Executor is a beast? [MERGE]

"SerylT2;c-2287337" wrote:

"fraser119;c-2287287" wrote:
Meh! What is this snake oil you have sold me. 7* Executor, with a crew member with no mods to slow it down - was this really what we were promised. It’s embarrassing CG and needs to be fixed, this is far from dominating.

@fraser119 Why? Is there a fleet you cannot beat in the game with it?

Yes, mirror matches against 4 & 5* fleets - I should not need to remove mods to slow my ship down.

I said it when Executor was first announced...

If you force such a high price on a ship where nothing has ever cost anything remotely similar before, then you end up with 2 possible outcomes
1) The ship is a GL of ships in a context where there is no other GL and easily destroys everything thrown against it, on offense and defense, which is terrible for gameplay and for fun.
or
2) The ship is a good ship, no better (or only incrementally better) than other good ships, and is clearly not worth the investment.


When you force your customers to race their Tesla sedans against an Aston Martin Vanquish, no one is happy and your business does not prosper.

When you put an Aston Martin price tag on a Tesla sedan, no one is happy and your business does not prosper.

This was never going to end well, and the only reasonable thing to do was implement jk Luke type pricing to get folks used to the idea of relic pricing for ships while you slowly ramp up the power levels.

This was an entirely foreseeable failure, CG. I do hope you have learned your lesson this time.

I feel like there’s more bounty hunter ships coming…. They’re going to sell us the solution…

"Kyno;c-2287275" wrote:

"Mirkraag;c-2287262" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287251" wrote:

"Heretosay;c-2287247" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287245" wrote:

"MaricSkywalker;c-2287240" wrote:
Have we gotten confirmation this is working as intended from the community manager yet?

No, and from my understanding they may be looking at things, but waiting on an official statement to that effect. (But I make no promises or anything of any sort of official thing of this statement)

I'm baffled they have beta testers I watch streamers accidentally reveal things all the time. This shouldn't be missed. I'm sorry if there is an unintended interaction with 2 really odd ships that's understandable, but this is the current meta.

You are jumping to conclusions, but that can be natural without actual knowledge of the situation.

Maybe we can just leave the speculation about the beta group out of this and provide some constructive feedback about the ship and the issues you have/see.

Sorry but he is right.

Dev actually teased ("sell") the ship as the next meta literally.
This ship has been beta tested. Two options : one is that they missed the point that the ship has a terrible AI in defense (so equivalent to not be beta tested at all). Option 2 CG was lying about the fact that it will be the next meta.

2 options, which one is the good one that I dont know.

Again, you can assume what you want, but no there are many many more options than that for what could have happened.

Assigning blame based on no knowledge of what happened doesnt help and is no way constructive. Please keep it constructive and provide feedback about the ship.

I disagree, I believe seriously questioning the existence and/or detail of the pre-release testing regime is extremely constructive for the future of the game and keeping any kind of trust with the paying players who are the ones keeping the game going - and this is in light of let's be honest not just this one issue of this nature but just the most recent in a very long string of post-release issues which point to significant problems with the 'testing' processes such as they are or the ability of those involved to perform those testing processes to a competent level!

Telling players to NOT question the testing processes and procedures after yet another release debacle is, I would argue, the unconstructive thing to be doing because the status quo clearly isn't working as intended!

"Beeblebrox;c-2287359" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287275" wrote:

"Mirkraag;c-2287262" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287251" wrote:

"Heretosay;c-2287247" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287245" wrote:

"MaricSkywalker;c-2287240" wrote:
Have we gotten confirmation this is working as intended from the community manager yet?

No, and from my understanding they may be looking at things, but waiting on an official statement to that effect. (But I make no promises or anything of any sort of official thing of this statement)

I'm baffled they have beta testers I watch streamers accidentally reveal things all the time. This shouldn't be missed. I'm sorry if there is an unintended interaction with 2 really odd ships that's understandable, but this is the current meta.

You are jumping to conclusions, but that can be natural without actual knowledge of the situation.

Maybe we can just leave the speculation about the beta group out of this and provide some constructive feedback about the ship and the issues you have/see.

Sorry but he is right.

Dev actually teased ("sell") the ship as the next meta literally.
This ship has been beta tested. Two options : one is that they missed the point that the ship has a terrible AI in defense (so equivalent to not be beta tested at all). Option 2 CG was lying about the fact that it will be the next meta.

2 options, which one is the good one that I dont know.

Again, you can assume what you want, but no there are many many more options than that for what could have happened.

Assigning blame based on no knowledge of what happened doesnt help and is no way constructive. Please keep it constructive and provide feedback about the ship.

I disagree, I believe seriously questioning the existence and/or detail of the pre-release testing regime is extremely constructive for the future of the game and keeping any kind of trust with the paying players who are the ones keeping the game going - and this is in light of let's be honest not just this one issue of this nature but just the most recent in a very long string of post-release issues which point to significant problems with the 'testing' processes such as they are or the ability of those involved to perform those testing processes to a competent level!

Telling players to NOT question the testing processes and procedures after yet another release debacle is, I would argue, the unconstructive thing to be doing because the status quo clearly isn't working as intended!

Questioning, sure fine. But since no one here has any knowledge of how it works or what steps are involved, assigning blame is in no way constructive to this situation. Nor is it helpful in any way.

"SerylT2;c-2287357" wrote:

"MasterSeedy;c-2287353" wrote:
I said it when Executor was first announced...

If you force such a high price on a ship where nothing has ever cost anything remotely similar before, then you end up with 2 possible outcomes
1) The ship is a GL of ships in a context where there is no other GL and easily destroys everything thrown against it, on offense and defense, which is terrible for gameplay and for fun.
or
2) The ship is a good ship, no better (or only incrementally better) than other good ships, and is clearly not worth the investment.


When you force your customers to race their Tesla sedans against an Aston Martin Vanquish, no one is happy and your business does not prosper.

When you put an Aston Martin price tag on a Tesla sedan, no one is happy and your business does not prosper.

This was never going to end well, and the only reasonable thing to do was implement jk Luke type pricing to get folks used to the idea of relic pricing for ships while you slowly ramp up the power levels.

This was an entirely foreseeable failure, CG. I do hope you have learned your lesson this time.

This post is the gospel here. My happiness at this ships failing to live up to the hype is mainly due to my despise of its balance wrecking prophesy. The ship comes off as balanced to me and that is a good thing in my mind.

I do sympathize with those who feel misled about being given an "I win" button for a heavy investment. But "I win" buttons are utter game killers. This game was suffering for awhile until they opened the meta back up post Revan.

I'll say it again. You want an "I Win" button.. go play by yourself, and you'll win every time. You want to play with thousands of other people you are going to have to accept you won't come in first place every single time.

You know some people spend on the game right? And since you don't have to spend to play, those people that spend expect an advantage for spending?

"Kyno;c-2287364" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2287359" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287275" wrote:

"Mirkraag;c-2287262" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287251" wrote:

"Heretosay;c-2287247" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287245" wrote:

"MaricSkywalker;c-2287240" wrote:
Have we gotten confirmation this is working as intended from the community manager yet?

No, and from my understanding they may be looking at things, but waiting on an official statement to that effect. (But I make no promises or anything of any sort of official thing of this statement)

I'm baffled they have beta testers I watch streamers accidentally reveal things all the time. This shouldn't be missed. I'm sorry if there is an unintended interaction with 2 really odd ships that's understandable, but this is the current meta.

You are jumping to conclusions, but that can be natural without actual knowledge of the situation.

Maybe we can just leave the speculation about the beta group out of this and provide some constructive feedback about the ship and the issues you have/see.

Sorry but he is right.

Dev actually teased ("sell") the ship as the next meta literally.
This ship has been beta tested. Two options : one is that they missed the point that the ship has a terrible AI in defense (so equivalent to not be beta tested at all). Option 2 CG was lying about the fact that it will be the next meta.

2 options, which one is the good one that I dont know.

Again, you can assume what you want, but no there are many many more options than that for what could have happened.

Assigning blame based on no knowledge of what happened doesnt help and is no way constructive. Please keep it constructive and provide feedback about the ship.

I disagree, I believe seriously questioning the existence and/or detail of the pre-release testing regime is extremely constructive for the future of the game and keeping any kind of trust with the paying players who are the ones keeping the game going - and this is in light of let's be honest not just this one issue of this nature but just the most recent in a very long string of post-release issues which point to significant problems with the 'testing' processes such as they are or the ability of those involved to perform those testing processes to a competent level!

Telling players to NOT question the testing processes and procedures after yet another release debacle is, I would argue, the unconstructive thing to be doing because the status quo clearly isn't working as intended!

Questioning, sure fine. But since no one here has any knowledge of how it works or what steps are involved, assigning blame is in no way constructive to this situation. Nor is it helpful in any way.

I saw people questioning the testing, or lack thereof, you were the one who classified it as blame!

By the way, after all this negative feedback no one from CG write a single word? This is not the best way to manage your customers...

I think a large part of the issue with the Executor fleet is that they designed the Cap ship to be 1-speed faster than fastest current cap ship BUT all of the ships which work as decent starters with it are slower than it, and of the 2 special abilities available for use first turn 1 of them is a heal which is useless if no turns have occurred and the other is an aoe that by itself does very minimal damage and is only really useful if the target enemy ship has Breach and/or Target Lock on it neither of which will be there since no allies have been able to take a turn yet - whoever designed this fleet either has no idea about turn mechanics, or was running IG at R9 with 7-dot mods, or had access to a much faster ship than we currently have access to!
On top of that the Executor itself can't avoid the Taunt of Droid or Pilotless ships, so even if you did have a faster ally the AI would need to prioritize them hitting a taunting ship so that when Executor goes next there is a decent chance of it having a taunting enemy with one of those debuffs on it that can be targetted.

"LastNeuron;c-2287371" wrote:
By the way, after all this negative feedback no one from CG write a single word? This is not the best way to manage your customers...

You must be new.