Executor is a beast? [MERGE]

"Beeblebrox;c-2288919" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288917" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2288916" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288910" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2288907" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288824" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2288822" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288804" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2288694" wrote:
I hope they realize people simply aren't going to wait in order to start initiating reparations on this. They'd do themselves a huge service by simply issuing a statement today with a bit more detail than "in the future".

Unfortunately they will not issue any statement with more information until that information is in a solid place.

They can't say "this is a top priority for us at the moment" or simply "we are actively working on it" when earnings are flying out the window? We are well past the "is there really a problem?" phase.

Maybe the silence does speak louder than words.

They will not make any promises about the activities they may be taking, as that can lead to it's own set of issues. For instance if they said we are working on testing through the weekend, and they find that the changes were not enough, people would be upset if nothing comes of it on Monday.

They said they are looking into it, and that they are investigating possible changes. That is a firm as things usually are until there are changes they can announce.

Except that CG via CG_Doja_Fett_MINI etc. have made a habit of making this kind of "we're looking into it" type of post and then nothing happens and we also never hear from them again on the subject.

For instance the recent JMK plus Slow GR Tank situation: CG post saying they're looking into it...that was 2-months ago and they never said another word about it!

Well the players aren't going to sit around beyond the 28-day window for getting a refund from Google/Apple while CG stick their heads in the sand over this situation and hope for it to go away (or for yet another massive new muck up to come along and take the attention!)
CG have rapidly burned through any remaining crumbs of trust players had in them with regards to pre-release testing and commitments to vastly improved communications with players given that they've utterly failed on both counts more and more!

In this case they have said it is not hitting the mark, and they are "looking into it". When this has been the case can you site an example where they have not acted?

Well firstly the exact example I just gave with the JMK + slow GR Tank where they said "We are aware of an unintended interaction" and ended with "We will keep you updated" - never heard from them again!
Secondly the CAT AI vs Zombie/Brute situation where they said "We are aware of some potentially unintended interactions" and then said they were "likely to take action in the future to address" - never heard from them again!

Correct.

But we can both note that they have not had an instance where they have said X is not hitting the mark and we are looking into it, and that not lead to an action.

Unintended interactions will happen, and if they result in something more, like not hitting an expected mark, they would take further action, and we would hear about it.

Talk about splitting hairs to try and find the tiniest possible leg for CG to stand on!

An 'eventual change' with no idea that it may or may not at some stage occur isn't going to wash this time.
Like they did *eventually* fix the issue with GAS/Fives/Wat under-manning GL SLKR, but that took them 3+ months from the initial post about it, with zero subsequent communications to update on decision of whether they actually were going to make a change and/or rough timescale planned for implementation!
Again that won't wash this time since there's no point going 3+ months with a failed (expensive!) fleet implementation, better to get a refund now and consider whether to go for it again in future if they ever do put changes in place and if those changes actually resolve the situation where a so-called top of the meta fleet is being beaten not only by much lesser versions of itself but also by every other fleet (except possibly Mace, not seen that one..yet!)

I am not defending anything, I am explaining the difference, that is all. I wish they would also say more about what they are doing.

People are going to make the choices they are going to make regardless. They will announce things when they have something to announce. There are very few if any examples (if any) where they have said we are looking at potential future changes and not made any. (I can't think of any, but leaving that door open, since many things have happened in the past and I am not going to say 100%)

They will not say any timeline as that can be seen as a promise and they are not willing to do that.

Also, I am not splitting hairs, the examples given use the same/similar wording for a reason. This one uses different wording, again, for a reason.

I have to agree with the general sentiment here, there was zero point in levelling up Executor and for the first time I really do feel ripped off as I watch the 4* Executors rip mine apart.
I don’t think that just fixing issue on this occasion will be sufficient, it’s down to really poor testing. I don’t know what Mickey Mouse tool/process/people that CG use but they need to sort it out as it’s not like the game was launched yesterday they should be doing much better by now.

Aside from the turn order thing, the Executer seems insanely good. One guy in my guild has a 7* Executor, and even in his ooooooold shard, he stayed in the number 1 spot in fleet arena over a whole day. That has to say something about its defensive capabilities. It's not like you can take any old rebel fleet and completely destroy the Executor every single time. At least not if the fleet is maxed.

I don't think anything should be changed unless it's the turn order thing.

Another thing I’ve seen thrown around a lot is “for the investment” regarding executor, while it’s true that it requires 2 r8 which is a pain in the butt, outside of that, I don’t see a hell of a lot of difference between that and any other meta fleet (save malebolence who skates by.)

r8, jka 7, fives 7, ashoka 5+, Rex 5+, up to you on plo adare etc but los have those relic as well.

Ackbar r2+, chewie Han 5+, srp bistan r0-3, biggs r3, wedge relic 5, up to you on rogue one.

Finalizer needs everyone mid to high relic.

Sure executor has slightly higher requirement, but it’s not like the other ships skate by with all g9 and expect to be competitive. If they make the ship unbeatable, they officially killed gac.

It's dominant in my fleet area. Razor Crest, Slave 1 and HT are the starting line ups. Bando needs to be r3 or higher by the look of it.

Easy fix, at 7* Executor unlocks another ability. This ability would be available from start of battle then have a 10 turn cool down. This ability targets opponent’s capital ship, does no damage but increases all cool downs by 1, and is unavoidable.

This would fix the mirror matches using a 7* against sub 7* executors, and would make those with sub 7* push harder (spend crystals) to get theirs to 7*. No stats need to be adjusted this way.

fwiw, I don’t have Executor and likely won’t until 2022

It’s more than likely they will continue to drag their feet and not give any new information for a while. Totally disappointed with the way they have mishandled yet another character deployment. I want a refund for the 100 shards extra I spent on for the 7th star. I’d be happy to stick with 6* until they get a fix but this is ridiculous they are screwing over those that maxed out vs those that kept it at 5 and 6 stars.

"Kyno;c-2288923" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2288919" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288917" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2288916" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288910" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2288907" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288824" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2288822" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288804" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2288694" wrote:
I hope they realize people simply aren't going to wait in order to start initiating reparations on this. They'd do themselves a huge service by simply issuing a statement today with a bit more detail than "in the future".

Unfortunately they will not issue any statement with more information until that information is in a solid place.

They can't say "this is a top priority for us at the moment" or simply "we are actively working on it" when earnings are flying out the window? We are well past the "is there really a problem?" phase.

Maybe the silence does speak louder than words.

They will not make any promises about the activities they may be taking, as that can lead to it's own set of issues. For instance if they said we are working on testing through the weekend, and they find that the changes were not enough, people would be upset if nothing comes of it on Monday.

They said they are looking into it, and that they are investigating possible changes. That is a firm as things usually are until there are changes they can announce.

Except that CG via CG_Doja_Fett_MINI etc. have made a habit of making this kind of "we're looking into it" type of post and then nothing happens and we also never hear from them again on the subject.

For instance the recent JMK plus Slow GR Tank situation: CG post saying they're looking into it...that was 2-months ago and they never said another word about it!

Well the players aren't going to sit around beyond the 28-day window for getting a refund from Google/Apple while CG stick their heads in the sand over this situation and hope for it to go away (or for yet another massive new muck up to come along and take the attention!)
CG have rapidly burned through any remaining crumbs of trust players had in them with regards to pre-release testing and commitments to vastly improved communications with players given that they've utterly failed on both counts more and more!

In this case they have said it is not hitting the mark, and they are "looking into it". When this has been the case can you site an example where they have not acted?

Well firstly the exact example I just gave with the JMK + slow GR Tank where they said "We are aware of an unintended interaction" and ended with "We will keep you updated" - never heard from them again!
Secondly the CAT AI vs Zombie/Brute situation where they said "We are aware of some potentially unintended interactions" and then said they were "likely to take action in the future to address" - never heard from them again!

Correct.

But we can both note that they have not had an instance where they have said X is not hitting the mark and we are looking into it, and that not lead to an action.

Unintended interactions will happen, and if they result in something more, like not hitting an expected mark, they would take further action, and we would hear about it.

Talk about splitting hairs to try and find the tiniest possible leg for CG to stand on!

An 'eventual change' with no idea that it may or may not at some stage occur isn't going to wash this time.
Like they did *eventually* fix the issue with GAS/Fives/Wat under-manning GL SLKR, but that took them 3+ months from the initial post about it, with zero subsequent communications to update on decision of whether they actually were going to make a change and/or rough timescale planned for implementation!
Again that won't wash this time since there's no point going 3+ months with a failed (expensive!) fleet implementation, better to get a refund now and consider whether to go for it again in future if they ever do put changes in place and if those changes actually resolve the situation where a so-called top of the meta fleet is being beaten not only by much lesser versions of itself but also by every other fleet (except possibly Mace, not seen that one..yet!)

I am not defending anything, I am explaining the difference, that is all. I wish they would also say more about what they are doing.

People are going to make the choices they are going to make regardless. They will announce things when they have something to announce. There are very few if any examples (if any) where they have said we are looking at potential future changes and not made any. (I can't think of any, but leaving that door open, since many things have happened in the past and I am not going to say 100%)

They will not say any timeline as that can be seen as a promise and they are not willing to do that.

Also, I am not splitting hairs, the examples given use the same/similar wording for a reason. This one uses different wording, again, for a reason.

They don't have to give a timeline. All we know right now is they are monitoring for a possible tweak "in the future". That's not too encouraging for the player base and it's going to result in people saying screw it... I can't trust them.. and go ahead and do what they need to do to make it right.

I'm willing to hold on as are most reasonable people but they should at the least say they are actively working on a solution... unless that's not the case which given history is what most people are afraid of.

"HokieFiend;c-2288962" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288923" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2288919" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288917" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2288916" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288910" wrote:

"Beeblebrox;c-2288907" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288824" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2288822" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2288804" wrote:

"HokieFiend;c-2288694" wrote:
I hope they realize people simply aren't going to wait in order to start initiating reparations on this. They'd do themselves a huge service by simply issuing a statement today with a bit more detail than "in the future".

Unfortunately they will not issue any statement with more information until that information is in a solid place.

They can't say "this is a top priority for us at the moment" or simply "we are actively working on it" when earnings are flying out the window? We are well past the "is there really a problem?" phase.

Maybe the silence does speak louder than words.

They will not make any promises about the activities they may be taking, as that can lead to it's own set of issues. For instance if they said we are working on testing through the weekend, and they find that the changes were not enough, people would be upset if nothing comes of it on Monday.

They said they are looking into it, and that they are investigating possible changes. That is a firm as things usually are until there are changes they can announce.

Except that CG via CG_Doja_Fett_MINI etc. have made a habit of making this kind of "we're looking into it" type of post and then nothing happens and we also never hear from them again on the subject.

For instance the recent JMK plus Slow GR Tank situation: CG post saying they're looking into it...that was 2-months ago and they never said another word about it!

Well the players aren't going to sit around beyond the 28-day window for getting a refund from Google/Apple while CG stick their heads in the sand over this situation and hope for it to go away (or for yet another massive new muck up to come along and take the attention!)
CG have rapidly burned through any remaining crumbs of trust players had in them with regards to pre-release testing and commitments to vastly improved communications with players given that they've utterly failed on both counts more and more!

In this case they have said it is not hitting the mark, and they are "looking into it". When this has been the case can you site an example where they have not acted?

Well firstly the exact example I just gave with the JMK + slow GR Tank where they said "We are aware of an unintended interaction" and ended with "We will keep you updated" - never heard from them again!
Secondly the CAT AI vs Zombie/Brute situation where they said "We are aware of some potentially unintended interactions" and then said they were "likely to take action in the future to address" - never heard from them again!

Correct.

But we can both note that they have not had an instance where they have said X is not hitting the mark and we are looking into it, and that not lead to an action.

Unintended interactions will happen, and if they result in something more, like not hitting an expected mark, they would take further action, and we would hear about it.

Talk about splitting hairs to try and find the tiniest possible leg for CG to stand on!

An 'eventual change' with no idea that it may or may not at some stage occur isn't going to wash this time.
Like they did *eventually* fix the issue with GAS/Fives/Wat under-manning GL SLKR, but that took them 3+ months from the initial post about it, with zero subsequent communications to update on decision of whether they actually were going to make a change and/or rough timescale planned for implementation!
Again that won't wash this time since there's no point going 3+ months with a failed (expensive!) fleet implementation, better to get a refund now and consider whether to go for it again in future if they ever do put changes in place and if those changes actually resolve the situation where a so-called top of the meta fleet is being beaten not only by much lesser versions of itself but also by every other fleet (except possibly Mace, not seen that one..yet!)

I am not defending anything, I am explaining the difference, that is all. I wish they would also say more about what they are doing.

People are going to make the choices they are going to make regardless. They will announce things when they have something to announce. There are very few if any examples (if any) where they have said we are looking at potential future changes and not made any. (I can't think of any, but leaving that door open, since many things have happened in the past and I am not going to say 100%)

They will not say any timeline as that can be seen as a promise and they are not willing to do that.

Also, I am not splitting hairs, the examples given use the same/similar wording for a reason. This one uses different wording, again, for a reason.

They don't have to give a timeline. All we know right now is they are monitoring for a possible tweak "in the future". That's not too encouraging for the player base and it's going to result in people saying screw it... I can't trust them.. and go ahead and do what they need to do to make it right.

I'm willing to hold on as are most reasonable people but they should at the least say they are actively working on a solution... unless that's not the case which given history is what most people are afraid of.

The person I was responding to, asked for that, which is why I said that about the timeline.

As I said players are going to make the choices they make.

They cant say that, as things take time and even just testing could result more changes being needed.

I get what people are afraid of, which is why I am pointing out that the wording is different than the other examples given.

"Kelthuzil;c-2288929" wrote:
Another thing I’ve seen thrown around a lot is “for the investment” regarding executor, while it’s true that it requires 2 r8 which is a pain in the butt, outside of that, I don’t see a hell of a lot of difference between that and any other meta fleet (save malebolence who skates by.)

r8, jka 7, fives 7, ashoka 5+, Rex 5+, up to you on plo adare etc but los have those relic as well.

Ackbar r2+, chewie Han 5+, srp bistan r0-3, biggs r3, wedge relic 5, up to you on rogue one.

Finalizer needs everyone mid to high relic.

Sure executor has slightly higher requirement, but it’s not like the other ships skate by with all g9 and expect to be competitive. If they make the ship unbeatable, they officially killed gac.

Except for ackbar, srp and bistan, every character from those fleets are either strong characters or prerequisites for GLs. For executor: Bounty hunters pilots are… bounty hunters, piett at r8 is crazy overgeared and tie fighter pilot is a benchwarmer (Vader is fine though). Usefulness of the pilots is a big part of the investment cost imo.