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...
Do 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...
Fleet 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.)...
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.
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...
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.
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...
If 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...
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."
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...
Seleuceia'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...
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.
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...
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...
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...
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.
Yeah I don't really read anything you actually write...but then again, you don't really read too well yourself...
I 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...
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.
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.