thunder wrote:

topkilla wrote:Actually, I lied. The game where I joined in on alliance has been the most fun I've played yet.

the 4v4 ? lol

No, it was a legit game. Someone sent everyone else a message saying that "'these two players are friends and work together and that he just played a game with them." Everyone ended up attack those to players and eliminating them, followed by a crazy war.

I don't know about everyone else - but I'd gladly pay for the privilege to change my username (keeping any player notes and other info on me the same) or being able to have a game username I could change for the specific game- kinda like the historical figures exhibition game.

topkilla wrote:
This game will never make it big because it's niche. Its a strategy game<It's a War Strategy game<It's a diplomatic War Strategy game<It's a Real Time Diplomatic War Strategy game<It's a Real Time Diplomatic War Strategy game on mobile devices.

^That's a very tiny group of people. And the fact that it's a mobile game means it won't easily be found.

There's a number of things you are not considering with all of the variations you would like to see. But the quick list is; Game Design, Player Base fragmentation, Development Time/Cost, and Demand.

Sure its a very tiny group of people. But if that's where you think the problem is, how else do you think we can solve it in such a way that having more timescales would be detrimental? I completely agree that there are many more aspects of the game we can variate, such as game mode, game rules, specialists, etc. But timescale would be one of the most convenient ones. Those people who want to play a relatively quick game can, and those people who don't, well, don't need to care. It doesn't affect them...

People who play board games are totally willing to spend 2.88 Hours (Converted from game time to 100x speed and calculated with 12 days as the average game length) playing one game.

However, if you were to consider the new dynamic of a 100x game, I would expect the average game to take make 1.75 hours. Especially if all the players where in the same room. Everyone will be fully engaged in the game. Meaning diplomatic deals would take place much sooner and there would be much less idle time.

But diplomacy and planning takes time. And thats why a sub that takes 1.5 minute sub (in relation to the standard 10 hours) is completely unreasonable compared to the 6 minute sub. You simply have slightly more time to respond. Maybe a minute or two. Compared to the 10ish seconds you would @400x.

Sure, people who play board games will spend hours playing it, but this isn't a board game, this is a mobile game. And more idle time means less things to do means more boring waits. If playing a board game however, you can still chat to your friends while its another person's turn, etc.
And why do you keep assuming all the players would be in the same room? I think not. And probably about 90% of the time. You seem to think about 90% or the time that it WILL be a group of friends in the same room playing a quick game. But seriously? How many times would you want to play a quick game of Subterfuge when you're friends aren't here vs. when they are here. And how many times will you actually have a group of 6+ friends in the same place? (And what about private chat? You'll still have use the in-game chat quite a lot). You'd also have to go to the trouble of making sure they all know subterfuge and how to play and are at the same level of play to make the game interesting and intense.
And the lack of time would be one of the main features with 40-minute gameplay. You'd have to respond fast, do your diplomacy fast, etc. All just the usual for other games which have a 'quick' version of gameplay.
To be honest I think having week long games is really good for building up the community as more people will be able to join a game, keeping the community alive, but I think quick games will help variate the atmosphere, which I think it needs.

Chess is a board game and has hundred of thousands, if not millions of players world wide. LOL is a hugely popular computer game with hundreds of thousands of players, and came from DOTA which has been around for at least 10 years.

Subterfuge has been around for less than four months. Subterfuge had 7000 players yesterday. And 6900 players today. You simply can't make comparisons between these games. Especially since the method of consumption of the games is entirely different.

A proper comparison would be to any mobile game that is asynchronous and includes a "live" game mode. And for all of the live game modes I've tried, I've never had a good experience with it.

My point was that quick games are almost never played with friends in the same room. I already argued this above.

tw2000 wrote:

A proper comparison would be to any mobile game that is asynchronous and includes a "live" game mode. And for all of the live game modes I've tried, I've never had a good experience with it.

My point was that quick games are almost never played with friends in the same room. I already argued this above.

People don't sit and play 'live' versions of mobile games that are asynchronous. Yes, Subterfuge is 'real time', but has an asynchronous feel to do due to the downtime in-between making moves.

Trust me, there will be very few games ever played in a 'quick' mode of the game. And 90% of those games will from groups of friends in the same room.

topkilla wrote:

tw2000 wrote:

A proper comparison would be to any mobile game that is asynchronous and includes a "live" game mode. And for all of the live game modes I've tried, I've never had a good experience with it.

My point was that quick games are almost never played with friends in the same room. I already argued this above.

People don't sit and play 'live' versions of mobile games that are asynchronous. Yes, Subterfuge is 'real time', but has an asynchronous feel to do due to the downtime in-between making moves.

Trust me, there will be very few games ever played in a 'quick' mode of the game. And 90% of those games will from groups of friends in the same room.

I have to agree wth TopKilla here. And I also want to point out that text diplomacy would be near impossible to do well in a quick game.

roadkiehl wrote:

topkilla wrote:People don't sit and play 'live' versions of mobile games that are asynchronous. Yes, Subterfuge is 'real time', but has an asynchronous feel to do due to the downtime in-between making moves.

Trust me, there will be very few games ever played in a 'quick' mode of the game. And 90% of those games will from groups of friends in the same room.

I have to agree wth TopKilla here. And I also want to point out that text diplomacy would be near impossible to do well in a quick game.

It all adds to part of the fun. You'd have to find ways to do your diplomacy very quickly and you might not be able to co-ordinate attacks very well with your allies. But its all part of shortening the time scale...
And to be honest, if the Devs can implement a x100 version, which they are planning to do, they can surely add a x400 version? Or just a customisable timescale scroll? I for sure would NOT like to waste 3 hours of my time, especially when I have such a busy schedule. 40 minute games change the game just like any other game mode can. I don't know of any other live game where most of the players would prefer a 3 hour game to a 40 minute game.

tw2000 wrote:

roadkiehl wrote:

topkilla wrote:People don't sit and play 'live' versions of mobile games that are asynchronous. Yes, Subterfuge is 'real time', but has an asynchronous feel to do due to the downtime in-between making moves.

Trust me, there will be very few games ever played in a 'quick' mode of the game. And 90% of those games will from groups of friends in the same room.

I have to agree wth TopKilla here. And I also want to point out that text diplomacy would be near impossible to do well in a quick game.

It all adds to part of the fun. You'd have to find ways to do your diplomacy very quickly and you might not be able to co-ordinate attacks very well with your allies. But its all part of shortening the time scale...
And to be honest, if the Devs can implement a x100 version, which they are planning to do, they can surely add a x400 version? Or just a customisable timescale scroll? I for sure would NOT like to waste 3 hours of my time, especially when I have such a busy schedule. 40 minute games change the game just like any other game mode can. I don't know of any other live game where most of the players would prefer a 3 hour game to a 40 minute game.

If think you're trying to make Subterfuge into another RTS like Age of Empires or Starcraft, and, honestly, those games just don't do diplomacy. Starcraft is only 2 player, and AoE tried to have diplomacy, but it never really goes deeper than, "Hi, don't kill me." Subterfuge is all about diplomacy, though. That's the entire game, really. You can't play well without it. A pace like what you're suggesting forces you to choose between thoughtful diplomacy or good tactics
You know, the reason I think popular music is so bad in general (no offense to anyone who likes One Direction) is that they tried to appeal to everyone with one genre in order to make more money, and, in the process, lost the essence of what makes music great. It's that something unique and personal about art that pop music lacks.
I think that what you're suggesting is similar to mass market bs that is everywhere today. I think that if the devs really did go down this route, it would kill the spirit of Subterfuge. Maybe they'd make more money, but the ends don't justify murdering something as brilliant as Subterfuge.
Sorry if that was a bit muddled, but I hope I got my point across well enough.

roadkiehl wrote:

tw2000 wrote:

roadkiehl wrote:I have to agree wth TopKilla here. And I also want to point out that text diplomacy would be near impossible to do well in a quick game.

It all adds to part of the fun. You'd have to find ways to do your diplomacy very quickly and you might not be able to co-ordinate attacks very well with your allies. But its all part of shortening the time scale...
And to be honest, if the Devs can implement a x100 version, which they are planning to do, they can surely add a x400 version? Or just a customisable timescale scroll? I for sure would NOT like to waste 3 hours of my time, especially when I have such a busy schedule. 40 minute games change the game just like any other game mode can. I don't know of any other live game where most of the players would prefer a 3 hour game to a 40 minute game.

If think you're trying to make Subterfuge into another RTS like Age of Empires or Starcraft, and, honestly, those games just don't do diplomacy. Starcraft is only 2 player, and AoE tried to have diplomacy, but it never really goes deeper than, "Hi, don't kill me." Subterfuge is all about diplomacy, though. That's the entire game, really. You can't play well without it. A pace like what you're suggesting forces you to choose between thoughtful diplomacy or good tactics
You know, the reason I think popular music is so bad in general (no offense to anyone who likes One Direction) is that they tried to appeal to everyone with one genre in order to make more money, and, in the process, lost the essence of what makes music great. It's that something unique and personal about art that pop music lacks.
I think that what you're suggesting is similar to mass market bs that is everywhere today. I think that if the devs really did go down this route, it would kill the spirit of Subterfuge. Maybe they'd make more money, but the ends don't justify murdering something as brilliant as Subterfuge.
Sorry if that was a bit muddled, but I hope I got my point across well enough.

Yes I can see where you're going with this. But that still doesn't rebut the fact that players who want to play slow games can still play slow games. They will not be affected in any way. Players who turned away from Subterfuge because of the lack of an exciting game will be attracted back to Subterfuge.

Here's a good example. When chess clocks were first invented, and fast chess was first played, many skilled chess players at the time thought it as something like, "Blitz chess kills your ideas." (– Bobby Fischer). It surely kills the atmosphere of standard chess and you are not able to see who is truly better....only who can play faster, and as such it will never become popular, right? Wrong. Look at how popular it is now. And the players who do not want to play are not affected whatsoever.

I mean, sure, the example did not involve diplomacy, but we could say: It surely kills the atmosphere of standard Subterfuge and you are not able to see who is truly better....only who can type faster, and as such it will never become popular, right? Still wrong.

Before I tell you why, Lets talk about your example of music. I completely agree with you on the pop music thing (I prefer classical music tbh). It all stems from the fact that people are becoming more lazy and not bothering to find structure in music, unless it is blatantly obvious. It is for this reason that pop music now has bass drums, snare drums, hi-hats, etc acting as a metronome which I find is just plain annoying when you're practicing a piece of classical music. Just ask any stranger on the street: can you find the strong beat in this piece of classical music? And I doubt they would be able to. BUT, I have not in the least been affected too much by pop music. If I really don't want to listen and its being played over the loudspeakers I will just get my earphones out and start listening to my own music. You see, It doesn't really affect me.

It is in the same way that if Subterfuge became RTS, it would appeal to the masses of people out there. Most of the crowd are looking for action and excitement. Its only the minority that are looking for long and deep strategy thinking. And best of all, it would not affect any of us, and only benefit those who wanted it.

There are already too many game options to play the game as it is now. I can't find a Ranked, not-anyomous, 8 player, 200 Np game.

Yeah, idk tw2000. You make some valid points with the chess analogy, but I still don't think Subterfuge lends itself well to a 40 minute game. We're not talking about shortening the amount of time to plan your moves so much as we're talking about the fact that you just don't have time to *do* everything you'd have to do. I might have a brilliant plan thought up right away, but if I need to coordinate that with my ally... good luck.
And I think you're also overestimating the RTS crowd's interest. For every StarCraft or Command & Conquer, I'm sure there are hundreds of RTSs that failed. The reason that the successes succeed is that they are very good at what they do. I don't think an RTS mode as an afterthought has the focus or potential to do well.