Support, albeit for a different reason. My main issue with the change is that this change makes it a lot harder to differentiate between the layers of the wing + tail feathers. Even if we don't go back to the old version I at least think it would be better if the designs of the top and bottom feather layers were more obviously different.
Personally I'd prefer if the Coatl and Sky dancer versions also got changed to be easier to tell layers apart but that's more something I'd like than something I actually expect staff to do right now
Support, albeit for a different reason. My main issue with the change is that this change makes it a lot harder to differentiate between the layers of the wing + tail feathers. Even if we don't go back to the old version I at least think it would be better if the designs of the top and bottom feather layers were more obviously different.
Personally I'd prefer if the Coatl and Sky dancer versions also got changed to be easier to tell layers apart but that's more something I'd like than something I actually expect staff to do right now
I haven't thrown my hat in this ring since the Obelisk issue in 2021 (go figure lol) but I support reverting whole-heartedly.
One, there was no public announcement of this, yes there was a bug thread but unless you stalk the bug threads you'd have never seen it.
Two, with certain xxy colors on female auraboa's it's basically impossible to tell where the secondary gene ends and the primary begins when using fern/paisely
EX: [img]https://www1.flightrising.com/rendern/350/916162/91616103_350.png[/img]
When I was looking at the new change on my phone, for instance, I had to strain my eyes to even see the second pair of wings
Edit: Yes this could be 'fixed' by using something like underbelly or glimmer but then you'd be FORCED to use underbelly/glimmer to avoid this, restricting what someone can or cannot do with their own dragon
I haven't thrown my hat in this ring since the Obelisk issue in 2021 (go figure lol) but I support reverting whole-heartedly.
One, there was no public announcement of this, yes there was a bug thread but unless you stalk the bug threads you'd have never seen it.
Two, with certain xxy colors on female auraboa's it's basically impossible to tell where the secondary gene ends and the primary begins when using fern/paisely
EX:
When I was looking at the new change on my phone, for instance, I had to strain my eyes to even see the second pair of wings
Edit: Yes this could be 'fixed' by using something like underbelly or glimmer but then you'd be FORCED to use underbelly/glimmer to avoid this, restricting what someone can or cannot do with their own dragon
Support for reverting the changes. Fixing the highlight issue should have been the only change to the gene.
Support for reverting the changes. Fixing the highlight issue should have been the only change to the gene.
[quote name="StarDay" date="2024-02-20 06:46:46" ]
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.
[/quote]
I'm not personally affected by this change, but this is the part that gets me about this situation. Looking at those Coatl and SD scries and comparing them with the original Paisley version on the first page, the difference Auraboas had was just incredibly obvious. There's no way you could have missed that it looked like that. How did this even go through with release? :(
Looking at the Roundsey dragon scries I kinda am more attached to the new version, but with the difference being so staggering and no real warning happening outside of checking a bug thread (which most people won't consider to do, I feel, since this isn't something that screamed "bug") it really should be reverted.
But also, SD would need a fix for being So Thick. Honestly all three of them look like they have three different thicknesses. So I don't really know what's going on there.
StarDay wrote on 2024-02-20 06:46:46:
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.
I'm not personally affected by this change, but this is the part that gets me about this situation. Looking at those Coatl and SD scries and comparing them with the original Paisley version on the first page, the difference Auraboas had was just incredibly obvious. There's no way you could have missed that it looked like that. How did this even go through with release? :(
Looking at the Roundsey dragon scries I kinda am more attached to the new version, but with the difference being so staggering and no real warning happening outside of checking a bug thread (which most people won't consider to do, I feel, since this isn't something that screamed "bug") it really should be reverted.
But also, SD would need a fix for being So Thick. Honestly all three of them look like they have three different thicknesses. So I don't really know what's going on there.
Support. First of all I don't know how it happens that a certain breeds' genes' "consistency" is something that gets decided after it's already been released. Unless it's not an error, once a gene is out, the way it is is how it should stay. Not release it, say "oh actually we want to change it", leave it for ages, then spring it on people who have no idea this change is even being planned because it was only discussed in an error thread.
Which is my second point, I only ever hear about these things after they happen because the only way to know if a gene is "inconsistent" and will be changed in future is to track the gene error thread. Which I don't, a lot of people don't, and we shouldn't have to. IF it really must be that these things are pushed retroactively, then there should be some kind of announcement about it, and the dragon with the gene certainly should not be put in a Roundsey lineup.
I get sad seeing people upset that their dragons were changed seemingly out of nowhere. The way this was handled was not right at all and I support a reversion purely on principle.
Support. First of all I don't know how it happens that a certain breeds' genes' "consistency" is something that gets decided after it's already been released. Unless it's not an error, once a gene is out, the way it is is how it should stay. Not release it, say "oh actually we want to change it", leave it for ages, then spring it on people who have no idea this change is even being planned because it was only discussed in an error thread.
Which is my second point, I only ever hear about these things after they happen because the only way to know if a gene is "inconsistent" and will be changed in future is to track the gene error thread. Which I don't, a lot of people don't, and we shouldn't have to. IF it really must be that these things are pushed retroactively, then there should be some kind of announcement about it, and the dragon with the gene certainly should not be put in a Roundsey lineup.
I get sad seeing people upset that their dragons were changed seemingly out of nowhere. The way this was handled was not right at all and I support a reversion purely on principle.
For me the real kicker is that so many other secondaries on auras have a different "mane" pattern on the 'coverts'. The original was in line with that. The 'coverts' were colored as a "mane". Which it's literally labeled as in the image file. And which is exactly how almost every other breed is colored: there are two parts to Paisley, which are the swirly lines and the shimmery "mane" pattern.
I'm so baffled...............
Like, what, are they gonna change Breakup now? And Hypnotic? I'm not trying to sound like "I will beat you with FACTS and LOGIC" but it genuinely feels like there was just no consideration for the implications of this change. The 'consistency' is inconsistent both with other breeds and within the Auraboa breed itself.
And if you're going to change it, at least take into account the three dimensionality of the wing T-T The new version looks so rushed.
And I also want to say in art you should have places for the eye to rest. Places with less detail. Having those resting places make the whole image more appealing to look at. And on such a visually busy breed like Auraboas, those resting places are sorely missed on a lot of genes imo.
If they're bothered by so much blank space, keep the old shimmery look but add some subtle, simplified patterning to the 'coverts', like how Veilspun get extra Runes on their wings. There's precedent for adding tiny things to existing genes for the betterment of the design. I can understand if they thought so much blank space was a little distracting. But this was not the way to fix it.
@DeathbyPixelz
They had already confirmed in the past that Rattlesnake/Diamondback, a gene that DOES have a different top wing to bottom wing, to be correct. So to me it's even more weird. It's not even consistent with confirmed "safe" secondary genes on Auraboas.
[quote=Undel]
Secondary: Rattlesnake not having patterning in the upper portion of the wings is intended.[/quote]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=2&eyetype=7&gender=0&tert=13&tertgene=0&winggene=256&wings=51&auth=9b18c907ec06be25f14645c39d88db99316cde20&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=23&element=2&eyetype=7&gender=0&tert=13&tertgene=0&winggene=206&wings=51&auth=ee091bd4813bac2daf0dbc766539d34709f82762&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
No sign of Auraboa's top wing pattern on Sandsurges anywhere except potentially the horns. Are the horns considered manes on Sandsurges? Idk oml, and I'm too lazy to look at the skin images for it rn- admittedly this may not be a smoking gun at all, but I figured I'd bring this back up.
@
DeathbyPixelz
They had already confirmed in the past that Rattlesnake/Diamondback, a gene that DOES have a different top wing to bottom wing, to be correct. So to me it's even more weird. It's not even consistent with confirmed "safe" secondary genes on Auraboas.
Undel wrote:
Secondary: Rattlesnake not having patterning in the upper portion of the wings is intended.
No sign of Auraboa's top wing pattern on Sandsurges anywhere except potentially the horns. Are the horns considered manes on Sandsurges? Idk oml, and I'm too lazy to look at the skin images for it rn- admittedly this may not be a smoking gun at all, but I figured I'd bring this back up.
[quote name="Churrell" date="2024-02-19 06:58:47" ]
If the change was indeed made for the sake of consistency… well, I’m tired of changes being made for consistency :< The reason we HAVE all these different dragon breeds is so that they can sport different looks, and the old version was still recognizably the gene it was supposed to be, just with a spin that this breed’s body plan allowed for. Which, to me, is kind of the point of having dragons with different body plans
The fact that genes keep changing in ways I don’t expect is one reason I refrain from committing to gening projects
I’ll re-mention the idea that keeps going around of gene variations that let dragons have old/altered versions of genes
[/quote]
Just want to add, the main thing for me here isn’t whether genes are consistent across breeds or not, like I’m not UPSET if a gene gets added that looks the same on multiple breeds, and it’s also not so important to me whether a gene update “objectively” looks better, though in this case I do think the old version is more exciting and usable. The thing I care about the most is that people fell in love with the original gene and made plans and spent money on it, only to have the rug ripped out from under them. I am very strongly against changes to existing dragon art on the site, because it easily ruins something players already had and loved, on a site where CUSTOMIZATION is the main play feature.
If a gene is truly broken, in a way that’s obvious upon viewing like clipping errors, then I can generally agree with fixing it, but if it’s a STYLISTIC and not TECHNICAL issue, then it just hurts to see it changed.
In my opinion, it shouldn’t be considered an error if it doesn’t look wrong to an observer with little to no familiarity with Flight Rising
Churrell wrote on 2024-02-19 06:58:47:
If the change was indeed made for the sake of consistency… well, I’m tired of changes being made for consistency :< The reason we HAVE all these different dragon breeds is so that they can sport different looks, and the old version was still recognizably the gene it was supposed to be, just with a spin that this breed’s body plan allowed for. Which, to me, is kind of the point of having dragons with different body plans
The fact that genes keep changing in ways I don’t expect is one reason I refrain from committing to gening projects
I’ll re-mention the idea that keeps going around of gene variations that let dragons have old/altered versions of genes
Just want to add, the main thing for me here isn’t whether genes are consistent across breeds or not, like I’m not UPSET if a gene gets added that looks the same on multiple breeds, and it’s also not so important to me whether a gene update “objectively” looks better, though in this case I do think the old version is more exciting and usable. The thing I care about the most is that people fell in love with the original gene and made plans and spent money on it, only to have the rug ripped out from under them. I am very strongly against changes to existing dragon art on the site, because it easily ruins something players already had and loved, on a site where CUSTOMIZATION is the main play feature.
If a gene is truly broken, in a way that’s obvious upon viewing like clipping errors, then I can generally agree with fixing it, but if it’s a STYLISTIC and not TECHNICAL issue, then it just hurts to see it changed.
In my opinion, it shouldn’t be considered an error if it doesn’t look wrong to an observer with little to no familiarity with Flight Rising
