#91198: "Issues with Urgent Wire Transfer"
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.
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. -
• Per favore spiega cosa avresti voluto fare, cosa hai fatto e cosa è successo
See move 75/76.
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
-
• Per favore copia/incolla il testo visualizzato in inglese invece che nella tua lingua. Se hai uno screenshot di questo bug (sempre un'ottima idea), puoi usare un servizio di caricamento immagini a tua scelta (snipboard.io ad esempio) per caricarlo e copiare/incollare il link qui. Questo testo è disponibile nel sistema di traduzione? Se sì, è stato tradotto nell'arco di più di 24 ore?
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
-
• Spiega il tuo suggerimento in modo preciso e conciso in modo che sia il più semplice possibile per capire cosa intendi.
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
-
• Cosa era mostrato sullo schermo quando sei rimasto bloccato (schermo bianco? interfaccia di gioco parziale? messaggio di errore?)
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
-
• Quale parte delle regole non è stata rispettata dall'adattamento BGA
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. -
• La violazione delle regole è visibile nel replay della partita? Se sì, a che numero di mossa?
See move 75/76.
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
-
• Qual era l'azione di gioco che volevi fare?
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. -
• Cosa stai provando a fare per attivare questa azione di gioco?
See move 75/76.
-
• 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 v114
-
• In quale fase del gioco si è verificato il problema (qual era l'istruzione della partita in corso)?
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. -
• Cosa è successo quando hai provato a fare questa azione di gioco (messaggio di errore, messaggio nella barra di stato del gioco...)?
See move 75/76.
• Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
-
• Per favore descrivi il problema rilevato. Se hai uno screenshot di questo bug (sempre un'ottima idea), puoi usare un servizio di caricamento immagini a tua scelta (snipboard.io ad esempio) per caricarlo e copiare/incollare il link qui.
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
-
• Per favore copia/incolla il testo visualizzato in inglese invece che nella tua lingua. Se hai uno screenshot di questo bug (sempre un'ottima idea), puoi usare un servizio di caricamento immagini a tua scelta (snipboard.io ad esempio) per caricarlo e copiare/incollare il link qui. Questo testo è disponibile nel sistema di traduzione? Se sì, è stato tradotto nell'arco di più di 24 ore?
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
-
• Spiega il tuo suggerimento in modo preciso e conciso in modo che sia il più semplice possibile per capire cosa intendi.
There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.
For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)
and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive. • Qual è il tuo browser?
Google Chrome v114
Storico dei resoconti
here's the real card: imgur.com/1WmiVah showing 2BB paid and 1 EC returned, and that is what the game's logic is enforcing correctly, but the card as displaying has it backwards, saying 1BB paid and 2 EC returned, which is, as I suspected OP-to-the-Max
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 uno screenshot di questo bug (sempre un'ottima idea), puoi usare un servizio di caricamento immagini a tua scelta (snipboard.io ad esempio) per caricarlo e copiare/incollare il link qui.
