In the jungle maps, the dead tree alter shows up sometimes as a building. It offered a color change, which I accepted, and it did not change the color, but the pattern of the beast. Colors and patterns are different, so I assume this is a bug.

Only Symurghs (and originally Throdomas) get their patterns changed, presumably due to them being alien species, and it's not a bug. I think it's just the way it's coded. Could put it in suggestions, though, or ask the makers to at least make a note of it. I personally enjoy the pattern change on Symurgh.

This happened with a Gryphon, which would mean that it is a bug.

Oh! Sorry, I didn't see any specification.

I didn't specify due to not knowing that Symurgh and Throdama could have their pattern altered.

The gryphon in question was a  deviant pattern, which makes this bug even more irritating.

Pet's color is defined by two traits / four genes: skin color and skin pattern. The Forest Alchemist's potion changes any of these 4 genes with equal chance.

Throdama morphs is the only exclusion here. Though they technically have skin pattern, it's not expressed in any way. So when players asked about this, we decided it would be fair to limit their Forest Alchemist mutations to skin color only.

Angel, this is in dire need of being stated when asked if the player wants a color mutation. It states color only, and the genes clearly state the difference between color and pattern. Not only the genes, but the very definitions themselves are different. Even in different languages, two different things remain different. These two traits are not the same.

This is a problem.

I used the alter a few times before this, and it only affected the color before. That is the only reason I used it with my pattern deviant. To get a different color. I cannot stress enough just how wrong it is to code something to do one thing, then state that it does another.

If this is not a bug, there needs to be a recoding or a rewording. I am not happy with being cheated out of a deviant.

We have two entities related to color.

• Skin color, which is a gene and the trait defined by this gene. You can see it in the Genetics tab.
• Color, which is a pet's attribute. It's a complex trait defined by both skin color and skin pattern. This is what you see in the "Color" line in the pet's profile.

The Forest Alchemist's offer supposes color (not skin color) mutation and looks like this:

"Do you want to try a potion and get a random color mutation for this price?"

Could you please suggest a rewording for it?

Even in your example, there is a flaw. A red tiger is still a tiger that is red. Using your own example, look at all of the other colors for the tiger. Each and every one of them is a tiger. Tiger is a pattern, not a color. Using the actual species of animal for this exact example, changing the color of the tiger would keep the stripes black while the remaining fur would be a different color.

No matter what you do, a shape will forever remain a shape. It will never become a color. The same goes for patterns.

I went ahead and copied the definitions of "pattern" from the dictionary:

A rewording would be incredibly simple:

"Do you want to try a potion and get a random color/pattern mutation for this price?"

All it takes is adding that patterns can also be affected. Use the dash, use "or", or any other way to show that the pattern is also likely to be affected. Literally anything works as long as color is not the only word used.

It's already a long, long process to get a deviant. The wording of that building is significant to people like myself who can be severaly cheated by the game. I can't be the first and only one this has happened to, though I seem to be the only one mad enough to speak out about it. Maybe the other people who have been cheated left the game after all of their effort was thrown into the void.

Sunset (#1897) wrote:

Even in your example, there is a flaw. A red tiger is still a tiger that is red. Using your own example, look at all of the other colors for the tiger. Each and every one of them is a tiger. Tiger is a pattern, not a color. Using the actual species of animal for this exact example, changing the color of the tiger would keep the stripes black while the remaining fur would be a different color.

Tiger is indeed a skin pattern, but we're not referring to skin pattern or skin color here. The visual part may have no relation to the gene names at all. We have no rules for it to work like this. Striped gene in Pumas follows this convention, but many others don't. In my example, the color is Red Tiger. The first word isn't the skin color gene, and the second one isn't the skin pattern gene. It describes the color as a whole, just like Montagu's Harrier Roc doesn't have "montagu's" skin color and "harrier" skin pattern.

I went ahead and copied the definitions of "pattern" from the dictionary:

Dictionaries don't contain the meanings of words in every context in the world. For example, our "deviance" would be just as far from the dictionary meaning as "life" in Super Mario, "camping" in Counter-Strike, or "class" in DnD. Meaning of words is defined by their context. In the framework of this game, skin pattern is a pet's parameter defined by the dominant skin pattern gene, skin color is a pet's parameter defined by the dominant skin color gene, and color is a pet's parameter defined by both skin pattern and skin color.

"Do you want to try a potion and get a random color/pattern mutation for this price?"

Color mutation and pattern mutation aren't the concepts from the same level. Mutating the pattern automatically means mutating the color. But I get the idea and see why the confusion happened. Thank you for taking your time to explain! We'd updated it to this:

"Do you want to try a potion and get a random skin color or pattern gene mutation for this price?"

Yes, there are different definitions for words. However, no matter where in the world you are, or even which world you're in, colors and patterns are vastly different things.

Colors are decided by the brain and eye structure, allowing us to see the hues of the world. Humans see the array of colors as we do, other animals see infrared and even ultraviolet hues of the color spectrum.

Patterns, on the other hand, are things that are created by the arrangement of objects. If you arrange objects in such a way that they can repeat, you get what is called a pattern. If you want to delve into the other definitions of pattern, you would see that repeating behaviors are called behavioral patterns. If colors are arranged in a repeating maner, you get what is called a color pattern. Arrangement is the key point to patterns. Patterns can exist with no color whatsoever, just as color can exist without any pattern at all.

I am unsure how else to explain to you so that you can understand. I have expended all possible ways of explaining how the two things are entirely different and seperate from one another.