• Merci de copier-coller le message d'erreur qui s'affiche à l'écran, s'il y a lieu.

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.

• Veuillez expliquer ce que vous vouliez faire, ce que vous avez fait et ce qu'il s'est passé

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• SVP copiez / collez ici le texte affiché en anglais au lieu de votre langue. Si vous disposez d'une impression écran du bug (bonne pratique), vous pouvez utiliser le service d'hébergement de votre choix (snipboard.io par exemple) pour l'uploader et copier/coller le lien ici. Ce texte est-il disponible dans le système de traduction ? Si oui, a-t-il été traduit depuis plus de 24 heures ?

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.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Merci d'expliquer votre suggestion de manière précise et concise, de façon à ce qu'il soit aussi simple que possible de comprendre ce que vous voulez dire.

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.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Qu'affichait l'écran lorsque vous avez été bloqué(e) (Un écran vierge ? Une partie de l'interface du jeu ? Un message d'erreur ?)

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.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Quelle partie des règles n'a pas été respectée par l'adaptation 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.

• La violation de règle est-elle visible dans le replay de la partie ? Si oui, à quel numéro de coup ?

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Quelle action de jeu vouliez-vous faire ?

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.

• Qu'avez-vous essayé de faire pour déclencher cette action de jeu ?

• Que s'est-il passé lorsque vous avez essayé de faire cela (message d'erreur, message dans la barre d'état du jeu...) ?

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• À quelle étape de la partie le problème est-il apparu ? Quelles instructions le jeu affichait-il ?

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.

• Que s'est-il passé lorsque vous avez essayé de faire cette action de jeu (message d'erreur, message dans la barre d'état du jeu...) ?

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Veuillez décrire le problème d'affichage. Si vous disposez d'une impression écran du bug (bonne pratique), vous pouvez utiliser le service d'hébergement de votre choix (snipboard.io par exemple) pour l'uploader et copier/coller le lien ici.

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.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• SVP copiez / collez ici le texte affiché en anglais au lieu de votre langue. Si vous disposez d'une impression écran du bug (bonne pratique), vous pouvez utiliser le service d'hébergement de votre choix (snipboard.io par exemple) pour l'uploader et copier/coller le lien ici. Ce texte est-il disponible dans le système de traduction ? Si oui, a-t-il été traduit depuis plus de 24 heures ?

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.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Merci d'expliquer votre suggestion de manière précise et concise, de façon à ce qu'il soit aussi simple que possible de comprendre ce que vous voulez dire.

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.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?