Suggestions for the next version of Slay
Suggestions for the next version of Slay
Sean, I know you're a hardworking man with a lot on his plate, but here are a couple of suggestions for the next version of Slay. Thanks for writing the game!
1. A map editor that allows you to choose the starting territories. This would allow the creation of balanced maps for multiplayer. This is the most needed feature.
2. The chat window resizes automatically to fit the size of the screen.
3. The ability of the server to disconnect players (useful for when they hang).
Any other suggestions? I don't mean things like "change the cost of castles" or exotic new rules, but basic improvements.
1. A map editor that allows you to choose the starting territories. This would allow the creation of balanced maps for multiplayer. This is the most needed feature.
2. The chat window resizes automatically to fit the size of the screen.
3. The ability of the server to disconnect players (useful for when they hang).
Any other suggestions? I don't mean things like "change the cost of castles" or exotic new rules, but basic improvements.
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
In multiplayer games, there needs to be an idle timeout that falls back to auto-play if a player spaces out and walks away from their game. Or, the server operator should have the ability to remove players from the game without interfering with the rest of play.
It's really frustrating to get into a good game and have to abandon it because somebody isn't responding any more.
Oops. I guess that was point 3 in the original post. Sorry for the dup, consider this a "me too" on that request...
It's really frustrating to get into a good game and have to abandon it because somebody isn't responding any more.
Oops. I guess that was point 3 in the original post. Sorry for the dup, consider this a "me too" on that request...
my brother in law just bought a copy, and is pretty active online
also something i'd like to see is the ability to play as two humans from one computer... i don't know... there'd probably be problems with cheating or something, but maybe not. maybe pay an extra $5 for some key for it that would enable it
i dunno i'm just rambling now
nevermind.
also something i'd like to see is the ability to play as two humans from one computer... i don't know... there'd probably be problems with cheating or something, but maybe not. maybe pay an extra $5 for some key for it that would enable it
i dunno i'm just rambling now
nevermind.
uhhh... message me if you wanna play stuff.
Another request
Might seem a bit daft / superfluous, but the ability to re-scale the game up a bit would be great. On a 1600x1200 desktop, Slay looks a bit tiny. 

OMG THATS BIGGER THAN IVE EVER IMAGINED!!
Proud member of Seans forum since 14th April 2005. 1 year and still counting.
Now to spam those 30 messages to get into 3rd place in post count.
I'd like to buy your soul please.
http://www.mindistortion.net/iwantyours ... lex_Rider2
Now to spam those 30 messages to get into 3rd place in post count.

I'd like to buy your soul please.
http://www.mindistortion.net/iwantyours ... lex_Rider2
I would suggest that:gruff wrote:4. Huts, when smashed, should return to the center of the territory. Now they return to the northwest, which gives a crucial advantage to players in the northwest.
If a hut is smashed, the land stays without a hut until the player's next turn. On his next turn, the player chooses where to place the hut in the land (i.e. builds it for no cost). If the player does not rebuild the hut, his land cannot accumulate money from turn to turn (i.e. unspent money in a no-hut land is lost when the player ends his turn; this issues an end-turn warning).
- Fighter_Ace
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
- Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
- Contact:
I would also like to see you get a bit of profit from destroying a hut. Maybe more savings money?tarot wrote:I would suggest that:gruff wrote:4. Huts, when smashed, should return to the center of the territory. Now they return to the northwest, which gives a crucial advantage to players in the northwest.
If a hut is smashed, the land stays without a hut until the player's next turn. On his next turn, the player chooses where to place the hut in the land (i.e. builds it for no cost). If the player does not rebuild the hut, his land cannot accumulate money from turn to turn (i.e. unspent money in a no-hut land is lost when the player ends his turn; this issues an end-turn warning).
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.
Northwest? Or southeast?gruff wrote:4. Huts, when smashed, should return to the center of the territory. Now they return to the northwest, which gives a crucial advantage to players in the northwest.
If the hut is in the north part of a territory, it's easier for a person from the south to knock it up with serfs.