Page 1 of 8

Suggestions for the next version of Slay

Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:27 pm
by gruff
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.

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:05 pm
by gruff
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.

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:52 am
by highlandsun
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...

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:21 pm
by Quitch
Yeah, just hand them over to the Very Clever AI if they don't respond for a certain period of time.

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:13 am
by gruff
If people want to see a new version of Slay, I encourage them to promote the game wherever they can. The more sales of Slay, the more money in Sean's pocket, the faster we see an improved map editor. Hook people and get them to buy full copies. It will only benefit all of us.

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:00 pm
by ellipsis
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.

Another request

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:58 pm
by Kyzia
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. :?

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:46 pm
by qwas
OMG THATS BIGGER THAN IVE EVER IMAGINED!!

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:40 am
by tarot
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.
I would suggest that:

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).

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:01 am
by Fighter_Ace
tarot wrote:
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.
I would suggest that:

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).
I would also like to see you get a bit of profit from destroying a hut. Maybe more savings money?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:31 am
by gruff
No. Smashing a hut is benefit enough.

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:31 pm
by statto
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.
Northwest? Or southeast?

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.

Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:26 am
by gruff
Northwest.

I don't understand what you mean when you say it's easy for a player in the south to smash a hut that is in the north. This seems exactly backwards.

Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:31 am
by statto
I'm not talking about smashing a hut in the north, I am talking about conquering a territory is easier from the south with the hut in the north. Castles excluded. I can't picture what you are talking about.

Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:04 am
by gruff
Okay some serious miscommunication is occurring here. When you say "I am talking about conquering a territory is easier from the south with the hut in the north", do you mean that that the south territory's hut is in the north part of the south territory?