darkhearted_raven

You mean another time jump backwards chronologically?

In principle I'd love to flesh out some of our past storylines. There are tales we could tell within those gaps that we would love to tell. However, this would be really confusing for much more of the playerbase (the 6th age is already such a headache and most people perceive quests as happening chronologically with release dates, for good reason).

Also realistically it's just unlikely. We have the current storylines to finish off and focus on (you'll note most of our updates are narratively tied together at the moment) and I imagine a quest of the scale that would be expected from that gap would be a large quest needing more resources than we can spare.

At this point the dragonkin storylines are not over or forgotten, but they may not play out exactly as expected (there's a lot of headcanon interpretation in OPs post for example) and we need to work out when would be the right time to focus on them. S...

^This.

Yeah sorry to burst any bubble, but my response purely meant from an update point of view. As always I reveal NO information about the story plans other than super vague statements that are ultimately useless... you know, like I always do.

It looks like there's an issue with big boned, if you re-roll to one of the other traits it should work. I'm looking into why big boned isn't working at the moment, but you'll have to bear with me as this isn't code I've worked on myself before and the person who made it isn't here, so I'm unraveling it blind (it's well commented and readable code to be fair, unfortunately I've just not been able to sit down and properly digest it yet).

Yes, that's why the farming requests with them being on is a bug which we are hotfixing a solution to. ;)

This is intentional. Araxyte spiders should never have been able to breed araxytes that aren't shiny. This was a bug that has been fixed.

If I can work out the problem (it's a bit trickier for me as I haven't touched this particular bit of code before and it's creator is on holiday) then hopefully we can hotfix it today.

I mean I haven't hot fixed it in yet, so you can still hand it in.

Hey guys, we're aware of this issue and are investigating possible hotfix solutions. It's a weird issue that's actually the result of the previous araxyte bug.

Currently my plan is to make it so that it will not look for Araxyte spiders and will instead pull one of the other spiders. I was going to make it take any shiny spider, but that looks like it'll cause more code problems than it fixes so a different spider seems like the right solution.

Eeeeeeh ish, not really, but sort of. They're not totally independent, so it depends which whim of the system your animals are breeding on.

Yes it does. :)

You're a monster! I like you.

Archaeology is probably what I'm most excited for. Tons of lore, skill to train and puzzles to solve? Yes please. I've been really enjoying what I've seen in the office so I'm exciting to see it go live.

After that I'm excited for the new quests coming (shocker, me being excited for quests) and I've got high hopes for EGWD.

There's actually quite a lot of stuff planned for next year that I'm looking forward to, but obviously I can't spoiler things.

I've given the code a quick look over and I'm not seeing anything that should be making salamanders behave differently. There is a luck element involved though, so I suspect that's the case here. I'll keep an eye on it, but there's nothing that makes them behave differently to other animals.

Yes. The animals on the ranch out of time have quite long breeding durations.

I honestly don't think nerfing the existing beans rates would have gone down too well.

It's largely a moot point anyway, new values incoming shortly.

So we'd gone for relatively low bean amounts on launch as these sit alongside the existing bean amounts you get. I.e you get the dragon AND the dinosaur, whereas before you would have just gotten the dragon OR the dinosaur. But we were keeping an eye on it to get a sense of how it feels.

As it stands we think the small bean amount was the wrong approach, so I'm now working on a hotfix to get more appealing numbers into the game which will make them more satisfying to sell on.

My stance hasn't changed. The discussion is still ongoing, the removal was necessary as a safety feature as it literally could have led to anything going wrong with those inventories which is a much bigger risk. Something like this needs careful consideration because it's implications go beyond this simple interaction.

Yeah I think it's just pure coincidence in a comical fashion, I'm not too concerned. The important things (traits) are all different anyway, so even if it were true it's a trivial issue that's already solved itself (unless we're only seeing Peter's in which case let me know).

I had no immediate plans to, I'm not generally a fan of giving out the hard probabilities as it doesn't really do anything except for when a person goes "but I have done X that should guarantee me a drop!" which of course is not actually how probability works.

Give it a couple of weeks and then poke me on twitter and I might change my mind.

The pre-release animals don't work like that, so I'd be very surprised. None of the data is on an unchecked animal until you check it. It's at that moment that it becomes a named and special thing. It runs the same code as all the other animals, so it's likely just an artifact of random chance. There might be slightly more chance of it being called Peter as well, which might be why.