Suggestions for the next version of Slay

Conquer the island
Post Reply
User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Suggestions for the next version of Slay

Post by gruff » Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:27 pm

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.

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Post by gruff » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:05 pm

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.

highlandsun
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by highlandsun » Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:52 am

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...

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:21 pm

Yeah, just hand them over to the Very Clever AI if they don't respond for a certain period of time.

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Post by gruff » Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:13 am

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.

ellipsis
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:14 pm
Contact:

Post by ellipsis » Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:00 pm

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.
uhhh... message me if you wanna play stuff.

User avatar
Kyzia
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:22 pm

Another request

Post by Kyzia » Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:58 pm

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. :?

User avatar
qwas
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by qwas » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:46 pm

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. :D

I'd like to buy your soul please.
http://www.mindistortion.net/iwantyours ... lex_Rider2

tarot
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:35 am

Post by tarot » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:40 am

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).

User avatar
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:

Post by Fighter_Ace » Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:01 am

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?
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Post by gruff » Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:31 am

No. Smashing a hut is benefit enough.

statto
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:02 pm

Post by statto » Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:31 pm

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.

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Post by gruff » Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:26 am

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.

statto
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:02 pm

Post by statto » Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:31 am

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.

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Post by gruff » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:04 am

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?

Post Reply