So! After just finishing a fairly ego-bruising run of OCH, I've got into a debate with my team about who is more of a pain to beat up: Seerus or Vana! Honestly I can't decide who's worse! So, figured I'd see some other points of view, get the debate extended a bit :)

(note: although I say "harder/easier" I'm not really thinking about who's worse in terms of raw difficulty, as I'm well aware that practice decreases that by time; I'm thinking about which is "worse" and more annoying, challenging, scary on a more fundamental level. For example, let's assume that you've only ever done each boss once and are comparing the two)

My immediate thoughts on the debate:
Seerus

• Seerus becomes noticeably easier with more people, whereas solo/duo runs are much harder - Easier
• Less strategy involved and is more of a "just shoot bloody everything" ho-down - Easier
• It's a total cluster the entire time and only gets worse, with constantly respawning Gremlins and Mortars - Harder
• The lasers on Phase3 just last too damn long, and there's too many bombs everywhere - Harder
• The middle towers shield can remain up indefinitely and leave you to get battered senseless by respawning baddies waiting on it coming down, without even getting a shot in on Seerus -Harder

Vanaduke

• Phase 1 and 2 are pretty much a total joke - Easier
• There's a clearcut shiverblitz strategy that can be executed easily and safely if the team is prepared -Easier
• Phase 3 is the majority of the fight and is awkward to navigate, with charges from Slags and Vana coming from off-screen, fire everywhere etc -Harder
• Bad teammates can become deadweight and make it harder by being there - Harder
• There's an endgame threshold. If you screw up too much, let him mace too much, allow too much fire (etc) it becomes increasingly difficult to win and possibly not even worth it anymore - Harder

Any thoughts? Personal opinions and experiences, or any factors I missed?