• Venligst kopier/indsæt fejlmeddelelsen du ser på din skærm, hvis der er en.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Venligst forklar hvad du ønsker at gøre, hvad du gjorde og hvad der skete

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Venligst kopier/indsæt tekst vist på engelsk i stedet for dit sprog. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god øvelse), kan du bruge Imgur.com til at uploade den og kopiere/indsætte linket her.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• er der adgang til denne tekst i oversættelsessystem? Hvis ja, er det blevet oversat inden for 24 timer?

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Forklar venligst dit forslag præcist og sammenfattende, så det er så let som muligt at forstå, hvad du mener.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Hvad blev der vist på skærmen, da du blev blokeret (Blank skærm? Noget af spilbrugerfladen? Fejlmeddelelse?)

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Hvilken del af reglerne blev ikke respekteret ved BGA-tilpasningen

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Er regel-brudddet synligt i e

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Hvad var den spilhandling du ønskede at udføre?

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Hvad forsøgte du at gøre for at udløse denne spilhandling?

• Hvad skete der, da du forsøgre at gøre dette (fejlmeddelelse, meddelelsesstatusbjælke, ...)?

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• I hvilket stadie af spillet opstod problemet (hvad var den daværende spilinstruktion)?

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Hvad skete der, da du forsøgte at udføre denne spilhandling (fejlmeddelelse, meddelelsesstatusbjælke, ...)?

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Venligst beskriv display problemet. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god øvelse), kan du bruge Imgur.com til at uploade den og kopiere/indsætte linket her.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Venligst kopier/indsæt tekst vist på engelsk i stedet for dit sprog. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god øvelse), kan du bruge Imgur.com til at uploade den og kopiere/indsætte linket her.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• er der adgang til denne tekst i oversættelsessystem? Hvis ja, er det blevet oversat inden for 24 timer?

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Forklar venligst dit forslag præcist og sammenfattende, så det er så let som muligt at forstå, hvad du mener.

At the end of the 1st phase of a game of Isaac, the progression is only at 10%. If a player quits a game, they would only lose 10% of the normal points, and a 10 point penalty. Against my opponent in this particular game, that would be 11 points, and instead of my opponent winning 11 points, they would only have won 1 point. Loss of Karma does not tend to matter to anyone who plays frequently.

In a busier game with many active players, it probably would not be a big deal, but in a game like Isaac where there are only a handful of active players. And at the very top, where there is only 1 competitor within range of the top position, denying that opponent 90% of their points would be very helpful for the top player to maintain their position.

This oversight can be exploited by the top player to limit their opponent's gain, and potentially their own losses. In a game with a player who had a much lower ELO, it might just be better to cut one's losses at 10% before removing any pieces. After all, losing 15 points would be much more preferable than losing 50. And denying my opponent 45 of the 50 points which they deserved to win would be horrible. That should not be an option, but currently the game incentivizes this possibility.

• Hvilken browser bruger du?