#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
Čeho se toto hlášení týká?
Co se stalo? Prosím vyberte níže
Co se stalo? Prosím vyberte níže
Prosím zkontroluj, zda již neexistuje hlášení pro stejnou věc
Pokud ano, HLASUJ pro toto hlášení. Hlášení s nejvyšším počtem hlasů budou řešena PŘEDNOSTNĚ!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detailní popis
-
• Prosím, zkopíruj a vlož hlášení o chybě, které vidíš na monitoru, pokud to lze.
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. -
• Prosím popiš, co jsi měl v úmyslu udělat, co jsi udělal a co se nakonec stalo
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Prosíme, zkopíruj/vlož text zobrazený v angličtině namísto tvého jazyka. Pokud máš snímek obrazvky zobrazující tuto chybu (doporučujeme!), můžeš použít Imgur.com pro nahrání obrázku a pak odkaz na tento obrázek na Imguru zkopírovat a vložit sem.
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. -
• Je tento text k dispozici v systému pro překládání? Pokud ano, byl přeložen před více než 24 hodinami?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Prosím popiš svůj návrh přesně a konzistentně, aby bylo snadné pochopit, co máš na mysli.
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. • Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Co bylo zobrazeno na monitoru, když došlo k tvému zablokování? (Černá obrazovka? Část herního prostředí? Hlášení o chybě?)
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. • Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Která část pravidel nebyla dodržena adaptací hry na 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. -
• Je vidět porušení pravidel na záznamu hry? Pokud ano, ve kterém tahu?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• O jakou herní akci ses pokoušel/a?
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. -
• Co ses pokoušel/a udělat, abys spustil/a tuhle herní akci?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• Co se stalo, když ses o tuto akci pokusil/a (vyskočila chybová hláška, lišta ve hře, ...)?
• Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• V jaké fázi hry problém nastal (jaký byl poslední herní pokyn)?
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. -
• Co se stalo, když ses pokusil/a udělat akci (chybová hláška, oznámení stavového řádku hry, ...)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Prosím popište vyobrazený problém. Pokud máš snímek obrazvky zobrazující tuto chybu (doporučujeme!), můžeš použít Imgur.com pro nahrání obrázku a pak odkaz na tento obrázek na Imguru zkopírovat a vložit sem.
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. • Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Prosíme, zkopíruj/vlož text zobrazený v angličtině namísto tvého jazyka. Pokud máš snímek obrazvky zobrazující tuto chybu (doporučujeme!), můžeš použít Imgur.com pro nahrání obrázku a pak odkaz na tento obrázek na Imguru zkopírovat a vložit sem.
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. -
• Je tento text k dispozici v systému pro překládání? Pokud ano, byl přeložen před více než 24 hodinami?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
-
• Prosím popiš svůj návrh přesně a konzistentně, aby bylo snadné pochopit, co máš na mysli.
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. • Jaký prohlížeč používáte?
Google Chrome v132
Historie hlášení
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!
Doplňte tuto zprávu
- ID dalšího stolu / ID tahu
- Byla chyba odstraněna stisknutím F5?
- Objevila se tato chyba častěji? Pokaždé? Náhodně?
- Pokud máš snímek obrazvky zobrazující tuto chybu (doporučujeme!), můžeš použít Imgur.com pro nahrání obrázku a pak odkaz na tento obrázek na Imguru zkopírovat a vložit sem.
