To answer your question, no. The Intrigue Progress Card states, "You may displace one of your opponent's knights, without using a knight of your own. The knight must be on an intersection connected to one of your ROADS or lines of ships." So your opponent has to put down a road on the board that would connect him/her to your knight directly.
Hi @administrators just following up on your last response quote "We are keeping a close eye on the situation and are currently investigating what causes this issues. The next patch will include a fix for an issue that could cause games to end prematurely for the second to last player in a multiplayer match. We are confident this fix will already improve the situation but we will investigate nonetheless". How is it going???
I had to chuckle at the administrators' response ~1 mth ago >> "I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. if you are referring to the Elo System, please check out our FAQ section here in the forums." I think they need our responses/ suggestions etc to justify their existence ..... poor management.
@Rumpelstilzchen yeah I see your point, but as mentioned, as long as you have an advantage, it is fine. But I personal am not sure if you have an advantage by trading 4 cards for 1 for rescuing your city and give the other one a victory point for defeated the barbarians, but maybe you are right
@Xseven I don´t know about other players, but I do know for sure that I never manipulate anything, and yet on some days, most of my opponents get kicked.
(If you care to check, I have been complaining about this a lot in the forum.)
On other days, it´s me who get´s kicked all the time.
So I am pretty sure it´s on the Catan side of the business where things go wrong, and not the players fault.
@ReeBee I had removed my posts as it seemed off topic and/or beating a dead horse... but might as well...
There is never complete predictability with good players as there is no one way to win, and of course a good player accounts for the unexpected and has multiple routes to winning, this is central to the game. My point on inexperienced players is that they significantly unbalance the play (as does gaming the AI), and as it stands the game does a poor job matching you up with comparable players (and ELO isn't helping this)
ELO is fine for chess where it's 1-1 and purely skill/experience, it doesn't work well with multiple players and significant random factors. You can play a solid game and still take a decent hit to your ELO. And ELO isn't even used that strictly when creating matchups as there is a significant spread in ELO/skill/experience in the game and in Seasons.
There are better systems IMO, one simple one would be increase someone's rank every X times beating players of equal or better skill, but never decrease it on a loss (because losing doesn't mean you've lost skill). The first few levels would be rather loose in meaning, but after a while it will be harder to increase your rank, at high enough levels you might need to enter a tournament or play on an event weekend to find enough players of comparable rank. This would also allow people to play fun games (open to all rank levels, no ELO loss at stake) or competitive games restricted to your relative rank. It might not give who's absolute #1, but you'll know who the best players are.
Adapted for tournament play, once you have a decent idea of someone's rank, you can create solid match-ups and then your position in the tournament is wholy based on wins, just like any other tournament out there. (Although the Administrator clarified this wasn't a tournament, there is one in the works)
[This would likely need refinement and possibly has it's own limitations, but my point is that a ranking system that matches comparable players isn't that complicated and doesn't encourage terrible play like ELO. The only think ELO has going for it is encouraging addictive aggressive play]