#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
Despre ce este vorba acest raport?
Ce s-a întâmplat? Te rugăm alege de mai jos
Ce s-a întâmplat? Te rugăm alege de mai jos
Verificați dacă există deja un raport privind același subiect
Dacă da, te rugăm VOTEAZĂ pentru acest raport. Rapoartele cu cele mai multe voturi au PRIORITATE!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Descriere detaliată
-
• Te rugăm copiază/lipeşte mesajul erorii pe care îl vezi pe ecran, dacă apare vreunul.
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. -
• Explică, te rugăm, ce ai vrut să faci, ce ai făcut, și ce s-a întâmplat
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Va rugam copiati/lipiti textul afisat in engleza in locul limbii dumneavoastra. Dacă ai o captură de ecran cu acest bug (ceea ce îți sugerăm), poți folosi Imgur.com pentru încărcarea imaginii și pentru a pune link-ul aici.
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. -
• Este textul acesta disponibil în sistemul de traduceri? Dacă da, a fost tradus mai recent de 24 de ore?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Vă rugăm să explicați sugestia exact și concis, astfel încât să fie cât mai ușor de înțeles.
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. • Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Ce a fost afișat pe ecran atunci când ai fost blocat (Ecran gol? O parte din interfața jocului? Mesaj de eroare?)
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. • Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Care parte din reguli nu a fost respectată de adaptarea 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. -
• Se observă frauda când derulați reluarea? Dacă da, la a câta mutare?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Care a fost acțiunea pe care ai vrut să o faci?
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. -
• Ce ai făcut de ai produs această reacție/eroare?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Ce se întâmplă atunci când vrei să faci asta (apare o eroare, un mesaj din partea jocului in partea de sus a ecranului, ...)?
• Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• În ce etapă a jocului a apărut eroarea (care era instrucțiunea din acel moment) ?
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. -
• Ce se întâmplă atunci când vrei să acționezi în joc (apare o eroare, un mesaj din partea jocului in partea de sus a ecranului, ...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Descrieți, vă rugăm, problema de afișaj. Dacă ai o captură de ecran cu acest bug (ceea ce îți sugerăm), poți folosi Imgur.com pentru încărcarea imaginii și pentru a pune link-ul aici.
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. • Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Va rugam copiati/lipiti textul afisat in engleza in locul limbii dumneavoastra. Dacă ai o captură de ecran cu acest bug (ceea ce îți sugerăm), poți folosi Imgur.com pentru încărcarea imaginii și pentru a pune link-ul aici.
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. -
• Este textul acesta disponibil în sistemul de traduceri? Dacă da, a fost tradus mai recent de 24 de ore?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Vă rugăm să explicați sugestia exact și concis, astfel încât să fie cât mai ușor de înțeles.
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. • Care e browserul tău?
Google Chrome v132
Raportează istoric
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!
Adaugă ceva la acest raport
- Alt identificator de masă / de mutare
- A rezolvat F5 problema?
- Această problemă a apărut de mai multe ori? De fiecare dată? Ocazional?
- Dacă ai o captură de ecran cu acest bug (ceea ce îți sugerăm), poți folosi Imgur.com pentru încărcarea imaginii și pentru a pune link-ul aici.
