kevlargolem wrote:tw2000 wrote:Well perhaps my being a chess player encouraged me to do the tactical puzzles...
In my opinion, the puzzles act as a very good filter of the people who probably wouldn't play anyway because they game doesn't actually suit them.
I think the fact that you like the puzzles biases your view of them. Aka, why would you suggest removing the requirement of something you enjoyed?
Tell me in what ways is the experience of playing the puzzles at all like playing the actual game?
The puzzles have a really odd way of introducing a brand new player to the absolute basics of launching subs and using the time machine, at the exact same time they are being introduced to concepts so complex and nuanced that they will almost NEVER see them in an actual game. In addition, they are given a bunch of tools that dont exist in the actual game (like being able to reset and try again). They are also given absolutely no clue about some of the most basic fundamentals like diplomacy, what to do at the beginning of a game, how to synchronize actions with an ally, etc etc, so not only do they not learn them, they also dont even get to see these parts of the game, and never will if they dont enjoy the puzzles and give up.
To put it in nautical terms-- the puzzles are like forcing someone to learn to drive a speed boat, as a test of whether they can captain a cruise ship. Yes, they both go in the water, they both have throttles, and yet its hard to imagine using one as a test for the other.
You enjoy both speed boats and cruise ships. That's great, I'm not saying speed boats should be removed, rather that they should not be a requirement. But I have seen friend after friend who was somewhat interested in the concept of the game I described, completely bounce off of puzzles that have none of the cool things I promised.
Ok, you have fair points. I think what you're getting at is that tactics don't reflect the game's content well enough. But I think we still need some sort of filter to sort through the people who are just going to join a game and then just die. A tutorial, as you mentioned, doesn't really help with anything to do with diplomacy or starting a game or some of the most important skills of subterfuge, but it would be a good option for newcomers. Still, I don't really see people quitting the game on learning that subterfuge is a really easy-to-play game, because its not.
Again, let me use Chess as an analogy. You're saying that we introduce newcomers by giving them tactics to do, about which I definitely agree that it probably isn't the best way to do things. In Chess, though, I learnt by reading all the rules. These days, you can watch videos to learn how to play. I agree that this is probably a much better option, but then again, Subterfuge has videos as well (although they aren't very detailed). In chess, though, you usually play against your friend first, who will forgive you if you don't like the game. Even if you play online, 1 resignation just gives the other player a higher rating, and doesn't affect much else. Because of the 2-player vs 8-player difference, I doubt there is a very good way to both teach engagingly and be a filter for those who probably won't like Subterfuge anyway. Because, lets face it, how many people are going to want to play if a third of players resigned on their first game and made the game way too unfair? Probably only the player who won.
So, we then have to decide which choice is more optimal, having compulsory tactics to eliminate players before they get to the actual game, or having everyone play because they finished the tutorial but 4 people auto resign because they never check their subterfuge again, ruining the other player's first experience (more than if those players had been already eliminated by tactics). And, to this question, I don't know which one is better really....
Another thing, within the compulsory puzzles you actually do see some concepts which are commonly seen, and the 'tutorial' part of the tactics is usually different from the 'tactical' tactics.
Tactic 1. Shows you how to launch a sub,
Tactic 2. Shows you how you can attack an outpost using drillers from 2 different outposts (a slightly more complex way)
Tactic 3. Introduces you to defending your outposts
Tactic 4. Teaches you how to use the time machine
Tactic 5. Teaches you how to counter absolute driller destruction by specialists (I agree that this is a bit too difficult if following on from the last one, and I think the hint should be changed to say that you have to use the time machine)
Tactic 6. Introduces you to the concept of counterattacking. (This one is pretty hard as well)
Tactic 7. Introduces you to factories, teaches you to use specialists to attack (infiltrator).
Tactic 8. Introduces you to queen hires, teaches you to use specialists to defend (saboteur).
Tactic 9. Teaches you about the concept of combat priority, teaches you to use specialists to defend (martyr).
Tactic 10. Introduces you to promoted specialists, teaches you to use specialists to attack (war hero).
Tactic 11. Introduces you to Neptunium and MIning, teaches you how to build a mine.
Tactic 12. Introduces you to the concept of diplomacy (a bit) and allies by using gifts, teaches you how to gift.
Tactic 13. Introduces you to funding.
etc.
Most of them are quite followable and shouldn't be a problem. However, putting Tactic 5 and 6 (which are ranked 'intermediate' difficulty) at 5 and 6 seems a bit too sudden and harsh, and I did observe that most people who I've introduced the game to had to ask me for help on those tactics. In fact, they did everything else up to the last few L1 tactics just fine. (Oh, and I also think that the last few tactics before L1 needs to have elements of actual tactical and strategic play involved, just not too difficult.)