When Lorwolf just started out there were only very few genes, and back then it sort made sense and also made for a fun gimmick to have each gene trio (under, top and accent) have the same name, and work perfectly together. However, as we are getting more genes, (currently 7, not counting plain)

However, the only part in which most gene trios differ from each other (and sort of live up to their name) is specifically with the accent variant. Accent Tiger is very distinctive from accent Leopard or Accent Merle.

For both top and under, not so much. Some genes are very distinctive, such as top tiger and leopard, or under merle. But in general they look so much alike, that I am not able to tell them apart. And I foresee a couple of issues:

1. Bloat: Because the accents is where you can vary the most and can have a lot of fun, if you force yourself to make an accompanying under and top for each accent, you are going to get bloat in terms of genes. There's only so much variety you can have with tops and unders (without risking getting into accent territory, which some of them already do imho). So forcing yourself to make another top and under, that probably look too much like already existing tops and unders is just going to inflate the market with unnecessary genes.

2. Wasted time: Again, because the genes look so much alike, for some of them I truly wonder whether it is worth it to make them - to spend the time and resource to think of, create, check and implement the seperate genes. I would much rather such resources would be spend on creating actual new and different genes that add something, rather than a slightly different version of something that already existed, but doesn't differ enough to actually be able to tell it apart.

3. Confusion: We are almost a year into LW, and we only recently got 2 new gene trios, so before this we were rocking out with 6. And I am sure I am not the only one who on regular occasion has messed up which gene to buy. Because the names are all the same! It is so incredibly confusing that there's 3 Merle genes. And 3 Cozen genes, and 3 Maned genes. I am definitely not alone in having wasted my hard-earned currency buying the wrong gene. And this is first and foremost caused by the fact that they have the same name. Which happens because they are forced into a trio. If we were to have different genes (which could thematically fit together and perhaps also have themed names) it would be so much easier to distinguish them from one another and in doing so would cause a lot less mispurchases.

4. Inflexibility in usage: Let's be fair, most genes really only work well within their trio. There are some tops and unders that are relatively neutral and work well with every other accent gene, but a lot of tops and unders really only work well with their designated trio partner. And that really stifles creativity. If they were to be created separately (and perhaps stricter rules would be applied to where top and under genes go on the body*, leaving little accents to the accent genes) more combinations of well working genes could be created.

I think by doing away with the forced trios, it opens up a few avenues for improvements:

1. More accent genes: Without having to spend the resources on overly similar tops and unders, time would be available to create new accent genes instead. While this at least makes it possible to have a wider variety in accent genes, hopefully, because resources don't have to be spent on making tops and unders, it might also mean that accent genes can be inrtoduced more regularly, than entire trios currently are.

2. More name variety (and thus less confusion). If we were to name under genes things like paws, belly, chest, etc. (I don't know, I'm not creative) to signal something useful about the looks of that gene, and not automatically copy the name of the other genes it is paired up with, there'd be a lot less room for error on the players' side when we're purchasing new genes from the mole market

3. Proper variety among tops and bottoms: I think if you were to separate the trios into their own individual segments, it will be a lot easier to deliberately differentiate them from on another and develop truly unique and fun top and under genes. (instead of genes that only slightly differ from one another on the one hand or just plain go into accent territory on the other hand).

I am curious what you guys think about this..! Let me know.

*I will say that as I was writing this an entirely different idea came to mind. Mostly as a result of my trying to compare the different genes from each section with each other. And while top generally really stays 'top' (except for cozen, no idea what's going on there - it's everywhere except the top of the head for some reason) and accents truly are accents, the under gene seems to be a bit more all over the place (looking at you Merle) or really goes into accent territory (yes, Maned, that's you),

It feels as if what top genes are, and what under genes are isn't really well defined, other than it using the colour in that slot. For example, why is Maned under affecting the tail and ears, yet Maned Accent the paws and snout. Paws feels like such an 'under' territory. Same goes for Merle Under. With it going all the way around the neck of the wolf, it feels more like an accent.

And then it sort of hit me that perhaps due to the lack of defined borders and rules for the areas these genes affect, (combined with their names which very much assume designated areas for the genes to show up) there is inherently going to be some friction. Perhaps prior to making new genes, it should be considered what under genes are, what top genes are, and what accent genes are.

And if it truly is only the colour slot they use and how they are layered on top of each other, then I vote for making each gene available for each colour slot.

I personally like the mild redundancy we have in the genes. I'm concerned with bloat later down the line, but the only two genes that are maybe a little too similar are Cozen (Under) and Brush (Under). Having mild differences in patterns lends well to recreating the look of real wild wolves (or foxes or what have you), something I'm sure a portion of the fanbase appreciates.

I personally like the mild redundancy we have in the genes. I'm concerned with bloat later down the line, but the only two genes that are maybe a little too similar are Cozen (Under) and Brush (Under). Having mild differences in patterns lends well to recreating the look of real wild wolves (or foxes or what have you), something I'm sure a portion of the fanbase appreciates.

I definitely like the idea of variety, how much of the belly is coloured, whether it is a hard edge or a soft smudged one. There are ways to vary here. However, as it stands there are only so many more trios we can add before any new top and under genes are going to be completely redundant. Hence why I suggest breaking it up and not doing everything in sets. That way you can very where possible and necessary, without limiting the variation in a different gene area.

As for other genes that are similar, I present to you: Accent maned and cozen, Under Timber and Brush (and leopard), Timber accent and (somehow) Maned top, and Timber and Cozen top.

Genes coming in threes and being named the same makes it easy to distinguish which top/under/accent naturally pairs with the other. It's a minor gripe I have about Flight Rising in particular, actually. It's hard to remember which primary/secondary gene goes with each other there- especially with so many nowadays- but here it's simple. Brush goes with brush, cozen with cozen, etc.

I guess this may be somewhere where we simply disagree in terms of preference. On Flight Rising the names are indeed themed. So they are related enough that it is relatively easy to distinguish that they belong together, but different enough that there is no risk (or at least less risk) of a player accidentally mixing them up. I like that, but if you don't that's also valid.

The distinction between the gene zones is pretty clear, really. 'Under' is classified as the tummy zone, so they all touch the tummy in some way. (Merle under touches the underside of the neck, a good way to remember it.) Top touches the spine. Accent sits neatly on top of everything, accentuating the wolf. All of this sits atop the Base color. Maybe to avoid confusion, the 'Top' and 'Under' dropdowns could switch positions, making them match the zones they affect.

While theoretically that distinction should be pretty clear, as I have pointed out in my OP, it seems that not all these genes actually follow that seemingly clear distinction. That blurs the line, and makes it even more confusing on top of the issues with the names. I do think switching them around in the demo would make more sense even if it is just for consistency's sake, but it doesn't alleviate the issues I have pointed out, because it still makes some top and under genes look like accents. Look at Maned TOP and Timber ACCENT. Tell me why one is a top and one is an accent gene? (- a rethorical question to prove my point, not looking for an actual explanation from you as a player..)

I'm not entirely sure how much responsibility the site carries for a player accidentally purchasing the incorrect gene, however. Demo allows you to preview the gene in a large PNG, the specialty items have the genes visible in the icon as stark black on stark white, and the review screen acts as an 'Are you sure?' confirmation before purchase.

I wouldn't call it their responsibility per say, but I would call it bad UX design if the design is so confusing that mistakes can easily happen. There is a reason on Flight Rising for example, the devs opted to streamline the order, position and coloring of the 'continue' and 'cancel' buttons in pop up menus. Ofcourse it is the responsibility of the player to push the right button, but it is just bad UX design if it ends up being so confusing that people continuously do it incorrectly, and good UX design (and let's face it, also a healthy choice for your online game if you don't want players to become frustrated) to design it in such a way that the chance of accidental misclicks are minimized. It's our job as a player to pay attention to what we're doing. It is UX' job to make it as easy as possible for us.

I am in favor of genes that aren't linked to a trio. Standalone genes! Maybe accent genes that go outside of the 'normal' gene zones for an accent and are just a little more elaborate. That would be fun.

In essence that is what I am suggesting.. perhaps minus the extra elaborateness. (although now with the plain genes, there are definitely some options here). But in essence I would like more genes, specifically accent genes (because as I said, there's only so much variety with tops and unders before things get redundant). And having the development of accent genes held back by redundant tops and unders (to release trio) would be so slow.

I wouldn’t mind a pattern overhaul if such a thing makes it easier for the devs to add new patterns more often.

Decoupling the need for explicit trio releases early might be a good idea, I can definitely see where the relative freedom of accents vs underbellies could clog the pattern creation pipeline after a while... Admittedly I'd eventually like to see them get a little more creative with tops & bellies too, after we've expanded the other natural options I'm sure a lot of folks are waiting on (me too!), but I don't think it's more likely that always forcing trios of patterns will make them innovate on that front any quicker. More likely to just slow things down, I agree with that.

Thinking of accent/under/top/base as more "layer priority" than strict definitions is probably the way to go on that front, too, but I don't know if it would be more or less confusing to have the names of the things reflect that... Maybe just a general note somewhere of how they expect to treat pattern creation, for the users' sake? It would also help streamline pattern requests and suggestions, I think?

----

The naming thing I also agree would be best settled early. Just flipping them from Tiger Accent to Accent: Tiger might help? That might confuse other folks more though, maybe a poll for naming schema would help. Right now, many of the patterns are relatively okay to tell apart by the rarity / the black example marking on the icon itself, but I don't suspect that will always be the case, so even if it seems redundant or silly to some people now, I think it would be great future-proofing for when we have a lot of patterns with differences that aren't as easy to see on small icons.

At the very least, ensure the full name of the pattern is always shown instead of it sliding off into ellipses so quickly. Right now, I usually look for genes based on the secondary letter of the pattern visible while I'm lookin' for 'em in the market; Cozen U, Cozen A, Cozen T.

But Leopard already obscures that with the first word being the only one visible in the Mole Market. I can see it being really hard to tell future genes apart if you're just glancing at the names like that, when the names are totally obscured. Sure, a popup comes up to confirm your purchase, but it doesn't list the name of the pattern you're buying at all either. It wouldn't solve the issue of the names not being visible in the market at all, but at least a bold name on the confirmation popup would help.