#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
О чём этот отчёт?
Что произошло? Пожалуйста, выберите из нижеследующего
Что произошло? Пожалуйста, выберите из нижеследующего
Пожалуйста, проверьте, существует ли уже отчёт на ту же тему
Если это так, ПРОГОЛОСУЙТЕ за этот отчёт. Отчёты с наибольшим количеством голосов будут рассматриваться В ПЕРВУЮ ОЧЕРЕДЬ!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Подробное описание
-
• Пожалуйста, скопируйте/вставьте текст ошибки, которую вы видите на экране (если она есть).
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. -
• Пожалуйста, объясните, что вы хотели сделать, что вы сделали и что случилось
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Пожалуйста, скопируйте/вставьте текст, который отображается на английском языке, вместо вашего. Если у вас есть скриншот этой ошибки (что является хорошей практикой), вы можете использовать любой сервис для размещения изображений (например, snipboard.io), чтобы загрузить его и скопировать/вставить ссылку сюда. Доступен ли этот текст в системе перевода? Если да, был ли он переведён более 24 часов назад?
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. • Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Пожалуйста, точно и кратко опишите своё предложение, чтобы сделать его наиболее доступным для понимания.
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. • Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Что было изображено на экране, когда вас заблокировало? (Пустой экран? Часть игрового стола? Сообщение об ошибке?)
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. • Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Какая часть правил не соблюдена в версии 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. -
• Видно ли нарушение правил в повторе игры? Если да, то на каком ходу?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Какое игровое действие вы хотели совершить?
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. -
• Что вы пытались сделать, чтобы выполнить это игровое действие?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Что произошло, когда вы попробовали сделать это (сообщение об ошибке, сообщение в строке состояния игры...)?
• Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• На каком шаге игры произошла проблема (какой была текущая игровая инструкция)?
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. -
• Что произошло, когда вы попробовали совершить игровое действие (сообщение об ошибке, сообщение в строке состояния игры...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Пожалуйста, опишите ошибку отображения. Если у вас есть скриншот этой ошибки (что является хорошей практикой), вы можете использовать любой сервис для размещения изображений (например, snipboard.io), чтобы загрузить его и скопировать/вставить ссылку сюда.
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. • Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Пожалуйста, скопируйте/вставьте текст, который отображается на английском языке, вместо вашего. Если у вас есть скриншот этой ошибки (что является хорошей практикой), вы можете использовать любой сервис для размещения изображений (например, snipboard.io), чтобы загрузить его и скопировать/вставить ссылку сюда. Доступен ли этот текст в системе перевода? Если да, был ли он переведён более 24 часов назад?
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. • Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Пожалуйста, точно и кратко опишите своё предложение, чтобы сделать его наиболее доступным для понимания.
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. • Какой браузер вы используете?
Google Chrome v132
История отчёта
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!
Добавить что-нибудь к этому отчёту
- Другой номер игрового стола / номер хода
- Помогло ли решить проблему нажатие F5?
- Случилась ли проблема несколько раз? Постоянно? От случая к случаю?
- Если у вас есть скриншот этой ошибки (что является хорошей практикой), вы можете использовать любой сервис для размещения изображений (например, snipboard.io), чтобы загрузить его и скопировать/вставить ссылку сюда.
