#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
Tentang apa laporan ini?
Apa yang terjadi? Pilih di bawah
Apa yang terjadi? Pilih di bawah
Silakan periksa apakah sudah ada laporan tentang hal yang sama
Jika ya, silakan VOTE untuk laporan ini. Laporan dengan suara terbanyak diberikan PRIORITAS!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detil Deskripsi
-
• Mohon salin/tempel pesan error yang Anda lihat di layar, jika ada.
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. -
• Mohon jelaskan apa yang ingin Anda lakukan, apa yang kemudian Anda lakukan, dan apa yang terjadi
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Harap salin/tempel teks yang ditampilkan dalam bahasa Inggris alih-alih bahasa anda. Jika Anda memiliki screenshot bug ini (disarankan), Anda dapat menggunakan Imgur.com untuk menguploadnya dan memberi tautannya di sini.
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. -
• apakah teks ini tersedia dalam translation system? jika iya, itu bisa diartikan lebih dari 24 jam
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Tolong jelaskan saran Anda secara tepat dan ringkas sehingga semudah mungkin untuk memahami apa yang Anda maksud.
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. • Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Apa yang tampil di layar ketika Anda tidak dapat berjalan (Layar kosong? Hanya tampil sebagian antar-muka? Pesan 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. • Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Bagian mana dari peraturan yang tidak diterapkan dengan tepat oleh 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. -
• Apakah kesalahan peraturan dapat dilihat dari ulangan permainan? Jika ya, pada langkah ke berapa?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Aksi permainan apa yang ingin Anda lakukan?
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. -
• Apa yang Anda coba lakukan untuk memunculkan aksi permainan ini?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Apa yang terjadi ketika Anda melakukannya (pesan error, pesan status permainan, ...)?
• Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Pada langkah ke berapa masalah tersebut muncul (apa petunjuk permainan saat itu)?
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. -
• Apa yang terjadi ketika Anda mencoba untuk melakukan aksi permainan (pesan error, pesan status permainan, ...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Mohon jelaskan masalah tampilannya. Jika Anda memiliki screenshot bug ini (disarankan), Anda dapat menggunakan Imgur.com untuk menguploadnya dan memberi tautannya di sini.
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. • Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Harap salin/tempel teks yang ditampilkan dalam bahasa Inggris alih-alih bahasa anda. Jika Anda memiliki screenshot bug ini (disarankan), Anda dapat menggunakan Imgur.com untuk menguploadnya dan memberi tautannya di sini.
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. -
• apakah teks ini tersedia dalam translation system? jika iya, itu bisa diartikan lebih dari 24 jam
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Tolong jelaskan saran Anda secara tepat dan ringkas sehingga semudah mungkin untuk memahami apa yang Anda maksud.
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. • Apa browser yang Anda gunakan?
Google Chrome v132
Laporkan riwayat
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!
Tambahkan hal lain di laporan ini
- ID meja / nomor langkah lainnya
- Apakah F5 menyelesaikan masalah?
- Apakah masalah tersebut telah muncul beberapa kali? Setiap kali? Tidak tentu?
- Jika Anda memiliki screenshot bug ini (disarankan), Anda dapat menggunakan Imgur.com untuk menguploadnya dan memberi tautannya di sini.
