topkilla wrote:(1) You're not interested in a discussion of ideas. You're only interested in proving your theoretical counter to Kings as correct.
(2) Google it. And no one likes an elitist.
(3) It is a massive investment. - By playing Generals, you're dedicating yourself to a very limited tech-tree line in order to have the biggest bang for you buck. That being, as many more generals as possible, and double hire specialist.
Yes, there are other specialists that work good with the general. Like a Helmsman or infiltrator. - But there are a few things you are lacking to take into consideration.
(I) The dedication of your own specialist placement
(II) The rest of the map
(III) Any other Specialists the 3xKing player would have.
(IV) Any possible situation where you're attacked by a 3xKing player where they don't directly send a massive sub to your outpost.
As I said. Generals are great. Your theory is great, as a theory. But the practicality of it is extremely limited.
(4) That's exactly the idiotic logic I was talking about in my initial comment. - The idea is not to 'make everything exactly the same.' The idea is to make everything a potentially viable option.
But it's funny hearing it come from you. After all the talk you did about making the game be more like League of Legends, Counter-Strike, and whatever else, all of which are tweaked very frequently to be as balanced as possible, its ironic that subterfuge is fine 'because no game is balanced'.
(5+6) I've written extensively on the subject. Including in this thread. Go back and read it if you're truly interested.
1. Wow. Please stop. Seriously, do you not see what is wrong with your statement? I can completely see our arguments stemming from the moot: "This house believes that the king has no effective and/or practical counter". I am negating, so of
course I'm trying to prove that my theoretical counter to Kings is correct. Isn't this exactly what a 'discussion of ideas' (well we're having a debate here, to be more specific) is about?
2. I did. And now you're just repeating the same insult over and over again. And you're still name calling. All because you are apparently still trying to make judgements of me based on what I have said on the internet. And also because you know that when you tried to say my maths isn't even good, you were wrong. Just accept it - that fact that you were wrong. Accepting the truth is hard, especially when the truth states that you're wrong. It comes from the psychological fact that a human wants to be completely right. However the ability to admit that you were wrong actually makes you stand out as a wise man. Not even I will always admit I'm wrong, hence why I always respect those who do.
3. Right. Thank you! (and I mean it) You've presented a focused and legitimate discussion of kings vs generals here.
Now I'll rebut:
I
Ideally, yes, you would have at least 1 specialist stationed at each outpost on your front border (usually containing about 3-6 outposts). But you don't even need this configuration. You could just smuggle your way there, and then use your specs to deal 30 damage. In fact,
if you're lucky enough to have two navigators and two pirates (and unless you really can't figure out my rebuttal for yourself - I've mentioned it countless times already - please don't tell me that it's impractical or that it costs 4 hires), you can target any sub during transit and get rid of them before they even reach your outposts. You just ram your pirate+nav into it, and rescue it by targeting it with your other sub. You can repeat this process as many times as you like. This will probably force your opponent to hire assassins to stop this combination, but then you only need to hire a revered elder to counter this. If you go and try having 3 generals in a game, you'll find that specialist placement isn't even that much of a problem (if your tactical play is sound)
II
I don't exactly understand what you mean when you say 'the rest of the map'. Please explain?
III
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. By playing generals, the value of specialists which don't work well with generals
doesn't decrease. Rather, the value of the specialists which
do work well with the general increases. For example, if the king-player hires a smuggler, it does it's job. If a general-player hires a smuggler, it does it's job, and it can also be used to deal 30 damage to any incoming sub. However, if a king-player hires a pirate, it does its job pirating things. But if a general-player hires a pirate, you can now use it to retrieve sacrificed specialists, as well as to do all the other things the king player may use it to do. AND it also does 30 damage as well. Look at it this way: If the general player hired the exact same specialists as the king-player, would the general-player be at a disadvantage? Not by much, if at all. In fact I believe the general-player would still be at an advantage. Right now (although this isn't a very good example), I am fighting a player with a king, while I have a general. I hardly have any drillers on my front line, but I can still defend my own outposts as well as the outposts I've taken because generals destroy 10 drillers off each sub, and I have multiple specs I at my disposal. The king doesn't do any damage to you if you don't have any drillers.
IV
Now, about this, I would be more scared if a player really did send a huge sub at me. Splitting drillers into multiple subs for attacking means that my specs can do more damage, as they take 10 off
each sub, so the more subs are coming at me, the more damage my specialists deal. However, the good thing about generals is that they also do pretty well in situation where the opponent does indeed send 1 very large sub at you, because you can repeatedly take 30 drillers off them and pirate the captured specs back to repeat the process.
Finally, I want to say that I've experienced stacks of 4 for tycoons, generals, and kings. What about you? From my experience, having 4 kings does feel very powerful, but the time when I had 4 generals, I was completely dominating the game. I've used generals many other times, and I must say, it has been very practical and effective for me. So maybe you aren't using generals correctly?
4. I never said it was to 'make everything exactly the same'. You said 'The idea is to make everything a potentially viable option.' And if I assume that you're referring to specs, then yes I agree with you. All specialists should give a player the same advantage, when considering as many different scenarios as possible.
I do think that to make a game fun, random luck should play as little effect as possible. So in this case, the random luck is actually the fact that everyone gets different hires. Think about it. If all the Devs did was make everyone's draws the same for each hire, people wouldn't be complaining about the King's power anymore, because if someone has a king, most other people will probably have one. However, the game will likely be too boring. So the specs do also need rebalancing, to prevent there from being any easy 'winning strategy', which would disadvantage the players who do not follow it.
Also, I only compared it to LOL (btw I don't think I ever made any comparisons with counterstrike - correct me if I'm wrong) because LOL is so famous right now. I don't actually play LOL, I just know about it because it's so famous. The reason I had compared it to LOL (and other games) is because I wanted to promote the fact that making the game last less long would drastically increase game popularity. I also wanted to promote the fact that games which are less based on luck are more popular and require more skill, meaning that skill is rewarded as it should be. This was when the Devs wanted to increase revenue.
Right, now I did say that 'no game is balanced'. But I meant it literally and exactly. Chess is not balanced because White moves first. Paper scissors rock is not balanced because a butterfly flapping its wings in Asia could cause wind patterns in Texas to affect what people would decide to play. And yes, the imbalance might be tiny, but it exists. You cannot make a game which is exactly balanced, just as you can never make two things exactly the same, except mentally, like in maths.
5. Yes you have, I hadn't realised lol.
Oh yeah about the pirate, and how you said that the pirate is 100% broken: well the pirate is definite
not 100% broken. About 1 person in every 5 games I play gets 2 admirals. If one player gets 2 admirals, you have all the 4-6 neighbours you can also attack. Of course, if you’re at peace of allied with all of them, then you’ll want me to prove why it’s not useless even when your enemy has 2 admirals. I can see why some might say that the pirate is useless: the pirate has 2x speed, 2 admirals gives subs 2x speed. So the pirate will never catch up to the other sub. Hopefully, by now, you’ve realised that the last phrase is wrong, that is, you
can target 2 x speed subs. So although it is true that the usefulness of the pirate is reduced, it is never ever 100% useless, not in an exact sense anyway. It can get close to being completely useless though, such as when it is captured, for example. Another thing is that you’re missing the point about pirates.
No other specialist allows you to target a sub. There are 2 specialists which I think change the game mechanics related to subs: pirates and navigators. IMO there needs to be more subs that can counter the navigator/pirate, and more specs that can alter the game mechanics, such as moving outposts, of teleporting, or something like that. Maybe a spec which does a variety of useful things that rarely occur such as prevents the sub from being targeted by a pirate (although then you’ll need another counter for that). Also I think a spec that disables all global abilities locally or in an area would be very nice.
