I think the balance is a little off.

Here are the changes I'd make:

Buffs:
Infiltrator: removes 30 shields (from 20)
Intelligence Officer: increases all sonar range by 40% (from 25%)
Diplomat: You get 2 of them
Princess: Increases shields at local outpost by 10 (from 0)
Thief: Steals 20% (from 15%)
Pirate: Moves at 3x speed towards subs

Nerfs:
Tycoon: 20% increased driller production (from 50%)
King: kills 1 driller for every 6 you have (from every 3)
Navigator: Can only perform future course alterations at an outpost (once en route can't give the sub new commands)
Admiral: Gives no speed speed boost to the admiral himself (only the subs without specialists)
Tinkerer: increases generation by 2x shields (instead of 3x shields)
Minister of Energy: Increases generation by 200 (instead of 300)

ucross wrote:I think the balance is a little off.

Here are the changes I'd make:

Buffs:
Infiltrator: removes 30 shields (from 20)
Intelligence Officer: increases all sonar range by 40% (from 25%)
Diplomat: You get 2 of them
Princess: Increases shields at local outpost by 10 (from 0)
Thief: Steals 20% (from 15%)

Nerfs:
Tycoon: 20% increased driller production (from 50%)
King: kills 1 driller for every 6 you have (from every 3)
Navigator: Can only add course alterations at an outpost (once en route can't give the sub new commands)
Admiral: Gives no speed speed boost to the admiral himself (only the subs without specialists)
Tinkerer: increases generation by 2x shields (instead of 3x shields)
Minister of Energy: Increases generation by 200 (instead of 300)

Okay, well the Tycoon nerf is a tad harsh...No one would bother to hire him...

King nerf is just unreasonable.

Navigator nerf...really? You would literally take it's ability out of the game...Why would it be useful to alter course once I already reached the outpost? Normal subs already do that.

Admiral? Seriously, you just want to remove his local altogether? It's not even overpowered, most people just stack Admiral global skill.

Tinkerer/MoE: These specialists are fine. Their negatives are more than enough to cancel the positives.

Intelligence Officer: So you want to take princess' skill...and basically give it to intelligence officer on a global scale? For one hire?

Princess buff is okay, I guess, but it's not exactly needed

The Thief does not need any buff, people just underate him.
His skill steal 30% already (Because he deducts 15% from enemy and adds 15% to himself)

Infiltrator, I think they should just add a promotion with stronger skills

2 Diplomats...sounds sketchy, Diplomat wouldn't be 'OP' with double hire but...I can see problems arising with it.


Sorry if I sounded mean, I'm tired.
These are just my ideas, so feel free to shoot them down

I think you may not understand the strengths of the specialists. A tycoon/king/admiral/MoE is over twice as strong as many of the other options. 2 princess or a king? A general or a king?

The balance is so off. I've seen players say things like "all specialists are good" and "they all have their uses" and while this is true, it is also true that if I'm playing in a game and someone gets 2 tycoons and I get a bunch of assassins and saboteurs they are going to be grossly more powerful than me.

The tycoon nerf to 20% would still make it one of the best specialists in the game. The truth is that drillers win wars and nothing augments your drillers more than a tycoon (even at 20%).

The king as well would still be a fantastic specialist. The shield loss is overrated in a game where the majority of players are not attacking you (which is the norm).

Most of these are pretty poor ideas, and wouldn't help balance the game well.

You're literally making the admiral a helmsman and the navi nothing... Lol

I do not feel any of these buffs or nerds are useful or necessary. The developers spent a LONG time balancing and I think they hit the nail pretty well. Most of these nerfs take away all desire to hire the specialist. I.e. King, nav, etc. I do not beleve the devs would had added these specialists if they didn't feel they were balanced.

connor3491 wrote:You're literally making the admiral a helmsman and the navi nothing... Lol

No the admiral would give a boost to other subs. He'd be quite different from a helmsman.

Also the navigator would be the only sub to be able to be untargetable (save pirate) and make maneuvers mid travel.

This isn't complicated... how are you not getting this?

aclonicy wrote:Most of these are pretty poor ideas, and wouldn't help balance the game well.

Fair enough. You could try to explain why. I'm one of the top players in the game (was at #3), so I'm not just making this up. Is there a reason you disagree?

chariot rider wrote:I do not feel any of these buffs or nerds are useful or necessary. The developers spent a LONG time balancing and I think they hit the nail pretty well. Most of these nerfs take away all desire to hire the specialist. I.e. King, nav, etc. I do not beleve the devs would had added these specialists if they didn't feel they were balanced.

I disagree. I think the developers got a poor balance and failed in getting a good balance. For example, the diplomat navigator use had to be fixed in the latest patch because it was so broken -- definitely an example of missing the nail by a long shot. More examples would be how game changing certain specialists are (king, tycoon) and how not others are (princess, new diplomat).

Developers don't tend to have the best balance. The top players tend to flesh it out afterwards.

I agree with you that the game balance isn't perfect, but I think that your suggestions are too radical. Especially since you're suggesting that they change most of the specialists.
My personal opinion is that the devs should change the balance slowly, one specialist at a time, and even then they shouldn't do large nerfs. This is because, in my experience, drastic moves tend to make more problems than they solve.
And please don't play the, "I'm better at this game than you," card. It's not conducive to a conversation on the topic. You're complaining that other people aren't giving you good reasons, but your entire argument consists of, "I'm better than you so shut up."