#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
A che riguardo è la segnalazione?
Cos'è successo? Prego, seleziona tra le seguenti
Cos'è successo? Prego, seleziona tra le seguenti
Si prega di verificare se esiste già una segnalazione sullo stesso argomento
Se sì, per favore VOTA solo questa segnalazione. Segnalazioni con più voti hanno priorità di presa in carico!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Descrizione dettagliata
-
• Per favore copia/incolla il messaggio di errore visualizzato sullo schermo, se possibile.
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. -
• Per favore spiega cosa avresti voluto fare, cosa hai fatto e cosa è successo
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Per favore copia/incolla il testo visualizzato in inglese invece che nella tua lingua. Se hai una schermata di questo errore (cosa buona e giusta), puoi usare Imgur.com per caricarla e fare copia/incolla del link qui.
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. -
• Questo testo è disponibile nel sistema di traduzione? Se sì, è stato tradotto nell'arco di più di 24 ore?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Spiega il tuo suggerimento in modo preciso e conciso in modo che sia il più semplice possibile per capire cosa intendi.
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. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Cosa era mostrato sullo schermo quando sei rimasto bloccato (schermo bianco? interfaccia di gioco parziale? messaggio di errore?)
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. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Quale parte delle regole non è stata rispettata dall'adattamento 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. -
• La violazione delle regole è visibile nel replay della partita? Se sì, a che numero di mossa?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Qual era l'azione di gioco che volevi fare?
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. -
• Cosa stai provando a fare per attivare questa azione di gioco?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Cosa è successo quando hai provato a fare questo (messaggio di errore, messaggio nella barra di stato del gioco...)?
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• In quale fase del gioco si è verificato il problema (qual era l'istruzione della partita in corso)?
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. -
• Cosa è successo quando hai provato a fare questa azione di gioco (messaggio di errore, messaggio nella barra di stato del gioco...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Per favore descrivi il problema rilevato. Se hai una schermata di questo errore (cosa buona e giusta), puoi usare Imgur.com per caricarla e fare copia/incolla del link qui.
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. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Per favore copia/incolla il testo visualizzato in inglese invece che nella tua lingua. Se hai una schermata di questo errore (cosa buona e giusta), puoi usare Imgur.com per caricarla e fare copia/incolla del link qui.
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. -
• Questo testo è disponibile nel sistema di traduzione? Se sì, è stato tradotto nell'arco di più di 24 ore?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Spiega il tuo suggerimento in modo preciso e conciso in modo che sia il più semplice possibile per capire cosa intendi.
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. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v132
Storico dei resoconti
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!
Aggiungi qualcosa a questo report
- Un altro ID tavolo / ID mossa
- F5 ha risolto il problema?
- Il problema si verifica spesso? Ogni volta? Casualmente?
- Se hai una schermata di questo errore (cosa buona e giusta), puoi usare Imgur.com per caricarla e fare copia/incolla del link qui.
