#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
Пра што гэтая справаздача?
Што адбылося? Калі ласка, абярыце з ніжэй прапісаныя
Што адбылося? Калі ласка, абярыце з ніжэй прапісаныя
Калі ласка, праверце, ці існуе ўжо справаздача на тую ж тэму
Калі гэта так, ПРАГАЛАСУЙЦЕ за гэтую справаздачу. Справаздачы з найбольшай колькасцю галасоў будуць разглядацца У ПЕРШУЮ ЧАРГУ!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Дэталёвае апісанне
-
• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст памылкі, якую вы бачыце на экране (калі яна ёсць).
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. -
• Калі ласка, растлумачце, што вы хацелі зрабіць, што вы зрабілі і што здарылася
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст на англійскай замест перакладу на ваш мову. 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. Дзе можна знайсьці гэты тэкст у сістэме перакладу? Калі так, ці быў ён перакладзены больш за 24 гадзін таму?
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. • Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Калі ласка, дакладна і коратка апішыце сваю прапанову, каб зрабіць яе найбольш даступнай для разумення.
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. • Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Што было намалявана на экране, калі вас заблакавала? (Пусты экран? Частка гульнявога стала? Паведамленне пра памылку?)
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. • Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Якая частка правілаў не выкананая ў версіі 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. -
• Ці відаць парушэнне правілаў у паўторы гульні? Калі так, то на якім хаду?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Якое гульнявое дзеянне вы хацелі зрабіць?
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. -
• Што вы спрабавалі зрабіць, каб выканаць гэтае гульнявое дзеянне?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Што адбылося, калі вы паспрабавалі зрабіць гэта (паведамленне пра памылку, паведамленне ў радку стану гульні ...)?
• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• На якім кроку гульні адбылася праблема (якая была інструкцыя ў той момант у гульні)?
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. -
• Што адбылося, калі вы паспрабавалі здзейсніць гульнявое дзеянне (паведамленне пра памылку, паведамленне ў радку стану гульні ...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Калі ласка, апішыце памылку адлюстравання. 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. • Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст на англійскай замест перакладу на ваш мову. 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. Дзе можна знайсьці гэты тэкст у сістэме перакладу? Калі так, ці быў ён перакладзены больш за 24 гадзін таму?
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. • Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Калі ласка, дакладна і коратка апішыце сваю прапанову, каб зрабіць яе найбольш даступнай для разумення.
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. • Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?
Google Chrome v132
Гісторыя справаздачы
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!
Дадайце да гэтага дакладу
- Іншая Табліца ID / ID ходу
- Ці F5 вырашыла Вашу праблему?
- Ці з'яўлялася праблема некалькі разоў? Кожны раз? Выпадкова?
- 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.
