I don't know if you guys know this or not, but flak frigates are actually EXTREMELY overpowered. The general consensus in the community seems to be that flak is only useful in leveling your opponents titan and making your eco angry. I can confirm that is NOT the case. A combination of low tech (only requires TWO labs… WTF), incredible range and speed (a handful of flak got lock down an entire gravwell), cheap cost (75 credits more than cobalt… what a bargain), and the ability to counter every ship in entire game besides cap and HCs make going mass flak one of the most effective strategies in the game.
What about its supposed counter, the light frigate, you ask? The majority of the sins community doesn't know this – which is why the secret I'm about to divulge will make the "pros" very angry– but LF doesn't counter flak... It is actually the other way around. Don't take my word for it, go make a custom game and see for yourself. 200 supply of gardas vs 200 supply of cobalts. If you micro the gardas just right, the cobalts will exhibit what I call "retarded fish syndrome," and spin out of control, unable to attack the flaks. Meanwhile, the gardas will steadily chip away at the ENTIRE cobalt group, and eventually win. I guarantee this will make your head explode, as you finally realize the awesome power of the flak frigate.
1st test
Starting Conditions: 50 Gardas vs. 40 Cobalts (both 200 supply)
NO upgrades for either side
ELEMENTARY micro for flak (consists of moving back and forth in straight line)
End Result: 22 Gardas remaining (88 supply)
Remaining gardas have very high health
SCREENSHOTS- http://postimg.org/gallery/371hjd9qc/4ab10b9b/
2st test
Same conditions
End Result: 27 gardas remaining
Replay: http://www.2shared.com/file/fBoBDoHM/FlakLFtest.html?
Ryat, a trusted and prominent member of this forum, ran his own tests with 80 sentinels and 100 disciples. He said the sentinels won, hands down.
Discussion about the aforementioned "retard fish syndrome" affecting cobalts can be found here: https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/446223/page/1
Solutions
A 25 unit decrease in crystal in return for a 25 credit increase seems to be more than adequate nerf for a unit of this firepower. As everybody knows, credits are the most important resource in the early game, so this will cut down the flak numbers substantially.
2. Increase ship speed
Hold on a second! This sounds like a buff! Well no actually. One of the key elements for the flak's op nature is its ability to dish out tremendous amounts of damage due to having a fast turnaround rate. Imagine how more powerful strike craft would be if they had the flak's speed and weapon cooldown! A faster speed would lower dps, as the ship would creep out of range due to forward momentum, which translates into less time shooting at the enemy and more time turning around.
3. Increase range
This will allow it to target more enemies at once, effectively reducing the dps per ship.
Please offer constructive responses only people. No trolling, name-calling, or put downs.
P.S. - does anyone know how to put screenshots into posts? I tried the "insert image" button and it doesn't work.
Until someone else offers replays I will simply respond with:
POINT IS INVALID - NO REPLAY PROVIDED
Finally someone taking the effort to show what a waste of time this thread actually is. There's nothing wrong with flak nor with LFs for that matter...
Care to explain how so?
50 flak vs. 40 LFs is mid-late game? Do you scuttle your HW before you start fleeting? And late game, why would you even be building LFs? You wouldn't, so who cares whether they counter anything at that point...
Sure, fleet supply is most important late game, but LFs aren't relevant at that stage of the game...LFs are relevant early game and sometimes mid-game, and in both of those instances cost and build times are far more relevant than fleet supply...if you are talking about flak countering LFs in the mid-late game then why test only 50 gardas vs. 40 LFs? Furthermore, mid-late game is severely complicated by mid to high level cap abilities, titans, and large amounts of SC, which means that pure frigate vs. frigate battles are pretty meaningless at that point...frigate-only tests are generally useful for early game fleet compositions, but you are (apparently?) not talking about early game....
An honest typo that has been fixed...the other number is however still correct, and thus my point still stands...where is your replay showing ~33 flak beating 40 cobalts? Maybe it can be done, maybe it can't, but your inability or unwillingness to show that it can be done is rather indicative...
Quite the opposite...when feed comes in to play, resources are no longer the limiting factor....thus, the construction time is the only thing limiting your fleeting capability...
Care to post examples with the "correct" values? I have ran the numbers, you have not...you have a few images (no replay or video) and mere claims...show how my other numbers are "fudged" or dismissed by another analysis....
Care to show a replay or video with most of your flak clearly firing all 4 banks at one target? Two banks is easy, I'd like to see actual proof of all 4 being fired continuously by a fleet of flak at one target...that you have killed a capital ship with flak is not testament to your claim, I've killed caps with scout ships but that doesn't make scouts good at killing caps...
For reference here is the "logic" you quoted...
My logic is that truly OP ships would win when outnumbered....do you disagree with that logic? Do you believe a frigate can be OP yet be unable to win a fight with less numbers? Isn't that kind of the definition of OP, that it wins too easily, that it thrives even against the odds? Furthermore, light frigates countering heavy cruisers is a failed application of my logic, as LFs lose to HCs even with the LFs favored in terms of resources or fleet supply...therefore, using my definition of OP, you could not claim LFs to be overpowered...or perhaps you believe LFs are OP, and thus by my logic they should be able to beat HCs even with fewer numbers...are you now arguing that LFs are OP in the same thread that you are claiming flak is OP because it can beat LFs?
And let's make no mistake...you aren't simply complaining that LFs are too weak against flak, that they don't counter them strongly enough....you are in fact quite clearly claiming flak to counter LFs as well as other frigates...from the OP:
Your words, not mine...
Quite frankly, you seem more interested in trying to make me look bad (like I can't do that alone) than actually proving your point...despite the fact that even those willing to acknowledge flak may beat LFs have criticized your solutions to the problem, you instead direct virtually all your attention on dismissing my opinions...
Where is the replay? We don't want a flipbook....
Where are the tests that incorporate your solutions and demonstrate their effectiveness?
Where is the testament of other skilled players that flak spam is working on ICO?
No one here needs you to convince them that I'm a troll, we already know this...what you should be focusing on is showing how you aren't trolling us...you claim flak is OP, explicitly stating that it counters LFs, and then the solutions you provide clearly make flak only stronger...
I don't think we even care if flak is OP or not...in fact, we might have almost just granted it to you if your solutions actually somehow had the remote possibility of fixing the problem...perhaps it's about time I confess that I admire you and particularly this thread, as it is far better troll bait than anything I have ever made...how you imbed such seriousness in your threads is...well, truly inspiring...
Next thing you know we'll have a thread about illuminators countering corvettes...
On a more serious note, I think this thread essentially demonstrates the difference between in vitro and in vivo experiments...
Well, somewhat - definitely moreso than the other LRMs - and definitely seen in the wild more than these flak cool stories - more of a joke reference on my part.
Except that they actually do...and skilled people do lum spam on a routine basis...and skilled people counter lum spam not with corvettes but with their own LRFs because they know how bad corvettes are against lums...
And......how many skilled people use flak to counter LFs?
So noone understood my point?
Flak take longer to build and cost more and require 2 mil labs and the research
Light frigates are available instantly
IF you colonnize your starting moon and your starting asteroid asap as per standard start, and spam asap
You will vastly outproduce someone making flak if you are making LFs,
You compare flak to LF in fleet supply only, but do not consider any other factors...
I actually ran 2 tests, one i spammed flak, the other i spammed LF.
It took 11 minutes to max out the first fleet upgrade at 38 light frigates, at 11 minutes of building flak you will have atleast 8-9 less flak.
I merely trying to point out that if player A starts the game spamming flak, and player B spams LF...there is no feeder and no extreme map fuk involved, player B (spamming LF) should win or is a noobcake
As far as mid-late game when fleet supply matters more, yes i could see how flak is OP if you can beat LF with it.
Why dont you test 38 colbalts vs 29 gardas. That is roughly the amount of each you should have by the 11 minute mark.
Based on my tests 38 Cobalts would devastate 29 Gardas
So much asininity in this thread, its going to take a while to respond to it all.
I finally got a replay up, 50 gardas vs 40 cobalts (200 supply)
Gardas win with 27 remaining. Shocker, except to those who haven't been braindead this whole time
http://www.2shared.com/file/fBoBDoHM/FlakLFtest.html?
Don't make claims you can't back up.
You betray your stupidity and ignorance with your own words. 8x speed? What the hell? Next you'll be claiming tetris at 8x speed is equivalent to tetris at normal speed. Get back to me when you do a legitimate test and stop this pathetic attempt at objectivity.
I did not use the term "hands down." That was Ryat, who said he performed a test with 80 sentinels and 100 discs. And when you get to battles where your enemy has 40+ ships, it is actually a detriment to try to focus fire your light frigates as they would waste much of their damage destroying a single ship due to overkill. So the results would have been worse for the cobalts. If your refering to microing light frigate movement, how exactly would you do that? Put them in hold position so the flak can outrange them?
I think Wintercross put it in better terms then I did.
And how ironic is it that your own replays don't work, all they do is just display a bunch of text. Lmao.
How to tell if somebody is a troll:
1. Offers no constructive opinions
2. Does nothing but "tut, tut" in the background
3. Claims thread is a waste of time, but keeps coming back for more
Carriers cost way more than HCs, yet they barely counter them on a cost-per-cost basis. Same goes for illums and vettes. The point is cost should not be the only determinant in determining counters.
Do you even read my posts before commenting Seleuceia? I said 50 flak and 40 LF is mid game, not mid-late game. For me, I divide a typical multiplayer match into 4 stages: early, mid, late, and endgame. Early is first 10 minutes, mid is when you have your shoving matches as frontliner with low tech units. Late is when you transition out of those units and get titans, caps, etc. And endgame is when the crazy shit starts happening.
And who the hell said to build LFs late game? Stop putting words in my mouth. I guess nobody builds LRMs and HCs late game because they counter LFs, right? And you somehow forgot flak becomes more useful as the game goes by, because theres going to be a shit-ton of strikecraft flying around.
We have different definitions about early, mid, and late game so I'm not even going to bother commenting on this.
Lol? Whats next, 30 vettes dont beat 40 lrm so that doesn't mean they counter them?
I'm not willing to provide proof? Thats funny, because so far I'm the only one here who has tried to provide even a nickle of that stuff, excluding that moron who thought text boxes disguised as a replay were somehow proof. And you seem to pull out numbers out of your ass, as your first post in this thread clearly indicated.
If you have 3-4 factories like most people do, you will produce ships faster than you can lose them.
Dude, I haven't forgotten our vasari sb cobalt/disc debate where you were exposed to be completely and utterly wrong in both your analysis and your "tests."
Seleuceia's "logic":
33 pre-patch illums don't beat 40 kodiaks
Therefore, illums aren't overpowered
Wow brilliant deductive work there Sel...
Now your insinuating that kodiak rush is actually viable against light frigate spam? Wow, your trolling couldn't be more blatant. I was responding to someone's claim that in order to for a ship to be better than the other, they not only have to beat them supply wise, but also cost, construction, etc. Using that logic, light frigates counter HCs because dropping down 5 military labs at the start is of course not a viable strategy.
Do you not understand the concept of "hard" and "soft" counters? I clearly elaborated that flak is meant as a "soft" counter to light frigate, just as lrms and HCs are meant as a "soft" counter to each other. Post back when you understand the concept...
Maybe its because your the one who is posting 100 paragraph posts? I'm primarily directing most of my responses towards yours because they are more of them. If you actually bother to read my responses, I addressed almost every complaint except Ekko-tek because I don't remember what the game was about.
How to troll, a guide by Seleuceia
1. Accuse others of trolling
2. Admit to being a troll
3. Continue to accuse others of trolling
4. Laugh at your cleverness and intellect
Also, this is not just some crackpot idea of mine. I love how you completely ignored Ryat's post, where it said he basically confirmed my findings.
I never said who used that term so your assumption that I was quoting you is unfounded.
My replays were made in 1.82.whateverthefuckgoesnext.beta - if you're not in that version you're s.o.l. (and it also explains this thread because flak was nerfed hard in the beta )
I never said it would be remotely fair, I could easily have 1000 Cobalts attack 50 Gardas one at a time, thus ensuring I get my desired result. If I only provided screenshots (as someone initially did) who would be any the wiser? I'm sure it would be as objective as your replay, if only I could view it. Which leads me too. . .
And now, as promised.
EDIT: In regards to the 8x thing you said that you simply had the flak go back and forth. I had the flak go back and forth. Based on that I fail to see how the tests are different as we
BOTH HAD THE FLAK GO BACK AND FORTH
Huh? Im not a modder, you know that. Also, is this not an asinine piece of reasoning? So just because my solutions don't work, I'm wrong in saying theres a problem? If I say that poverty is a big problem in the world today, but then as my solution proclaim we should all eat the rich, is my initial claim wrong? Poverty doesn't exist at all, right?
Yes. If you said gravity was a problem but suggested we increase the mass of the Earth your initial point would be rendered invalid by your suggestion. Or your suggestion would be rendered invalid by your initial point. Either way one of your statements would be invalid which calls the validity of all of your statements into question, which is not good when you are trying to convince people you're right.
Wow, you guys have way too much time on your hands.
...Oh wait, I forgot the OP completely ignores another man's reasoning alltogether...
That was a constructive opinion.
Aren't forum quotes fun to play with?
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58 Carriers cost way more than HCs, yet they barely counter them on a cost-per-cost basis. Same goes for illums and vettes. The point is cost should not be the only determinant in determining counters.
Cost of a Kodiak is 1180...cost of a percheron is 1975...so, 30 Kodiaks is equal to about 18 percherons (in fleet supply this would be 300 worth of HCs and 252 worth of LCs)...I pitted 30 Kodiaks against 18 percherons (with bombers) in a small gravity well (moon) with the LCs doing some kiting...only 2 HCs were dead by the time the Kodiaks "caught" the carriers so it wasn't like the initial separation distance was the sole factor here...
For the percherons, 11 of the 18 survived...on a per cost basis, bombers utterly crush HCs, and on a per fleet supply basis it is just a joke as it should be since bombers are THE counter to HCs...is there some other basis you wish to compare the two? Because I think it is quite clear that carriers with bombers clearly counter HCs, and counter them hard....in fact in this case, fleet supply favors the carriers even more than cost does...
You are not just arguing that LF poorly counters flak...you are in fact arguing that flak counters LFs...I will again quote you explicitly stating this...
but LF doesn't counter flak... It is actually the other way around. [/quote] If flak really countered LFs, then it should be able to handedly beat LFs even with a smaller fleet...this is what defines a counter, and it is true for every "counter" save (Vasari) corvettes against illuminators....whether you should focus on using fleet supply or using cost as your equalizer (and thus your definition of fleet size) depends on the stage of the game...since LFs are an early game ship that slowly transitions out during the mid-game, you should be using resources as your equalizer since that is most relevant to the early and mid game... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Do you even read my posts before commenting Seleuceia? I said 50 flak and 40 LF is mid game, not mid-late game. For reference, here is your full statement... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 44Fleet supply is the end-all, be-all determinant of fleet power in mid-late game. The test I ran clearly uses a mid-game force. Now, Uncrustable ran a test of his own, and had 38 LFs (190 supply) at 11 minutes...you yourself label early game as before 10 minutes, so 38 LFs (and thus your test using 40 LFs) by your definition is an early-mid game fleet...claiming your test is representative of a mid-game fleet is pushing it, but that's not my main issue...you claim fleet supply is the primary equalizer of mid-late game fleets, yet you use it to setup a "fair" fight using early-mid game fleet sizes...more importantly, Uncrustable's test actually demonstrated quite nicely that it was in fact resources, NOT fleet supply, that limited his ability to fleet at the early stage of the game... It doesn't really matter how you spin it...if you are using early-mid game fleet sizes, then you need to use resources and/or construction times as your equalizer...if you are using mid-late game fleet sizes, then I will again reassert that by this point LFs are already becoming obsolete anyway due to other factors (titans, LRFs, HCs, SBs, etc.)... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58And who the hell said to build LFs late game? Stop putting words in my mouth. I guess nobody builds LRMs and HCs late game because they counter LFs, right? And you somehow forgot flak becomes more useful as the game goes by, because theres going to be a shit-ton of strikecraft flying around. You used fleet supply, a late game equalizer, as the fundamental constraint for your testing setup, but the only way that would be valid is if you are trying to test LF's capabilities late game....either you must use an early-mid game equalizer (cost or construction time) or you have to recognize that any late-game test using LFs (an early to early-mid game ship) is not very relevant to their actual balance... Also, you can't have it both ways...if LFs aren't relevant to the late game, then why are you propping up flak with the ability to counter SC, a late game advantage, and the fact that it gets stronger as the game progresses to later stages? Either compare flak to LFs using only flak's early advantages or don't compare them at all... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58I'm not willing to provide proof? Thats funny, because so far I'm the only one here who has tried to provide even a nickle of that stuff, excluding that moron who thought text boxes disguised as a replay were somehow proof. And you seem to pull out numbers out of your ass, as your first post in this thread clearly indicated. At the time of my posting, you had no replay, only a few screenshots and "your word" on your test results...you can't expect us to take your numbers on faith while claiming our numbers clearly must be pulled out of our collective asses... More importantly, I and others primarily critique your tests' setup conditions....even if there was no doubt at all in anyone's mind that your results were absolutely accurate, it still stands that they are not relevant to a typical game...I have used costs and construction times to show that from a different perspective, flak are not OP against LFs...Uncrustable has confirmed, through actual playing, that costs and constructions are indeed the relevant equalizer here, NOT fleet supply... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58If you have 3-4 factories like most people do, you will produce ships faster than you can lose them. Maybe I've just always played with some really kickass ecos, but I've found on many occasions that even with 3 factories, I was more limited by how long it took to build my ships, not how many resources I was getting from my eco...this is certainly true for early feed when you only have 2 factories...4 factories is pretty rare at the stage of the game where you would have only 200 fleet supply of frigates...when I do see 4 factories at the stages where LF are relevant, the player is on the ropes (probably 2v1) and sucking up ridiculous amounts of feed or the factories are at different planets and only 2-3 of them are actually be used (since the other(s) are far from the frontline)... Even if you are for a time producing faster than you are losing, that's not really meaningful...if you can do it with x number of factories, so can your opponent, in which case it's not a simple matter of outproducing your losses, but rather outproducing your opponent...if you have 4 factories and your opponent has 4 factories, whoever spams LFs is going to be able to fleet faster than whoever spams flak...that both fleets happen to be growing instead of shrinking doesn't change that fact... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Dude, I haven't forgotten our vasari sb cobalt/disc debate where you were exposed to be completely and utterly wrong in both your analysis and your "tests." I distinctly recall showing that disciples did just fine in handling a Vasari SB rush, as did another player (IIRC it was fox, but I may be wrong) who actually tested the Orky rush against another human player using Advent...Zombie also shared in my thoughts in regards to your tests and posted replay...the only person convinced I was wrong was you... Funny too how I routinely hear Vasari players complain when they spawn close to an Advent and have to deal with disciple spam....I don't hear those complaints when they spawn close to a TEC player....strange how that works out... I also distinctly recall you claiming that the retarded sperm phenomenon affects cobalts more than the other LFs, a claim that no one else has been able to confirm...in another recent thread, I've also corrected your misconceptions about support ship abilities... Am I always right? No...in fact there have been many threads where I have said incorrect things (and not when trying to troll)....but you don't have a perfect track record yourself, and I think this thread is testament to the fact that many are questioning your credibility... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Seleuceia's "logic": 33 pre-patch illums don't beat 40 kodiaks Therefore, illums aren't overpowered Wow brilliant deductive work there Sel... I didn't really think I'd have to explain this, but outnumbered generally refers to the ratio of fleet supply or resource investment, not the actual numbers of ships...I have a hard time though believing you weren't already aware of this convention on the forums... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Now your insinuating that kodiak rush is actually viable against light frigate spam? Wow, your trolling couldn't be more blatant. I was responding to someone's claim that in order to for a ship to be better than the other, they not only have to beat them supply wise, but also cost, construction, etc. Using that logic, light frigates counter HCs because dropping down 5 military labs at the start is of course not a viable strategy. Let me ask you a philosophical question: what makes it such that LRFs counter LFs? What is it that actually qualifies the LRF as a counter to the LF? What is your criteria? You love to criticize my definition but you haven't provided your own... Even if you include the lab costs of HCs into the analysis, my argument would still stand...the costs of the labs (and technology) can be distributed over the number of HCs you build...as you build more HCs, the "per ship" cost due from researching the technology approaches zero...at some finite number, HCs will outperform LFs on a cost basis and time basis, and thus effectively counter them... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Do you not understand the concept of "hard" and "soft" counters? I clearly elaborated that flak is meant as a "soft" counter to light frigate, just as lrms and HCs are meant as a "soft" counter to each other. Post back when you understand the concept... I'm not arguing flak are a soft counter to LFs (as opposed to a hard counter)...I'm arguing they don't counter LFs at all...also, how do LRFs and HCs counter each other? Unless you are accommodating the lab costs, which become irrelevant as the number of ships increase... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Maybe its because your the one who is posting 100 paragraph posts? I'm primarily directing most of my responses towards yours because they are more of them. If you actually bother to read my responses, I addressed almost every complaint except Ekko-tek because I don't remember what the game was about. Yeah I don't really read anything you actually write...but then again, you don't really read too well yourself... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58I love how you completely ignored Ryat's post, where it said he basically confirmed my findings. I haven't ignored him, but I have chosen not to comment on his findings...it's not that I don't believe him, but he offered nothing other than a simple "the flak won"...not much to really comment on, sorry... Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Maybe its because your the one who is posting 100 paragraph posts? I'm primarily directing most of my responses towards yours because they are more of them. If you actually bother to read my responses, I addressed almost every complaint except Ekko-tek because I don't remember what the game was about. Have you commented on my suggestions about how to fix the problem? No...so clearly the issue is not simply that I've said the most... Maybe they are good suggestions, maybe they aren't...but you don't seem too interested in fixing the problem, only in proving me wrong, and that is what's most concerning... [quote who="Sinkillr" reply="44" id="3442614"]Huh? Flak didn't have shield regen, hoshikos, or repair cloud anywhere in my test. In any case, those three abilities would likely benefit flak more since they have more health and armor.
If flak really countered LFs, then it should be able to handedly beat LFs even with a smaller fleet...this is what defines a counter, and it is true for every "counter" save (Vasari) corvettes against illuminators....whether you should focus on using fleet supply or using cost as your equalizer (and thus your definition of fleet size) depends on the stage of the game...since LFs are an early game ship that slowly transitions out during the mid-game, you should be using resources as your equalizer since that is most relevant to the early and mid game...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Do you even read my posts before commenting Seleuceia? I said 50 flak and 40 LF is mid game, not mid-late game.
For reference, here is your full statement...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 44Fleet supply is the end-all, be-all determinant of fleet power in mid-late game. The test I ran clearly uses a mid-game force.
Now, Uncrustable ran a test of his own, and had 38 LFs (190 supply) at 11 minutes...you yourself label early game as before 10 minutes, so 38 LFs (and thus your test using 40 LFs) by your definition is an early-mid game fleet...claiming your test is representative of a mid-game fleet is pushing it, but that's not my main issue...you claim fleet supply is the primary equalizer of mid-late game fleets, yet you use it to setup a "fair" fight using early-mid game fleet sizes...more importantly, Uncrustable's test actually demonstrated quite nicely that it was in fact resources, NOT fleet supply, that limited his ability to fleet at the early stage of the game...
It doesn't really matter how you spin it...if you are using early-mid game fleet sizes, then you need to use resources and/or construction times as your equalizer...if you are using mid-late game fleet sizes, then I will again reassert that by this point LFs are already becoming obsolete anyway due to other factors (titans, LRFs, HCs, SBs, etc.)...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58And who the hell said to build LFs late game? Stop putting words in my mouth. I guess nobody builds LRMs and HCs late game because they counter LFs, right? And you somehow forgot flak becomes more useful as the game goes by, because theres going to be a shit-ton of strikecraft flying around.
You used fleet supply, a late game equalizer, as the fundamental constraint for your testing setup, but the only way that would be valid is if you are trying to test LF's capabilities late game....either you must use an early-mid game equalizer (cost or construction time) or you have to recognize that any late-game test using LFs (an early to early-mid game ship) is not very relevant to their actual balance...
Also, you can't have it both ways...if LFs aren't relevant to the late game, then why are you propping up flak with the ability to counter SC, a late game advantage, and the fact that it gets stronger as the game progresses to later stages? Either compare flak to LFs using only flak's early advantages or don't compare them at all...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58I'm not willing to provide proof? Thats funny, because so far I'm the only one here who has tried to provide even a nickle of that stuff, excluding that moron who thought text boxes disguised as a replay were somehow proof. And you seem to pull out numbers out of your ass, as your first post in this thread clearly indicated.
At the time of my posting, you had no replay, only a few screenshots and "your word" on your test results...you can't expect us to take your numbers on faith while claiming our numbers clearly must be pulled out of our collective asses...
More importantly, I and others primarily critique your tests' setup conditions....even if there was no doubt at all in anyone's mind that your results were absolutely accurate, it still stands that they are not relevant to a typical game...I have used costs and construction times to show that from a different perspective, flak are not OP against LFs...Uncrustable has confirmed, through actual playing, that costs and constructions are indeed the relevant equalizer here, NOT fleet supply...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58If you have 3-4 factories like most people do, you will produce ships faster than you can lose them.
Maybe I've just always played with some really kickass ecos, but I've found on many occasions that even with 3 factories, I was more limited by how long it took to build my ships, not how many resources I was getting from my eco...this is certainly true for early feed when you only have 2 factories...4 factories is pretty rare at the stage of the game where you would have only 200 fleet supply of frigates...when I do see 4 factories at the stages where LF are relevant, the player is on the ropes (probably 2v1) and sucking up ridiculous amounts of feed or the factories are at different planets and only 2-3 of them are actually be used (since the other(s) are far from the frontline)...
Even if you are for a time producing faster than you are losing, that's not really meaningful...if you can do it with x number of factories, so can your opponent, in which case it's not a simple matter of outproducing your losses, but rather outproducing your opponent...if you have 4 factories and your opponent has 4 factories, whoever spams LFs is going to be able to fleet faster than whoever spams flak...that both fleets happen to be growing instead of shrinking doesn't change that fact...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Dude, I haven't forgotten our vasari sb cobalt/disc debate where you were exposed to be completely and utterly wrong in both your analysis and your "tests."
I distinctly recall showing that disciples did just fine in handling a Vasari SB rush, as did another player (IIRC it was fox, but I may be wrong) who actually tested the Orky rush against another human player using Advent...Zombie also shared in my thoughts in regards to your tests and posted replay...the only person convinced I was wrong was you...
Funny too how I routinely hear Vasari players complain when they spawn close to an Advent and have to deal with disciple spam....I don't hear those complaints when they spawn close to a TEC player....strange how that works out...
I also distinctly recall you claiming that the retarded sperm phenomenon affects cobalts more than the other LFs, a claim that no one else has been able to confirm...in another recent thread, I've also corrected your misconceptions about support ship abilities...
Am I always right? No...in fact there have been many threads where I have said incorrect things (and not when trying to troll)....but you don't have a perfect track record yourself, and I think this thread is testament to the fact that many are questioning your credibility...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Seleuceia's "logic": 33 pre-patch illums don't beat 40 kodiaks Therefore, illums aren't overpowered Wow brilliant deductive work there Sel...
I didn't really think I'd have to explain this, but outnumbered generally refers to the ratio of fleet supply or resource investment, not the actual numbers of ships...I have a hard time though believing you weren't already aware of this convention on the forums...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Now your insinuating that kodiak rush is actually viable against light frigate spam? Wow, your trolling couldn't be more blatant. I was responding to someone's claim that in order to for a ship to be better than the other, they not only have to beat them supply wise, but also cost, construction, etc. Using that logic, light frigates counter HCs because dropping down 5 military labs at the start is of course not a viable strategy.
Let me ask you a philosophical question: what makes it such that LRFs counter LFs? What is it that actually qualifies the LRF as a counter to the LF? What is your criteria? You love to criticize my definition but you haven't provided your own...
Even if you include the lab costs of HCs into the analysis, my argument would still stand...the costs of the labs (and technology) can be distributed over the number of HCs you build...as you build more HCs, the "per ship" cost due from researching the technology approaches zero...at some finite number, HCs will outperform LFs on a cost basis and time basis, and thus effectively counter them...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Do you not understand the concept of "hard" and "soft" counters? I clearly elaborated that flak is meant as a "soft" counter to light frigate, just as lrms and HCs are meant as a "soft" counter to each other. Post back when you understand the concept...
I'm not arguing flak are a soft counter to LFs (as opposed to a hard counter)...I'm arguing they don't counter LFs at all...also, how do LRFs and HCs counter each other? Unless you are accommodating the lab costs, which become irrelevant as the number of ships increase...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58Maybe its because your the one who is posting 100 paragraph posts? I'm primarily directing most of my responses towards yours because they are more of them. If you actually bother to read my responses, I addressed almost every complaint except Ekko-tek because I don't remember what the game was about.
Yeah I don't really read anything you actually write...but then again, you don't really read too well yourself...
Quoting Sinkillr, reply 58I love how you completely ignored Ryat's post, where it said he basically confirmed my findings.
I haven't ignored him, but I have chosen not to comment on his findings...it's not that I don't believe him, but he offered nothing other than a simple "the flak won"...not much to really comment on, sorry...
Have you commented on my suggestions about how to fix the problem? No...so clearly the issue is not simply that I've said the most...
Maybe they are good suggestions, maybe they aren't...but you don't seem too interested in fixing the problem, only in proving me wrong, and that is what's most concerning...
[quote who="Sinkillr" reply="44" id="3442614"]Huh? Flak didn't have shield regen, hoshikos, or repair cloud anywhere in my test. In any case, those three abilities would likely benefit flak more since they have more health and armor.
Those abilities would actually favor whatever the flak are fighting since the flak damage is more spread out and less focused...
The fact remains that if you've done any modding for Sins you can clearly see that stat wise LF's will counter Flak.Flak has the advantage of 4 arcs and rapid fire weapons, but their damage type is not very effective vs anything but fighters.
Especially if it takes intense micro for them to be effective. Then it becomes skill based rather than the stats of a ship being op. A unit is overpowered if it requires little skill to decimate an opponent with little chance of loss.
Lmao? Did you even watch the replay?
Using micro to outsmart ai is not overpowered. It is rather showing that the AI is not very capable.
Against a human player things would go down very differently.
I have to agree with Wintercross, seeings how I can beat a Hard AI with nothing but Antorak Marauders and a few colony ships/scouts I can only conclude one of two things
Anyone wishing to start a thread on how the Marauder is overpowered feel free but I doubt you'll get much support.
Oh my god, ICO is down, so here I am reading the forums after some time. And here is this really terrific thread. I am laughing so much. Thanks guys. I don't know where to start with the humor. MULCH is a pro player? I just fell out of my seat. SinKiller is suggesting flak over LFs? Well, he wrote some really nice English of "an ounce of this" and "a pound of that", but please, bring your flak fleet, please, let me micro my LFs around your flak micro, please, please, please. And half-naked girls, that part is gold, that's worth reading this entire post in detail, just to see that part. I love this thread. Let's continue, let's continue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_mKVJeA-wTw#t=20
If only that skier had microed better...
This is quoted from a newer thread, but I figured it was better etiquette to revive this semi-dead thread rather than derail the other thread.
Sinkillr, do you think flak are viable versus leveled titans and/or capital ships in late game--in addition to versus light frigates during early-mid game? (By "viable," I do not necessarily mean "a counter against"; do you think they survive well enough to counter fighter spam, even with big ships on top of them?) If so, why?
I only have anecdotes in the current build. E.g. I have seen >60 defense vessels, AR titan, and ~2 guardians surviving well versus a lv 2-3 VL titan, low lv Kortul+low lv Egg, mid level Orkie w/ emplacements, and 20-40 bombers. I think I've also seen flak get torn up by more anti-frigate titans like VR's and TR's titans, at least at higher levels. But I just don't see flak spam very often to know how viable it is.
This secret strategy is so secret that NOBODY USES IT! I've never seen any pro break out this strategy in any games whatsoever.
Or, could this be more proof that they are duping all of us by NOT USING it or else we would all learn about it???
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
