Well I've found three great quotes questioning Sel's online presence so he must not play online
You think it's just a coincidence that all these multiplayer regulars think Sel doesn't play online? There is no conspiracy here. Sel doesn't do ICO. There is no nothing wrong with that, its just he should stop pretending like he does.
You are welcome to think whatever you like, but my statement was simply an observation of reality, not a jab at you and your unique playing style...regardless of what strategies you personally advocate, flak are NOT used in large quantities by skilled players in the late game...fighter spam is MUCH more common in rebellion than it was in diplomacy, and this is in large part because flak always made fighters pointless in diplomacy fleets...
When did I say fighter spam was not viable or common? You keep misrepresenting what I actually said. I have made numerous posts revealing the power of an all fighter composition. And I'm not surprised you don't see flak used in large quantities in late game anymore, considering that you've never seen multiplayer late game. Anyhow, flak at that stage requires a considerable level of micro to be used effectively that is far beyond the reach of most players. It is no longer just about moving up and down anymore.
I still think it is one of the worst titans...
Since you seem fond of quoting grimm, allow me to return the favor:
"When leveled up, titan is the strongest titan in the game, taking out titans, cap ships, starbases, and fleets of anything on its own" (from his guide).
No one in this community thinks Ragnarov is the weakest titan in the game, not by a long shot (besides you). Whenever people discuss it, its usually contains the words "strongest," or "OP. You offer no reasoning or evidence for your outlandish claim, and you expect me to take you seriously? Remember people, this is the guy who thought cobalts countered Ragnarov (lmao).
I also specifically acknowledged in that very thread the single greatest advantage of the ragnarov, which is its range...this gives it a unique advantage when facing repulsion that no other faction has...it is by no means a perfect counter for the very reason you mentioned, but your enemy is not always repulsing your ragnarov from behind and thus you sometimes are facing your target while being repulsed...certainly the ragnarov has a better chance of doing something against repulsion than all the titans other than the Vorastra (which really can only get out of repulsion, not attack the protected fleet)...
Seleuceia- "ragnorav is the worst titan"
Right below it:
"the Ragnarov puts the TR in a better position to handle Advent fleets with repulsion while the TL have superior defenses than the Advent, making the TEC more competitive against late game Advent fleets..."
The contradiction in those two quotes is laughably obvious. How can it be the worst titan if in addition to its hilariously high damage output, it is the best titan to counter one of the most powerful abilities in the game (in your opinion)? How can it be shitty if it helps TEC more competitive against late game advent fleets? And you forget that TL and VR titan can cast disruption and GP which disables repulse.
As for LFs being effective or ineffective against the Ragnarov, that really has no bearing on its effectiveness against repulsion...
Thats not the point. In the context of your post, you were arguing that TR titan helps even out late game TEC vs Advent play, directly contradicting your earlier assertion that Ragnarov is the worst titan.
I believe you are referring to the tests done by Aresiv...in his tests, he compared bombers by seeing which fleet of SC would destroy the other light carriers first...as discussed in that very thread, this was seen as a poor method of comparing bombers...
See, THIS is the problem I have with you Seleuceia. You don't provide any data of your own, all you do is throw dung from the sidelines and hope it sticks to the wall. If you really cared about the accuracy of ARESIV's test, then you would have conducted on of your own... but you didn't, so all you doing is theory-crafting and hypothesizing with no basis in fact. Aresiv is one of the few people on this forum that actually backs stuff up with tests... you don't...
I've actually had this discussion with other skilled players about the Vasari late game, and the end conclusion is that Advent and TEC have AoEs that help deal with corvettes while Vasari do not...this gives Vasari a unique handicap in the late game that is only frustrated more with the necessity to use less bombers (their best item) and more fighters...Advent can do very well against Vasari late game, certainly much better in rebellion than they could in diplomacy...
How is this in any shape or form relevant? We were talking about bombers, not vettes. Try to stay on topic. As for the vasari vette thing, you don't need to write a whole dissertation on it, we already know this...
I'm convinced you just say the most obvious stuff sometimes just so you can look smart.
But that's not the main point...the important part is that bombers in general, not just Vasari, are less viable because fighters are more viable...this is specifically because all frigates including flak get quickly crushed by titans mid and late game...without flak to counter fighters, there is really nothing to counter them other than more fighters...thus, bomber spam is not nearly as common...
I admit I overlooked that patch (probably happened while I quit sins for a few months) but it doesn't change my main point. The damage reduction was entirely miniscule, and the effect was turning a 9.5/10 OP ship into a 9/10 one.
Sel quote from 6 months ago;
"What would be wrong with putting Vasari base bomber damage more on par with TEC bombers? No one is claiming TEC bombers are UP and need to be buffed, and Vasari bombers would still have the ridiculous armor and HP they have....
Besides, by the time bombers are relevant you will already have PM techs...this is no different than Kanraks, which have a relatively low DPS per fleet supply but benefit from superior weapon techs...
The core of the problem is that Vasari bombers do ridiculous damage once upgraded....unless you want to nerf the PM techs (which affects anything and everything with PMs), a slight nerf to the base bomber damage is the easiest and most direct solution..."
Does this sound like a man who thinks bombers are not viable in Rebellion? Titan balance has not changed much since that time (except maybe ankylon). How can bombers in general be less effective if the only nerf was to vasari? Present Seleuceia and Past Seleuceia cannot BOTH be right... if bombers were "ridiculously" OP then they must be ridiculously OP now, or vice versa.
I have yet to see a single player do flak spam in the manner that you suggest...not once...I've even asked lobbies if anyone was willing to try it, no takers...ever...
Duh, that would require you to play multiplayer. I don't think AIs respond when you try to talk to them. It is now a well-known fact in this day and age that flak can beat light frigate with sufficient micro.
I've held off quar on the frontline twice, once as TEC and once as Advent...despite him being a superior player, I was able to hold him off for quite a while simply by using LF spam...I actually faired better as Advent because of their earlier access to bombers, but before that stage I found both factions equally capable at doing the job...this was against a superior player who is regarded as one of the best Vasari players of all time...
Are you sure you played with the real quar? You do know that there are like 8 of him running around, right? Even if you did play with him, this still isn't very convincing for your claim that advent early game is better than TEC. Best vasari player of all time or not, vasari is meant to be played like creeping lava... you're supposed to do feints and tricks to slowly strangle your opponent, not perform dramatic 30 minute rollovers... (unless your opponent is noob) I suspect what you did was just hide in your hw with lf spam, get mega feed, and protect maybe 3 other planets... in that case even doci or grimm would have trouble breaking that...
Advent can counter Vasari, they can do it, and they do it well...in fact, most Vasari players I talk to after games complain when they started close to Advent because of how brutal the Advent LF spam is....
This is the part where you just lose all credibility, and give credence to that fact that you have not set a single foot in an ICO lobby. No one, and I mean NO ONE, talks like the way you suggest. After a player loses a game, there is not a single soul in the world that says:
"Aww, if only doci played tec, then I would have beat him..."
or
"If I had just picked advent this game would have been over in 10 minutes..."
or
"There are too many vasari players near me, I'm quitting"
See how ridiculous Sel's examples sound? Does anybody think like that? You're not alone, and that's because they're not genuine people. Seleuceia probably made them up.
Here is how a REAL person talks:
"If I had just been more aggressive in grabbing neutrals the I would have stood a chance"
or
"Crap my marza being out of position cost me the game"
or
"Man that was some neat micro with those LF, you made them more cost effective than mine"
Actual people that talk about specifics in the game, not some broad "who played what faction" nonsense.
Seleuceia if you are going to troll don't post paper machete "evidence" that falls apart at the first opportunity. Even if you aren't making this up, where are all the skilled players backing up your claim about disciples? Why do tests show cobalt is vastly superior at killing SB than discs? Where is all this "proof" that somehow advent Lf spam is more brutal than Tec? We've had this debate before; you were exposed as being completely wrong by multiple skilled players.
Seleuceia Original quote- C
ompare this to rebellion, where frontliners are leading with a variety of different cap choices...it may be that progs, eggs, and marzas dominate, but you still see a fair amount of akkans, discordias, radiances, rankulases, halycons, and dunovs
Later response-
Clearly we don't play the same game, because in your game everyone is spamming flak...
Nice dodge, I'm still waiting on that replay showing a dunov/discordia start.
I did NOT say bombers aren't viable...I said bomber spam is not as viable...spam, as in building only that ship, as opposed to having 2 or 3 different ships....
I stand by my statement...bomber SPAM is not as viable in rebellion, and that is NOT the same as saying bombers are obsolete or should never be built...the late game has extra diversity compared to diplomacy...in diplomacy, it was almost always bomber spam, while in rebellion it is some combination of fighters, bombers, and corvettes...even if the builds are fighter heavy, the situation certainly sees more diversity than in diplomacy which was almost exclusively bomber spam...
Spam just means to make alot of one unit, it does not mean to make only that type. You said bombers were not viable in late game, as fighters crush them, completely contradicting yourself later in the post.
Sins Forums
perhaps I'll come back and throw in more quotes to make this a bit more readable.