A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
Why do we need to discuss this at all? There is a simple solution to the problem.
They should change the cooldown for the Death Star annihilate ability to 0, then no other fleets will be able to touch an Executor on defense. For mirror, only speed and RNG will be decisive.
That's what we want.
In a game like this, time spent playing, diligence and/or money equate to an advantage. That advantage is all people are rightfully asking to be fixed. Nobody is saying make it impossible to beat. The biggest stain on this release to me is the disparity in viability between a lower star Executor and a maxed one. When people are dropping mods off Piett in an attempt to restore sanity that's a huge issue.
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
Hey, I happen to work in Software Product Support. What you are asking is the customer attitude I face everyday. I can only tell you: keep dreaming... Overselling is not equal to product defect/bug. The software works as designed. It just does not fit to your personal ROI expectation.
I've worked in IT Software development for over 20 years. When things fail and don't work as intended (which is what has happened despite what you say and CG has already admitted this), particularly repeatedly and without quick prioritization of remediation of these issues: people get fired/replaced. Customers stop payment. Bottom line.
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
In all likelihood they did test, but not at 4* against 7*. That, I think, is the main issue they see, and indeed is something that shouldn't happen.
As for the new ship, if it's a chase and not a marquee (which has been the case for many new ships), it's not that bad. From my (admittedly limited) understanding, the main issue is bad turn order and being vulnerable to an opening salvo. This sounds like something that could be solved by a "turn 0" effect, either "shooting first" or a passive. That would be independent on the number of stars, making the fleet viable without spending a dime on the new ship.
Or they could finally introduce ship mods and let us define our own turn order.
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
I would argue JMK was about as good without CAT as it seems Executor is now. Others have already mentioned the DR/Malak fiasco (which ended my status as a paying customer).
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
LV may very well be the same without Maul.
Didn't they actually say that Maul will be an integral part of LV teams?
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
LV may very well be the same without Maul.
Didn't they actually say that Maul will be an integral part of LV teams?
I'm not sure. I won't be able to chase LV for a while, so I've kind of just tuned him out.
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
LV may very well be the same without Maul.
Didn't they actually say that Maul will be an integral part of LV teams?
I think they said Maul was anti-Kenobi. not sure they talked about him in BBQ Ani teams. But I doubt they'd have any faction synergy. Maul is Mandalorian. BBQ Ani isn't Mandalorian.
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
LV may very well be the same without Maul.
Didn't they actually say that Maul will be an integral part of LV teams?
I think they said Maul was anti-Kenobi. not sure they talked about him in BBQ Ani teams. But I doubt they'd have any faction synergy. Maul is Mandalorian. BBQ Ani isn't Mandalorian.
He could have Dark UFU synergy just like Kenobi has for Light UFU.
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
LV may very well be the same without Maul.
Didn't they actually say that Maul will be an integral part of LV teams?
Yes, Crumb said almost exactly that in the ra video.
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
LV may very well be the same without Maul.
Didn't they actually say that Maul will be an integral part of LV teams?
I think they said Maul was anti-Kenobi. not sure they talked about him in BBQ Ani teams. But I doubt they'd have any faction synergy. Maul is Mandalorian. BBQ Ani isn't Mandalorian.
A lot of people are slamming their testing or lack thereof but I guarantee you the devs and everyone else are often on unreasonable timeframes to release... for a game that inherently becomes increasingly more complex with every variable (characters, ship, relics, gear etc) that gets added to the game. I'm fine with issues. There always are in any software release I've ever seen at my job..,just some much much smaller in impact. What we all deserve for giving this company a couple billion dollars over the years is for these issues to be prioritized and fixed immediately. "Looking at it for a potential fix in the future" doesn't cut it to me. They need to tell us this is priority one. I don't care if it impacts upcoming releases. Git gud with design, development, testing and probably most importantly forecasting time for a release if that is a huge issue for the company.
They specifically stated that the Executor was planned ever since Piett was confirmed as coming to the game, which means CG have had an entire 12-Months to get this ship right and ensure it was tested prior to announcing its kit to the players. There also doesn't appear to be a specific need to half released it on the date they did as its not a requirement for any event or raid or whatever already in-game, so if they had not sufficiently tested it in that length of time then then surely could've delayed releasing it. I think many players are seeing a trend that CG release items into the game and wildly obvious flaws are identified within a few hours and they're then making hot-fixes or re-releases or nerfs etc when they SHOULD be doing properly diligent pre-announcement testing. As someone who works in software testing personally I have serious doubts and concerns about CG if they are claiming that they do actually properly test to their own standards of satisfaction since its clear that whatever those standards are they aren't acceptably rigorous or aren't being performed by people capable of understanding and doing the kind of testing necessary.
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
LV may very well be the same without Maul.
Didn't they actually say that Maul will be an integral part of LV teams?
I think they said Maul was anti-Kenobi. not sure they talked about him in BBQ Ani teams. But I doubt they'd have any faction synergy. Maul is Mandalorian. BBQ Ani isn't Mandalorian.
They said in the road ahead video at the 4:30 mark that similar to how CAT worked with JMK Maul would bring LVs squad to the next level.
Seems to me this is CG's MO as of late. JMK, even with KAM, was a reliable win with older metas. DR without Malak was a semi-reliable win with JKR or EP.
I'm not defending CG nor am I saying Dengar's ship is coming and will make Executor crazy dominant, but I think those that rushed this ship should have known this was a reasonable possibility. I'd still be angry if I were them, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Seems to me this is CG's MO as of late. JMK, even with KAM, was a reliable win with older metas. DR without Malak was a semi-reliable win with JKR or EP.
I'm not defending CG nor am I saying Dengar's ship is coming and will make Executor crazy dominant, but I think those that rushed this ship should have known this was a reasonable possibility. I'd still be angry if I were them, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Agreed. There has been a pattern (whether that is intended or a consequence of problems in the testing process is only known by CG).
I want to laugh when I see people arguing that they test executor at 7* and not 4*.
C'mon, a billion dollar company. Of course they shoud have test 4*, 5*, 6*, 7* and against all the other fleets. And do it again, iteration iteration and so on. That is testing. The problem we all see in 1 day clearly show that there is a huge problem in their testing pipeline (not enough money spent in this department probably)
I am pretty sure their iteration tests for business model (requirement, 1 day releasing, thousands of cristals needed) are perfectly fine and detailed (lots of money spend on this department probably).
CG has to do something about this, it is not normal to ALWAYS have problem with toon releasing.
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.
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.
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.
They’re equal at 192 but depending on mods or the coin flip.
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.
They’re equal at 192 but depending on mods or the coin flip.
According to .gg only 88's ships can match 192 (Executor's speed). R8 XB/RC cap out at 186/188. So the only way to get them to act first is to do what they say we shouldn't ever do: intentionally gimp a character for better performance.
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.
They’re equal at 192 but depending on mods or the coin flip.
Got it. I just realized my Piett is not maxed on his leader ability, which is why mine was slower than 192.
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.
They’re equal at 192 but depending on mods or the coin flip.
According to .gg only 88's ships can match 192 (Executor's speed). R8 XB/RC cap out at 186/188. So the only way to get them to act first is to do what they say we shouldn't ever do: intentionally gimp a character for better performance.
I assumed he was mistaken and meant IG-2000 since he said he wasn’t sure.
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.
This is flat out wrong.
IG88s ship will equal the Executor (192 speed) at relic 8 + zeta. It is impossible to get any other BH ship faster than Executor.
RC tops out at 188. XB tops out at 186.
Even with a tie at 192, it is a coin flip who goes first. There is no reliable strategy without taking mods off Piett.
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.
R8 IG2k can get a coinflip against Piett, although it's also a ship that tends to get annihilated by other fleets that have fast ships (rebels, AT), (among some other issues).
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.
They’re equal at 192 but depending on mods or the coin flip.
According to .gg only 88's ships can match 192 (Executor's speed). R8 XB/RC cap out at 186/188. So the only way to get them to act first is to do what they say we shouldn't ever do: intentionally gimp a character for better performance.
I assumed he was mistaken and meant IG-2000 since he said he wasn’t sure.
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.
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".
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.
And this will only get you slower than 1 ship, one that isn’t even good as a starting ship.
You need multiple R8s and remove all mods from Piett to get the optimal turn order.
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.
And this will only get you slower than 1 ship, one that isn’t even good as a starting ship.
You need multiple R8s and remove all mods from Piett to get the optimal turn order.
True.
And the fact that they didn't caught this in testing shows how lackluster the testing was. Having to start with a Basic on your capital because there's nothing else you can do with a maxed Exec, is a huge oversight.
Replies
In all likelihood they did test, but tested with a ship we don’t have.
CG gave us one day to figure out they sold us a broken fleet that will be fixed with a $300 marquee.
Imagine if Lord Vader comes out and is terrible without a marquee that comes out later.
I've worked in IT Software development for over 20 years. When things fail and don't work as intended (which is what has happened despite what you say and CG has already admitted this), particularly repeatedly and without quick prioritization of remediation of these issues: people get fired/replaced. Customers stop payment. Bottom line.
In all likelihood they did test, but not at 4* against 7*. That, I think, is the main issue they see, and indeed is something that shouldn't happen.
As for the new ship, if it's a chase and not a marquee (which has been the case for many new ships), it's not that bad. From my (admittedly limited) understanding, the main issue is bad turn order and being vulnerable to an opening salvo. This sounds like something that could be solved by a "turn 0" effect, either "shooting first" or a passive. That would be independent on the number of stars, making the fleet viable without spending a dime on the new ship.
Or they could finally introduce ship mods and let us define our own turn order.
I would argue JMK was about as good without CAT as it seems Executor is now. Others have already mentioned the DR/Malak fiasco (which ended my status as a paying customer).
LV may very well be the same without Maul.
Didn't they actually say that Maul will be an integral part of LV teams?
I'm not sure. I won't be able to chase LV for a while, so I've kind of just tuned him out.
I think they said Maul was anti-Kenobi. not sure they talked about him in BBQ Ani teams. But I doubt they'd have any faction synergy. Maul is Mandalorian. BBQ Ani isn't Mandalorian.
He could have Dark UFU synergy just like Kenobi has for Light UFU.
Yes, Crumb said almost exactly that in the ra video.
They said in the road ahead video at the 4:30 mark that similar to how CAT worked with JMK Maul would bring LVs squad to the next level.
I'm not defending CG nor am I saying Dengar's ship is coming and will make Executor crazy dominant, but I think those that rushed this ship should have known this was a reasonable possibility. I'd still be angry if I were them, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Agreed. There has been a pattern (whether that is intended or a consequence of problems in the testing process is only known by CG).
But yes, can understand the annoyance.
C'mon, a billion dollar company. Of course they shoud have test 4*, 5*, 6*, 7* and against all the other fleets. And do it again, iteration iteration and so on. That is testing. The problem we all see in 1 day clearly show that there is a huge problem in their testing pipeline (not enough money spent in this department probably)
I am pretty sure their iteration tests for business model (requirement, 1 day releasing, thousands of cristals needed) are perfectly fine and detailed (lots of money spend on this department probably).
CG has to do something about this, it is not normal to ALWAYS have problem with toon releasing.
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.
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.
They’re equal at 192 but depending on mods or the coin flip.
According to .gg only 88's ships can match 192 (Executor's speed). R8 XB/RC cap out at 186/188. So the only way to get them to act first is to do what they say we shouldn't ever do: intentionally gimp a character for better performance.
Got it. I just realized my Piett is not maxed on his leader ability, which is why mine was slower than 192.
I assumed he was mistaken and meant IG-2000 since he said he wasn’t sure.
But everything you said is correct. 👍
This is flat out wrong.
IG88s ship will equal the Executor (192 speed) at relic 8 + zeta. It is impossible to get any other BH ship faster than Executor.
RC tops out at 188. XB tops out at 186.
Even with a tie at 192, it is a coin flip who goes first. There is no reliable strategy without taking mods off Piett.
R8 IG2k can get a coinflip against Piett, although it's also a ship that tends to get annihilated by other fleets that have fast ships (rebels, AT), (among some other issues).
Yes, my bad.
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.
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".
And this will only get you slower than 1 ship, one that isn’t even good as a starting ship.
You need multiple R8s and remove all mods from Piett to get the optimal turn order.
True.
And the fact that they didn't caught this in testing shows how lackluster the testing was. Having to start with a Basic on your capital because there's nothing else you can do with a maxed Exec, is a huge oversight.