WoW Petopia Community

I'm just really, really glad that my alt druids have the Astral form option. And probably Treants.

That high-detailed armor slapped onto the Vanilla moonkin model... keep reminding us that you need to update the player models, Blizz, so we can keep reminding you until you do it.

Honestly, they can't even get around to fixing the night elf/troll cat forms so their back right leg doesn't fold out into weird sharp jaggy things sticking into midair when they sit down.

I don't think they're going to be touching the models any time soon.

Oddly enough I have a picture of the folding glitch (does anyone remember the hyena tail buttvacuum thing? It's like that.)


Here is the unbugged side of the cat for reference:


And I've bitched about this CONSTANTLY since they put in the new cats. Have they fixed it? No. This is actually the whole reason why the only druid I've ever managed to play is a worgen. (Worgen/Tauren cats don't have this bug.)

They have not fixed the female tuaren eye bug

cowmuflage wrote:They have not fixed the female tuaren eye bug

OhgodtheTaureneyebug..



Its like staring at the pic of an eyeless cow

Xakaal wrote:

cowmuflage wrote:They have not fixed the female tuaren eye bug

OhgodtheTaureneyebug..



Its like staring at the pic of an eyeless cow

Indeed. Cowmuflage has no soul.

This calls for BIG SAD COW EYES.

That "boobkin", as someone neatly put it, makes me slightly uncomfortable... It just looks very... "furry". Don't get me wrong, nothing against furries, it's just that their personal tastes are to me personally disturbing.

The armored moonkin... I don't know, I feel like they wasted a chance for something great by just slapping armor on the Incarnation forms.

Guilty. >_>

But seriously, I agree with you completely. Female moonkins should look more like the males. Just look at how well female pandaren were done. A good match.

And that moonkin I posted(I believe) looks enough like an actual moonkin. I said remove the breasts but give her a slightly smaller frame. That way you can tell the gender difference if only slightly, moonkin are humanoid in nature not beastial like the cats/bears and most all humanoids that exist in WoW have a male and a female concept(even if they dont look like they're from the same species).Pandaren females are slightly smaller than the males but you can still tell they're the same species. The face is perfect its an owl and moonkin are OWL beasts not parrot beasts as WoW would have us believe. I'm sorry if you think its a "furry" but essentially as a moonkin anyone could be considered a furry while running around in a moonkin costume. The current models are awful, slapping armor on them? Awful.

I dunno. Maybe I'm old fashioned or something, but I kinda prefer boomkin without armor.

One of my alts is a balance druid who gets the most play time out of all of my alts. I wanted to see an update to the moonkin form, but this is so ugly. I agree with the comment that it looks like a bunch of stickers stuck all over the poor thing. Also, wtf is with the jock strap?

cowmuflage wrote:

Xakaal wrote:

cowmuflage wrote:They have not fixed the female tuaren eye bug

OhgodtheTaureneyebug..



Its like staring at the pic of an eyeless cow

Indeed. Cowmuflage has no soul.

We've known that for a long time

Vulpixen wrote:And that moonkin I posted(I believe) looks enough like an actual moonkin. I said remove the breasts but give her a slightly smaller frame. That way you can tell the gender difference if only slightly, moonkin are humanoid in nature not beastial like the cats/bears and most all humanoids that exist in WoW have a male and a female concept(even if they dont look like they're from the same species).Pandaren females are slightly smaller than the males but you can still tell they're the same species. The face is perfect its an owl and moonkin are OWL beasts not parrot beasts as WoW would have us believe. I'm sorry if you think its a "furry" but essentially as a moonkin anyone could be considered a furry while running around in a moonkin costume. The current models are awful, slapping armor on them? Awful.

I agree that current moonkin model needs work and slapping armor on it is not the best solution, but that DA piece is needlessly adding sexual characteristics to a moonkin (breasts, body shape) - mixed with the animalistic features, it comes off as a furry. Sure the more owl-like head is a great improvement, but not so sure about some other parts of that art.

Though I'd love actual owlbears in WoW. Not the owlbear-stag-men that moonkins are - actual bear with owl head and other pieces. Which would make an awesome new pet family for an expansion.

Andine wrote:

Vulpixen wrote:And that moonkin I posted(I believe) looks enough like an actual moonkin. I said remove the breasts but give her a slightly smaller frame. That way you can tell the gender difference if only slightly, moonkin are humanoid in nature not beastial like the cats/bears and most all humanoids that exist in WoW have a male and a female concept(even if they dont look like they're from the same species).Pandaren females are slightly smaller than the males but you can still tell they're the same species. The face is perfect its an owl and moonkin are OWL beasts not parrot beasts as WoW would have us believe. I'm sorry if you think its a "furry" but essentially as a moonkin anyone could be considered a furry while running around in a moonkin costume. The current models are awful, slapping armor on them? Awful.

I agree that current moonkin model needs work and slapping armor on it is not the best solution, but that DA piece is needlessly adding sexual characteristics to a moonkin (breasts, body shape) - mixed with the animalistic features, it comes off as a furry. Sure the more owl-like head is a great improvement, but not so sure about some other parts of that art.

Though I'd love actual owlbears in WoW. Not the owlbear-stag-men that moonkins are - actual bear with owl head and other pieces. Which would make an awesome new pet family for an expansion.

Bolded the part that tells the difference between the DA piece which is fan art and what Blizzard could actually do for the game

It drives me up the wall when people say a fursona is a furry because furry to my knowledge has been turned into a negative word which is essentially a polite way of saying 'yiff' which is the sexual term for animal anthropods (aka drawn or LARP'd in sexual manners and/or performing sexual activities). This is a fursona, not a furry, not a yiff. Huge difference but its people who abuse wrongly the terms of furry and yiff that give fursona's a bad rep.

I agree that the moonkin form itself is in dire need of a model update. Although that Anthromorphic owlkin looks intereseting, its a bit to skinny for my liking. I wouldn't mind gettign a graphical upgrade on the moonkins and the "saggy butt" issue fixed. As for the armor, as with the feral armour, it doesnt really "blend" well with the forms, its just placed overtop clunky-like.

However if this look only procs during the use of a certain ability or something it does add an interesting twist, but if it were more of a perma-look, I'd hope for something a bit more blended.

I haven't seen anything said yet but to all those not liking the armored bears cats moonkins These are more than likely the effects of the talent Incarnation currently Cat is turned into an old world tiger Bear is turned into a big brown bear Resto is turned into the new tree of life and moonkins just double in size so I'm pretty sure this is what they are changing it too so you dont need to see this moonkin if you don't like it (:

Xakaal wrote:Bolded the part that tells the difference between the DA piece which is fan art and what Blizzard could actually do for the game

It drives me up the wall when people say a fursona is a furry because furry to my knowledge has been turned into a negative word which is essentially a polite way of saying 'yiff' which is the sexual term for animal anthropods (aka drawn or LARP'd in sexual manners and/or performing sexual activities). This is a fursona, not a furry, not a yiff. Huge difference but its people who abuse wrongly the terms of furry and yiff that give fursona's a bad rep.

I hoped that me noting I have nothing against furries (people with a certain fetish) would be enough to quell any accusations of prejudice, but it seems not. The picture above looks like a sexualised, anthropomorphised (fantasy) animal, for which I believe "furry" is an appriopriate apellation, regardless of sub-divisions within that term. I did not intend to connote any form of disdain for any part of "furry" group, merely note the fact of apparent sexualisation.

Also, the piece above is what I was presented, so that's what I was "reviewing" - what Blizzard might or might not do with it is irrelevant, as that's not what I was shown.

Stallord wrote:I haven't seen anything said yet but to all those not liking the armored bears cats moonkins These are more than likely the effects of the talent Incarnation currently Cat is turned into an old world tiger Bear is turned into a big brown bear Resto is turned into the new tree of life and moonkins just double in size so I'm pretty sure this is what they are changing it too so you dont need to see this moonkin if you don't like it (:

Oh nooooooo. But I wanted the brown bear. :/ I suppose that's spec-based, though, right? Hopefully? Heck, I'd go feral again for that.

Yes it is spec based Guardian gets the bear incarnation and so on (: I'm waitin patiently (as if) for them to show alliance bear armor since my druids double feral haha