Slitherine

Hi guys,

reading the forums there are some features that might be nice to add. The wish list is already long so don't expect thigns to happen soon I am just trying to get an idea of what would be the best bang for buck.

* A friends list - a way to mark users as friends. Then a way to set a game as only playable by a friend but without passwording it.
* A way to add some descriptive text to a challenge. E.g. "I only want to play a heavy foot army - please do not accept if you have skirmishers!"
* A way to rate players. E.g. record how many games they have played, completed, resigned etc. It give syou a way to know if someone is likely to continue games and also motivates people to do so to prevent their stats looking bad.
* A way to upload your scenarios for other to play via the game. Combined with a way to rate scenarios.
* A way to message opponents outside of the game. E.g. when the game has completed there is no way to continue conversations and to set up new games.

+1 on all of that list. In fact I can't think of anything else to add...

I dont agree with points one and three.
1 What is this, face book? Seriously, I think THAT will kill open challenges more than anything else...

3 hmmm, although stats are ok, thinking that its going to "motivate" people is silly, especially if displaying your stats is voluntary....

I have concerns with the 3rd point: It really is a double-edged sword.
- People may become concerned with stats so avoid unknown players or the better 'stats-wise' players.
- Some will resent having the performance (good or bad) visible to others. I guess it would need to be voluntary to avoid data-privacy (real or otherwise) challenges.
- It may restrict experimental games whereby people try things to learn or improve if it may have an advers impact on stats

Personally I don't have a problem with my stats being seen, if it is an accurate refelection of who I am and what I do then why should I hide from it. However, that may simply be because I know I win most of my games (I have recorded every game I have played, sad I know ). However, I could understand someone possibly feeling embarrassed if they had a very small success rate - this may deter people from playing at all and without an active DAG community then I think it will restrict the appeal and growth of the game.

The friends bit has no interest to me. If I want to play a game with a friend, then I PM them and password it.

The post-match comment has a small value. However if I want to do this now then I PM them.

Uploading scenarios is a great idea.

I'd also add a feature to upload maps. Perhaps linked to this then a facility to browse all maps would be great. If you can also provide the facility for players to rate maps (I suggest: rating 1-10, type of map (v.o, o, m, c, vc)) then that would enable you to see what people consider the good maps, and also provide information to allow you to refine the classification of the current mapset. There are some maps I've seen which are meant to be open which (IMO) are far from it. Finally, if you could browse all maps and select a specific map for a DAG challenge that would be perfect. You, a priveledged player/moderators should be able to moderate/cleanse unwanted or unused maps. The risk is that there will be 1000s of maps created and the list gets so big to become unusable.... although if the list can be sorted by type and rating then the good maps would be easily found.

Final thoughts:
-Refine the zone where troops can be deployed in standard DAG maps. Personally I'd restrict to the middle 2/3 to stop artificial flank protecting by use of game edge.
- Allow DAG maps to be created with deployment zones defined. This could allow troops to be deployed outside of the top and bottom areas. e.g. There was one famous battle (Trebia), where Hannibal had small part of his force sneak under the cover of darkness to a thicket/gully relatively near the opposing camp so that when they battle started they sprung the trap to attack the unguarded Roman flank. this would make FoW much more interesting. Today, you may not be able to see all units, but you pretty much know where they all are. I reckon I have had 2 games out of nearly 400 where I have successfully surprised an opponenet with hidden units.

Thanks for taking input from us, I really look forward to any nice upgrades

Number 1 one my list would be a way to designate a specific list of armies and historical time frame that would be acceptable to play against. This could be a drop down where you could check off the specific armies or if easier, just space to list them.

Number 2 would be the ability to designate map size. Larger maps provide a different feel to the game.

The goal would be to be able to indicate "I am playing with 500 points of Classical Spartans and would accept a game against any army from IF historically dated from 600BC to 450BC. I would like to play on a 50x50 map."

This can be done with friends via PM, but is more convenient to post this type of request because these challenges are almost immediately accepted.

I think a window to put requests in would be ok, as long as players state them as succinctly as mceochaidh's example. Saying no "skirmisher or shooty armies or big armies" is way too subjective. After all, a Selucid army that can reach 60 plus bps in a 500 ap game can come with more lights than many real skirmisher armies In the end, its more power to the user but more potential for misunderstandings....

Two things that I would like . . .

i) ability to replay whole game again in order to understand mistakes and to think about different approaches

ii) ability to look at current situation of the game while waiting for the opponent to move

Iain's best suggestions are these two:-

* A way to add some descriptive text to a challenge. E.g. "I only want to play a heavy foot army - please do not accept if you have skirmishers!"

* A way to upload your scenarios for other to play via the game. Combined with a way to rate scenarios.

I also like stockwellpete's suggestion of

ii) ability to look at current situation of the game while waiting for the opponent to move.

I would also like to have the choice NOT to see the computer's moves during Player v Computer battles. It just gets tedious to watching 50 units shuffling around!

Descriptive text is a must. Another longstanding request is the ability to play past the point where one side breaks.

Deeter

deeter wrote:Descriptive text is a must. Another longstanding request is the ability to play past the point where one side breaks.

Deeter

Now that would be cool.

A live chat room..with an ability to set up private chats would go a long way to solving a lot of the issues re match ups. This way if you want to have a certain match up you could post it into the chat room. I appreciate there is a section for that on this website but the chat is better as it's live. Could then go from there to a private chat room for your game. Could also have specific chat rooms for groups of friends with ability to pw it if u wanted to.

Maybe we can use some existing chat site/infrastructure..without slitherine having to develop anything.

There are some good other suggestions there but the one I like the most is being able to look at the game while the other player is moving.

Imagine if you could use skype to talk live with your opponent and while they were doing their turn you could watch what they were doing from your PC. It would allow people to learn very rapidly from experienced players and make for a great social game. I don't think this would be possible to implement but if it could then it would be a revolutionary development.

Cheers,

Steve

Another issue is the terrain itself. If I am challenging with, say, a WotR Yorkist army and I have asked for a "historical opponent" (in this new system whatever form it takes) then I don't really want the battle to be fought in the middle of a desert - so some way to exclude arid terrain choices in those circumstances would be good.

Hi

I agree with the points made so far...
Not that interested in the friends list - we want to make it as easy as possible for new players to join.
And the rating could be counter-productive.

Strongly agree with stockwellpete's suggestion of being able to look at the game while it is your opponents turn.

Descriptive text - a must.

The ability to view a players profile from the challenge screen - a subset showing location, chat info
Extend the tray tool to have a chat client as well - i think there are some jabber code snippets / libraries that might be useful

cheers, Jon

Not sure if it's limited to pbem but I'd like the option to not have the AI deploy for me as I always move everything to the baseline in order to deploy as I want the army deployed.
For the rating why can't we just have mp games added to the ones v the AI?