Hello, everyone. I’m not particularly active on the forums as you can see, so I was really shocked the other day when I stopped by and realized that there was a pretty large movement to significantly weaken the power of a lot of specialists. Now, I know a lot of you agree with the decisions being made about these specialists, but please, before you decide on something that could effectively change a core concept of the game, listen to the other side as I see it.
I downloaded Subterfuge back in early October, and from day one, I was both intimidated and in love with the specialists. I felt that they were so incredibly well crafted and so incredibly powerful. I saw just how greatly balanced they were and how no specialist was more powerful than the other or more useful in their base form, and the only thing that could change that was the circumstances of the game, and I thought that was amazing. I marveled at their complexity and at how much work must have been required by the developers to come up with such a perfect system like this.
After my first few games though, (all of which were causal, since I felt the need to become more experienced before trying rated games), I started to see that the specialists weren’t that useful in the quicker, easier, causal games. Sure, there was a specialist or two that could help take an enemy out quickly in a war, but overall, the games were too short and too easy for specialists to really have any significant purpose, and so long as you had superior numbers or tactics, it didn’t really matter what specialists you had.
Eventually, I joined a rated domination game, where I faced much stronger, much more experienced players. The game lasted for two weeks—the longest game I’d ever played in—and during those two weeks, specialists really came into play. For the first time, drillers and tactics weren’t enough to keep up with the enemy, and I had to very strategically pick what specialists to hire and in what order and combination. They truly mattered to the game, and combatting your enemy also meant combatting their specialists, not just their numbers.
Which is why I very firmly believe that specialists should be kept the way they are. Yes, stacking certain specialists can make the game a great deal harder, but that’s exactly what this game is about. It’s what makes it so great. Coming up with ways to counter your opponent’s hires and hiring strategically yourself is a core concept of the game. People here talk about specialists as though they’re simply wild cards that can give you an advantage with drillers when in reality they serve the same purpose drillers do, and share their importance. Knowing who to hire, when to hire them and where to place and use them afterwards is part of the strategy of the game and comes into play just as much as knowing where to send and stockpile drillers. Yes, multiple Kings can be hard to beat. Yes, having an enemy who can see the whole map is frustrating. Yes, having an enemy who is twice as fast as you are is upsetting. But that’s the whole point of the game. Specialists are there to make the game more exciting and difficult for the players, and part of the strategy of the game is coming up with ways adapt and to defeat these seemingly impossible to defeat specialists with your own team or hires and drillers.
The specialists are perfectly balanced the way they are. They’re meant to be hard to defeat and they’re meant to be strategic choices to counter your enemy’s choices. They aren’t supposed to be people you just hire and sometimes have to deal with.
EDIT:
As an example, I'm going to point out the most controversial specialist in the game: the King. He is powerful and dangerous, but no more so than other specialists. A common argument I see is that Kings are powerful and stacked Kings are all but unstoppable. This is false. Let's build a scenario:
I am your enemy. I have three Kings, after a week of difficult battle and random hires with promotions of those randomly awarded hypnotists. I am at war with you, and because of my three Kings, a common argument would be that I am overpowered and that the battle is tipped unfairly towards me. However, you have also been in this game for a week. You have also hired a week's worth of specialists. You should have, seeing my rise to power through Kings and using the ability to see what my next hire opportunities are, predicted that I would hire more Kings after the second if not first one. From then on, you should have used your own upcoming hires to strategically hire specialists to counter my own, allowing for a fair game. If you did not hire your specialists to defend against and counter mine, then you have not thought strategically enough and have missed the point of the game. Your issue is not that I am overpowered, but instead that you didn't think critically enough. That is your fault, not the game's.
To this argument, you might say, "But Escher, hires are random. What if I haven't gotten any useful hires all week?"
To which I would tell you (if I ignored for a couple minutes the idea that over seven days, you haven't gotten a single useful hire), then that is what your allies are for. Another core concept of the game, diplomacy and alliances are incredibly important to the game. If you feel a player is too powerful, then work with other players to take him or her down, as that is a major part of the game. It is your job to think and speak diplomatically with others, communicate, and build alliances. If you do not and you lose, then it is not the game's fault for been too hard, it is yours for not being diplomatic.
So, to wrap things up, the only points in time when a King-bearing player would be too powerful, would be when:
A. Your strategy was poor
B. Your diplomacy was poor
If this is the case for a game or two, that's fine. We all have our bad days. You win some, you lose some. That's the game. But if you continuously find yourself in this spot, then you have missed the point of the game all together, and it is not Subterfuge's fault for being too hard, it's simply you not being a right fit for the game. Strategy and diplomacy are literally the central pillars upon which this game was built. If you are not good at either, then I suggest you practice until you are or find another game.
Either way, at the end of the day, the specialists are not overpowered in any way. They are perfectly balanced, and you have to think strategically, diplomatically or both to defeat the stronger ones, which is the whole point of the game. They do not have to be nerfed for the game to be better.
On the Topic of Balancing Specialists
17 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Sat May 14, 2016 9:21 pm
Sat May 14, 2016 10:15 pm
Sat May 14, 2016 10:33 pm
-
bangerz wrote:wrong.
Thank you for your well thought out, carefully worded and highly beneficial remark on this topic.Words win wars, not weapons.- escher
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:28 pm
Sun May 15, 2016 12:20 am
-
What is your definition of Balanced?"Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. We're all going to die. Come watch TV."-
janitorialduties - Posts: 550
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:27 pm
- Location: Idaho- USA
-
Sun May 15, 2016 1:04 am
-
I have to disagree when you say that the specialists are perfectly balanced.
As I mentioned in my argument with TK, nothing is ever perfectly balanced except for things which are defined as balanced, such as 1+1 being balanced with 2 (since they are equal). In practice, nothing is every perfectly balanced. So that means, of course, that there is always room to improve, and while practically, you can get as close to perfection as you want, you'll never be able to achieve it.
I do agree when you say that kings aren't OP, though.
I would rather say that some are just not powerful enough, which are: War hero (the least powerful in my opinion), MoE and Security chief. All the others are well balanced enough that if you played a game where each player had a different stack of promoted specialists after 10 days, they'd be about equal and probably wouldn't be subjected to any significant disadvantage/advantages.
Also that is precisely the reason why I like domination over mining, the specialists actually eel significant after that amount of time. But that might just be because I spam too many generals these days, and their investment only starts giving you returns on about the 9-10th day mark.Kings aren't OP
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
----Albert Einstein-
tw2000 - Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:52 pm
- Location: New Zealand
-
Sun May 15, 2016 3:07 am
-
Hello Escher, and thank you for sharing your thoughts about this debate which has been going on for quite some time (all eternity of Subterfuge).escher wrote:
Which is why I very firmly believe that specialists should be kept the way they are. Yes, stacking certain specialists can make the game a great deal harder, but that’s exactly what this game is about. It’s what makes it so great. Coming up with ways to counter your opponent’s hires and hiring strategically yourself is a core concept of the game.
Yes. You are completely right about this one. This game is about outplaying your opponent, and it is also what makes this game extremely satisfying to play.escher wrote:
The specialists are perfectly balanced the way they are. They’re meant to be hard to defeat and they’re meant to be strategic choices to counter your enemy’s choices. They aren’t supposed to be people you just hire and sometimes have to deal with.
However, I have to disagree with you here. Some specialists are extremely harder to counter. For example, even when everyone is talking about Kings Tycoons and Generals, it is the Admiral stack which is IMPOSSIBLE to deal with except with your own speed. (And even smugglers can be slow when you are fighting against 3-4 Admirals) But this is another topic of discussion, so I will close this up for now. And Kings are also extremely hard to counter.escher wrote:
I am your enemy. I have three Kings, after a week of difficult battle and random hires with promotions of those randomly awarded hypnotists. I am at war with you, and because of my three Kings, a common argument would be that I am overpowered and that the battle is tipped unfairly towards me. However, you have also been in this game for a week. You have also hired a week's worth of specialists. You should have, seeing my rise to power through Kings and using the ability to see what my next hire opportunities are, predicted that I would hire more Kings after the second if not first one. From then on, you should have used your own upcoming hires to strategically hire specialists to counter my own, allowing for a fair game. If you did not hire your specialists to defend against and counter mine, then you have not thought strategically enough and have missed the point of the game. Your issue is not that I am overpowered, but instead that you didn't think critically enough. That is your fault, not the game's.
This is another point where I have to disagree. Becuase this isn't a game of 1v1. There are lots of players other than the player with Kings. If you build your entire strategy to just counter a ''might be an enemy Kingmaker'', another player just might come and screw you up with their own strategy. Therefore, you have to find a compromise between strategies to not leave yourself vulnerable to any potential threats.
This is where diplomacy steps in. But, you cannot involve Diplomacy to specialist balance. Making an argument of ''Oh he is stacking Kings, we must stop him before he gets too powerful'' can be made for any stack itself.escher wrote:So, to wrap things up, the only points in time when a King-bearing player would be too powerful, would be when:
A. Your strategy was poor
B. Your diplomacy was poor
If this is the case for a game or two, that's fine. We all have our bad days. You win some, you lose some. That's the game. But if you continuously find yourself in this spot, then you have missed the point of the game all together, and it is not Subterfuge's fault for being too hard, it's simply you not being a right fit for the game. Strategy and diplomacy are literally the central pillars upon which this game was built. If you are not good at either, then I suggest you practice until you are or find another game.
Either way, at the end of the day, the specialists are not overpowered in any way. They are perfectly balanced, and you have to think strategically, diplomatically or both to defeat the stronger ones, which is the whole point of the game. They do not have to be nerfed for the game to be better.
The King's imbalance comes from it's simplicity to use and also simplicity to implement. What I mean by implementation is, you get a helmsman, and just bring a few production cycles together on a sub. Congratulations, you are done. And your victim player cannot see this gathering if you have a little sense. Then a notification pops up and bam, 150 drillers are on your face. I have read countless arguments about how tycoons are better in increasing your force by %50 whereas Kings only do it by 1/3, how generals and specialists can destroy the army piece by piece. But everyone is missing a point. It is that you cannot beat Kings if you don't get a stacked force of your own. You might have 300 drillers scattered across your territory and send them all at the outpost of 60 drillers of that King player, and all would die if you sent them in groups of 6s or 20s. And till you manage to group your drillers you will most likely lose 2 or 3 outposts. And if you say ''Well then I can keep 200 drills with my smuggler directly at my King player border.'' Yeah then another opponent goes and gets your entire backline.Imagine how stupid the average person is. Then realize that half of the people are even stupider than that.
-George Carlin-
niverio - Posts: 1364
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:51 am
-
Sun May 15, 2016 7:38 am
-
Hey friend,
Thanks for stopping by!escher wrote:Hello, everyone. I’m not particularly active on the forums as you can see, so I was really shocked the other day when I stopped by and realized that there was a pretty large movement to significantly weaken the power of a lot of specialists. Now, I know a lot of you agree with the decisions being made about these specialists, but please, before you decide on something that could effectively change a core concept of the game, listen to the other side as I see it.
I'm not sure what this movement to significantly weaken the power of a lot of specialists is. If anything, it's a movement to "increase the use of a lot of specialists, while fixing the few specialists that break the core mechanics of the game.escher wrote:People here talk about specialists as though they’re simply wild cards that can give you an advantage with drillers
Unfortunately, this is a true statement with the current balance of the specialists. You're only allowed to pick 1 from a choice of 3. If your first few choices all suck, you're chances of winning just narrowed a lot. Especially compared to someone who got a great starting draw.escher wrote:The specialists are perfectly balanced the way they are. They’re meant to be hard to defeat and they’re meant to be strategic choices to counter your enemy’s choices. They aren’t supposed to be people you just hire and sometimes have to deal with.
Unfortunately, I don't agree with you. There's a few specialists that completely break the core game mechanics (Admiral; Vision Specs). Then there's a few specialists that are way more useful than others (King; Tycoon). The rest of the specialists are very situational dependent. However, their overall usefulness ranges from practically useless to works well in certain situations to good specialist overall.escher wrote:EDIT:
As an example, I'm going to point out the most controversial specialist in the game: the King. He is powerful and dangerous, but no more so than other specialists. A common argument I see is that Kings are powerful and stacked Kings are all but unstoppable. This is false. Let's build a scenario:
I am your enemy. I have three Kings, after a week of difficult battle and random hires with promotions of those randomly awarded hypnotists. I am at war with you, and because of my three Kings, a common argument would be that I am overpowered and that the battle is tipped unfairly towards me. However, you have also been in this game for a week. You have also hired a week's worth of specialists. You should have, seeing my rise to power through Kings and using the ability to see what my next hire opportunities are, predicted that I would hire more Kings after the second if not first one. From then on, you should have used your own upcoming hires to strategically hire specialists to counter my own, allowing for a fair game. If you did not hire your specialists to defend against and counter mine, then you have not thought strategically enough and have missed the point of the game. Your issue is not that I am overpowered, but instead that you didn't think critically enough. That is your fault, not the game's.
To this argument, you might say, "But Escher, hires are random. What if I haven't gotten any useful hires all week?"
To which I would tell you (if I ignored for a couple minutes the idea that over seven days, you haven't gotten a single useful hire), then that is what your allies are for. Another core concept of the game, diplomacy and alliances are incredibly important to the game. If you feel a player is too powerful, then work with other players to take him or her down, as that is a major part of the game. It is your job to think and speak diplomatically with others, communicate, and build alliances. If you do not and you lose, then it is not the game's fault for been too hard, it is yours for not being diplomatic.
So, to wrap things up, the only points in time when a King-bearing player would be too powerful, would be when:
A. Your strategy was poor
B. Your diplomacy was poor
If this is the case for a game or two, that's fine. We all have our bad days. You win some, you lose some. That's the game. But if you continuously find yourself in this spot, then you have missed the point of the game all together, and it is not Subterfuge's fault for being too hard, it's simply you not being a right fit for the game. Strategy and diplomacy are literally the central pillars upon which this game was built. If you are not good at either, then I suggest you practice until you are or find another game.
Either way, at the end of the day, the specialists are not overpowered in any way. They are perfectly balanced, and you have to think strategically, diplomatically or both to defeat the stronger ones, which is the whole point of the game. They do not have to be nerfed for the game to be better.
This theoretical battle is flawed, because a player with 3 kings isn't going to wait a week to see if another player can match his military powers.Supreme Leader; TopKilla- topkilla
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:11 pm
Sun May 15, 2016 7:41 am
-
tw2000 wrote:I have to disagree when you say that the specialists are perfectly balanced.
As I mentioned in my argument with TK, nothing is ever perfectly balanced except for things which are defined as balanced, such as 1+1 being balanced with 2 (since they are equal). In practice, nothing is every perfectly balanced. So that means, of course, that there is always room to improve, and while practically, you can get as close to perfection as you want, you'll never be able to achieve it.
Yes. And we all politely nullified your opinion on the subject as your argument ended up being "Rock Paper Scissors is not a balanced game because of butterflies in Asia".Supreme Leader; TopKilla- topkilla
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:11 pm
Sun May 15, 2016 11:52 am
-
Thank your for your input escher. For a while I had a similar viewpoint, especially playing my first games, but after a while, you start to notice yourself and others favoring certain specialists, even if a situation would call for a different one. This is because those specialists have a more "general use" functionality, which is usually better than a situational specialist.
Simply put, if a certain item/specialist/etc is used more than others in the long run, then there's a good chance that there's an unbalance. As tw put it, it's hard for the devs to make perfectly balanced specialists equal to one another in an otherwise very deterministic game. And as such, it can always be expected to have imbalances. Even in decade old games like Risk, many people will still argue some mission cards are more difficult to attain than others, and thus are unbalanced compared to the ones which they deem easier (obviously doesn't apply to world domination).
In short, while the point of good strategy and tactics still prevails over choice of specialists, the fact that some specialists are chosen more often simply based on their higher effectiveness over others proves that there is unbalance, and the sad truth is that we may never find the perfect balance.
Just my two cents on the issue, take it with a grain of salt.
And don't get discouraged by most people disagreeing with you - you raised valid discussion points, but most people here have already set their viewpoints on this issue, hence the strong opposition.Reporting from the Bridge-
pandasecret - Posts: 648
- Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:53 am
-
Mon May 16, 2016 2:30 am
-
topkilla wrote:tw2000 wrote:I have to disagree when you say that the specialists are perfectly balanced.
As I mentioned in my argument with TK, nothing is ever perfectly balanced except for things which are defined as balanced, such as 1+1 being balanced with 2 (since they are equal). In practice, nothing is every perfectly balanced. So that means, of course, that there is always room to improve, and while practically, you can get as close to perfection as you want, you'll never be able to achieve it.
Yes. And we all politely nullified your opinion on the subject as your argument ended up being "Rock Paper Scissors is not a balanced game because of butterflies in Asia".
How do you speak for 'all'? You only speak for yourself.
But I can say that we all agree that you're wrong through the fact that you tried to prove me wrong by saying that the game is balanced because they didn't mention the 'butterfly in Asia' thing. And that's not because we all want to agree, but because we all have to agree, even you, if we're playing by your own rules. The video didn't say you were right, either, so therefore you're wrong (well, that how your 'rules' worked). If you backtrack on your own rules, your original 'rules' were wrong. Logic is not subjective, and so we'll all have to agree that you were wrong in some way or another then.
P.S. If you want to talk about the less fun side of things, you need to back up on your ego and learn some psychology. I seriously recommend it. That's what turned me away from being an all-out arrogant person, which, as I'm sure you're aware, is extremely annoying.Last edited by tw2000 on Mon May 16, 2016 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.Kings aren't OP
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
----Albert Einstein-
tw2000 - Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:52 pm
- Location: New Zealand
-
17 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Information
-
- Who is online
- Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests