Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:42 pm
To me, the beauty of Slay is its dynamic simplicity. Adding trading, etc., would absolutely ruin the game. It would be like adding terrain, economic factors to the what I consider the greated game of all: chess.
Utilizing the hidden strategic depth and being able to visualize and calculate without a lot of gimmicks are what make chess (and Slay) great.
And, to me, one of the great reasons why Sean's games are great is that he captures the strategic essence of a competitive situation and gives you something simple and clean to work with. Exercise your mind. Use your imagination. That's what makes games like this fun.
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:10 am
Very well explained i agree 100%, slay is a great game, i feel apart from the AI being made a little tougher the game itself would be ruined by adding these new factors.
I would deffo stick with the version i have now if all these new ideas where to be implimented
Oh, btw, both me and my husband like chess also !
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:07 pm
I couldn't agree more. I don't want to see Slay replaced. But I feel there is room for another game that builds on some features of Slay.
Saying more stuff that people shouldn't take seriously
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:27 am
That's why the thread is titled Slay 2. I don't think anyone would be here if they didn't think Slay was a great game. At the same time, it would go great to build albeit slowly off a very solid foundation. Now I think the strategy of slay are very good right now. Work that could be done now really are about interface to the game. I'm not saying go 3d or anything that crazy (though done right it would be sweet). But I think that the front end graphics could be improved a good bit (and how about some more customizable graphics, really want to do more with the themes?). Also the mouse interface could be improved, made a bit more responsive, make placement a bit more fluid etc. How about territoty stats when hovering over a teritory (ie size, current cost), would be faster than counting(hate doing this with enemy territories. What about variable resolutions? Slay is only 800x600, and my monitors push 1600x1200, sure not for everyone but would help on the eye strain.
What about slay bots? What better AI, lets write it ourselves.
Slay also could take more advantage of the net, however a plugin to Instant Messenger (no idea if it is possible, though with GAIM, probably could be done). Play while you're chatting, and 'challenge' your buddy lists.
Also what about a real time slay? Exact same rules, each territory get $1 per turn, and the larger the territory the shorter the turn while the more men, the longer the turn. Lets say 5 sec/turn (each man can move every 5 seconds from last time he moved. It would be pretty hectic, but has anyone played realtime chess w/ 2 second turns? Crasy game that you can actually get pretty good at.
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:31 am
Slay bots should already be possible, using the multiplayer network interface. If Sean were to document the current protocol that he uses, you could write your own Bot to act as a separate player. That would be kinda cool.
One thing I've thought of as an equalizer - I would be OK with seeing a smarter AI, but I'd like to see an ability to set territory handicaps for friendly/networked games. I.e., the land allocation could still be random, but throw in a weighting factor so that a specified color gets more land, or less. This way you could balance out weaker players and stronger AIs against each other...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:15 am
Resources and Gathering
Slay has only one resource money, and it has auto gathering, 1 per territory. I think this simplicity is important, so no new resources, however there could be new ways to generate money. Special squares that are worth more than 1 could make things more interesting. Also these specials could be only last a specific amount of time, and are only discovered upon capturing the territory.
How about: When you 'crush' an enemies capital, you loot their funds?
Also, it would be great if, once your capital was crushed, it moved to "the most defensible area" - or - player's choice of location; instead of North and West, as is currently the case. That heuristic puts Southern players at greater risk than Northern ones.
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:08 am
I rarely go past Spearman unless i have a knight to fight and then I loose money and then I have to loose all my men and build again
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:03 pm
In Alterlife there are power sources that randomly regenerate when they are depleted after a certain amount of time, so maybe that would work in Slay for bonus hexes.
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:29 pm
i do not like the idea of looting just because of the fact that it helps the team that is strong enough to keep attacking an ememy capital... i much more prefer the current method of making them go back to $0.
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 8:34 am
Ah, I see your point, looting gives the winning party more with which to win. Then at least the capital-hut should move to the nearest shoreline, or perhaps allow the player to choose the new location of the money-hut. This would be a huge benefit to the player whose capital-hut was crushed.