Profundity Feedback
@CG_Tusken_Meathead
You seem to be listening to us so here is some feedback on the Profundity. What happens for this ship is typical and happens too often unfortunately.
Two days ago you posted this:
Why is Admiral Raddus required at such a high Relic level?
In order to give the Profundity a good initial impression, we wanted to ensure that the crew of the ship would be on par with the Relic 9 Admiral Pietts that are on a good chunk of Executors out there.
Dans today we have an event whitch is not easy and use a G11 Raddus... We are not dumb, raddus R9 and other req are for making money, and it's ok, stop **** pls. It just make players angry.
And if I'm ok whith a "hard" event, the bonus tier that we have to do 25 times or so to have the profundity 7 stars, shoukd be a "relatively easy one" not a tiedious one that need us to retry for good rng or need us to up a ship that has no use after the event.
Second statement:
"Where is Profundity intended to sit within the Meta?
We worked very hard to engineer a ship that can beat a defending Executor of equal investment. In the flip situation, with that same Executor attacking a defending Profundity, the battle should fall in the Executor’s favor."
This is again ****. Sorry to say that but the "worked very hard" is in fact the IA start with first special instead of second one! That make the executor counter event easier that executor miror! But most important is that it WILL make soft counters easier. You guys design a ship that clearly have all the capability to be great and make it totaly dumb in defense. It's frustrating, it's not a well design either and it will lead some cheap counters that you said you don't want.
So well pls, we love this game, don't make us hate it with those typical behaviors.
You seem to be listening to us so here is some feedback on the Profundity. What happens for this ship is typical and happens too often unfortunately.
Two days ago you posted this:
Why is Admiral Raddus required at such a high Relic level?
In order to give the Profundity a good initial impression, we wanted to ensure that the crew of the ship would be on par with the Relic 9 Admiral Pietts that are on a good chunk of Executors out there.
Dans today we have an event whitch is not easy and use a G11 Raddus... We are not dumb, raddus R9 and other req are for making money, and it's ok, stop **** pls. It just make players angry.
And if I'm ok whith a "hard" event, the bonus tier that we have to do 25 times or so to have the profundity 7 stars, shoukd be a "relatively easy one" not a tiedious one that need us to retry for good rng or need us to up a ship that has no use after the event.
Second statement:
"Where is Profundity intended to sit within the Meta?
We worked very hard to engineer a ship that can beat a defending Executor of equal investment. In the flip situation, with that same Executor attacking a defending Profundity, the battle should fall in the Executor’s favor."
This is again ****. Sorry to say that but the "worked very hard" is in fact the IA start with first special instead of second one! That make the executor counter event easier that executor miror! But most important is that it WILL make soft counters easier. You guys design a ship that clearly have all the capability to be great and make it totaly dumb in defense. It's frustrating, it's not a well design either and it will lead some cheap counters that you said you don't want.
So well pls, we love this game, don't make us hate it with those typical behaviors.
3
Replies
Is this a fact ? So far i’ve only seen Ahnald video where he’s up against a line up without biggs at reinforcement, which seems pretty standard and would probably be a problem.
When executor came out, literally every fleet had a counter to it. Not a guaranteed one, but a way to counter. Then they patched it.
Give it some time, im sure there will be a patch
I doubt it. It was not the intention that the Exec would be beaten by so many non-mirror counters, while it was the intention that the Exec and the Prof could beat each other. Both intentions were clearly stated by CG.
From my experience both ships neutralize each other pretty well. Whereas the Executor loses a lot more banners on offense against Prof than vice versa.
TBH Profundity is a decent counter, but you can definitely lose simply due to bad RNG despite immense relics simply needed to get the ship. And the r9 thing is obviously **** considering the speed in the kit. You can win with 5 star or lose with 7 star. And Profundity can hold on defense vs Executor, but so can Executor in mirrors. And it's possible that Executor is more cheaply countered, but then the question for a lot of players would be: "okay, then why do i need profundity? Is it just an immensely expensive luxury counter to a cheaper year-old fleet?"
Executor was only buffed because CG was worried about their poor fleet design resulting in lower-star executors having an edge, which would deter players from whaling crystals on quick 7 stars. This doesn't appear to be the case with Profundity.
We're in a weird point in the game where CG is playing around with ways of getting players to invest more resources, but get less power. And they might use infinite GCs to get people to get GI, or they might provide extra farm time and an extremely late kit release and hidden AI mechanics to use FOMO to get people to get Profundity. I'm not sure what the right answer is for stuff like this. Is Profundity garbage? No, that's silly. Is it worth the resources? For the vast majority of players, perhaps not.
I think one of OPs points is that rather than actually taking time to test and tweak the kit and numbers to make Exec counter Profun, they just tossed the 'No TM gain' in right along with a dunce cap for Han's Millennium Falcon and Raddus himself so they both open up with awful openings when the AI plays on defense. It's a lazy way of ensuring Exec can beat Profun, and makes other counters, obviously including lower star Profun an easier foil, diminishing the value of using money/crystals to unlock and star up the new shiny thing.
If you play against the setup without HT on the initial formation, then you will understand what I'm saying. The counter is reduce to RNG of your ships assiting or not. Therefore, you can kill xanadu in the first moves and everything goes well, or you can not, and they will obliterate you in seconds.
Is not a reliable counter. Is just a coin toss.
It work perfect against exec .
Imagine another big fleet on def that is hard to counter. So the Male counter is good.
Prof is made for off
and u better Start farmen every ship, because they wont be accelerated and it is a Real pain in the **** if u need it and then u have to rush for it.
And whats the Problem about having another Option for GAC, TW or TB?
I find it easier without HT so far, but maybe I had great rng. However, I don't open with Special 2 but Special 1 against this trio.
Good, because Special 2 is only best against HT, XB, RC comps. If they changed the AI to do Special 2 first, Executor could still easily beat it. If they made it conditional, we'd still find the Executor comp that can counter the AI. I really don't think the AI needs a tweak based on what I've seen so far.
Frankly, I like how easily they can beat each other. If you have both, climbs in arena are easy. You'll have more flexibility in GAC. And LSTB fleet CM (at least in P1) went very well.
Reminds me of the Neg/Mal meta. They were reliably able to counter each other. Both had soft, off-meta counters.
My only problem with Profitability is that it is SO hard coded to go after RC and there's so much rNg in it, that I routinely lose my r8 BAM at least once per climb on the OPEN. I'd understand if I died during middle of battle due to bad decisions, but basically losing your main ship on the open is some hardcore *garbage* (omg, I can't with these filters