juanma206 wrote:Stacking kings isn't that bad, as long as you remember that shields are effective against kings and, while not that easy to beat, still possible.

My only gripe here is that King calculates damage before shields are calculated, still allowing King players to heavily damage people with sec chiefs.
I would like to see the shield damage be calculated before specialist combat for the King.

generals and sentries are my favorite combos and they are effective against kings.

thing is you need at least 2 generals, a pirate, a sentry or two, a princess, then a bunch of disposable specs.

with king you need only 6 hires total for trip kings.

pandasecret wrote:My only gripe here is that King calculates damage before shields are calculated, still allowing King players to heavily damage people with sec chiefs.
I would like to see the shield damage be calculated before specialist combat for the King.

Despite my earlier post (which I think got 'buried' at the end of the first page), where I argue that there are good counters to Kings, I think this is a very fair point. I don't really think Kings are that un-balanced, but calculating shield damage first in this case makes a lot of sense and would help tilt things against Kings just a little.

Minor changes and a very light hand are called for here, otherwise I'm afraid Kings will be nerfed to the point that you'd never want to use them.

turnout wrote:

pandasecret wrote:My only gripe here is that King calculates damage before shields are calculated, still allowing King players to heavily damage people with sec chiefs.
I would like to see the shield damage be calculated before specialist combat for the King.

Despite my earlier post (which I think got 'buried' at the end of the first page), where I argue that there are good counters to Kings, I think this is a very fair point. I don't really think Kings are that un-balanced, but calculating shield damage first in this case makes a lot of sense and would help tilt things against Kings just a little.

Minor changes and a very light hand are called for here, otherwise I'm afraid Kings will be nerfed to the point that you'd never want to use them.

Calculating shield combat before Kings impact seems like a very light nerf, but just enough to provide an effective counter to Kings. As a King-promoting enthusiast, I third this notion.

Kings are not the 'only thing' that needs to be balanced... The strength of the Kings are relatively minor when compared to the other issues.

Right! Like Infiltrators.

When you pair them with multiple generals, a helmsman, and an inspector, they are WAY TOO OP as a vanguard.

WAY TOO OP!

bangerz wrote:if you don't think king stacking is a problem reply with your name here. I'll heart you, follow you into some games with my friends and go quad-King on you then you can say kings are not op!! OKAY

>:0

Wouldn't you going into a game purposely with a bunch of friends with a pre notion of an alliance be making the game biased already? I'm pretty sure you can win even without king stacking. While king stacking may or may not be op, the likelihood of trading specialist in a normal game isn't as high probably though I have no clue about that.

If there was one thing I would change I would maybe make pirates only be able to target subs within vision.

bangerz wrote:if you don't think king stacking is a problem reply with your name here. I'll heart you, follow you into some games with my friends and go quad-King on you then you can say kings are not op!! OKAY

>:0

AHHHHHHH ME!!!!!
No seriously, although I don't think you'll need to do all those things. Here are some reasons why kings can be mathematically imbalaced (I'm going to say that a 'stack' usually contains 3 specs):

King: Effectively doubles your driller capacity and production. All shields are lost. Also, other specs which destroy drillers also have twice the effect on players with a king stack. Doesn't really work well with other specs (except maybe tinkerer)
Tycoon: Multiplies your driller production by more than 2.5 (since each tycoon also has a +3 effect). Great tool for defense and diplomacy. Doesn't really work well with other specs (unless you think that it works well with MoE).
General: Every specialist is now 1.5 times a war hero in disguise. Also gives player lots of speed bonuses. Works extremely well with diplomat. Also, the further into a game you are, the more powerful it is, since it relies on specs to work. Also allows one to build the 2 complimentary *subs of death* (if you've heard of it - few have). Against a king stack, each specialist effectively deals 60 damage.
Admiral: All drillers now move faster than helmsman, pirate, and nearly as fast as smuggler. Although hard to mathematically put into perspective, I'm sure you're all aware of the attacking and defensive power of 3 admirals....
Security Chief: Each outpost now takes 30 more drillers to penetrate every 2 days. Almost as if you're adding 300 to max cap and 150 to your driller production since that is how quickly the shields recharge on average. Works extremely well with inspector. Also no-one wants to attack you since practically all your outposts now have the shield-rings replaced with the thick shell. Great psychological advantage as well.

So yeah, there you have it.....
I mean, have you ever even had 3 of any other promoted spec to say that kings are op?

How hard would it be to implement a series of 'advanced' game settings on game creation so that they affect specs in game? Such as changing the numbers in spec descriptions. Using this, we could effectively balance anything we think would be needed to be balanced, as in personally. (Like a King might now destroy 1 driller for every *4*, and generals might only have global +*8* drillers destroyed, admiral might be +0.*4* speed, and so on....)
Would also make for great new ESG type games