to see this has gotten a lot of attention, especially honestly considering the skin template counts that area as mane????? This was clearly an intentional choice that was reverted for reasons I truly do not understand - half of the point of ancients is that they don't really have to be consistent, but this WAS consistent because that's clearly counted as mane so like!!!!
It's so sad seeing HOW drastically a lot of people's dragons have been changed now, 3 months after the gene released. Hope they at least offer a vote here like Obes.

[quote name="Zenzic" date="2024-02-19 13:33:59" ] I just took a look through Morphology. Comparing how specific "mane" designated areas on each breed interact with genes compared to Paisley. Paisley consistently matches designated mane areas across the following breeds: Aberration, Fae, Imperial, Nocturne, Obelisk, Pearlcatcher, Skydancer, Tundra, Veilspun, Wildclaw. The Auraboa's original Paisley was previously consistent with the above, but the "fixed" version is now consistent with the following breeds: Coatl ... Oops? Seems Coatl Paisley was incorrect, and Aura's fixed version was based on it. [/quote] Gods above, this makes the change even more confusing. What’s the big emphasis on consistancy if you can: - Clearly see that it’s Paisley/Fern - Other breeds have the same break in the patterning It would atleast have helped if they went ahead in asking the userbase how they felt before moving forward with this headache of a change :/

Full support. I only have one Auraboa with Fern, but the change has pretty much downgraded if not ruined them for me. This was left alone for so long that it came across as a deliberate choice, not a bug, and this sudden change will make future breed releases less exciting - after all, why get excited over how a gene looks on a new breed when it can be changed for the worse months later with no warning?

I support this as the Gene Variation suggestion. I can imagine some players do like the new version. And some players make like the old version on Dragon A but the new version on Dragon B. Either way, this IS a huge change, and I feel this really merits the Gene Variation suggestion becoming reality. (Plz? For us reverse clown fans. And Filigree without the gems. And Contour without the leg lines. Etc etc.)

as someone who is unaffected by this: support

I made it through 7 pages of this thread (which is at 19 pages at the time of writing) and reversion has been unanimously supported. which, I don't think I've ever seen? iirc flaunt/flair on obs was fairly split between people liking the "fix" and people prefering the older version.

this probably should go in its own thread, but I'm starting to feel a little... frustrated? with how many gene errors ancients have on release. I know staff are only human, and I don't expect things to be perfect, but maybe we could slow down on the release of ancients to make sure that genes are working as intended? as many people have already said, it's a little unfair to expect players to glue themselves to error report threads just to make sure things aren't bugged. it's gotten to the point where I won't even scry new releases right away, because I know something I like is going to be a bug that needs fixing.

I also agree with the people who are saying that genes don't need to be an exact 1:1 across breeds. of course they need to still read as the same genes, but for flaunt/flair, and in this case too, I don't see why they needed to be changed. I think stylistic choices across breeds are neat, and shouldn't be discouraged.

Support for many reasons already outlined pages ago; I've always been a staunch supporter of bugfixes and adjustments within a reasonable timeframe (ie. within the month following the release window) and for things that are actually legitimately bugged-- this falls in neither category and really just raises questions about the lack of quality control and communication between staff for new breed/gene releases, roundsey prizes using "bugged" genes, etc.......

^{It's also incredibly frustrating from a player standpoint to have to rescry your dragons upwards of 3-4 times every time a gene gets "fixed" (then "refixed"... and then "refixed" again...), for example with Auraboa Topcoat-- I've personally had to rescry the same dragon 4 separate times for every subsequent fix that went in and it got old really quickly, to the point that I'm not going to bother with Auraboa at all anymore because they're just so maddeningly buggy :>}

Usually I don't support reverting bug fixes, but this was more than just a bug fix, this is making major stylistic changes to a gene months after it's release. It's not like when people throw hissy fits over a an opacity layer being corrected a week after launch, there's genuine reason for upset here. I cannot comprehend why this is being handled this way, as others have already said this makes the genes less consistent with other breeds than they were before