• Παρακαλούμε κάντε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του μηνύματος που βλέπετε στην οθόνη σας, αν υπάρχει.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Παρακαλώ εξηγήστε τι θέλατε να κάνατε, τι κάνατε και τι συνέβη

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακαλώ κάνε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του κειμένου που απεικονίζεται στα αγγλικά αντί για αυτό που είναι στη γλώσσα σου.. Αν έχεις απόσπασμα οθόνης από αυτό το σφάλμα (είναι καλή αυτή η πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις το Imgur.com για να το ανεβάσεις και να κάνεις αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του συνδέσμου εδώ.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• είναι αυτό το κείμενο διαθέσιμο στο σύστημα μετάφρασης; Αν ναι, έχει μεταφραστεί για παραπάνω από 24 ώρες;

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακάλώ εξηγήστε την πρότασή σας με ακρίβεια και περιεκτικότητα, ώστε να είναι όσο το δυνατόν πιο εύκολο να γίνει αντιληπτό τι εννοείτε.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Τι εμφανιζόταν στην οθόνη όταν σταμάτησε (Κενή οθόνη; Μέρος του περιβάλλοντος του παιχνιδιού; Μήνυμα σφάλματος;)

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Ποιο μέρος των κανόνων δεν έγινε σεβαστό από την μετατροπή του παιχνιδιού για την BGA

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Είναι η παραβίαση των κανόνων ορατή στην αναπαραγωγή του παιχνιδιού; Αν ναι, σε ποια κίνηση;

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Ποια ήταν η δράση του παιχνιδιού που ήθελες να κάνεις;

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Τι προσπαθείτε να κάνετε για να ενεργοποιείσετε αυτήν την ενέργεια του παιχνιδιου;

• Τι συνέβη όταν προσπαθήσατε να το κάνετε αυτό (μνμ σφάλματος, μνμ στην μπάρα κατάστασης, ...);

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Σε ποια φάση του παιχνιδιού προέκυψε το πρόβλημα (ποιά ήταν η τρέχουσα οδηγία στο παιχνίδι);

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Τι συνέβη όταν προσπαθήσατε να κάνετε κάποια ενέργεια στο παιχνίδι (μνμ σφάλματος, μνμ στην μπάρα κατάστασης, ...);

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακαλούμε περιγράψτε το πρόβλημα απεικόνισης που έχετε. Αν έχεις απόσπασμα οθόνης από αυτό το σφάλμα (είναι καλή αυτή η πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις το Imgur.com για να το ανεβάσεις και να κάνεις αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του συνδέσμου εδώ.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακαλώ κάνε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του κειμένου που απεικονίζεται στα αγγλικά αντί για αυτό που είναι στη γλώσσα σου.. Αν έχεις απόσπασμα οθόνης από αυτό το σφάλμα (είναι καλή αυτή η πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις το Imgur.com για να το ανεβάσεις και να κάνεις αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του συνδέσμου εδώ.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• είναι αυτό το κείμενο διαθέσιμο στο σύστημα μετάφρασης; Αν ναι, έχει μεταφραστεί για παραπάνω από 24 ώρες;

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακάλώ εξηγήστε την πρότασή σας με ακρίβεια και περιεκτικότητα, ώστε να είναι όσο το δυνατόν πιο εύκολο να γίνει αντιληπτό τι εννοείτε.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;