escher wrote:I think the specialists are perfectly balanced just the way they are. The stacking of certain specialists and the power of others is exactly what makes this game as great as it is, especially where rated games are involved. They generally last a great deal longer and make specialists extremely important, and and an extra level of strategy to the game. It forces you to chose very wisely the specialists you want for the rest of the game. Do you hire another Intelligence Officer to stack and see further into your enemy's territory? Or do you go for the second admiral to attack them faster? Or do you hire another king to make your attacks more effective? I feel like the stacking aspects of these specialists you want to nerf would severely damage parts of the game.

Most of the stacking is optional (see the original post on page 5), meaning its been suggested by players but overall up for the devs to decide.
I agree with you. But the purpose of this balance is to make other specialists more appealing. Currently it is very very rare for an expereinced player to pass up a smuggler or a hypnotist- Kings are Overbearing. There is a post every week or so asking for a nerf or a way to counter it. I myself have found that I will hire a hypnotist over all other specialists, simply because he is that good, that game changing. I see an Engineer maybe once every couple games. I see a King 4 times a game.
This Balance is not to ruin the game but to make less used specialists more viable in comparison to the now popular and effective counterparts (Tycoons, Admirals, and Kings).

janitorialduties wrote:

escher wrote:I think the specialists are perfectly balanced just the way they are. The stacking of certain specialists and the power of others is exactly what makes this game as great as it is, especially where rated games are involved. They generally last a great deal longer and make specialists extremely important, and and an extra level of strategy to the game. It forces you to chose very wisely the specialists you want for the rest of the game. Do you hire another Intelligence Officer to stack and see further into your enemy's territory? Or do you go for the second admiral to attack them faster? Or do you hire another king to make your attacks more effective? I feel like the stacking aspects of these specialists you want to nerf would severely damage parts of the game.

Most of the stacking is optional (see the original post on page 5), meaning its been suggested by players but overall up for the devs to decide.
I agree with you. But the purpose of this balance is to make other specialists more appealing. Currently it is very very rare for an expereinced player to pass up a smuggler or a hypnotist- Kings are Overbearing. There is a post every week or so asking for a nerf or a way to counter it. I myself have found that I will hire a hypnotist over all other specialists, simply because he is that good, that game changing. I see an Engineer maybe once every couple games. I see a King 4 times a game.
This Balance is not to ruin the game but to make less used specialists more viable in comparison to the now popular and effective counterparts (Tycoons, Admirals, and Kings).

That's not on the mechanics of the game, that's on the players. I just came from a game where I had two engineers, and their abilities very strongly affected my gameplay and allowed me to win almost as easily as it would have been with a King. It's not that the King is too strong, it's just that some players see the popularity of the King and the controversy behind it and believe that it's the most powerful specialist in the game, when in reality, there are other specialists that are just as powerful, but without the popularity to appear commonly in the game. If more people would hire stacking Engineers instead, there would be complaints to nerf the Engineers rather than the Kings.

escher wrote:
That's not on the mechanics of the game, that's on the players. I just came from a game where I had two engineers, and their abilities very strongly affected my gameplay and allowed me to win almost as easily as it would have been with a King. It's not that the King is too strong, it's just that some players see the popularity of the King and the controversy behind it and believe that it's the most powerful specialist in the game, when in reality, there are other specialists that are just as powerful, but without the popularity to appear commonly in the game. If more people would hire stacking Engineers instead, there would be complaints to nerf the Engineers rather than the Kings.

I disagree. The Meta of the Game is not shifting as new combo's are found. At the begining, it was fair to say that specialists where being stacked regularly- each one was more or less being used equally- The king was hardly used because of his double sword of an ability ( powerful buff for the loss of your shields). However as games progressed peope are getting a sense of what is most effective- Stacked Kings is now a winning strategy (with supporting specialists of course) that is not showing any stopping.

I'm not saying that Engineers can't win against a King, I'm saying the Stacked King is a frustratingly powerful specialists combo to deal with. And that is evident with the amount of complaints. People aren't complaining for nothing- Stacked Kings IS frustrating and powerful. This is a patch that people look forward to I believe.

janitorialduties wrote:

escher wrote:
That's not on the mechanics of the game, that's on the players. I just came from a game where I had two engineers, and their abilities very strongly affected my gameplay and allowed me to win almost as easily as it would have been with a King. It's not that the King is too strong, it's just that some players see the popularity of the King and the controversy behind it and believe that it's the most powerful specialist in the game, when in reality, there are other specialists that are just as powerful, but without the popularity to appear commonly in the game. If more people would hire stacking Engineers instead, there would be complaints to nerf the Engineers rather than the Kings.

I disagree. The Meta of the Game is not shifting as new combo's are found. At the begining, it was fair to say that specialists where being stacked regularly- each one was more or less being used equally- The king was hardly used because of his double sword of an ability ( powerful buff for the loss of your shields). However as games progressed peope are getting a sense of what is most effective- Stacked Kings is now a winning strategy (with supporting specialists of course) that is not showing any stopping.

I'm not saying that Engineers can't win against a King, I'm saying the Stacked King is a frustratingly powerful specialists combo to deal with. And that is evident with the amount of complaints. People aren't complaining for nothing- Stacked Kings IS frustrating and powerful. This is a patch that people look forward to I believe.

True, but at the same time multiple Kings takes multiple specialist hires to become possible, and at that point, the combinations of the other specialists that the other players have accumulated are meant to make an equal balance between the power over the map. And if your specialists cannot counter multiple Kings, then it's on you for not foreseeing the opponents rise to power through their hire of multiple Kings and making the appropriate alliances combinations of your own specialists.

You may argue your counters to kings on another thread, It has been discussed in length for a month or two now.
This thread is for Balancing updates. You've made your case that you believe that no specialist change is needed.

If you have some balancing changes you'd like to propose feel free, that is what this post is for.


So it doesn't get lost in text here are my proposed changes- middle of the screen http://forums.subterfuge-game.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2037&start=40

escher wrote:

janitorialduties wrote:

escher wrote:
That's not on the mechanics of the game, that's on the players. I just came from a game where I had two engineers, and their abilities very strongly affected my gameplay and allowed me to win almost as easily as it would have been with a King. It's not that the King is too strong, it's just that some players see the popularity of the King and the controversy behind it and believe that it's the most powerful specialist in the game, when in reality, there are other specialists that are just as powerful, but without the popularity to appear commonly in the game. If more people would hire stacking Engineers instead, there would be complaints to nerf the Engineers rather than the Kings.

I disagree. The Meta of the Game is not shifting as new combo's are found. At the begining, it was fair to say that specialists where being stacked regularly- each one was more or less being used equally- The king was hardly used because of his double sword of an ability ( powerful buff for the loss of your shields). However as games progressed peope are getting a sense of what is most effective- Stacked Kings is now a winning strategy (with supporting specialists of course) that is not showing any stopping.

I'm not saying that Engineers can't win against a King, I'm saying the Stacked King is a frustratingly powerful specialists combo to deal with. And that is evident with the amount of complaints. People aren't complaining for nothing- Stacked Kings IS frustrating and powerful. This is a patch that people look forward to I believe.

True, but at the same time multiple Kings takes multiple specialist hires to become possible, and at that point, the combinations of the other specialists that the other players have accumulated are meant to make an equal balance between the power over the map. And if your specialists cannot counter multiple Kings, then it's on you for not foreseeing the opponents rise to power through their hire of multiple Kings and making the appropriate alliances combinations of your own specialists.

I think you just made the case for nerfing stacked kings.
What if I see them hiring Hypnos and I can't get any hypno hires myself.
I can counter any stack really, some better than others. I can counter a king even. What I can't counter effectively is multiple kings unless I have kings myself or a number of generals and luck.
Bringing an alliance together to balance kings is not an option because he can bring an alliance together also. Pointing out that everyone had better balance that guy now just gives evidence that multiple kings are too strong.

By the way, my recent complaints about kings came from my last game. It turns out that one guy was immediately fed a king by two other players giving him three total kings after 5 hires. I could have handled his tycoon and MOE and other specialists but not the three kings. I never even got a single hypno.

I like the way someone put it earlier

it doesn't take skill to stack kings (or tycoons and admirals for that matter)

But it does take a lot of skill to stack generals. That in itself makes them harder to use effectively - even if they can (to an extent) defend against kings

bangerz wrote:I like the way someone put it earlier

it doesn't take skill to stack kings (or tycoons and admirals for that matter)

But it does take a lot of skill to stack generals. That in itself makes them harder to use effectively - even if they can (to an extent) defend against kings

That would be me.

Sorry guys. Still busy...

But I'll be making a pretty big post sometime this weekend.

i think you just made the case for nerfing stacked kings

He did. And it is a nerf! A second debuff (losing shields AND energy) is obviously a nerf.