• Kopioi/liitä virheilmoitus näytöltäsi, jos sait sellaisen.

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.

• Selitä mitä halusit tehdä, mitä teit ja mitä tapahtui

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Ole hyvä ja kopioi teksti englanniksi oman kielesi sijasta. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.

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.

• Onko tämä teksti saatavilla käännösjärjestelmässä? Jos on, onko sen käännöksestä yli 24 tuntia?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Selitä ehdotuksesti tarkasti ja ytimekkäästi, jotta se on ymmärrettävissä niin helposti kuin mahdollista.

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.

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Mitä näytöllä näkyi kun olit estettynä (Tyhjä ruutu? Osa pelin käyttöliittymästä? Virheilmoitus?)

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.

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Mitä osaa säännöistä BGA:n sovellus ei noudattanut

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.

• Onko sääntörikkomus nähtävillä pelin toistossa? Jos kyllä, mikä on siirron numero?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Minkä pelin toiminnon halusit suorittaa?

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.

• Mitä yritit tehdä tämän pelitoiminnon käynnistymiseksi?

• Mitä tapahtui kun yritit tehdä tämän (virheilmoitus, pelin tilapalkin viesti, ...)?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Missä vaiheessa peliä ongelma ilmeni (mikä oli silloinen pelin ohje)?

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.

• Mitä tapahtui kun yritit tehdä tämän pelin toiminnon (virheilmoitus, pelin tilapalkin viesti, ...)?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Kuvaile näyttöongelmaa. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.

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.

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Ole hyvä ja kopioi teksti englanniksi oman kielesi sijasta. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.

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.

• Onko tämä teksti saatavilla käännösjärjestelmässä? Jos on, onko sen käännöksestä yli 24 tuntia?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Selitä ehdotuksesti tarkasti ja ytimekkäästi, jotta se on ymmärrettävissä niin helposti kuin mahdollista.

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.

• Mikä on selaimesi?