#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
Με τι σχετίζεται αύτη η αναφορά;
Τι συνέβη; Επιλέξτε από τα παρακάτω
Τι συνέβη; Επιλέξτε από τα παρακάτω
Ελέγξτε αν υπάρχει ήδη αναφορά για το ίδιο θέμα
Εάν ναι, παρακαλούμε ΨΗΦΙΣΤΕ για αυτήν την αναφορά. Στις εκθέσεις με τις περισσότερες ψήφους δίνεται προτεραιότητα!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Λεπτομερής περιγραφή
-
• Παρακαλούμε κάντε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του μηνύματος που βλέπετε στην οθόνη σας, αν υπάρχει.
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. -
• Παρακαλώ εξηγήστε τι θέλατε να κάνατε, τι κάνατε και τι συνέβη
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Παρακαλώ κάνε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του κειμένου που απεικονίζεται στα αγγλικά αντί για αυτό που είναι στη γλώσσα σου.. 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. είναι αυτό το κείμενο διαθέσιμο στο σύστημα μετάφρασης; Αν ναι, έχει μεταφραστεί για παραπάνω από 24 ώρες;
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. • Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Παρακάλώ εξηγήστε την πρότασή σας με ακρίβεια και περιεκτικότητα, ώστε να είναι όσο το δυνατόν πιο εύκολο να γίνει αντιληπτό τι εννοείτε.
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. • Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Τι εμφανιζόταν στην οθόνη όταν σταμάτησε (Κενή οθόνη; Μέρος του περιβάλλοντος του παιχνιδιού; Μήνυμα σφάλματος;)
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. • Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Ποιο μέρος των κανόνων δεν έγινε σεβαστό από την μετατροπή του παιχνιδιού για την 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. -
• Είναι η παραβίαση των κανόνων ορατή στην αναπαραγωγή του παιχνιδιού; Αν ναι, σε ποια κίνηση;
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Ποια ήταν η δράση του παιχνιδιού που ήθελες να κάνεις;
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. -
• Τι προσπαθείτε να κάνετε για να ενεργοποιείσετε αυτήν την ενέργεια του παιχνιδιου;
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Τι συνέβη όταν προσπαθήσατε να το κάνετε αυτό (μνμ σφάλματος, μνμ στην μπάρα κατάστασης, ...);
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Σε ποια φάση του παιχνιδιού προέκυψε το πρόβλημα (ποιά ήταν η τρέχουσα οδηγία στο παιχνίδι);
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. -
• Τι συνέβη όταν προσπαθήσατε να κάνετε κάποια ενέργεια στο παιχνίδι (μνμ σφάλματος, μνμ στην μπάρα κατάστασης, ...);
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Παρακαλούμε περιγράψτε το πρόβλημα απεικόνισης που έχετε. 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. • Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Παρακαλώ κάνε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του κειμένου που απεικονίζεται στα αγγλικά αντί για αυτό που είναι στη γλώσσα σου.. 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. είναι αυτό το κείμενο διαθέσιμο στο σύστημα μετάφρασης; Αν ναι, έχει μεταφραστεί για παραπάνω από 24 ώρες;
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. • Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
-
• Παρακάλώ εξηγήστε την πρότασή σας με ακρίβεια και περιεκτικότητα, ώστε να είναι όσο το δυνατόν πιο εύκολο να γίνει αντιληπτό τι εννοείτε.
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. • Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v132
Ιστορικό αναφορών
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!
Πρόσθεσε κάτι σε αυτήν την αναφορά
- Άλλο ID τραπεζιού/ ID κίνησης
- Το F5 έλυσε το πρόβλημα;
- Το πρόβλημα εμφανιζόταν αρκετές φορες;Παντού ; Τυχαία;
- 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.
