#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
Na kaj se nanaša prijava?
Kaj se je zgodilo? Prosimo, izberi spodaj
Kaj se je zgodilo? Prosimo, izberi spodaj
Prosimo preverite ali že obstaja poročilo o isti zadevi
Če je tako, GLASUJTE za to poročilo. Poročila z največ glasovi se obravnavajo PREDNOSTNO!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Natančen opis
-
• Kopirajte / prilepite sporočilo o napaki, ki ga vidite na zaslonu, če ga imate.
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. -
• Prosim, pojasnite, kaj ste hoteli storiti, kaj ste naredili in kaj se je zgodilo
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Kopirajte / prilepite besedilo, prikazano v angleščini, namesto v vašem jeziku. Če imate sliko zaslona te napake (dobra praksa), lahko uporabite Imgur.com za nalaganje in kopirate/prilepite povezavo do slike tukaj.
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. -
• Je ta tekst dosegljiv v prevajalnem sistemu? Če ja, ali je bil preveden več kot 24 ur nazaj?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Natančno in jedrnato pojasnite svoj predlog, da bo čim lažje razumeti, kaj mislite.
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. • Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Kaj je bilo prikazano na zaslonu, ko ste bili blokirani (prazen zaslon? Del vmesnika za igro? Sporočilo o napaki?)
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. • Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Kateri del pravil ni bil upoštevan pri priredbi za BGA
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. -
• Je kršitev pravil vidna na seznamu potez? Če je, pri kateri številki poteze?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Katero potezo ste želeli narediti v igri?
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. -
• Kaj ste poskušali narediti, da bi izvedli to potezo v igri?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Kaj se je zgodilo, ko ste poskusili to storiti (sporočilo o napaki, sporočilo v vrstici stanja, ...)?
• Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Na kateri točki v igri se je težava pojavila (katera navodila so bila prikazana)
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. -
• Kaj se je zgodilo, ko ste poskušali narediti to potezo v igri (sporočilo o napaki, sporočilo v vrstici stanja, ...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Prosim opiši problem s prikazom. Če imate sliko zaslona te napake (dobra praksa), lahko uporabite Imgur.com za nalaganje in kopirate/prilepite povezavo do slike tukaj.
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. • Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Kopirajte / prilepite besedilo, prikazano v angleščini, namesto v vašem jeziku. Če imate sliko zaslona te napake (dobra praksa), lahko uporabite Imgur.com za nalaganje in kopirate/prilepite povezavo do slike tukaj.
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. -
• Je ta tekst dosegljiv v prevajalnem sistemu? Če ja, ali je bil preveden več kot 24 ur nazaj?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Natančno in jedrnato pojasnite svoj predlog, da bo čim lažje razumeti, kaj mislite.
We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.
The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made. • Kateri brskalnik uporabljaš?
Google Chrome v132
Zgodovina poročil
The easiest way I can think of is in order to reject any one capulli from the proposal, the player has to show how the remaining capulli could be placed.
Having implemented the game Mexica myself (on my own site) and not addressed this problem, it is something I hadn't anticipated either. I addressed it initially by forcing all canals to be played, but in playing here I realized this was not the right call. Clearly the designers did not mean to force the canals to be played if no further districts could be founded.
I'll think about your proposal. Thanks for playing Mexica!
Dodaj nekaj k temu poročilu
- Drug ID mize/ premikanje ID-ja
- Ali je F5 rešil težavo?
- Se je problem pojavil večkrat? Vsakič? Naključno?
- Če imate sliko zaslona te napake (dobra praksa), lahko uporabite Imgur.com za nalaganje in kopirate/prilepite povezavo do slike tukaj.
