• يرجى نسخ / لصق رسالة الخطأ التي تراها على الشاشة ، إن وجدت.

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.

• يرجى توضيح ما تريد القيام به ، ماذا فعلت وما حدث

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى نسخ / لصق النص المعروض باللغة الإنجليزية بدلاً من لغتك. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.

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.

• هل هذا النص متاح في translation system ؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فهل تمت ترجمتها لأكثر من 24 ساعة؟

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى توضيح اقتراحك بدقة وإيجاز بحيث يكون من السهل قدر الإمكان فهم ما تعنيه.

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.

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• ما الذي تم عرضه على الشاشة عندما تم حظرك (شاشة فارغة؟ جزء من واجهة اللعبة؟ رسالة خطأ؟)

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.

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• أي جزء من القواعد تم مخالفته في تصميم التبني لدى BGA

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.

• هل انتهاك القواعد مرئي عند إعادة اللعب؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فبأي رقم؟

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• ما هو نشاط اللعبة الذي أردت القيام به؟

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.

• ماذا تحاول أن تفعل لتحريك هذا العمل اللعبة؟

• ماذا حدث عند محاولة القيام بهذا (رسالة خطأ ، رسالة شريط حالة اللعبة ، ...)؟

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• في أي خطوة من اللعبة حدثت المشكلة (ما هو تعليمة اللعبة الحالية)؟

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.

• ماذا حدث عند محاولة إجراء هذه الحركة داخل اللعبة (رسالة خطأ ، رسالة شريط حالة اللعبة ، ...)؟

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى وصف مشكلة العرض. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.

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.

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى نسخ / لصق النص المعروض باللغة الإنجليزية بدلاً من لغتك. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.

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.

• هل هذا النص متاح في translation system ؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فهل تمت ترجمتها لأكثر من 24 ساعة؟

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى توضيح اقتراحك بدقة وإيجاز بحيث يكون من السهل قدر الإمكان فهم ما تعنيه.

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.

• ما هو متصفحك؟