Champinoman wrote:Here's an idea I added to the other thread. Might as well add it here to join the party.


Keep the kings effect as it is, but only apply the effect if the sub is within range of a king. Make the kings range the same as a standard outpost. So if you are in range of a king (or the king is in the attack) then the bonus is applied. If a sub is within range of 2 kings then the sub gets the bonus of 2 kings in the attack. The kings range can be affected by an intel officer for bonus 25% range. Also, combining with a Princess gives bonus range too the same as it would with a sentry.

I did see this idea when I was searching for all the nerf ideas. I categorized it under Localize the King's Global Effect as the second variant. However, when I was typing the Localize the King section I lost the exact forum page were the idea was suggested and ended up shortening the explanation extremely. I currently have found the forum page and plan to explain both variants in a bit more detail. I will probably use a bit of the wording you used in this quote to explain how it will function.

I wrote this on the topic of specialist balance:

The only reason this game is interesting is because the specialists are not balanced, but they aren't TOO unbalanced either. I know many people think kings are OP and etc, but imo there are other specialists that are probably better in more situations (they are just underrated). If you've never had 4 tycoons or 4 generals you should really consider experiencing what it's like before you say 4 kings is OP. I have had all of the above, and I can say that 4 tycoons is practically always better than 4 kings (you just need to acquire the skill of managing electricity properly), and 4 generals is arguably better than 4 kings in domination and about equal to 4 kings in mining (and even more so with a diplomat). Seriously. You try it.

So my point is that, when created, want people to be disagreeing about which specialist has the best value, and at this rate I think the only reason it hasn't had this effect is because nobody ever tries out any of the other global stacks anymore (only king stacks). If you have I'm sure you'll agree its probably only slightly worse or arguably better than a king stack of the same size.

oh and its worked for me anyway because I think tycoon is the specialist with the best value. (Because you get + over 50% as opposed to +33% - 20 shield (thats just one of the reasons))

tw2000 wrote:The only reason this game is interesting is because the specialists are not balanced, but they aren't TOO unbalanced either. I know many people think kings are OP and etc, but imo there are other specialists that are probably better in more situations (they are just underrated). If you've never had 4 tycoons or 4 generals you should really consider experiencing what it's like before you say 4 kings is OP. I have had all of the above, and I can say that 4 tycoons is practically always better than 4 kings (you just need to acquire the skill of managing electricity properly), and 4 generals is arguably better than 4 kings in domination and about equal to 4 kings in mining (and even more so with a diplomat). Seriously. You try it.

So my point is that, when created, want people to be disagreeing about which specialist has the best value, and at this rate I think the only reason it hasn't had this effect is because nobody ever tries out any of the other global stacks anymore (only king stacks). If you have I'm sure you'll agree its probably only slightly worse or arguably better than a king stack of the same size.

oh and its worked for me anyway because I think tycoon is the specialist with the best value. (Because you get + over 50% as opposed to +33% - 20 shield (thats just one of the reasons))

I'm not sure you understand how 'balance' works. "Balance" works by making all of the specialists relatively similar in value. Something that is not currently the case for majority of the specialists. And something you failed to prove in your example:

4 Generals = 40 Units Killed if a specialist is present.
4 Kings = 40 Units Killed if 30 Units are present.
3 Kings = 40 Units Killed if 40 Units are present.
2 Kings = 40 Units Killed if 60 Units are present.
1 Kings = 40 Units Killed if 120 Units are present.

Yes, that doesn't take into consideration the ability to send multiple subs with specialists to do stacked attacks with the General's Global Ability, but it does take into account a lot of other possible factors. But there's no comparison, the King is way more valuable than the General.



The game is interesting because of all the possible solutions to different scenarios. But with the state of the game over the last two months, focusing heavily on Kings and Admirals, and now Tycoons, there is no variation to games. And it's become extremely boring because the biggest factor to winning is now about who can score the best combination of Kings and Admirals the quickest, while also drawing the best supporting cast.

Everyone is welcome to their own opinions. But there is no denying that tons of people think there are problems with the specialists. The forums are filled with it. It's all over reddit. It's probably all over other Subterfuge communities too. Regardless if they drastically change the balance or do nothing, The Devs need to address the issue.

But with the state of the game over the last two months, focusing heavily on Kings and Admirals, and now Tycoons, there is no variation to games.

How did the specialists work 2 months before?

ginco wrote:

But with the state of the game over the last two months, focusing heavily on Kings and Admirals, and now Tycoons, there is no variation to games.

How did the specialists work 2 months before?

I didn't get a king until about my 30th game played. So I think that more people have found that kings are OP and are using them much more. When you play against someone who crushed because of their specialists, you want to try to replicate it to win too. I'm starting to try new hires and staying away from kings. It's difficult when other people get them

Im curious how many complaining about the strength of King are speaking from the perspective of Domination mode games. Because after playing my first domination game last week, I believe it is domination mode that is more broken than any specialist.

The standard game is balanced on the idea that its going to last about a week. A truly competitive domination game might last twice as long, if not longer.

In a standard mining game, its pretty unusual to see 3 of the same promoted spec, and when it does happen, its at the VERY end of the game when there isnt a lot of time left to get much use out of them. 4 of the same promoted spec is virtually never seen unless some kind of kingmaker set-up is going on.

Domination on the other hand, being totally broken and operating on a totally different time table than the game was balanced for, yes you start seeing insane combinations of specialists which start becoming wildly imbalanced.

So I think the answer here is to stop playing domination, or make a thread about balancing domination, rather than reworking not just king, but also tycoon, admiral, sentry+princess, general, etc.

kevlargolem wrote:Im curious how many complaining about the strength of King are speaking from the perspective of Domination mode games. Because after playing my first domination game last week, I believe it is domination mode that is more broken than any specialist.

You know, the more I think that may be because of how well the mines balance out basically everything in the game. They allow for anyone who doesn't seem to have the luck of the draw on their side to still be able to win (okay, maybe not always win but usually medal if they play their cards right). Even if your opponent has a ton of good specialist, you can use mines to run them out of time before they are able to use any of them. Mines also make a good bargaining tool because you can make agreements to fund others. This can be a lifesaver because sometimes when you are backed against a wall, negotiations is your only hope. Funding also allows for a counter against anyone who has gained too much power by giving anyone the necessary power to put a stop to that one player who would be unstoppable otherwise if they work together.

But back on topic, my personal opinion about the King is that he is not OP. If the developers left him as he is, I would not have a problem. However, I would like it better if they gave the King a negative side effect that could stack. I don't care too much about how exactly they decide to do that. They are the developers and who knows, maybe their come up with an even greater idea none of us even thought of.