Executor is a beast? [MERGE]

"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.

I understood it, it just fell flat.

"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.

"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.

"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.

Why isn't it obvious what is happening with the Executor? They were designing it for similar unsatisfactory performance as JMK without CAT. As much you can deduce from the existence of the beta test group and their decision to go ahead with the release of the ship anyway.
Punishing One, if I had to guess, might be coming after Maul Conquests because they might want to take a pause with Conquest character releases at that point, and that would fit for the time to finally push out the old fleet meta. The ship as Conquest release fits because they cannot allow everyone to have the best version of the fleet given such "easy" requirements.
For what's happening with the AI it is possible they are now using it as one variable they tune over time as a meta matures. E.g. Have you noticed how often an opposing Negotiator fleet targets your JKA? (100%) I don't think this happened when the fleet was released, so there must have been AI tuning over time. It would explain the Cubs comment if the beta group was testing against the best version, and they decided to give us a lame one instead (with the intention of tuning it better over time).

"StarSon;c-2288304" wrote:

Hey, didn't you hear? You aren't allowed to have opinions or make speculative statements anymore. Stop spreading misinformation!

In the interview Cubs asked CG_Miller if he knew the speed of the Executor to which he replied that he did not / could not remember / does not have this information available, and repeated this multiple times, iirc. This sounded very odd for the main designer and especially when the Executor came out at exactly 1 speed faster than the Negotiator. On the other hand, CG_Miller demonstrated enough skill that he would have immediately spotted the issues relating to turn order (or rather not have designed Executor in such a way in the first place, unless...).
If you ponder on this for a bit longer you can come to some pretty interesting conclusions.

"str2019;c-2288301" wrote:
Why isn't it obvious what is happening with the Executor? They were designing it for similar unsatisfactory performance as JMK without CAT.

Not saying that you’re wrong and it won’t happen, just wanted to point out a huge difference: cat’s kit and JMK’s kit were already public before the event and the community already pointed out how devastating those 2 would be. So players were informed beforehand that she could be necessary for the best line up possible.

People aren't going to wait much longer on a more detailed statement with a clear plan on fixing the issues with this ship. People spent 25k crystals 7*'ing it and are using more crystals than before trying to beat lower starred Executors.

People realize it could take a few days to code and run back through testing. "In the future" isn't good enough. People have every right to want their money/crystals back at this point. Communicate exactly what you are doing and the timeframe involved and you'll stop most of that from happening.

"HokieFiend;c-2288368" wrote:
People aren't going to wait much longer on a more detailed statement with a clear plan on fixing the issues with this ship. People spent 25k crystals 7*'ing it and are using more crystals than before trying to beat lower starred Executors.

People realize it could take a few days to code and run back through testing. "In the future" isn't good enough. People have every right to want their money/crystals back at this point. Communicate exactly what you are doing and the timeframe involved and you'll stop most of that from happening.

Wish I would have known to not upgrade my Executor to 7*. This is just another terrible deployment of the next big thing. Can’t they get just 1 thing right for once without a huge mess…

"IronCross;c-2288403" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2288368" wrote:
People aren't going to wait much longer on a more detailed statement with a clear plan on fixing the issues with this ship. People spent 25k crystals 7*'ing it and are using more crystals than before trying to beat lower starred Executors.

People realize it could take a few days to code and run back through testing. "In the future" isn't good enough. People have every right to want their money/crystals back at this point. Communicate exactly what you are doing and the timeframe involved and you'll stop most of that from happening.

Wish I would have known to not upgrade my Executor to 7*. This is just another terrible deployment of the next big thing. Can’t they get just 1 thing right for once without a huge mess…

Instead of not taking mine to 7* (which I didn't realize was going to make it better) I went ahead and removed mods from Piett to slow him down.