I saw the Gamasutra article the other day and wanted to bump this thread with some feedback in this thread as to why we stopped playing the game--as it is directly related to this topic and previous posts.

Our group very much enjoyed the game and was quite impressed by it. I feel like it has some very unique and special features and is set up for success.

However, the primary reason we stopped playing was simply due to the game feeling far too 'taxing' and time-consuming to play competitively. This is pretty much related to the time-step/granularity issue I touched on before.

As long as the time-steps are 10 minutes, the game has to be checked within 10 minutes of any enemy action or you risk losing your window to properly counter the attack. While not every attack is like this, many attacks are--especially with people executing very precisely choreographed queued actions.

While we absolutely enjoyed playing the game, we simply weren't up for any more games. It took too much time and was very draining for those who were interesting in winning. Those who did not check regularly got absolutely crushed by combat timings and counter-attacks.

I strongly feel that this will be an issue for a lot of the general public and especially the more casual crowd and would highly recommend looking into not just having options to change the speed of the game, but the granularity and frequency of the time steps. Having the steps be further apart would lessen the need to check the game quite so regularly and make it more practical to play the game 'casually' and still be relatively competitive.

Wish you guys all the best, though! I think the game at its core is fantastic.

The devs have already said they plan on having different game speeds when the game is live.

I've been playing non stop since December and its easily my favorite game.

Perhaps with fits with my schedule better, or maybe the pacing just suits me more, but flaming definitively that the pacing is incorrect is simply foolish.

I have no problem even when in call day meetings for work or just sleeping for the night.

I set up my moves weighing the risks of unattended possibilities, factor in my opponents and allies likely moves, and possible mistakes and shut down the game and go to sleep.

I have only ever been caught out with disastrous results one time. Positions are WAY more resilient then I think many players understand.

I stopped for similar reasons, including more than one argument with my SO when I was checking alerts and responding to actions instead of paying attention to a conversation, movie, etc. It really made me feel tethered to my phone in an un-fun way so I could stay competitive (and I am too competitive to just ignore it).
(re: FateCreatr, yes I need more self control. Also I should find someone who embraces and understands my competitive nature)
We were also playing in an international group, so there was some timezone offset that allowed for attacks to be conducted during another person's sleep cycle. If you could pause/un-pause the game it would be interesting having set hours where the game world is moving forward rather than 24/7.
(re: FateCreatr, yes it would really make more sense to just play in the same timezone. Also, I should queue up my attacks and even my counter-attacks to account for the offset)

Jayde wrote:However, the primary reason we stopped playing was simply due to the game feeling far too 'taxing' and time-consuming to play competitively. This is pretty much related to the time-step/granularity issue I touched on before.

As long as the time-steps are 10 minutes, the game has to be checked within 10 minutes of any enemy action or you risk losing your window to properly counter the attack. While not every attack is like this, many attacks are--especially with people executing very precisely choreographed queued actions.

I thought I completely agreed with this sentiment as my first game progressed. My first question though is: do these time steps affect anything other than the Time Machine?

So let's take your example. You want to attack "outpost 1" 12 hours away. The defender's nearest reinforcements are 10 hours away at "Factory 1". Lets assume you are within sonar range. You launch at midnight. What you don't know is that the defender has an Admiral just out of sonar range at "Factory 2" that is also 10 hours away at 2x speed (I don't know what the normal speed sonar range is so this is all hypothetical). The defender doesn't currently have enough drillers to counter, but at 1 am both factories will generate drillers and there will be enough drillers to defend outpost 1. The defender just so happens to wake up at 12:30 to use the restroom (or more realistically is just going to bed), and of course checks subterfuge...

(We'll ignore the 10-minute queue time for simplicity)

Scenario 1: 10-minute tick
At 12:30 the Defender sees the attack, scrolls the time machine around to see his options. He sets his Admiral to launch at 1am with the full load of drillers from Factory 2. They arrive at Factory 1 at 6am and pickup the remainder of the drillers and head for Outpost 1 arriving at 11 am. The outpost is successfully defended.

Scenario 2: 4-hour tick
At 12:30 the Defender sees the attack, scrolls the time machine around to see his options. Unfortunately, now he has to stay up until 1am when his factories produce the drillers so he can queue the subs to Factory 1 and pickup the remainder of the drillers. Although, perhaps he would still be screwed because the drillers take 5 hours to get to Factory 1, and the ticks are every 4 hours, so in the time machine he can only queue orders immediately, at 5 am (sub won't be to Factory 1 until 6am), or 9 am (too late). So perhaps he might even have to stay up all night to successfully counter the attack. (I do realize that launched separately the defense could work in this scenario, but just trying to illustrate the point).

I think what the real problem some people seem to have with the demands of checking the game is that it IS a Real-Time Strategy game. There is just no way around the fact things happen in real time, whenever that may be.

It sounds like some people are really asking for something more akin to a turn based game, where "ticks" really means turns. Orders are queued and executed every four hours (for example), no matter what.

What you don't know is that the defender has an Admiral just out of sonar range at "Factory 2" that is also 10 hours away at 2x speed

The Admiral is 2.5x but the global ability of +25% is visible to all players, even if you can't see the Admiral.

Outside of that you're right. Anyone complaining about the speed at which Subterfuge is running is asking for a different game.

It's fine as is, and if it doesn't fit your schedule, then it's not the game for you.

I would further argue that the ability to set future events and the speed the game progresses makes it a lot less taxing to check in on. If you cannot strategize for multiple outcomes, then you will suffer. If you require a softer game, with fewer consequences, then Subterfuge may not be right for you and that's OK. There should be no expectation that Subterfuge will be perfect for everyone and demanding changes to homogenize the experience, and destroy it's uniqueness are unfair and unwanted.

As it sits now, it's far and away my favorite game outside of Magic the Gathering.

Ram, besides the fact that a 4 hr tick is ridiculous, your second scenario is flawed because no matter what the tick interval is, you can still set up future actions with the time machine. So no staying up to queue actions. You just queue them.

The time tick isn't the problem for me; it's that some events don't produce notifications, and other notifications come through delayed.

czechcongo wrote:Ram, besides the fact that a 4 hr tick is ridiculous, your second scenario is flawed because no matter what the tick interval is, you can still set up future actions with the time machine. So no staying up to queue actions. You just queue them.

The time tick isn't the problem for me; it's that some events don't produce notifications, and other notifications come through delayed.

Right, but if the tick is 4 hours you can only queue them in the time machine every 4 hours from whatever time it is (scenario 2 isn't flawed if I understand what Jayden is asking for). Ie, the ticks apply to the time machine too, otherwise there is no point in making them longer.

That's true. But you don't have to stay awake to queue events. You just use the time machine.

And it's not like the ticks are turns; they actually are turns. Nothing of consequence ever happens between ticks. If a sub would arrive 1 minute or 9 minutes before a tick, you'll notice a timer counts down to the next tick when the action takes place, like combat or unloading. You are unable, for instance, to send multiple subs from one outpost to another during the same tick/turn.

czechcongo wrote:That's true. But you don't have to stay awake to queue events. You just use the time machine.

The reason he would have to stay awake is because at 12:30am he can't queue for a 1am launch after the drillers are produced. At 12:30 am with a 4hour tick, you can only queue for 12:30am, 4:30 am, 8:30 am, and so on. He needs the subs to leave AT 1am. Therefore he has to queue them AT 1am if there is a 4 hour tick. Sure, he could have queued them at 9pm the day before, but the attack was unknown at the time.

And because of the travel times, he can't queue the subs to leave Factory 1 after picking up the second batch of drillers because they don't arrive until 6am (after the available 4:30 queue time). The mistake I did make however, is that he would only have to stay up until 2am, when he could queue for 6am based on the 4 hour tick. So you are correct, he would not have to stay up all night, but would have to stay up far later than if it was the 10 min tick.

It doesn't matter what the interval is between ticks if you're talking about learning new information based on sonar range and sub movements. If he's awake, or gets a proper notification, a response can be made or queued for the future during the next tick, whenever that is. If you're trying to say that having 4 hrs between turns is not a good idea, I don't think anyone would disagree. Plus, if you want this to be an accurate thought experiment, you'd have to designate when these 4 hr ticks begin in your example. 12:30? 1? 2? 3:07? It all depends on when the game begins in realtime. That's the only way to know how the turn time affects the order of actions in this example.