Executor is a beast? [MERGE]

"Nauros;c-2288287" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288282" wrote:

"Nauros;c-2288281" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288271" wrote:

"Nauros;c-2288224" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288139" wrote:

"Nauros;c-2287996" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287975" wrote:

"Nauros;c-2287927" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2287926" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287922" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2287919" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287914" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2287910" wrote:
If CG really sold us a broken fleet that can only be fixed by a new marquee ship, that is about as low as it can get.

Avoiding unsubstantiated speculation can increase enjoyment of life, and even prevent hair loss.

Not completely unsubstantiated. Something here isn’t working and CG admitted it.

Either they didn’t test or they only tested with a new ship we don’t have.

I doubt they didn’t test.

Correct, admitting they are looking at the current setup, as it's not hitting the mark.

That is literally the opposite of needing to add a new element to it to make it work.

Those are not the only options.

"Nauros;c-2287918" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287914" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2287910" wrote:
If CG really sold us a broken fleet that can only be fixed by a new marquee ship, that is about as low as it can get.

Avoiding unsubstantiated speculation can increase enjoyment of life, and even prevent hair loss.

Dunno, expecting Dengar's ship sounds pretty substantiated to me, given that he is the only requirement without a ship. As well as the expectation that it will improve Executor fleets, because there wouldn't be much of a point otherwise.

Substantiating something with a feeling..... here I was thinking evidence.... but you do you.

The last time a unit came out that was this underperforming it was Darth Revan.

We got Malak a week or two after.

Also, expecting Dengar's ship makes sense in several aspects, but Kyno just has to be a contrarian. No point trying to reason with him.

He doesnt have a ship, that can be said for a fair amount of characters, many of which are very noted pilots.

What other reasons have been given?

I'm not being contrarian, I'm just looking for the writing on the wall that doesnt seem to be there.

Ok, I will try one last time.
He's the only one of the requirements without a ship. If the requirements are meant to provide a ready-made fleet, it would make sense for him to get one.
If he ever gets a ship, it would make sense to add it now.
Executor is very obviously missing an early breach, which is something that must have come up in even rudimentary testing. Even the AI was programmed to open with basic if Executor goes first. That leads to the conclusion that a solution is already made, just not implemented yet. One solution would be ship mods to define turn order, the other would be a new ship that is either faster than Executor or has something like "At the start of the battle, inflict breach on the weakest enemy".

Ok, it just seems like you are making a puzzle where there is not one.

Whatever. If there really is no "puzzle" as you insist, then CG just simply failed their design. I was only giving them the benefit of doubt, but you seem so determined to convince me that they are incompetent.

As always, please feel free to assume whatever you wish.

Not so much assuming as drawing conclusions based on information you provide (since better sources are silent again). I thought they had a plan, you kept insisting that they don't, so the only conclusion is that it's all just a huge screw up. In your attempts to defent CG, you only made them look bad. Congratulations, you played yourself.
The only thing I assume is that you have more information than the average player, which has happened in the past.

Oh, so you have information about the testing environment and procedures? That's interesting, then you mush know exactly what happened. If not, then you are making assumptions.

Why should I need it? Obviously, a mistake happened. I don't care how or where, I just see the end result (which CG actually acknowledged). I thought it might actually be a part of a plan, but you convinced me otherwise. End of the story. Don't try to twist it into something it isn't.
It's really strange, though. I think they have a plan, you come to contradict me. I accept that, you come and contradict me again. You are either being contrarian just for its own sake or desperately trying to defend CG with no regard for consistency.

I do take issue with trying to spread false information, that is then being used to drive further complaints and issue.

I'm sorry if I think that pushing a completely assumed agenda on "what is going to happen" is not a good thing, but driving players to complain about an unfounded future path of needing another ship due to some contrived puzzle you want to solve, is bad for the player base.I get that you may not see it that way, which is fine.

Also, technically isnt your argument "defending them"? I'm confused on that point. Correct they have said there is an issue, but trying to derive blame or point at something without any actual information, doesn't help. Provide feedback on the situation, that helps.