Executor is a beast? [MERGE]

"LordDirt;c-2288101" wrote:

"TheRealNickEZ;c-2288097" wrote:
I have found that having RC, S1, and HT in the starting line up as a 7 star Executor vs a 4 star Executor that was RC, HT, and XB is the key to winning a “mirror match” having an exact “mirror match” is a nightmare..

Who goes first?

What goes second.

I don't know goes third.

"TVF;c-2288103" wrote:

"LordDirt;c-2288101" wrote:

"TheRealNickEZ;c-2288097" wrote:
I have found that having RC, S1, and HT in the starting line up as a 7 star Executor vs a 4 star Executor that was RC, HT, and XB is the key to winning a “mirror match” having an exact “mirror match” is a nightmare..

Who goes first?

What goes second.

I don't know goes third.

Helpful as usual.

"LordDirt;c-2288108" wrote:

"TVF;c-2288103" wrote:

"LordDirt;c-2288101" wrote:

"TheRealNickEZ;c-2288097" wrote:
I have found that having RC, S1, and HT in the starting line up as a 7 star Executor vs a 4 star Executor that was RC, HT, and XB is the key to winning a “mirror match” having an exact “mirror match” is a nightmare..

Who goes first?

What goes second.

I don't know goes third.

Helpful as usual.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate boomer humor.

"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.

"Granolo;c-2287995" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2287973" wrote:

"slickdealer;c-2287923" wrote:

"nottenst;c-2287920" wrote:

"Kelthuzil;c-2287834" wrote:
I see a lot of “everything’s beating executor.” Where’s the proof. I HAVE beaten it using mal, and home one, it is FAR from reliable, and when executor is up to 7 star I’m literally 2-13 against it so far with testing. I have not tried negotiator yet, and have heard very little that’s been promising.

If it’s so terrible on defense, why aren’t they being targeted and dropped out of top spots everywhere in arena?

It autos everything, and holds very well. I don’t know what else you wanted, that’s top of the meta, 100%.

I think this underperforming is ****. I think it more likely that there are some cases where the fleet makeup isn't ideal and others where the ai doesn't perform optimally. I took my nominal Negotiator and my nominal Malevolence fleets in against two different 6* Executors and the Death Star destroyed them. I have not watched any strategy videos and just did what I usually do against the other fleet, but the Executor behaved as expected. A fellow member in my guild has all Executors at the top of his fleet shard.

Maybe something needs to be done about the Executor vs Executor matches - so that 4* does not defeat 7* - but making the 7* more powerful is not the answer. I think increasing the cooldown on the lower star versions would be a simple solution.

The AI is fine.

The problem is the Executor at 7* has no opening move. Because of this it starts out behind and gets whooped by about any other fleet.

When the Executor moves first the AE is useless since no enemy has breach. The heal is useless because no ship has taken damage.

Slower Executor can use the AE on Turn1 since the BH ships have moved first.

My bet is we are about to get a Punishing One ship that is faster than 192.

I believe an r7/r8, XB and RC I forget which ones which, will out speed an r8 capital ship. I saw someone posting their speeds in a different thread. So again, no extra ship needed to execute this strategy. Just an FYI.

Wrong, No BH ship outruns Exec, even with R8. IG-2000 has the same speed at R8, which turns the outcome of the start into a coin toss. You would need to remove a mod from Piett to fix that, which clearly is a terrible solution.

Correct, we hit that a few posts ago.

Well assuming speed is the only issue here, the executor could give at least one ship a TM boost.
Like 10% TM at start of battle or whatever is needed.
All kits would stay the same but it ensures your leader for example goes first.
But I doubt fixing the turn order is enough to make her the powerhouse they want her to be.

I go first.

Well, I will put myself forward to be ridiculed. However, I have had 7 or 8 attempts against the Executor and none have been pretty.
Watched a few videos, copied the fleet and the results are disastrously different.
Looking forward to seeing the Executor showing up on defence in GAC for people who stream their GA. When people aren't allowed to cherry pick what they share, I think we will start seeing the truth. Executor is OPAF. Looking forward to getting mine hopefully in its next appearance.

"TVF;c-2288138" wrote:

"LordDirt;c-2288108" wrote:

"TVF;c-2288103" wrote:

"LordDirt;c-2288101" wrote:

"TheRealNickEZ;c-2288097" wrote:
I have found that having RC, S1, and HT in the starting line up as a 7 star Executor vs a 4 star Executor that was RC, HT, and XB is the key to winning a “mirror match” having an exact “mirror match” is a nightmare..

Who goes first?

What goes second.

I don't know goes third.

Helpful as usual.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate boomer humor.

They didn't get it because it's supposed to be "Who's on first? What's on second?"

I understood you though so you can always take solice in that :smile:

I tried many times to beat a 5* executor with my 7* executor and i can’t beat it.
Is that normal ???

PS: all my bounty hunter are R8 except Cad bane R5