Suggestion:20071230 Blood-soaked Clothes Lose Colour

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20071230 Blood-soaked Clothes Lose Colour

Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Flavour adjustment

Suggestion scope
Clothes

Suggestion description
When an item of clothing becomes blood-soaked, it would lose its original colour. It would only be displayed as "light-coloured" or "dark-coloured".

For example, a pale orange shirt would be displayed as "blood-soaked light-coloured shirt".

Those colours that are in white in the table below would be shown as "light-coloured" and those that are in black would be shown as "dark-coloured".

white	pale red	pale orange	pale yellow	pale green	pale blue	pink	tan
grey	red	orange	yellow	green	blue	purple	brown
black	dark red	dark orange	mustard yellow	dark green	dark blue	dark purple	dark brown

The reasons for this kind of division are two-fold:

1. The pale/medium/dark division already exists in the game and as such would be very easy to implement.
2. Medium colours would look quite dark after being soaked in blood.

I would ask that you do not vote kill just because you disagree with some colour being either light or dark. The exact division of the colours is not the main idea here.

Special attributes like "camouflage", "tartan", "khaki" or "high-visibility" would not change.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep - Yup, s'all good. Makes a lot of sense for clothes to become soaked in blood from fights and whatnot. Acoustic Pie 12:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - Author vote. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep -Nice idea.Studoku 14:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - Questionable because I'm not for useless stuff being added but, In this case I don't see anything bad from clothes degradation getting more flavor if, and only if, there are limits as to what can degrade in this manner. Specifically shirts and pants only. I'm voting keep and not Kill/change because I view that as inferred common sense that that is how it will work.--Karek^maps?! 14:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

   Re: Didn't really think about that before... Do you mean pants and shirts as in the categories trousers and shirts? I wouldn't want to leave out jackets or coats as these include dresses and ballgowns which could easily lose their colour. How about only fabric clothes? It'd make sense to have a material that could lose colour and not just certain slots. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Keep As Karek.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Slight Change - I think that sometimes the amount and color of clothing can make the descriptions kind of long. What if instead of substituting one color for another, you just wipe out the color altogether once the clothing becomes soaked in blood, ripped, etc.? So instead of a "orange t-shirt" becoming a "blood-soaked light colored t-shirt" it could just become a "blood-soaked t-shirt." --Uncle Bill 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

   Re: I think eliminating the colour altogether makes the clothes too generic (you wouldn't wear just "a shirt", would you?). The light/dark division keeps at least some properties of the original. They could be just "light" and "dark"? On the other hand, pretty much any additional adjective is too much when the clothing is already "tattered and blood-soaked" :/. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Keep -meh --Downinflames 17:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
8. keep - This is a great idea that will help make this game more detailed and, descriptive.--zinker 17:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - Makes a sort of sense.--Seventythree^Talk 17:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - Sure. -J. A. 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep- Meh --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - Although "light-colored blood-soaked" doesn't really flow. I suggest "light, blood-soaked" or just go with "bload-soaked" outright. - Grant 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - As above. --Heretic144 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
14. keep - I love it--Worthog117 20:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Keep - That's true. Meduim colored clothes do actually look dark after being soaked in blood. --User:Axe27/Sig 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Change I think eventually it should be difficult to distinguish the colour. - Pardus 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Keep - It makes sense. besides, most survivors are smart enough to change into fresh clothes before theirs get this bad. If not, the endless blood spill will have left a good bit of stain, blocking out the original color.--Kolechovski 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Blood != Bleach --Pgunn 14:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - bloodsoaked fabric isn't desaturated. you can stil tell if it was green or blue --~~~~ [talk] 14:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - meh, I don't want my characters to effectively lose their clothing when they die--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - Not for it. Not the right kind of flavour we would like to "add" to UD. If anything, it's removing flavour. For one thing, I think it's easier to tell the difference between a blood-soaked pale red t-shirt and a blood-soaked pale blue t-shirt, than the former and a blood soaked dark red t-shirt. Out it goes. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
5. pointless Why???--Honestmistake 14:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - About tired of these clothing suggestions. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 17:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - Flavor is all well and good, but this is excessive. --Hhal 01:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Change - I've got a better idea for how to format the clothes descriptions: "Wearing a white lab coat, dark blue jeans, and white boots. The coat and jeans are bloodstained, and the boots are bloody and battered." Requisite gore without interfering with my outfit - perfect. And, uh Hhal, don't you mean kill? --Ms.Panes 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

   Re: I'd say that's a whole different suggestion, seeing how this suggestion's purpose is just giving some flavour, not condensing the description. Why don't you suggest that? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

   Re: Done. --Ms.Panes 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

9. Kill - I don't know very many people that can aquire a shirt that has been completely soaked every square inch of the shirt material. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Kill - Last time a checked, black shirts were distinguishable from mustard yellow. Doesn't add flavour, just removes it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Kill - So we're going to change all of the colours to a dark,warm theme? sounds like less flavour. -Inky 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - pointless over-flavour that also happens to be unrealistic. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Next thing you know, people will want laundromats all over the city... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Spamtastic! - And Axe Hack, you know better than to elaborate - Jon Pyre might just put such a suggestion through for a landromat. --Ryiis 17:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Spam - This is Urban Dead, not Urban Laundromat. --TriPolarClicky! 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Spam - Blood would turn things dark reddish black. Ever actually bled on your clothing? Spam because this is an attempt at adding realism that is so far from real that you cant even see it on a sunny day. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

   Re: The redness comes implicitly from the item being "blood-soaked". White and pale coloured clothes can still be distinguished from darker ones even when they're covered in blood, which is the reason for the division. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

   MakeDamnSure - Haha.... no --/~WOOT~\ 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Unjustified vote struck --Funt Solo ^QT 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Spam As Funt. Omega 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Spam - Waste of time. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 14:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Spam - Although I like having more flavor in a meaningless catagory, I'm gonna have to say as Funt. --Vandurn 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)