@StrawberryAlex What site link did you use on the Way Back Machine if you don't mind me asking? Just curious and always looking to improve my web sleuthing skills, not looking to argue. [emoji=wildclaw happy size=1] Like, I used the [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/bug/3289327]Auraboa Gene Error Thread[/url] and it only had November 2023 results.
To add,I did find this post in the suggestions forum from last week that mentions the issue, to add credibility to the original wording of the Paisley section:
[quote=Feb 14th, 2024]The official Auraboa Gene Error Thread still has Paisley listed under "Known Issues" with the description [b]"Secondary: Paisley on all Auraboa has highlight intensity issues and a lack of patterning on the top portion of the wings."[/b][/quote]
[size=2]Not linking the poster as I don't know if that'd be a call-out.
@
StrawberryAlex What site link did you use on the Way Back Machine if you don't mind me asking? Just curious and always looking to improve my web sleuthing skills, not looking to argue.
Like, I used the
Auraboa Gene Error Thread and it only had November 2023 results.
To add,I did find this post in the suggestions forum from last week that mentions the issue, to add credibility to the original wording of the Paisley section:
Feb 14th, 2024 wrote:
The official Auraboa Gene Error Thread still has Paisley listed under "Known Issues" with the description "Secondary: Paisley on all Auraboa has highlight intensity issues and a lack of patterning on the top portion of the wings."
Not linking the poster as I don't know if that'd be a call-out.
♥loveyourself♥
|
|
............
|
|
♥lovenature♥
|
Oh I don't like that change at all
Glad I hadn't put paisley on any auraboas yet :(
Oh I don't like that change at all
Glad I hadn't put paisley on any auraboas yet :(
[center]@/StrawberryAlex
[size=2]Didn't want to actually ping you[/size]
I don't think I'd have such a big problem with it that I do, if [i]it was consistent throughout all aura genes.[/i] Because it's not.
Breakup shows on the top feathers/crest like it does in dragons with manes.
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=4&eyetype=9&gender=0&tert=81&tertgene=0&winggene=252&wings=10&auth=7ed33a23f4f7438baf6f1e59b6fb3423e55db1d5&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=15&element=4&eyetype=9&gender=0&tert=81&tertgene=0&winggene=58&wings=10&auth=f1bb12ce98a53f842e71b13f94ce5ab1cab331d0&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=4&element=4&eyetype=9&gender=0&tert=81&tertgene=0&winggene=58&wings=10&auth=dd9db51caa9b7f5a52549b5879aa5c29b41ffed9&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
So, are those also bugs?
Diamondback also exhibits the different sets of feathers.
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=4&eyetype=9&gender=0&tert=81&tertgene=0&winggene=256&wings=10&auth=84642e220a9d5de7d27ede9931f67d12a1471fc9&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
(can't show examples since diamondback is only on surges >> and they have no mane, so no good comparison. But I can imagine if it's ported to any maned breed, the mane would be kinda blank like that)
Is this also a bug?
If one gets "fixed" then all of them need to be fixed. Or revert paisley back to match the "mane" of the auraboa.
@/StrawberryAlex
Didn't want to actually ping you
I don't think I'd have such a big problem with it that I do, if
it was consistent throughout all aura genes. Because it's not.
Breakup shows on the top feathers/crest like it does in dragons with manes.
So, are those also bugs?
Diamondback also exhibits the different sets of feathers.
(can't show examples since diamondback is only on surges >> and they have no mane, so no good comparison. But I can imagine if it's ported to any maned breed, the mane would be kinda blank like that)
Is this also a bug?
If one gets "fixed" then all of them need to be fixed. Or revert paisley back to match the "mane" of the auraboa.
|
oooooooooo
|
 o
|
|
K H U Z D U L
- - - - - - - - - - -
• SHE/HER • +0 •
• ADULT • LIBRA •
|
oo
|
|
• Did you hatch an
Abyss/Copper/X gen1,
but don't want them?
Don't exalt them! Hit me up ;)
|
hope they do a flaunt/flair situation 2 and go back to the older version tbh, it looked a lot cooler
hope they do a flaunt/flair situation 2 and go back to the older version tbh, it looked a lot cooler
Oh wow, I am super disappointed in the change. My girl survived it okay-ish, but looks so much more washed out to me. I'd be pretty upset if I used Fern on any of my auras. I'll probably have to change some plans now.
Oh wow, I am super disappointed in the change. My girl survived it okay-ish, but looks so much more washed out to me. I'd be pretty upset if I used Fern on any of my auras. I'll probably have to change some plans now.
@
Teletraan
This is the link I kept open just in case someone asked about it! I did try and find some mention of it because I remember reading about the pattern also being missing, not only the highlights.
---
I still don't understand why this is causing such an uproar when it looked very bugged in my eyes from the start but again, I think I'm in the minority. I went looking at some of the other issues brought up here and the Suggestions thread and it really didn't make me see how the old version could be anything other than an error.
I get users being upset over this, but unlike Obe Flair, which had minimal warning and wasn't documented all that long before being fixed, this is more than simply a color issue. I think a "revert" would have to be the corrected highlights over the colors of the wing that Basic uses. I still prefer changes like this being put down somewhere before they are fixed so they aren't coming out of nowhere, but this made me realize just how unlikely it is for the playerbase to know about these errors.
Seriously, put links to Gene Error threads in GE shops, the Gene/Specialty areas of the MP, and the Scrying Workshop. That way, if players run into an error long after a thread is made, they can quickly confirm if it's an error or not. If it hasn't then it can be posted to the error thread and someone else may tell them no it's not an error, or it can get noted as an error. That way if it gets buried with an Ancient or gene announcement getting buried, or if a Site Status about gene updates gets buried, there's other places to easily find the thread.
@
Teletraan
This is the link I kept open just in case someone asked about it! I did try and find some mention of it because I remember reading about the pattern also being missing, not only the highlights.
---
I still don't understand why this is causing such an uproar when it looked very bugged in my eyes from the start but again, I think I'm in the minority. I went looking at some of the other issues brought up here and the Suggestions thread and it really didn't make me see how the old version could be anything other than an error.
I get users being upset over this, but unlike Obe Flair, which had minimal warning and wasn't documented all that long before being fixed, this is more than simply a color issue. I think a "revert" would have to be the corrected highlights over the colors of the wing that Basic uses. I still prefer changes like this being put down somewhere before they are fixed so they aren't coming out of nowhere, but this made me realize just how unlikely it is for the playerbase to know about these errors.
Seriously, put links to Gene Error threads in GE shops, the Gene/Specialty areas of the MP, and the Scrying Workshop. That way, if players run into an error long after a thread is made, they can quickly confirm if it's an error or not. If it hasn't then it can be posted to the error thread and someone else may tell them no it's not an error, or it can get noted as an error. That way if it gets buried with an Ancient or gene announcement getting buried, or if a Site Status about gene updates gets buried, there's other places to easily find the thread.
[quote name="Khuzdul" date="2024-02-19 20:13:40" ]
I don't think I'd have such a big problem with it that I do, if it was consistent throughout all aura genes. Because it's not.
[/quote]
This is pretty much my issue as well. Multiple boa genes treat the top set of feathers as separate from the bottom set; breakup and diamondback as above, but also blend, riopa, affection, larvae... this is also probably why it didn't register as an error for most people.
Khuzdul wrote on 2024-02-19 20:13:40:
I don't think I'd have such a big problem with it that I do, if it was consistent throughout all aura genes. Because it's not.
This is pretty much my issue as well. Multiple boa genes treat the top set of feathers as separate from the bottom set; breakup and diamondback as above, but also blend, riopa, affection, larvae... this is also probably why it didn't register as an error for most people.
[quote name="AbyssalCosmo" date="2024-02-19 20:35:32" ]
[quote name="Khuzdul" date="2024-02-19 20:13:40" ]
I don't think I'd have such a big problem with it that I do, if it was consistent throughout all aura genes. Because it's not.
[/quote]
This is pretty much my issue as well. Multiple boa genes treat the top set of feathers as separate from the bottom set; breakup and diamondback as above, but also blend, riopa, affection, larvae... this is also probably why it didn't register as an error for most people.
[/quote]
[center]Thanks for listing other ones :) I'm too lazy to go through every single gene lol
Peregrine is also another, as shown in the [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/sug/3316377/23#post_56220767]suggestion thread.[/url]
AbyssalCosmo wrote on 2024-02-19 20:35:32:
Khuzdul wrote on 2024-02-19 20:13:40:
I don't think I'd have such a big problem with it that I do, if it was consistent throughout all aura genes. Because it's not.
This is pretty much my issue as well. Multiple boa genes treat the top set of feathers as separate from the bottom set; breakup and diamondback as above, but also blend, riopa, affection, larvae... this is also probably why it didn't register as an error for most people.
Thanks for listing other ones :) I'm too lazy to go through every single gene lol
Peregrine is also another, as shown in the
suggestion thread.
|
oooooooooo
|
o
|
|
K H U Z D U L
- - - - - - - - - - -
• SHE/HER • +0 •
• ADULT • LIBRA •
|
oo
|
|
• Did you hatch an
Abyss/Copper/X gen1,
but don't want them?
Don't exalt them! Hit me up ;)
|
[center]Oh no! That was part of what I really liked about it on Auras... Now I need to go through my gen1 plans to see if I even like them anymore.
[emoji=mirror scared size=2][/center]
Oh no! That was part of what I really liked about it on Auras... Now I need to go through my gen1 plans to see if I even like them anymore.
@
Khuzdul
Decided to look at
every (parallel) Secondary Auraboas have access to, and the only ones with this as a major issue appear to be Diamondback, Hypnotic, Peregrine, and maybe Weaver (only Abbies have Weaver but the mane areas look to match in my eyes). If I saw it in more genes, I may consider it something to look into for consistency reasons, but I'd almost report those as errors than cite it as a sign of inconsistency across the breed versus others.
4 total genes where there isn't this patterning on the upper wing compared to
16 other genes feels like more errors than intentional. (I removed Paisley and Basic but Paisely would count as it is now towards the 21 to make 22 if I included it as I see it. I also apologize if math is off it's a bit late where I live.)
As for my brief foray into comparing some of these to Moderns, it looks to be relatively consistent compared to manes otherwise. You know, minus breeds like PCs and M Tuns sometimes getting the short end of the stick when they have a good amount of mane space like Obes, Abbies, and Auraboas. Sometimes M Tuns get what Obes do (usually in newer genes) but a lot of the time they don't. There's also genes involved that are Auraboa exclusive so there's nothing to compare them to in terms of it a decision was intentional or not.
@
Khuzdul
Decided to look at
every (parallel) Secondary Auraboas have access to, and the only ones with this as a major issue appear to be Diamondback, Hypnotic, Peregrine, and maybe Weaver (only Abbies have Weaver but the mane areas look to match in my eyes). If I saw it in more genes, I may consider it something to look into for consistency reasons, but I'd almost report those as errors than cite it as a sign of inconsistency across the breed versus others.
4 total genes where there isn't this patterning on the upper wing compared to
16 other genes feels like more errors than intentional. (I removed Paisley and Basic but Paisely would count as it is now towards the 21 to make 22 if I included it as I see it. I also apologize if math is off it's a bit late where I live.)
As for my brief foray into comparing some of these to Moderns, it looks to be relatively consistent compared to manes otherwise. You know, minus breeds like PCs and M Tuns sometimes getting the short end of the stick when they have a good amount of mane space like Obes, Abbies, and Auraboas. Sometimes M Tuns get what Obes do (usually in newer genes) but a lot of the time they don't. There's also genes involved that are Auraboa exclusive so there's nothing to compare them to in terms of it a decision was intentional or not.
