The artwork still isn't consistent and imo looks so much worse now. Full support
Suggestions
Make Flight Rising better by sharing your ideas!
TOPIC | Revert the fathom secondary change
Go to page
1
Go to page
2
Jump to a specific page
...
Go to page
24
Go to page
25
Currently on page
26
Go to page
27
Go to page
28
Jump to a specific page
...
Go to page
39
Go to page
40
I'd be fine if the change was only to the wrist, but as it stands the way it is done affects the whole look and vibe of the dragons, creating this weird spot in the middle that is just completely out of color balance if the dragon is not XXY with gene pair.
I'd be fine if the change was only to the wrist, but as it stands the way it is done affects the whole look and vibe of the dragons, creating this weird spot in the middle that is just completely out of color balance if the dragon is not XXY with gene pair.
Wow that is an EXTREMELY disrespectful stance to take. If that's what we can expect for releases going forward.. well, no point touching breeds until half a year later, or else they might make the dragons ugly and visually unbalanced for literally no reason
Wow that is an EXTREMELY disrespectful stance to take. If that's what we can expect for releases going forward.. well, no point touching breeds until half a year later, or else they might make the dragons ugly and visually unbalanced for literally no reason
Support, I really want to like Fathoms and the F pose was my favourite but when you change something major like the colouring on the wings it's almost impossible to get used to it (for me). Also, it's still technically not consistent with the Male or Hatchling poses since the male pose's wing colour doesn't cover all the way past the elbow
Unfortunately, stuff like this veers me away from wanting to spend money on gems knowing that a gene (or the entire secondary) could be changed so so late after the release of new breeds. I check those error forums more than once a day and even then, some of the changes still baffled me.
Unfortunately, stuff like this veers me away from wanting to spend money on gems knowing that a gene (or the entire secondary) could be changed so so late after the release of new breeds. I check those error forums more than once a day and even then, some of the changes still baffled me.
Support, I really want to like Fathoms and the F pose was my favourite but when you change something major like the colouring on the wings it's almost impossible to get used to it (for me). Also, it's still technically not consistent with the Male or Hatchling poses since the male pose's wing colour doesn't cover all the way past the elbow
Unfortunately, stuff like this veers me away from wanting to spend money on gems knowing that a gene (or the entire secondary) could be changed so so late after the release of new breeds. I check those error forums more than once a day and even then, some of the changes still baffled me.
Unfortunately, stuff like this veers me away from wanting to spend money on gems knowing that a gene (or the entire secondary) could be changed so so late after the release of new breeds. I check those error forums more than once a day and even then, some of the changes still baffled me.
I think the design being good is way more important than consistency, and inconsistency within the same breed shouldn't be considered a technical error, it can just be variation within a breed
this change makes F pose look way worse, they should at least change it to properly match M pose to break up the colors a bit more instead of coloring the entire wing arm secondary color....
even if people are aware of this as it's happening, still.. why does it have to happen at all.. would be nice for them to address that instead of just trying to make the changes more clear as they happen
this change makes F pose look way worse, they should at least change it to properly match M pose to break up the colors a bit more instead of coloring the entire wing arm secondary color....
even if people are aware of this as it's happening, still.. why does it have to happen at all.. would be nice for them to address that instead of just trying to make the changes more clear as they happen
I think the design being good is way more important than consistency, and inconsistency within the same breed shouldn't be considered a technical error, it can just be variation within a breed
this change makes F pose look way worse, they should at least change it to properly match M pose to break up the colors a bit more instead of coloring the entire wing arm secondary color....
even if people are aware of this as it's happening, still.. why does it have to happen at all.. would be nice for them to address that instead of just trying to make the changes more clear as they happen
this change makes F pose look way worse, they should at least change it to properly match M pose to break up the colors a bit more instead of coloring the entire wing arm secondary color....
even if people are aware of this as it's happening, still.. why does it have to happen at all.. would be nice for them to address that instead of just trying to make the changes more clear as they happen
I'm seriously gonna cry. I'm happy they "heard" us and decided to at least address it, but I can't believe they are basically just like "suck it up". These dragons looked so much prettier before the change, I ADORED THE F POSE SPECIFICALLY. F Fathom's were quickly becoming my favorite to design. I'm absolutely gutted by this decision. This site is all about aesthetics when it comes to the dragons and for them to not even give the user base a chance to feel like they actually care what we think makes me really sad. One thread on this topic got locked because people are so invested in this topic... It would have been nice if they at least maybe made a poll and let users vote on it or something? I don't know, I've already decided I'm gonna sell one of my F Fathom's now because of this, she just doesn't look as pretty to me as when I bought her anymore.
I'm seriously gonna cry. I'm happy they "heard" us and decided to at least address it, but I can't believe they are basically just like "suck it up". These dragons looked so much prettier before the change, I ADORED THE F POSE SPECIFICALLY. F Fathom's were quickly becoming my favorite to design. I'm absolutely gutted by this decision. This site is all about aesthetics when it comes to the dragons and for them to not even give the user base a chance to feel like they actually care what we think makes me really sad. One thread on this topic got locked because people are so invested in this topic... It would have been nice if they at least maybe made a poll and let users vote on it or something? I don't know, I've already decided I'm gonna sell one of my F Fathom's now because of this, she just doesn't look as pretty to me as when I bought her anymore.
This was a very disappointing update. It seemed entirely fixated on the communication around the change rather than the change itself. The miscommunication was certainly a legitimate complaint many people had, including myself, but I always saw the main concern being voiced in these threads as the undesired aesthetic change to the dragons. The lack of communication just exacerbated the issue.
The post did nothing to address the fact that so many people are worried their dragons will stay in a state that looks unpleasant to them, the uncertainty behind whether they will or will not revert the change, or (and this bothers me the most) the fact that the coverage was applied incorrectly and the poses are still inconsistent. The fact they went ahead and fixed Shimmer and the rest of the genes with the original look makes me concerned that they have doubled down on the change - I really hope that is not the case, considering how hugely unpopular it seems to be.
Additionally, the technical error vs consistency error argument seems very forced to me. Same breed inconsistencies are not the same as genuine art mistakes like stray pixels. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, because the poses are still inconsistent and no matter what you call it, it's unfair to make a significant aesthetic change to half the fathoms on site without any input from the userbase.
I really do not like to post negatively, I love this game, but I really can't get behind how this situation has been handled.
The post did nothing to address the fact that so many people are worried their dragons will stay in a state that looks unpleasant to them, the uncertainty behind whether they will or will not revert the change, or (and this bothers me the most) the fact that the coverage was applied incorrectly and the poses are still inconsistent. The fact they went ahead and fixed Shimmer and the rest of the genes with the original look makes me concerned that they have doubled down on the change - I really hope that is not the case, considering how hugely unpopular it seems to be.
Additionally, the technical error vs consistency error argument seems very forced to me. Same breed inconsistencies are not the same as genuine art mistakes like stray pixels. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, because the poses are still inconsistent and no matter what you call it, it's unfair to make a significant aesthetic change to half the fathoms on site without any input from the userbase.
I really do not like to post negatively, I love this game, but I really can't get behind how this situation has been handled.
This was a very disappointing update. It seemed entirely fixated on the communication around the change rather than the change itself. The miscommunication was certainly a legitimate complaint many people had, including myself, but I always saw the main concern being voiced in these threads as the undesired aesthetic change to the dragons. The lack of communication just exacerbated the issue.
The post did nothing to address the fact that so many people are worried their dragons will stay in a state that looks unpleasant to them, the uncertainty behind whether they will or will not revert the change, or (and this bothers me the most) the fact that the coverage was applied incorrectly and the poses are still inconsistent. The fact they went ahead and fixed Shimmer and the rest of the genes with the original look makes me concerned that they have doubled down on the change - I really hope that is not the case, considering how hugely unpopular it seems to be.
Additionally, the technical error vs consistency error argument seems very forced to me. Same breed inconsistencies are not the same as genuine art mistakes like stray pixels. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, because the poses are still inconsistent and no matter what you call it, it's unfair to make a significant aesthetic change to half the fathoms on site without any input from the userbase.
I really do not like to post negatively, I love this game, but I really can't get behind how this situation has been handled.
The post did nothing to address the fact that so many people are worried their dragons will stay in a state that looks unpleasant to them, the uncertainty behind whether they will or will not revert the change, or (and this bothers me the most) the fact that the coverage was applied incorrectly and the poses are still inconsistent. The fact they went ahead and fixed Shimmer and the rest of the genes with the original look makes me concerned that they have doubled down on the change - I really hope that is not the case, considering how hugely unpopular it seems to be.
Additionally, the technical error vs consistency error argument seems very forced to me. Same breed inconsistencies are not the same as genuine art mistakes like stray pixels. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, because the poses are still inconsistent and no matter what you call it, it's unfair to make a significant aesthetic change to half the fathoms on site without any input from the userbase.
I really do not like to post negatively, I love this game, but I really can't get behind how this situation has been handled.
[quote name="squidragon" date="2024-10-11 15:14:31" ]
I've read the update about this issue... but I just really don't think people should have to read the fine print buried in a user's manual (forum thread) at all before they purchase something, especially when it comes to USD-paid genes like bee that we're being encouraged to buy on the release date.
[...]
[/quote]
Yeah, this is basically my opinion of it. I've been on this site since 2016 which is what? eight years ago now? And I *just* discovered the bug report a ~year-ish ago.
To say that things were 'live updated' in the thread also seems to be... inaccurate. I've been looking in on those threads fairly often since I like to see what people report, and like other folks have said before, things go straight from being in the replies to being fixed.
I'll look in one day, see seven pages, nothing in investigating, look back the next day and there's only three pages and suddenly the 'fixed' section has multiplied. Most of the time without anything appearing on the front page.
I think that a large part of the upset about this is that it was in the fine print in the manual, like squid has said above, and it was also a very major change. And again, as others have said before, it didn't fix the "technical consistency error" issue - the fade starts much too far up the arm.
Anyways, if it ain't clear, support for reverting/modified so the fade is only on the wrist.
squidragon wrote on 2024-10-11 15:14:31:
I've read the update about this issue... but I just really don't think people should have to read the fine print buried in a user's manual (forum thread) at all before they purchase something, especially when it comes to USD-paid genes like bee that we're being encouraged to buy on the release date.
[...]
[...]
Yeah, this is basically my opinion of it. I've been on this site since 2016 which is what? eight years ago now? And I *just* discovered the bug report a ~year-ish ago.
To say that things were 'live updated' in the thread also seems to be... inaccurate. I've been looking in on those threads fairly often since I like to see what people report, and like other folks have said before, things go straight from being in the replies to being fixed.
I'll look in one day, see seven pages, nothing in investigating, look back the next day and there's only three pages and suddenly the 'fixed' section has multiplied. Most of the time without anything appearing on the front page.
I think that a large part of the upset about this is that it was in the fine print in the manual, like squid has said above, and it was also a very major change. And again, as others have said before, it didn't fix the "technical consistency error" issue - the fade starts much too far up the arm.
Anyways, if it ain't clear, support for reverting/modified so the fade is only on the wrist.
in light of staff's response, I repeat:
[quote name="applechime" date="2024-10-04 18:16:54" ]
hey staff this sucks and no one likes it, please put it back. what's the point in making an aesthetic change that no one is happy with? at the end of the day, it really is just aesthetics. this is the pretty dragons website. how it looks is genuinely the most important thing, and it looked better before.
[/quote]
in light of staff's response, I repeat:
applechime wrote on 2024-10-04 18:16:54:
hey staff this sucks and no one likes it, please put it back. what's the point in making an aesthetic change that no one is happy with? at the end of the day, it really is just aesthetics. this is the pretty dragons website. how it looks is genuinely the most important thing, and it looked better before.
think about it
The update focuses on the communication, but I think myself and a lot of others are more concerned that it doesn't aesthetically match the other breed poses.
I think it would make more sense to have the primary gradient into the wing more than it does currently, as male fathoms have the outer wing arm coloured with their primary up the wing arm anyway!
I personally prefer that look too and designed my female fathom around it. Full support for reverting it :-)
I think it would make more sense to have the primary gradient into the wing more than it does currently, as male fathoms have the outer wing arm coloured with their primary up the wing arm anyway!
I personally prefer that look too and designed my female fathom around it. Full support for reverting it :-)
The update focuses on the communication, but I think myself and a lot of others are more concerned that it doesn't aesthetically match the other breed poses.
I think it would make more sense to have the primary gradient into the wing more than it does currently, as male fathoms have the outer wing arm coloured with their primary up the wing arm anyway!
I personally prefer that look too and designed my female fathom around it. Full support for reverting it :-)
I think it would make more sense to have the primary gradient into the wing more than it does currently, as male fathoms have the outer wing arm coloured with their primary up the wing arm anyway!
I personally prefer that look too and designed my female fathom around it. Full support for reverting it :-)
Go to page
1
Go to page
2
Jump to a specific page
...
Go to page
24
Go to page
25
Currently on page
26
Go to page
27
Go to page
28
Jump to a specific page
...
Go to page
39
Go to page
40