#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
Apakah laporan ini berkenaan?
Apakah yang berlaku? Sila pilih pilihan di bawah
Apakah yang berlaku? Sila pilih pilihan di bawah
Sila semak apakah sudah ada laporan mengenai subjek yang sama
Jika ya, sila nyatakan untuk laporan ini. Laporan dengan undian yang paling diberikan PRIORITI!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Penerangan yang terperinci
-
• Sila salin/tampal mesej masalah yang anda dapat lihat di skrin, 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. -
• Tolong jelaskan apa yang anda ingin buat, apa yang telah anda buat dan apa yang telah terjadi
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apakah browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Tolong salin/lekat teks yang dipaparkan dalam bahasa inggeris dan bukannya bahasa anda. Sekiranya anda ada screenshot bug ini (amalan yang baik), anda boleh gunakan Imgur.com untuk muatnaik dan copy/paste pautan itu 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. -
• Adakah teks ini tersedia dalam sistem terjemahan ? Jika ya, adakah ia diterjemahkan selama lebih daripada 24 jam?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apakah browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Tolong jelaskan cadangan anda dengan tepat dan ringkas supaya semudah mungkin untuk memahami apa yang anda maksudkan.
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 browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Apa yang dipaparkan pada skrin apabila anda disekat (Skrin kosong? Antara muka permainan? Mesej ralat?)
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 browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Bahagian peraturan yang mana tidak dihormati oleh penyesuaian 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. -
• Adakah kelanggaran peraturan boleh dilihat di ulangan permainan? Jikanya ya, pada langkah berapa?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apakah browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Apakan tindakan yang anda mahu 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 cuba lakukan untuk mencetuskan tindakan permainan ini?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Apa yang berlaku apabila anda cuba melakukan ini (mesej ralat, mesej bar status permainan, ...)?
• Apakah browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Pada peringkat mana semasa permainan , masalah itu berlaku (apakah arahan semasa permainan tersebut)?
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 berlaku apabila anda cuba melakukan tindakan permainan (mesej ralat, mesej bar status permainan, ...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apakah browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Tolong jelaskan masalah pemaparan. Sekiranya anda ada screenshot bug ini (amalan yang baik), anda boleh gunakan Imgur.com untuk muatnaik dan copy/paste pautan itu 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 browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Tolong salin/lekat teks yang dipaparkan dalam bahasa inggeris dan bukannya bahasa anda. Sekiranya anda ada screenshot bug ini (amalan yang baik), anda boleh gunakan Imgur.com untuk muatnaik dan copy/paste pautan itu 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. -
• Adakah teks ini tersedia dalam sistem terjemahan ? Jika ya, adakah ia diterjemahkan selama lebih daripada 24 jam?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Apakah browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Tolong jelaskan cadangan anda dengan tepat dan ringkas supaya semudah mungkin untuk memahami apa yang anda maksudkan.
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 browser anda?
Google Chrome v132
Laporan masa lalu
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!
Tambah sesuatu untuk laporan ini
- ID meja yang lain / gerakkan ID
- Adakah F5 meyelesaikan masalah ity?
- Adapah masalah itu berlaku beberapa kali? Selalu? Sekali-sekala?
- Sekiranya anda ada screenshot bug ini (amalan yang baik), anda boleh gunakan Imgur.com untuk muatnaik dan copy/paste pautan itu di sini.
