Feature idea

Strategy, feedback, or anything SUBTERFUGE-related
Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:20 pm

  • caveat: 5 games in and I have to commend you on the depth of play and strategy, it's genius. That said, the follow idea is certainly not needed for a complete experience, it's a "what if" scenario.

    What if there was a hardcore mode where player to player messages had to be sent by fast courier (distinct looking sub icon at 2x or similar speed)? Maybe even have the a more limited radar? Can't tell who owns a base out of view, can't see how many drills a player has or what their production rates are... Stuff like that.

    Totally a what if, future feature kind of thought.
    FateCreatr
     
    Posts: 254
    Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:57 am

Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:55 am

  • I must admit, I love the idea of a hard core mode for any game and I think it could work really well with this. I especially like the idea of messenger subs!

    Perhaps the radar could be more closely linked to specialists, that way you could 'upgrade' your radar abilities if you wanted to but it would cost.

    More formal alliance structures would also be great.
    stitch29
     
    Posts: 72
    Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:28 am

Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:17 am

  • I asked about formal alliances initially, and they weren't for it. After getting more games under my belt I think I agree. There is a certain tension knowing that alliances are based only on a verbal agreement or promise.

    I can see where some aspects of the game could be expanded though formal alliances like parking subs at an allies base, some shared radar intel, coordinating movements etc, but all those things can more or less be achieved as it is, if you trust them.

    In the end, I think that removing aspects of the game that rely on the "Survivor" like politics would diminish rather then enhance the game.

    I could be wrong though.
    FateCreatr
     
    Posts: 254
    Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:57 am

Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:12 pm

  • Your points on formal alliances are valid however when I mean formal alliances I dont mean alliances that can't be broken, only an alliance with formal options available. The making and essentially breaking of alliances is one of the most important aspects of any of these types of games and in nearly all of my games, wether on here or the others like NP2, it has been decisive in the outcome. Saying that, proper alliance controls and options can be just as important.
    stitch29
     
    Posts: 72
    Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:28 am

Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:14 am

  • What formal control options would there be? I like the verbal type of communication there is now. Sharing radar or access to outposts removes some of the doubt when an ally provides you intel. I'm not familiar with games of NP2 so I'm not sure what that looked like for alliances.

    I

    stitch29 wrote:Your points on formal alliances are valid however when I mean formal alliances I dont mean alliances that can't be broken, only an alliance with formal options available. The making and essentially breaking of alliances is one of the most important aspects of any of these types of games and in nearly all of my games, wether on here or the others like NP2, it has been decisive in the outcome. Saying that, proper alliance controls and options can be just as important.
    Duck Hunter
     
    Posts: 6
    Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:38 am

Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:57 am

  • Not control options, you should of course never be able to control someone else's subs or anything like that. Simple things like sharing Intel, resources and being able to travel through an ally's area of control. Also, specific to Subterfuge, possibly sharing of certain specialists abilities.

    It should of course be completely voluntary so if you preferred not to use the option then you wouldn't have to but having the option there increases choice which is always a good thing. Like I said previously, I have used similar things in other games and they have worked well.

    There is of course a line that needs to be drawn between the amount of time spent to give extra choice and by the sounds of it Ron has already said they won't be adding it.
    stitch29
     
    Posts: 72
    Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:28 am



Return to General




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 32 guests
cron