#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
De què tracta aquest informe?
Què ha passat? Si us plau, selecciona a sota
Què ha passat? Si us plau, selecciona a sota
Si us plau, comprova si ja existeix un informe sobre el mateix tema
En cas afirmatiu, si us plau VOTA per aquest informe. Els informes amb més vots tenen PRIORITAT!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Descripció detallada
-
• Si us plau, copia i enganxa el missatge d'error que veus a la pantalla, si és que n'hi ha algun.
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. -
• Si us plau, què volies fer, què vas fer i que va succeir
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Si us plau, copieu/enganxeu el text mostrat en anglès en comptes del teu idioma. Si tens una captura de pantalla d'aquest error (bona pràctica), pots utilitzar un servei d'allotjament d'imatges de la teva elecció (per exemple, snipboard.io) per penjar-la i copiar/enganxar l'enllaç aquí. És aquest text disponible al sistema de traducció? Si és així, ha sigut traduït fa més de 24 hores?
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Si us plau, expliqueu el vostre suggeriment de manera precisa i concisa, per que sigui el més fàcil d'entendre possible.
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Què es mostrava a la pantalla quan estaves bloquejat (pantalla en blanc? Part de la interfície del joc? Missatge d'error?)
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Quina part de les regles no s'han respectat per l'adaptació de 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. -
• És visible la violació de les normes durant la repetició de la partida? Si es així, en quin número de moviment?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Quina va ser l'acció del joc que volies fer?
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. -
• Què intentes fer per dur a terme aquesta acció del joc?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Què va passar quan ho vas intentar fer (missatge d'error, missatge de la barra d'estat de la partida, ...)?
• Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• A quina fase del joc va passar l'error (quina era la ordre en curs)?
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. -
• Què va passar quan vas intentar dur a terme l'acció del joc (missatge d'error, missatge de la barra d'estat del joc, ...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Si us plau, descriviu el problema de visualització. Si tens una captura de pantalla d'aquest error (bona pràctica), pots utilitzar un servei d'allotjament d'imatges de la teva elecció (per exemple, snipboard.io) per penjar-la i copiar/enganxar l'enllaç aquí.
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Si us plau, copieu/enganxeu el text mostrat en anglès en comptes del teu idioma. Si tens una captura de pantalla d'aquest error (bona pràctica), pots utilitzar un servei d'allotjament d'imatges de la teva elecció (per exemple, snipboard.io) per penjar-la i copiar/enganxar l'enllaç aquí. És aquest text disponible al sistema de traducció? Si és així, ha sigut traduït fa més de 24 hores?
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Si us plau, expliqueu el vostre suggeriment de manera precisa i concisa, per que sigui el més fàcil d'entendre possible.
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Google Chrome v132
Historial de denúncies
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!
Afegeix quelcom a aquest report
- Un altre ID de partida / ID de moviment
- Prémer F5 ha ajudat a arreglar el problema?
- El problema apareix diversos cops? Cada cop? a l'atzar?
- Si tens una captura de pantalla d'aquest error (bona pràctica), pots utilitzar un servei d'allotjament d'imatges de la teva elecció (per exemple, snipboard.io) per penjar-la i copiar/enganxar l'enllaç aquí.
