roozbeh wrote:yeah well , kings are just better
It gets 6-7 people to put me down , the last time I had kings .
And also Lots of backstabbing

yeah but you did get put down
If you had tycoons, everyone would be your friend. Nobody would try to put you down

tw2000 wrote:

roozbeh wrote:yeah well , kings are just better
It gets 6-7 people to put me down , the last time I had kings .
And also Lots of backstabbing

yeah but you did get put down
If you had tycoons, everyone would be your friend. Nobody would try to put you down

A lot of people who think kings are not OP say to attack them and such but if you have more than one King and your opponent didn't get any Hypnos offered there isn't much they can do. Every other stack is easier to counter, generals, admirals, etc. Even one King you can counter, but that second or third is just plain broken.

A lot of people say you have to counter kings by getting other people to help attack them. Basically that means, everyone better attack him now that he has his second King because if you don't he will run over everyone on the board soon....because with multiple kings you will do that.

What happens when the guy with multiple kings gets people to help with "help me or I attack you"? Well that happened in my current game. In this one it is worse, one guy shoveled two kings to another and that other is just running rampant. You can't stop it. I would take four generals or admirals or thieves any day over four kings.

Locking threads about this problem won't make it go away. I am done with this game right now over this. Three games in a row decided by multiple kings is broken.

gardengnome wrote:Locking threads about this problem won't make it go away. I am done with this game right now over this. Three games in a row decided by multiple kings is broken.

The problem won't be fixed. It's a sad truth. The devs have moved on to other projects, and therefore the game in its current state won't be changing.
The reason I'm locking these threads is that this is a topic that has been exhausted. Everyone's opinion is pretty well fleshed out by now, and there's no new information to bring to the table. We're trying to keep the forums a positive place, so old, negative topics aren't healthy for the community.

Meh, I say leave it open. People need a place to vent their frustrations- being waffle stomped by a guy with stacked kings is one of the most helpless feeling in subterfuge in my opinion. I've come to terms with people arguing about the king, and its fine for people to express there exacerbation.

I say leave these King topics. They will pop as they have for the past half year or so, but we might as well ignore them and give the best advice we can give to them in their situation.

I may do a King King Post- listing most every balancing and counter point that has been discussed on the forums. I haven't seen any new ones lately so I think every that can and will be discussed on the King has at one point been discussed.


I do not however support posts that slander others (The Sick Burn Topic) or become mindless and useless to the original discussed topic (Every Argument between Topkilla and TW2000). I agree to shutting those down.

gardengnome wrote:I am done with this game right now over this.

I'm sorry you feel this way. There are some others that have said they planned to leave because of specialist balance, particularly the king. I find that terribly unfortunate; the fact is that this is a game, and if you are not enjoying yourself it is better to find something you will enjoy. But if you go, I wish you luck in finding such a complicated and intriguing game - and if you do, let me know.

That said, I don't agree about the imbalance of kings. Yes, they are strong, and in my opinion, they do two things extremely well:
1. extend or solidify a lead
I can honestly say, in my somewhat limited experience, that I have never lost to stacked Kings because of the stacked Kings. Generally, if they beat me...I was already losing.
2. intimidate other players.
This does have a dramatic effect on diplomacy: who, what, when, why, and how.

There are lots of strategies to fight against Kings; some of those tactics work considerably better than others. As Road said in the other thread, there are dozens of posts about this issue. Some of them are more insightful than others (I find my opinions to be particularly helpful ). I won't go in to every single option here, because like TW says, "I don't want to reveal all my secrets." But if JD does write up a King's King post, maybe I'll do it there.

Another day, another thread about king balance.


Why haven't our new mod friends, who have been in touch with Ron and Noel, tell them that there is a critical divide in their players regarding specialist balance? And that their input is drastically needed.

It doesn't matter if they say "yeah! We're reworking the balance" or "No, it's how we want it." The point is that the awkward, 9 month long limbo comes to end based on their decision.

Which leads to this:

gardengnome wrote:Locking threads about this problem won't make it go away. I am done with this game right now over this. Three games in a row decided by multiple kings is broken.

A whole different topic of discussion about specialist balance that I've only hinted at. - See, the 40 or so people who post here regularly, are all useless to the Devs. They have your money, and you all post here. They can do as they pleased and the vast majority of the daily posters would keep playing.

Unfortunately, there's a few thousand other people that play subterfuge too. And for everyday that goes by, the number of currently players drops. Right now, there are only 4500 players. Around the end of last year, I believe there was roughly 7000. That's a steep drop off for 4 months.


Regardless of your opinion on the King, the only thing that matter is if the game is fun. And currently, with the specialist set ups, that answer is likely a "no" from the unspoken majority.


Also, well said, Gardengnome.

topkilla wrote:Why haven't our new mod friends, who have been in touch with Ron and Noel, tell them that there is a critical divide in their players regarding specialist balance? And that their input is drastically needed.

About that.....

I will email the developers about this issue.

EDIT: I sent a email to Ron and Noel. Within it I explained the problem and what we have thought of to fix it. I also thanked them for creating an amazing game and staying in touch.

gardengnome wrote:A lot of people who think kings are not OP say to attack them and such but if you have more than one King and your opponent didn't get any Hypnos offered there isn't much they can do. Every other stack is easier to counter, generals, admirals, etc. Even one King you can counter, but that second or third is just plain broken.

A lot of people say you have to counter kings by getting other people to help attack them. Basically that means, everyone better attack him now that he has his second King because if you don't he will run over everyone on the board soon....because with multiple kings you will do that.

What happens when the guy with multiple kings gets people to help with "help me or I attack you"? Well that happened in my current game. In this one it is worse, one guy shoveled two kings to another and that other is just running rampant. You can't stop it. I would take four generals or admirals or thieves any day over four kings.

Locking threads about this problem won't make it go away. I am done with this game right now over this. Three games in a row decided by multiple kings is broken.

Hey look, which other stacks have you tried against the kings stack? My recommendation is Generals.
Seriously, I'm the only person I know with a general stack in my past ~15 games

Also, I have had to address this issue over and over again:
What other stacks have you seen used? Which other stacks have you actually used? It would be naive to say that kings are OP before you even try any of the others. (Or seen an of them tried out). In my opinion the fact that kings are just spammed these days is because of momentum. I have argued extensively that Kings are not the specs that are broken, its the generals, and why? It's because there are just so many tactical possibilities which are unknown to most people. Check out the thread about the forum regulars making video scripts and go to page 2 where I've listed some of them.

In my opinion Generals are the most effective way to counter kings, provided that you can use them smartly. For example, (And I've used this example so many times) say you had 3 generals, and player B had 3 kings. If B sends 90 drillers at you, usually, you'll need 180 drillers to defend, but with generals, you won't need any. 40 minutes before the sub of 90 arrives, simply send 3 specs at each tick, and fetch the first spec you sent with a pirate. What you've just done is broken. You've destroyed 180 units worth of drillers and you haven't used a single driller, or dropped a single outpost, or even used a single unit of your shields. Now isn't that broken?

and @topkilla please DO NOT reply to this post, I've told you these things before and your rebuttal will just be unnecessary as you'll just be repeating what we've already talked about.

This isn't about which specialist is over powered. This is about feed back. You have argued your case against countering the king with generals- generals can be countered by anti specialis specilailists.
The problem in is that losing to a King a sucks and feels unfair.
When I fight a general I feel like there is many solutions in dealong with them- they also need a farily specific set up and a longer time to work to full potential. When I fight a King I feel that if I didn't invest early in dealing with a king It's hard to win and I feel hopeless.
Again I don't think at this point its a contest about who is the most powerful- but rather which is more toxic to deal with.

The very fact that there is many many king posts and nearly zero complaints about the general is evidence of this.