Add a small, stacking speed debuff to each King. The fairest way to balance attacking power is to limit attack speed.

Since most players using the king will concentrate their forces, opponents should be able to counter that strategy by swarming their perimeter with superior speed relative to the player with the king. Also, shouldn't corruption within the empire create inefficiencies in the populace who resent their tyrannical rule?

-15% additive global stacking feels about right. This gives players defending against Kings a chance to bolster defenses with production and logistics, and players counter-attacking can swarm (or ooze really) around the concentrated mass.

First, kings already have a negative effect, they don't need another. Second, the devs are gone, no more updates will be made so this will never happen.

They absolutely need another.

And *sad face*. I hope other developers step in.

Mango, did you even check to see if there was a thread about king balance already?

Here's a link to the best one IMO

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1612&p=11263&hilit=King#p11263

Welcome Aboard!

Lol good Idea- But Do we truly want a game that takes weeks to go slower? I like the idea of a stacking debuff, nut making the game slow seems a little harsh.

Honestly, this is not a bad suggestion. It is a new idea that (as far as I know) hasn't really been discussed before by itself, so it is okay to have its own forum thread instead of necro-ing an old one. Personally, I do not believe that the King is OP, however, to those who hold that feeling, this would provide a stackable negative effect (which shields do not).

Question: would this be added on top of dropping shields or in replace of? If the King gets a penalty on top of shield drops then I think that might be a bit too much. For sake of example, I am assuming for the moment that it is in replace of.

With all that said, this penalty might be too extreme. Debatably, speed is one of the most important aspects to the game, and even just a small speed loss could be catastrophic. This is especially true once you start stacking kings, which is by far the favorite thing to do with kings (to the point where it is meme-able). And, as Janitorial Duties said, in long lasting games everyone hires at least one king, so it would just slow down the entire game with zero punishment to anyone since they are all the same speed.

In contrast though, it might not seem to be enough. Even with 4-5 Kings, a single-hire helmsman will not only counteract the speed boost but still be able to arrive faster than a normal sub. It might just be my opponents, but it seems that most of the people who hire kings also hire helmsman already, so it might not even affect them.

To summarize, I guess I don't quite know how I feel about this in the end. Depending on how it is played out, it could either be too extreme a punishment or one that is just as negligible as the shield drop (Maybe even worse if this allows the King to keep his shields now). In the end, I have to agree with Janitorial Duties and say that the penalty might just make the game less fun if kings slowed things down. Overall, it is a good thought and I overly enjoy thinking about stuff like this.

janitorialduties wrote:Do we truly want a game that takes weeks to go slower?

I'm with JD. The game moves slowly enough as it is.

That said, I also don't think that Kings even need a nerf; there are lots of ways to counteract them. You can play around Kings, using speed to hit undefended and shieldless outposts, while you can dodge attacks and save drillers while they have to crash through your shields. And, while as they stack they get stronger...the first one isn't great. In my opinion, the loss of shields really hurts, and you can punish them after the initial hire. If you hit them fast and hard, they won't be in a position to build those big King death subs, because you will have already taken their (insert one - factories or gens, take your pick).

People will do much better against Kings if they stop being intimidated by them, and instead start attacking them. Watch their hires, and don't let them stack.

One last thing - the Tycoon is simply superior to the King.

mm1menace wrote:
One last thing - the Tycoon is simply superior to the King.

I keep trying to tell roozbeh that but he keeps rolling me with those kings.....

nojo34 wrote:

mm1menace wrote:
One last thing - the Tycoon is simply superior to the King.

I keep trying to tell roozbeh that but he keeps rolling me with those kings.....

Well, I mean, it is just an opinion, but yes I do agree that tycoons are better than kings. Usually nobody attacks you anyway because even if they do you'll crush them back because you're loss of driller hardly matter. You just have too many

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