3 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

Maybe a Konstantine with VSDs and Interdictor fleet can do well in a small meta (with thought put into it) but it won't at a Regional event (and @shmitty 's Regional data collection bears this out).

Git gud

1 minute ago, Ginkapo said:

Git gud

I mean I've won Adepticon twice now so while I'm aware I can always git guder how much guder should I get to make Konstantine not awful?*

*At the moment, anyways.

5 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

I mean I've won Adepticon twice now so while I'm aware I can always git guder how much guder should I get to make Konstantine not awful?*

*At the moment, anyways.

Any response I make is going to be a joke only understood by those who have been following all the threads recently....

So I shall settle with, its not flying skill, its understanding of tempo manipulation and ignoring activation advantage as its not the only mechanic of importance. Beyond that its hard to explain.

5 hours ago, Snipafist said:

(A )I would not. Some fleet archetypes are simply better than others given the state of the options available and the meta (the good news for us is there are a lot of top-tier archetypes right now, but that doesn't mean everything is top-tier). Maybe a Konstantine with VSDs and Interdictor fleet can do well in a small meta (with thought put into it) but it won't at a Regional event (and @shmitty 's Regional data collection bears this out). Plus the terminology is very vague: "could compete"? What does that mean? How do we qualify that? "Can show up and play games?" "Can win the whole event? (if so, what kind of event?)" "Can win at least half its games over X games?"

(B) It's a thread devoted to examining the most effective upgrade combinations. The entire thread is people voicing their opinions about what they feel is the most effective versus what isn't as effective. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings(you "die a little inside" and "it sucks the enthusiasm right out"), but I take much umbrage at being told that voicing an opinion politely and appropriately in accordance with the thread's intent is "arrogant" but showing up suddenly to tell someone that their opinion being expressed hurts your feelings and they're wrong to express it isn't. If you don't like discussions about competitiveness because you'd rather play more casually, that is fine. Just don't read those discussions and then ask people to change to accommodate you.

(C) If you disagree with my conclusion about the ISD+XHB+RLB, that's also fine. Give evidence of why you feel that is the case, but do so constructively ("who knows what the meta could be anywhere so nothing has any meaning" is not a constructive argument, we can't even discuss anything in a state of "everything is absolute chaos and nothing has inherent value"). Or even better, use that combination competitively, do well, and prove me wrong. Just don't come in here expecting to upend the entire conversation because your feelings got hurt because someone has an opinion contrary to yours.

(D) You are.

(E) I'm not. Let me follow you into some other random thread where you're responding appropriately to the discussion and single you out and tell you why you hurt my feelings and you're arrogant and completely wrong and see how casual you feel about it.

(F) It can certainly compete in less cut-throat environments but that's true of just about everything in the game (maybe even Point Defense Reroute?). I don't think it would ever win a Regional event or large (20+) store tournament simply because of the reasons I already gave: better players can see it's a lot of eggs in one fairly predictable basket. A fleet running it is lower on activations (given it's going for an upgraded ISD-I and a sizable enough squadron presence we would assume) and much lower on deployments (which in my mind is one the biggest downsides of the RLB, I would've preferred that you could deploy squadrons "into" the RLB rather than give them up for deployment purposes altogether). Those are all disadvantages. The advantage is you can get a lot of damage in on one particular target when it's used well. That can certainly be useful from time to time but does the payoff merit all the downsides? I don't really feel it does.

hahaha Yeah, I'm the one with "hurt feelings" here.

Let'go there. Mr. "Excuse me while a write up an extremely long, well thought out, and might I add timely, reply to why you're wrong and while I'm at it get uncharacteristically offended about an opinion counter to my own while lecturing about getting feelings hurt to opinions counter to your own."

A.) The point was to not quantify the statement, it's called being intentionally vague. The reason being, as you so angrily dribbled on yourself, is that there is no data, or at least not enough to discount a card/ship synergy that has yet to be properly played because the card has yet to be FAQ'd. So, yes, I believe it could win, in the proper hands with the proper person, but instead of trying to take that stance with no data to back it up, I tried to push the point that you shouldn't discount it. I though it was pretty simple to get the gist of that... ya know... from my clear and calm, though lightly sardonic tone.

B.) No, this thread is devoted to discussing the "best" "double upgrades". You can interpret that however you want, but it's my understanding that "best" is hella subjective.

C.) I did. Strange you missed that and went straight to "MUH ANGER" Heck, I even went through the trouble of posting the pretty version of Fabs print sheet. See F.

D.) Which if I am, just disregard as casual ban... oh, nope too late, you already ignored that part. Next letter...

E.) I'm fairly certain you writing out this paragraph to tell me off because I hurt your feelings and that I'm completely wrong qualifies, except I'm not taking "umbrage" to any of this... so I guess I still feel causal? Yup... pretty certainly, most definitely casual. lol

F.) My god, I'd much rather be having this discussion. I actually agree with 90% of that except that, as shown in the fleet I presented, 4 activations is very achievable, which to my understanding still has a fair chance at success in the current meta, a decent squadron count, though admittedly they'd be RLB'd out of the fight until deployed, but again, with a good bid, the right deploy, the right objectives, and the right mind behind it, a One shot Avenger/demo/Sloane combo could be really good. Could it win? Again, I don't have enough data to say for sure... but with 100+ games under my belt, my experience leads me to believe it could.


Look pal, clearly I've upset you.

So I'm sorry.

I'm sorry I called your tactical assertion arrogant, perhaps I misinterpreted the tone of text.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. That was not my intent. I was merely trying to point, though perhaps too sarcastically or poignantly, that too many people in the forums these days focus almost entirely on competitive play and while that's certainly an aspect, it is a game after all and fun should be the goal, while also asserting that I disagreed with your assessment.

The Interdictor also gets a dual upgrade slot

I don't see the value in Liason officers on the Pelta. For one they tend to need those tokens for their fleet command. Also SFO is cheaper and I think better. He basically gives you Command 1 for 2 turns in a row, when you need him. Given you should be able to predict what command you need for the 1st 2 turns, then SFO can sure up the next 2 if you messed up. That is 4 of 6 turns, of which the last 2 are often fairly predictable as well.

Just now, Divad said:

The Interdictor also gets a dual upgrade slot

I mean for what it's worth the G7-X + Grav Shift Reroute combination is pretty solid for "playing against my obstacle control objectives is going to make you miserable!"