#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
Hva handler denne rapporten om?
Hva har skjedd, eller hva gjelder det? Vennligst velg
Hva har skjedd, eller hva gjelder det? Vennligst velg
Vennligst sjekk om det allerede er en rapport om samme emne
Hvis ja, vennligst STEM på denne rapporten. Rapporter med flest stemmer er gitt PRIORITET!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detaljert beskrivelse
-
• Vennligst kopier/lim inn feilmeldingen du ser på skjermen, om mulig.
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. -
• Vennligst forklar hva du ønsket å gjøre, samt hva du faktisk gjorde og hva som skjedde
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Vennligst kopier / lim inn teksten som vises på engelsk i stedet for språket ditt. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Er denne teksten tilgjengelig i translation system? Hvis ja, har den blitt oversatt i mer enn 24 timer?
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. • Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Vennligst forklar ditt forslag nøyaktig og konsistent slik at det er så enkelt som mulig å forstå hva du mener.
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. • Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Hva ble vist på skjermen når du ble blokkert (Tom skjerm? Del av spillgrensesnittet? Feilmelding?)
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. • Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Hvilken del av reglene ble ikke respektert av BGA-tilpasningen
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. -
• Er regelbruddet tydelig i spilloggen? Hvis ja, Hvilket trekknummer?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Hva var spillhandlingen du ønsket å gjøre?
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. -
• Hva prøvde du å gjøre for å trigge denne spillhandlingen?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Hva skjer når du prøver å gjøre dette (feilmelding, meldingsstatus for meldingsfelt, ...)?
• Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• På hvilket tidspunkt i spillet oppsto problemet (hva var den daværende spillinstruksjonen)?
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. -
• Hva skjer når du forsøker å gjøre en spillhandling (feilmelding, spillstatusfeltmelding, ...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Vennligst beskriv visningsproblemet. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here.
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. • Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Vennligst kopier / lim inn teksten som vises på engelsk i stedet for språket ditt. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Er denne teksten tilgjengelig i translation system? Hvis ja, har den blitt oversatt i mer enn 24 timer?
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. • Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Vennligst forklar ditt forslag nøyaktig og konsistent slik at det er så enkelt som mulig å forstå hva du mener.
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. • Hvilken nettleser bruker du?
Google Chrome v132
Rapporthistorikk
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!
Legg til noe i denne rapporten
- En annen bord ID / flytt ID
- Løste F5 problemet?
- Oppstod problemet gjentatte ganger? Hver gang? Tilfeldig?
- If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here.
