Todos los informes
Informes de Just One
#67657: "Collective Voting"
acknowledged: Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella
¿Sobre qué es este informe?
¿Qué ha pasado? Por favor, selecciona una de las opciones siguientes
Sugerencia: en mi opinión, esta idea puede mejorar mucho la implementación del juego
Descripción detallada
• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.
Have everyone vote to cancel a word and go with majority. This way if someone misses a match or was unsure, it would be caught by the table.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v103
Historial de informes
CaptainTenille • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
10 jul 2022 0:33 • not a bug, just a suggestion
KuWizard • Los desarrolladores piensan que no es una buena idea o que la relación coste/beneficio es muy alta:
10 jul 2022 1:00 • That's how it was implemented as a first draft. People from publishing company (Repos Production) played with 7 players and decided that it kills the game pace and slows down it a lot. So they asked to do the next player verification only. Pretty sure they won't decide to change back
CaptainTenille • Los desarrolladores piensan que no es una buena idea o que la relación coste/beneficio es muy alta:
10 jul 2022 1:24 • so it's better to have duplicate clues got through?
Pompkin • Los desarrolladores piensan que no es una buena idea o que la relación coste/beneficio es muy alta:
10 jul 2022 6:51 • for live games it is easily fixed with a countdown timer of something like 10-15 seconds for all the cluegivers when the words are presented. If nobody clicks the duplicate/invalid clue button in that time game just progress as normal. It will both speed up the average waiting time for approving clues and increase the likelihood of catching errors.
KuWizard • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
10 jul 2022 9:00 • Ok, timer could save the situation, I'll try to present this idea if more people vote for this one (it's just 1 vote at the moment)
CaptainTenille • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
10 jul 2022 14:14 • Since it already has been implemented before, can't it just be an option when setting up the game? If the players want it, they just check the box and get the experience that they want.
Pompkin • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
11 jul 2022 16:09 • another problem with letting just 1 player approve of the clues is that they are very likely to improve one of their own clues that break the rules as they wouldnt give that rule breaking clue in the first place if they know the rules.
Pompkin • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
11 jul 2022 16:10 • improve=approve
FT3 • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
28 jul 2022 2:16 • I came here to make the same report, the countdown timer for everyone sounds like a very neat solution to the problem.
OutOfHabit • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
11 sep 2022 10:42 • I would love to see this change implemented, at least as an option .
Maybe an ability to mark a word as Wrong (X) or as Question (?) (and the rest are ok to keep)
Question lets the group know you want opinions about a word
Wrong (X) means you think it should go
Anyone can choose to just abstain from joining that part of they want,
And probably still on one person to submit it each time, rotating as it does now
Maybe an ability to mark a word as Wrong (X) or as Question (?) (and the rest are ok to keep)
Question lets the group know you want opinions about a word
Wrong (X) means you think it should go
Anyone can choose to just abstain from joining that part of they want,
And probably still on one person to submit it each time, rotating as it does now
Livini • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
26 oct 2022 14:27 • #311910257
A player cancelled a perfectly valid clue (Shrek) and didn't cancel two identical clues with different (British/American) spelling (Grey and Gray). Mistakes like this could have been avoided if we'd voted collectively.
A countdown timer would be great so it doesn't slow down the pacing!
A player cancelled a perfectly valid clue (Shrek) and didn't cancel two identical clues with different (British/American) spelling (Grey and Gray). Mistakes like this could have been avoided if we'd voted collectively.
A countdown timer would be great so it doesn't slow down the pacing!
MIB5799 • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
2 nov 2022 9:13 • Possible option: Have only 3 players do approval instead of all 6. Still much much better than only one.
Or even just 2 (with rotating tiebreaker like in Similo).
Or even just 2 (with rotating tiebreaker like in Similo).
bananasplay • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
14 dic 2022 17:45 • Make this a table option when creating a game so that players can decide for themselves:
Next player's choice
Collective voting
Any single player chooses (This last one would be especially useful for turn-based games where some players are more frequently online than others--I trust the people whom I play with and they trust me--but it's annoying to have the game slowed down needlessly because the implementation is forcing us to wait on the slowest player).
Next player's choice
Collective voting
Any single player chooses (This last one would be especially useful for turn-based games where some players are more frequently online than others--I trust the people whom I play with and they trust me--but it's annoying to have the game slowed down needlessly because the implementation is forcing us to wait on the slowest player).
TheInquisitor • Los desarrolladores están de acuerdo en que es una buena idea y tienen la intención de trabajar en ella:
7 mar 2024 17:13 • > Any single player chooses (This last one would be especially useful for turn-based games where some players are more frequently online than others--I trust the people whom I play with and they trust me--but it's annoying to have the game slowed down needlessly because the implementation is forcing us to wait on the slowest player).
This option would be a great help for friends who are just playing the infinite game amongst themselves.
This option would be a great help for friends who are just playing the infinite game amongst themselves.
Agregar a este informe
Por favor agrega aquí cualquier cosa que sea relevante para reproducir este error o entender tu sugerencia:
- Otro ID de partida / ID de jugada
- ¿Se resolvió el problema al pulsar F5?
- ¿Apareció el problema varias veces? ¿Cada vez? ¿Aleatoriamente?
- Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.