#25852: "ELO can be manipulated"
O čom je toto hlásenie?
Čo sa stalo? Prosím vyber z nasledujúcich
Čo sa stalo? Prosím vyber z nasledujúcich
Prosím skontroluj, či už existuje hlásenie na rovnakú tému
Ak je to tak, prosím HLASUJTE za toto hlásenie. Hlásenia s najviac hlasmi majú PRIORITU!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Podrobný popis
-
• Prosím skopíruj a vlož chybové hlásenie, ktoré si videl na obrazovke, ak sa nejaké vyskytlo.
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. -
• Prosím vysvetli, čo si chcel/a spraviť, čo si spravil/a a čo sa stalo
• Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Skopíruj/vlož text zobrazený v angličtine namiesto tvojho jazyka. Ak máš screenshot (dobrý zvyk), môžeš použiť Imgur.com na jeho nahranie a skopírovať sem odkaz na neho.
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. -
• Je tento text dostupný v prekladovom systéme? Ak áno, bol preložený po dlhšie ako 24 hodín?
• Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Prosím presne a stručne vysvetli svoj podnet, aby bolo čo najjednoduchšie pochopiť, ako to myslíš.
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. • Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Čo sa objavilo na obrazovke, keď si bol zablokovaný (Prázdna obrazovka? Časť herného rozhrania? Chybové hlásenie?)?
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. • Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Ktorá časť pravidiel nebola dodržaná v BGA adaptácii?
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. -
• Je možné vidieť porušenie pravidiel na zázname z hry? Ak áno, aké je číslo ťahu?
• Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Aký herný ťah si chcel urobiť?
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. -
• Čo si skúsil aby si vyvolal túto akciu?
-
• Čo sa stalo keď si spravil túto hernú akciu (chybové hlásenie, hlásenie v stavovom pruhu, ...)?
• Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Kedy v priebehu hry sa problém vyskytol (aká bola prebiehajúca herná inštrukcia)?
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. -
• Čo sa stalo keď si spravil túto hernú akciu (chybové hlásenie, hlásenie v stavovom pruhu, ...)?
• Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Prosím popíš viditeľný problém. Ak máš screenshot (dobrý zvyk), môžeš použiť Imgur.com na jeho nahranie a skopírovať sem odkaz na neho.
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. • Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Skopíruj/vlož text zobrazený v angličtine namiesto tvojho jazyka. Ak máš screenshot (dobrý zvyk), môžeš použiť Imgur.com na jeho nahranie a skopírovať sem odkaz na neho.
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. -
• Je tento text dostupný v prekladovom systéme? Ak áno, bol preložený po dlhšie ako 24 hodín?
• Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
-
• Prosím presne a stručne vysvetli svoj podnet, aby bolo čo najjednoduchšie pochopiť, ako to myslíš.
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. • Aký prehliadač používaš?
Google Chrome v85
História hlásenia
On move 44 at 41% progression, I no longer had a possibility of winning the game and tried to concede to my opponent. It was not allowed, because the game progression was less than 50%. It was at that moment that I noticed that by quitting the game, one could limit losses and prevent opponents from gaining their much deserved points. Had I done so in this game, I would have lost 14 points instead of 11, but my opponent would have only gained 4 points, instead of 11. A net 18 point change instead of 22 which would have given my opponent a 6 point smaller margin of victory. Which definitely would have been a better outcome for me, despite being at a point where I could clearly see that I had already lost the game.
I did not exploit this oversight in the game, but it is allowed, and that is a problem.
Pridať niečo k tomuto hláseniu
- Iné ID stola / ID ťahu
- Vyriešil sa problém pomocou F5?
- Objavil sa problém viackrát? Zakaždým? Náhodne?
- Ak máš screenshot (dobrý zvyk), môžeš použiť Imgur.com na jeho nahranie a skopírovať sem odkaz na neho.
