Oh and it is also why people use the word 'like'....

JUST STOP ARGUING AND LET THE DEVS DECIDEEE

juanma206 wrote:JUST STOP ARGUING AND LET THE DEVS DECIDEEE

we aren't arguing hahaha (wait, radio, we aren't right?)
We're having an academic debate on bringing up the topic of specialist balance. It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm concerned about how the Devs decide to balance things out...

Hey guys.

Juanma just told other people to stop arguing. Hysterical.

JD is talking about the game but TW is talking about the metagame. In simplest terms, something's metagame usually refers to more to different tactics and strategies used by players, especially at higher levels of play. Metagame is most often referred to in card games like poker or in competitive video game/Esports. Although the game itself never changes, the metagame can completely change and by doing so completely changes how people play the game.

You will see in almost every competitive video game. People will start to say that this one thing/strategy is too strong and is completely overtaking the game because everyone is using it. However, a counter to the strategy in inevitably found and everyone starts using this new counter strategy until it is overtaking the metagame and people start to complain about the new strategy and the cycle repeats. This is a common example of how a metagame changes.

However, I have not seen this with the king. At first I thought people would find a definite counter for the king, and they seem to have found a couple of smaller stops for the king in the form of inspector, thief, and general, but no perfect counter or anything really definite. However, after all this time, the king is still the go to win all strategy.

Oh well, I don't really hold too strong opinions one way or another about a nerf, but hopefully this clears things up so that you guys are on the same page.

I have countered pure kings with pure speed. The king would need 30 drillers at every base I am attacking to make up for lack of shields. At bases where there is 20 shields he would need 60 drillers. If he had double kings then the numbers would be 15 and 30 and etc but then I would have speed on my side and the more split apart his army his the less effective it is while I can take bases faster than he can and reinforce faster.

zyxe wrote:However, I have not seen this with the king. At first I thought people would find a definite counter for the king, and they seem to have found a couple of smaller stops for the king in the form of inspector, thief, and general, but no perfect counter or anything really definite. However, after all this time, the king is still the go to win all strategy.

Oh well, I don't really hold too strong opinions one way or another about a nerf, but hopefully this clears things up so that you guys are on the same page.

Well, I can say that there are very effective counters for the king. I find that the best counter is probably generals. (Generals are actually OP in so many different ways other than from countering kings). I mean, who has had 3 generals before? Using 3 specialists, you can decimate an incoming sub of 90, regardless of how many kings your opponent has. You then fetch your captured specs back with a pirate. Rinse. Repeat.

tw2000 wrote:Well, I can say that there are very effective counters for the king. I find that the best counter is probably generals. (Generals are actually OP in so many different ways other than from countering kings). I mean, who has had 3 generals before? Using 3 specialists, you can decimate an incoming sub of 90, regardless of how many kings your opponent has. You then fetch your captured specs back with a pirate. Rinse. Repeat.

Generals have a clear cut counter.
Assassins- Offensive hires have the smallest pool of specialists so the chances of getting the one you need is increased in comparison to hires from the other or defense tree. Assassins come in groups of 2 and are fairly expendable if it means taking out a the opponents specialist.

Comes in twos -effective coverage.
Fairly easy to get.
Devastates the effectiveness of the General.

This is a single hire that can severely hamper the effectiveness of many hires.

The same could be said for the infiltrator against Security Chiefs- though to a lesser extent.

Kings however do not have a clear cut counter devastates them in such a way- Generals and other Local effect specialists help level the field but they can often be countered with a single hire.

janitorialduties wrote:

tw2000 wrote:Well, I can say that there are very effective counters for the king. I find that the best counter is probably generals. (Generals are actually OP in so many different ways other than from countering kings). I mean, who has had 3 generals before? Using 3 specialists, you can decimate an incoming sub of 90, regardless of how many kings your opponent has. You then fetch your captured specs back with a pirate. Rinse. Repeat.

Generals have a clear cut counter.
Assassins- Offensive hires have the smallest pool of specialists so the chances of getting the one you need is increased in comparison to hires from the other or defense tree. Assassins come in groups of 2 and are fairly expendable if it means taking out a the opponents specialist.

Comes in twos -effective coverage.
Fairly easy to get.
Devastates the effectiveness of the General.

This is a single hire that can severely hamper the effectiveness of many hires.

The same could be said for the infiltrator against Security Chiefs- though to a lesser extent.

Kings however do not have a clear cut counter devastates them in such a way- Generals and other Local effect specialists help level the field but they can often be countered with a single hire.

From what you're saying, admirals don't have a clear cut counter, and neither do many other specialists such as sentry, princess, intel officer, and so on. Oh, and I didn't mention that sentries are also effective against kings, especially when you also have a general or two.

Also, you're forgetting that fact that the chance of the player with generals having assassins is probably greater than the player with kings, and assassins neutralise each other.

(1) Tw2oo is yet again, arguing for the sake of arguing.
(2) His argument, yet again, is his self-proclaimed "advanced" mathematic skills.
(3) He, yet again, completely misses the point. And argues for a completely idiotic counter, that while has the potential to work in theory, would fail in execution. As the amount of specialists hires he would need to pull it off, is at least twice the amount his enemy would need.
(4) Anyone who argues that the game is fine, because "this is how the devs envisioned it", is an idiot.
(5) Anyone who argues that the only change needed is to the King, is an idiot.
(6) Everyone, who's not an idiot (as pointed out above), knows that there's a problem with the King. The thing that is somehow to complicated to be understood, is that just changing JUST THE KING IS NOT GOING TO WORK.


There's a number of specialists that are essentially useless after the first few days of the game. Or after your enemy promotes a specialist. THAT. Along with the complete lack of limiting critical specialist stacking (for example, Admiral:Speed, Princess/Intel Officer:Vision) and lack of negative/deterring buff for other powerful stacks (King:+Free 1/3 army/King, Tycoon:Production, Thinker:Supply Cap) are the underlining problems with the game.


The game is supposed to be about diplomacy, strategy, and critical thinking. Unfortunately, the current state of the game is currently broken. And the one of the biggest factors to winning happens to be how lucky you are with your specialist draws. Especially if you can set yourself up early to brute force your way to the end.


If you want a meaningful change. Quit talking about the King as if it's the only problem. Look at what happens in game, what specialists are used, which are never used, and which are useless. Then look at the why. And attempted to come up with a way that changes things minimally, but makes that specialist viable, for whatever its purpose is. - For example, what I did with the pirate:

Pirate*
Sub carrying Pirate can target another sub. When targeting a sub, the Pirate's sub travels 2x faster than standard sub speed, then travels at 4x normal speed to nearest friendly outpost. - (Standard subs, not ordinary. Admiral gives the pirate a small boost, which helps with targeting other subs with a speed boost in the mid-late game)

Pirates work great at targeting subs. Pirates work less great at targeting subs with speed specialists. That makes sense. You know what doesn't make sense? The pirate being practically useless once Admirals are on the board. You know what makes 0 sense? Pirates being 100% useless when the enemy has 2 admirals.

So how do you fix that? Eliminate Admiral stacking, because that shits 100% broken, and is completely against the spirit of the game. Then give the pirate a slight boost when you have an admiral of your own, so he's not useless.



viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1505