Verdict - has non-stacking kings improved gameplay?

Strategy, feedback, or anything SUBTERFUGE-related

Has non-stacking Kings improved gameplay?

Poll ended at Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:26 pm

Hellz Yeah!
4
14%
Moderately Yes
11
39%
Indifferent
2
7%
No
5
18%
Undecided
2
7%
Don't care - I just like voting :mrgreen:
2
7%
Infiltrator still OP
2
7%
Bring back the saboteur bugs ;)
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 28


  • It's been a month without kings stacking. What's everyone's thoughts on gameplay now?
    "I work for the company. But don't let that fool you, I'm really an okay guy."
    User avatar
    carter j burke
     
    Posts: 375
    Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:33 pm


  • No it hasn't. Stacking kings helped make the game challenging.
    scottimus
     
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:39 pm


  • scottimus wrote:No it hasn't. Stacking kings helped make the game challenging.


    Its certainly difficult to fight someone who'd effectively doubled his drill count by stacking kings, I'll give you that. A fair difficulty, not really.

    And it wasn't too exciting to have the main counter to stacking was more stacking, either of your own kings or SCs.

    I think it's an improvement.
    Pacifists in real life are praised.
    Pacifists in Subterfuge are the people no one wants to ally with. I want my gold damnit, attack red!

    I'm too lazy to make an alt :) So it's just DrasticAction in-game.
    User avatar
    drasticaction
     
    Posts: 5
    Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:17 pm


  • Before, king stackers were predictable and easily countered with specialists not related to your own driller count - letting you head off the main attacks with specialists while sending your own drills on a flank. Now, people are stacking more effective specialists such as the Tycoon, making flanking maneuvers more difficult and throwing off my predictions about which direction a given player may drift.
    There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.
    - Niccolo Machiavelli
    User avatar
    silverberg
     
    Posts: 510
    Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:30 pm
    Location: United States


  • It made the game a bit more predictable. The max you got to worry about from any player is 1 king where as before he may get a 2nd king suddenly but then kings become a bit weaker to stacked admirals and generals so the penalty for kings is now very harsh since admirals and generals have no penalty.
    rlin81
     
    Posts: 335
    Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:49 pm


  • I actually think it's been a good improvement. There's more to think about when you hire specs, and domination games are no longer decided by kings. Now instead of having one spec that is always the best, now you have tycoons, admirals, and maybe generals competing for the too spot.
    R U R' U'!
    PB: 19.66

    My Alts
    Blobbydud - Blobbydont
    ChattNooga - Mathenos
    TallGoat11
    User avatar
    blobbydude
     
    Posts: 610
    Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:21 pm
    Location: Georgia


  • I have always been on the "Kings are just a tad overpowered, and just a tad too easy to use" train. I do agree with what Ron changed, however only slightly.

    The old state allowed anyone with half a brain to hire a hypno, promote it, rinse and repeat a few times to victory unless one of three things happened.
    1) A majority of the lobby caught this early, and swiftly executed the king stacker
    2) A veteren player stacked admirals or generals (I'd argue he isnt broken, but not to hijack this thread)
    3) Somebody else went kings

    Enough on the old King, a coup d'etat just overthrew the ruling monarchy.
    As of now, the King's upside just barely beats his downside. No shields is a big issue. You need 30 drills for 10 shielders, and 60 drills at a 20 shielder to negate his downside on the defensive end. On the O' however, just throw as many drills as you can on board.

    In conclusion, i agree that change was needed, yet the implimation should have been at least told to the community a few days before it went live, to judge feedback. I still love and respect you to death Ron.
    Simply put, my job here is to keep the forums afloat through any means necessary
    User avatar
    nojo34
     
    Posts: 2958
    Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:22 pm
    Location: Under da sea


  • Polling is in after a week.

    Results are surprising:

    Only 17 votes.
    Hell yes - 0
    Moderately Yes - 41%
    Indifferent - 12%
    No - 24%
    Undecided - 12%
    Don't care - 6%
    Infiltrator is OP - 6%
    Sab joke - 0

    Obviously more people will vote in time, but here's my thoughts:
    * Low voter turn out for what has been such a long running and contentious issue.
    * Opinion seems divided.
    * While feel the update is a 41% moderate improvement -- nobody voted an overwhelmingly positive yes.

    I'm in the middle of a couple of games, and my initial impression is that kings are more of a defensive mechanism now for a player being reduced into a turtle.
    Admirals and generals are the hiring choice, and stacking engineers seems to be the alternative to kings for allowing steam-rolling effect.
    "I work for the company. But don't let that fool you, I'm really an okay guy."
    User avatar
    carter j burke
     
    Posts: 375
    Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:33 pm


  • New poll result -- infiltrator is OP and needs to be updated. ;)
    "I work for the company. But don't let that fool you, I'm really an okay guy."
    User avatar
    carter j burke
     
    Posts: 375
    Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:33 pm


  • Am I seriously the only person who just likes voting, not caring what for?
    We got ourselves an album, boys!
    User avatar
    mathwhiz9
     
    Posts: 3176
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:22 pm
    Location: The Great White North

Next


Return to General




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron