Comment: . . . I'm going to ask a long awaited question... when does the 2d client get clean undergarments?

Grimm: You know, I always felt that they looked a bit dirty myself... glad to know it wasn't just me! I have learned from experience that messing with the paper dolls can be... dicey. Personaly, I can't stand the female undergarments, and they both look dirty to me. I'll have to put it on my "to do" list. Pub 39 seems to be booked solid, but I might be able to try a few things out once we get it on a test shard. We'll see.

Yeeee, I just hope the changes are good. Alot of new artwork has been reverted back to the old because it didnt look right.

They put new underwear on us on the Beta test shard.. and so many people complained that they ripped it right back off of us. I am not even sure I saw it correctly at the time LOL! What bugged me was how they 'skinnied' up the paperdoll girls... no more nice curves for my ladies.

They seriously need to be careful when they touch the paperdoll. I would like it if you could have a choice between undergarments, or if you could dye them.

Lol, I hope they do work out better.

in 3d the undergarments look good, and they are black.

2d undergarments look ugly and look like diapers.

I wouldn't mind having a choice or be able to dye then also.
Have always thought of them as dingy peasant small clothes.
Did they have bleach in the middle ages? heh

Nope. No bleach as such.. had to drape clothes on a bush in the sun. I have a feeling they wore it until it fell apart in many cases.. or none at all. I vote for dyable underwear. And the underwear in 3D may be nicer, but the character faces and other things are yucky!! (IMHO)

Hmm, I don't recall us making them any skinnier as this would have made all the garments not fit properly anymore -not to mention the fact that I'm not really down with promoting the "Hollywood" female figure. We did work on the Male a bit as his proportions are just... wrong. But I think the reason that the paperdolls didn't work is 1) The female face was a bit blurry, and 2)Folks were still very skiddish with art changes because of bad art experiences in the past.
I also think that the change was to sudden and I probably should have handled it in a different way. I'm not very keen on posting art up for player approval, but I might can find some way of finding a middle ground.
-Grimm

Get a female character, put her in leathers or some other close fitting clothing.. put a cloak on her that is a start contrast to the outfit she has on.. See that ugly black shadow????????? I see it every day on my characters. The legs and hips are definitely skinnier.

I think you might be in for an avalanche of input if you ever allowed input on the possible art styles of clothing. The horrible dresses for one thing. The ugly robe is bad enough but the dresses look like sacks that the potatoes are still in!

In days of old, when knights were bold, and toilets wern't yet invented.......... folks back then had little to no options on their garments..... especially the undergarments. Wool for most folks, like the commoners. The elite got a cloth made from plant fibers, i cant remember what it was called, but it was very expensive. Silk was around, but wasn't very common and also was very expensive. Leather/hides were still commonly used. For the most part, underware looked like it does on the paperdolls, rolled up lengths of cloth, loin cloth fashion, for those that bothered.

Yea, that black spot has been bugging me too. I haven't noticed the legs and hips being any skinnier, I *could* be wrong, but I haven't noticed any mis fittings with the traditional leather outfits. But I'll keep an eye out for it.
I got no problems with avalanches of feedback. It might be a pain to sort through, but often enough it brings things up I might not have thought about otherwise.
-Grimm