Page 1 of 1

game suggestion for slay

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:14 pm
by Leon
I have played some games with my old vesion 4.2 using the 'cheat' of downsizing the armies so reduce expenses.

As a matter of fact, I believe that this possibility should be part of the game. If anything, it adds true intelligence to the game. Furthermore, it corresponds to reality: countries increase or decrease their armies, they never just keep on increasing.

I would like to see this feature included as a legal move. Perhaps it could be programmed as an optional setting. Of course, the opps would also be allowed these moves.

Is it too difficult to program ?

Thanks and best regards,

leon

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:45 am
by Leon
I am surprised no one expressed an opinion about my suggestion.

What about you Sean, is it not useful to consider this ? If it is simply too complicated to include this option, please let me know.

Thanks,
leon

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:52 am
by Sean OConnor
I really don't want to go down the road of lots of rule options or people will all be playing different games. Not being able to un-buy a unit once you have bought it is one of the key elements of the game in my opinion so you have to think carefully before buying anything.

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:36 am
by Leon
Sean O'Connor wrote:I really don't want to go down the road of lots of rule options or people will all be playing different games. Not being able to un-buy a unit once you have bought it is one of the key elements of the game in my opinion so you have to think carefully before buying anything.


I do not agree with you at all. I think it would make the game far more intelligent and exciting.

But thanks for the reply anyway.

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:18 am
by Bryce
I agree with Shaun simply on the basis that it would "diffract" the game, making it less uniform.


Considering the idea: I completely disagree. That would remove a huge amount of the strategy that the game possess, as well as making game play too unpredictable.

Strategy in Slay is at least as concerned with $$$ as with killing. The point of the exponential growth of unit upkeeps is so that military domination hurts you. If you could sell, you could use barons and knights to cut like no other. Since you wouldn't be making enough to support the units turn to turn (hence selling them back,) you would be unable to afford a standing army to defend against such cuts. The result of implementing this idea would be that Slay would become a purely offensive game, with little to no defensive thought.

As far as making the game more intelligent I think it would do quite the opposite. It would allow you to make moves without considering their long term impact. When I'm playing a game I make sure I need those two knights to progress before I start popping out units with 18 upkeep apiece.

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:32 am
by Leon
Bryce wrote:I agree with Shaun simply on the basis that it would "diffract" the game, making it less uniform.


Less "uniform" compared to what ? Precisely, it would transform the game from boring unniform inevitable win to a game allowing more intelligence, initiative, surpises and new strategies.


Considering the idea: I completely disagree. That would remove a huge amount of the strategy that the game possess, as well as making game play too unpredictable.



I find it amazing that you prefer a game "predictable". Is it to remain in the comfort of winning every game ? I have already already won all games on very clever more than once. Now Slay is no longer exciting because when I start playing I can predict that I shall win.

Purists will say : ah .. but you win in 30 turns, I make it in 29 or better!

This argument is valid only a little. When you win, you win. When you have lost, you lost. I give you a comparison:

Your enemi kills you (or you kill the enemi if you are superstitious). It is no better if he kills you twice or you kill him twice. There is no extra kudo for killing him twice over.


Strategy in Slay is at least as concerned with $$$ as with killing. The point of the exponential growth of unit upkeeps is so that military domination hurts you. If you could sell, you could use barons and knights to cut like no other. Since you wouldn't be making enough to support the units turn to turn (hence selling them back,) you would be unable to afford a standing army to defend against such cuts. The result of implementing this idea would be that Slay would become a purely offensive game, with little to no defensive thought.



Your reasoning assumes that I am suggesting that we could scale down using the same value as scaling up.

I have not suggested this. Quite to the contrary, I would suggest that the scaling down is done at say half the values of purchasing. This would add some spice to the decisions, hence challenging intelligence which, after all, is the purpose of this game.


As far as making the game more intelligent I think it would do quite the opposite. It would allow you to make moves without considering their long term impact. When I'm playing a game I make sure I need those two knights to progress before I start popping out units with 18 upkeep apiece.


I have replied to this in the previous point. But you talk of the "impact of decisions in the long tem". Once again, my suggestion adds a new dimension to the game : some long term decisions and some short term ones.

Of course, it is always more comfortable to stick to what we know and that we find predictable. (alas in my case invariably a boring predictable win).

The aim of the game is to make us think ... and rethink. Ideally over many years. My suggestion aims precisely at this goal. The true question is more technical: Is it too complicated to program this versatile and re-invigorated game ?

If Sean can do it, he will have a great game to maket. If he cannot or does not wish to, it is fair enough. But there is no need to defend "uniform" and "predictable" as better than what I suggest for a truly challenging intelligence game.

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:41 pm
by Bryce
Leon wrote:I find it amazing that you prefer a game "predictable". Is it to remain in the comfort of winning every game ? I have already already won all games on very clever more than once. Now Slay is no longer exciting because when I start playing I can predict that I shall win.


Yes, I do prefer a game to have a certain amount of continuity from one turn to the other. This doesn't mean the game play is predictable, but rather that you don't re-deploy your entire force every turn. While I haven't gone through every level, (half way through since I re-installed) I know that in every level I will win, whether it takes me a single try or four tries. Just because I know what the outcome will be doesn't mean its not fun getting there.

You keep referring to this change making the game less of a certain win, when in reality I think it would only give the player an even larger advantage against the computer. The main reason players will always beat computers is because of risk taking and fluid thinking, a change like you are suggesting would make slay into an entirely different game, one that the current AI would have absolutely no chance at.

As to marketing: I think the vast majority prefers it the way it is. Personally I wouldn't play Slay if the changes you are suggesting were implemented.

And for challenge- Let's get some online games! I recently got back into slay after a lengthy hiatus, not sure who's still around.

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:42 am
by Leon
Yes, I do prefer a game to have a certain amount of continuity from one turn to the other. This doesn't mean the game play is predictable, but rather that you don't re-deploy your entire force every turn. While I haven't gone through every level, (half way through since I re-installed) I know that in every level I will win, whether it takes me a single try or four tries. Just because I know what the outcome will be doesn't mean its not fun getting there.


OK that's fair enough.


You keep referring to this change making the game less of a certain win, when in reality I think it would only give the player an even larger advantage against the computer. The main reason players will always beat computers is because of risk taking and fluid thinking, a change like you are suggesting would make slay into an entirely different game, one that the current AI would have absolutely no chance at.


Interesting point. You may be correct.

I suppose it all depends on how intelligent the programmer makes Slay compete against the human opponent.

As to marketing: I think the vast majority prefers it the way it is. Personally I wouldn't play Slay if the changes you are suggesting were implemented.


a) this is your own choice, others may enjoy the option I suggested

b) since I have suggested an optional choice, you could still play your way and others could play another way.

From the marketing point of view, the game is much enriched by the new option. There is no downside.

And for challenge- Let's get some online games! I recently got back into slay after a lengthy hiatus, not sure who's still around.


Personally, I play Slay on an impulse and at entirely different times. For instance, it is now 1.40 am and I may fancy a quick game ...

In reality, it is most likely that the immense majority of people play slay on their own and they are not likely to bother setting up appointments.

If the license were different, for instance if slay were offered as a free online game on websites like MSN Zone for instance, then it is possible or even probable that people will like to play against other humans.

Whatever the future, thanks for the debate and enjoy your game.