SUBTERFUGE Forums

So I tried my first ranked game and loved it. The establishment of a real meta game and fully participating opponents made it much less of a chaotic dice roll that all my public games were, and allowed for actual strategy, diplomacy and skill.

So one player got early double King which shit me up because of what I'd heard browsing the forum. I instead went for early double helmsman and luitenants and killed a neighbor by day 2. When I eventually fought the king player, it was underwhelming. I'm much more scared of tycoons.

My questions are these: Was he just a noob, and Is a king only imbalanced at high rank play where players can optimally capitalise on the advantage?

But, In a game so dominated by nauance and diplomacy, can you even have imbalance? Surely in high rank play, game theory suggests its everyone's self interest to gank an early King maker, rendering his promotion situational like all specialists? Making it only "imbalanced" in the context of noobs who are to inexperienced to react against the established meta game? How can you even discuss balance in this context when the real disadvantage of a king or tycoon is that it makes you such a target, not that it reduces your sheilds or takes your smuggler?

To me, severe imbalance would suggest a specialist you get, no matter what alternatives there are... There is only one I can possibly think of for my own experience: the smuggler. Although I'd tempted by helmsman or navigator. Do I want it changed? Not really, you need random circumstances to fuel vibrant diplomacy

I've never played a high ranking game, but do they all decend into King arms races? If this is honestly the case then maybe it's imbalanced. But in a game such as subterfuge you can't really argue that one specialist being generally better than others is imbalance, because it ignores the whole dynamic context of diplomacy that the game rests in. If it was a two player game then this wouldn't be the case of course.

These questions are more targeted to high ranked experienced players, whose experience i defer to. But personally I've been thinkinga that balance whiners are just QQers. Is it only noobs pissed at King's, or does it significantly effect high level play?

Thanks for your time

Even though I am neither a very experienced player nor the high rated one, (I am L1) I have been in mine games, domination games, and in a total elimination game so far. From my experience, there is no such thing as the perfect strategy that applies to all game modes. The problem you addressed with the King is because the King is unique as the only specialist who gives a very big advantage at the cost of a very big disadvantage, however, the second one doesn't punish you when giving the same advantage.

Scenerio 1: Mine Games
In mine games I have never seen someone stacking up kings, because first of all, it is not very likely, mine games tend to end early and no one actually risks wasting their 4 specialist hires. (Yeah, the king strategy becomes debatable only when one player has 2+, which costs at least 4 hire options) Even if someone gets the chance to hire 2 hypnotists and promote them, the other players should be aware of this fact and shut down this player before he completes two kings. If they can not do this, if they can not talk the issue between themselves which is the main aspect of Subterfuge, then they do not have the right to complain about king being overpowered, because they have let the man scale up to the powerhouse mode, which can only be achieved in at least 58 hours, and that happens only if a player has a hypnotist in the first hire option (and the second/third).
If the King stacker player is lucky and he has an outpost which can not be seen by anyone, it should still raise suspicion, because people would (and should) wonder what the guy is doing with all his specialist hires if none is to be seen by anyone.
To conclude, the situation of the King in mine games is stable in my opinion.

Scenerio 2: Domination Games
In domination games there are pretty many hires. I would like to quote you here: ''To me, severe imbalance would suggest a specialist you get, no matter what alternatives there are... '' If you have a King, you would get a hypnotist and promote it to a second King right away unless you are facing an extreme situation, like having to hire a revered Elder to protect yourself against a Queen's Bounty combo. In this context, I would like to say that getting a second King is a sign of severe imbalance. But I would like to mention something else here which you said:

''But, In a game so dominated by nauance and diplomacy, can you even have imbalance? Surely in high rank play, game theory suggests its everyone's self interest to gank an early King maker, rendering his promotion situational like all specialists?''

When one puts the argument this way, I would say that King stacking is not overpowered which causes severe imbalance, rather, King stacking makes the game less diverse. Because when someone starts to stack up Kings, it forces other players to react to it. Every other deadly combo, for instance the Queen's Bounty, affects only one player at a time, and he can save himself by talking out of it, hiring a revered elder, or getting a helmsman/smuggler and escaping faster than the pirate. In my opinion, stacking Kings reduces the almost infinite number of ways to play the game, to 1, maybe 2. Because this time , almost every neighbour must act, and there are only two things one can do: Either kill the King stacker, or he kills you. This makes the game less enjoyable in two aspects:
1. It reduces the strategical diversity.
2. It turns the game into a straightforward war which reduces the chances of diplomacy.

Therefore, in a domination game, I think the number of Kings should be limited to one, and the Prince/Duke idea should be implemented.

I've never been in a game where someone hire a bunch of kings and destroyed everybody(14 games). I've never thought they were crazy overpowered just strong. I think the reason kings are called so strong is:
1) it's an easy combo to set up
Hire a few hypnos and promote and boom you are killing more drillers for each you have.
2) it's effects are clearly visible.
You will go from losing to winning a fight after promoting to king. You can see all the damage you're doing easily.
3) it makes good trick plays.
Promote a hypno last second against an unsuspecting opponent and you can win a fight in a tight situation.

Thanks for the reply... Yeah thats part of the core of what i was asking... In high level play is every game a king arms race, because yeah that limits variety, and is imbalanced because it represents a dominant strategy.

Soon I'll try king play when i have the opportunity.

I been to 1400 and now back to 1200 lol. Not sure what it is like at 1500. I rarely relied on the king or the tycoon. I often considered throwing away kings if I captured one. I would say the game is 1/3 diplomacy, 1/3 army hiring strategy, and maybe 1/3 luck at 1400 rating. The king for me plays a very small role in strategy because he just cost too much. The games in which people get a king or a double king often resulted in that player losing. The most annoying thing about a king for me is killing their last few bases.

Thanks for your comments. What is your ideal first hire? I usually like speed. I know navigators are godly, but is a second hire admiril worth it if your attacking from day 1?

You've got a lot of points bundled up here, so I'll just look for question marks and respond that way.

zabbenw wrote:My questions are these: Was he just a noob, and Is a king only imbalanced at high rank play where players can optimally capitalise on the advantage?

Its really hard to answer that without knowing the details of the game. Double King IS very strong... if you know how to utilize it, and if your diplomacy is crafted for it.

zabbenw wrote:But, In a game so dominated by nauance and diplomacy, can you even have imbalance?

Yes, I think you can have imbalance. You can use diplomacy to overcome imbalance, but that doesnt mean it isnt there, or that it doesnt matter. For example, in a FPS someone with a pistol can kill someone with the best assualt rifle if they come up behind them or camp in a corner. That doesnt mean that those 2 weapons are balanced. However, using that same analogy, SHOULD everything be balanced? In counter-strike a pistol is easier to buy than the best assault rifle. In subterfuge, you only have access to 3 random specialists at a time, meaning you wont have access to the best ones every time. Is that bad? I dont think so-- at least not as bad as other people seem to think it is.

zabbenw wrote:Surely in high rank play, game theory suggests its everyone's self interest to gank an early King maker, rendering his promotion situational like all specialists? Making it only "imbalanced" in the context of noobs who are to inexperienced to react against the established meta game? How can you even discuss balance in this context when the real disadvantage of a king or tycoon is that it makes you such a target, not that it reduces your sheilds or takes your smuggler?

For the record "King maker" means handing large amounts of some kind of resource (drills/specs/outposts) over to another player, making the other player a very easy winner, aka king. Its a concept independent from the King specialist (although I guess you could gift Kings to someone and "king maker" them with Kings).

But does game theory suggest its in everyone's interest to destroy the strongest player? I don't think so. I myself would prefer to ally with the strongest player and use his power to further my own goals. As far as diplomacy is concerned, there is no "established meta-game". Different people handle diplomacy in wildly different ways, even at the highest level of play. This is something that makes Subterfuge such an amazing game.

As far as the disadvantage of being strong (mining first, promoting to tycoon or king, getting a huge outpost lead, etc), people I think overexaggerate the bullseye effect. You have the know the bullseye exists and stay a step ahead of it diplomatically, but so long as you do, the whole point of the game is to win. Its extremely hard to win without putting yourself in a powerful position.

zabbenw wrote:I've never played a high ranking game, but do they all decend into King arms races? If this is honestly the case then maybe it's imbalanced. But in a game such as subterfuge you can't really argue that one specialist being generally better than others is imbalance, because it ignores the whole dynamic context of diplomacy that the game rests in. If it was a two player game then this wouldn't be the case of course.

No, they don't all decend into King armsraces (despite what the King balance thread would have you believe). Does at least 1 person promote at least 1 king at some point in the game? Yes. Is the same thing true of like 10 other specialists? Yes. King gets much of its attention because it is a very noticeable global effect.

UNLESS you are talking about domination mode. Dont play domination mode. Unless you like the idea of insane specialist stacking. And if you do like spec stacking, dont then come to the forum and complain about specialist stacking.

zabbenw wrote: Is it only noobs pissed at King's, or does it significantly effect high level play?

King is a above average spec, and plays a role at high level play. So do a lot of other specs.

I'd like to mention that while kings can appear to be OP, I'm in a game where I have 5 tycoons, which has given me 2.2 hour production cycles. The fact the I have 4 MoEs has slightly balanced that insane production, but I'm currently always capping at 2000 drillers. Not that drillers matter much in that game, because with stacked sentries and princesses it's almost impossible to move anything without it getting destroyed, despite my 3 admirals. My point here is that stacking almost anything can be seen as OP, but the king's effect manifests itself in the most obvious manner.

@vext

I assume thats a Domination game?

kevlargolem wrote:@vext

I assume thats a Domination game?

I guarantee it was the Cold War game, rules being you wait ten days for your specialists to build up, then actually start. A very niche fan made game mode.