test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Warning: Lower Decks uniform does NOT include the advertised pants
thegrandnagus1
Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
Ok, here is the deal:
1: the Lower Decks blog post showed this image:
2: after purchasing the uniforms, people noticed there were no pants.
3: other people pointed out the pants show in the image are actually from the disco season 3 uniforms(which are a differently lobi store outfit).
4: Kael has now confirmed they did not actually make Lower Decks uniform pants because they were nearly identical to the disco season 3 pants, per Rattler's reply in this thread.
5: this means to create the outfit the Cryptic used to advertise the Lower Decks uniforms, you would have to buy both the Lower Decks uniforms and the Disco season 3 uniforms from the lobi store.
IMO, this is extremely shady behavior.
To be completely clear what I mean: it is fine for them to decide not to make the pants, especially if they already have some that are virtually identical in game. But to show a promo image of the uniforms that clearly implies they come with pants without also clearly explaining they don't is extremely misleading and deceptive.
But I'm not going to criticize them without also offering a solution, so here it is: give people who bought the uniforms the Disco Season 3 pants that were shown in the image. Problem solved.
Also, if they do a stream this week people are obviously going to ask about this. If you plan to do so, please don't ask the "wrong" question.
The question should not be "why doesn't the Lower Decks uniform have pants?", because we already know their answer: "because we already had a uniform in game with identical pants and didn't want to spend the development time creating the same thing again".
So because we already know that, the "right" question to ask them is: "if there were already identical pants in game, why didn't you include THOSE pants with the Lower Decks uniform?"
Obviously they can ignore the question if they don't want to answer it. But if they try to answer the 2nd question with the answer to the 1st question, they are strawmanning you and trying to ignore the real issue.
1: the Lower Decks blog post showed this image:
2: after purchasing the uniforms, people noticed there were no pants.
3: other people pointed out the pants show in the image are actually from the disco season 3 uniforms(which are a differently lobi store outfit).
4: Kael has now confirmed they did not actually make Lower Decks uniform pants because they were nearly identical to the disco season 3 pants, per Rattler's reply in this thread.
5: this means to create the outfit the Cryptic used to advertise the Lower Decks uniforms, you would have to buy both the Lower Decks uniforms and the Disco season 3 uniforms from the lobi store.
IMO, this is extremely shady behavior.
To be completely clear what I mean: it is fine for them to decide not to make the pants, especially if they already have some that are virtually identical in game. But to show a promo image of the uniforms that clearly implies they come with pants without also clearly explaining they don't is extremely misleading and deceptive.
But I'm not going to criticize them without also offering a solution, so here it is: give people who bought the uniforms the Disco Season 3 pants that were shown in the image. Problem solved.
Also, if they do a stream this week people are obviously going to ask about this. If you plan to do so, please don't ask the "wrong" question.
The question should not be "why doesn't the Lower Decks uniform have pants?", because we already know their answer: "because we already had a uniform in game with identical pants and didn't want to spend the development time creating the same thing again".
So because we already know that, the "right" question to ask them is: "if there were already identical pants in game, why didn't you include THOSE pants with the Lower Decks uniform?"
Obviously they can ignore the question if they don't want to answer it. But if they try to answer the 2nd question with the answer to the 1st question, they are strawmanning you and trying to ignore the real issue.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In their defense... do you really wanna see pantsless people showcasing uniforms if they don't come with them?
And odds are if the pants are too similar to something we already have... what's the point in copying? Waste of resources to just add like one fold or something to make a new pair of pants.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
I mostly agree, but I think if that's the case they should've included a disclaimer in the blog.
So yea... we have stuff that already exists that is too close that they decided not to waste resources on that.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Wow. That is extremely, extremely misleading and shady behavior on their part. To be 100% clear what I mean:
1: it is completely fine to NOT include pants in the uniform. We clear on that? Ok, keep going...
2: it is absolutely misleading and deceptive to show pants that are not included in the uniform in a promo image AND not CLEARLY explain it in the blog/uniform box.
It's the part that comes after the "and" above that is wrong/misleading. There is simply no excuse for that type of deception.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'm not going to criticize them without also offering a solution, so here it is: give people who bought the uniforms the Disco Season 3 pants that were shown in the image. Problem solved.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
They should've included the 32c pants then if those are the ones intended for the LD uniform. First they TRIBBLE everyone off by putting it in the Lobi store, and then they rub salt in the wound by making you buy ANOTHER Lobi uniform to get the pants!? Seriously!?
Yeah, I mean I can completely understand and agree with the logic of "why make something identical to what we already have?". But the point is, if you are going to show those pants in the promo then the uniform needs to come with those pants, period. That's really all there is to it.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The question should not be "why doesn't the Lower Decks uniform have pants?", because we already know their answer: "because we already had a uniform in game with identical pants and didn't want to spend the development time creating the same thing again".
So because we already know that, the "right" question to ask them is: "if there were already identical pants in game, why didn't you include THOSE pants with the Lower Decks uniform?"
Obviously they can ignore the question if they don't want to answer it. But if they try to answer the 2nd question with the answer to the 1st question, they are strawmanning you and trying to ignore the real issue.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Well said.
I am not even that interested in the uniform, but there is a right way to do things and this is not it.
You either:
A ) Include the pants shown in the post with the uniform, even if they are part of another set.
B ) Make a clear and plain disclaimer that the uniforms do not include pants (or whatever else they may not include).
C ) As with "B", only perhaps show a variety of (in this case) pants and include info on where every different pair of pants displayed can be found.
This is my experience as well.
I could, of course, always choose to buy an extra dress blue top or extra pants for my dress or working whites or whatever, but every uniform consisted of a specific top and bottom that went together.
If I ever wore my dress blue pants and dress white top it would not have went over well for me.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Of course they do, this is Cryptic we're talking about after all, you didn't think they'd do something silly like give a discount for the missing piece did you? 🤣
You cannot show something in the advertised image that is not included in the purchase without a notation stating that these items are not included. Especially since this goes against the norm when it comes to this type of thing.
When previously have uniforms ever come without pants?
It's very simple, the uniform should have come with the unlock for the Discovery Pants if the player didn't already have them. As it is right now, they are paying money for an advertised look that they cannot achieve. It's par for the course of what to expect from Cryptic lately and just re-enforces the fact that absolutely no one should be giving these guys money. Players need to start holding them accountable and stop making excuses for them.
Well, the Picard-era Starfleet uniform was a top only...but it was also free. The fact that they:
A: charged for this uniform, and
B: literally advertised it with pants
is really not defendable, IMO. It's the first example (that I can think of anyway) of a paid uniform not having pants, although sadly I have a feeling it's probably the start of the new normal rather than a fluke.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008