#157339: "Players won't agree on removing capullis"
这个案件是关于哪方面的?
发生什么事? 请从下方选择
发生什么事? 请从下方选择
请检查是否已有同课题案件
若肯定,请「投票」给这桩案件。最高票的案件将「优先」处理!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
细节描述
-
• 如果有的话,请将你在屏幕上所看到的错误信息粘贴出来.
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. -
• 请说明你当时想做什么,你做了什么,然后发生了什么
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 请以英文复制/粘贴显示文字而非你的语言。 如果你有这个系统漏洞发生时的屏幕截图(画质不要太差),你可以使用Imgur.com来把它上传到网络,然后将链接复制/粘贴到这里来。
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. -
• 这段文本在翻译系统中吗?如果存在,它被翻译是否已超过二十四小时?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 请简明而精确地解释您的建议,以便让人明白您想表达的意思。
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. • 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 当你被封锁的时候,屏幕上出现了些什么呢?(空白的屏幕?部分游戏平台画面?错误的信息?)
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. • 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 哪个规则没有被BGA的设计小组写进游戏里?
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. -
• 在游戏回放中,是否有不符合游戏规则的地方?如果有的话,请问是在哪一步呢?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 你当时是想做哪个游戏行动?
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. -
• 你在想做什么的时候,触发了这个游戏选项?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
-
• 当你想这么做时,发生了什么事(错误信息,游戏状态信息,......)?
• 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 请问这个问题发生在游戏的哪个阶段(当前的游戏说明是什么)?
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. -
• 当你想进行一个游戏行动时,发生了什么事(错误信息,游戏状态信息,......)?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 请描述一下显示画面上面的问题。 如果你有这个系统漏洞发生时的屏幕截图(画质不要太差),你可以使用Imgur.com来把它上传到网络,然后将链接复制/粘贴到这里来。
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. • 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 请以英文复制/粘贴显示文字而非你的语言。 如果你有这个系统漏洞发生时的屏幕截图(画质不要太差),你可以使用Imgur.com来把它上传到网络,然后将链接复制/粘贴到这里来。
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. -
• 这段文本在翻译系统中吗?如果存在,它被翻译是否已超过二十四小时?
I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.
• 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
-
• 请简明而精确地解释您的建议,以便让人明白您想表达的意思。
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. • 您正使用哪一款浏览器呢?
Google Chrome v132
案件历史
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!
增加一些新内容到这篇报告
- 其他的游戏桌 ID / 移动 ID
- 按 F5 是否解决了这个问题?
- 问题是否发生了好几次?还是每次都发生?还是时好时坏?
- 如果你有这个系统漏洞发生时的屏幕截图(画质不要太差),你可以使用Imgur.com来把它上传到网络,然后将链接复制/粘贴到这里来。
