Forum
Common misconceptions about the current flagging system.
Posted By: Vermont at 9:20 AM, Wednesday November 19, 2014 EST
I've noticed that a good deal of the frustration with the game and with other players is consistently due to misunderstandings of the flagging system. This becomes pretty evident when you take a look at players' review pages and a large majority of the negative, and even positive comments, deal with flagging.
The initial flagging system was introduced solely as a way to help the game end faster. It was a simple checkbox, not related to place. When all players other than the one in first checked this box the game would end and each player would receive place based on their current position.
Incidentally, this system led to 'ninja flagging,' where a player would wait for everyone else to have their flag up and then quickly over-expand and then flag themselves, ending the game. They would then finish much higher than they should have otherwise. This led to some fun games as people would watch and try to respond, but it also cause some frustration. Anyone who uses 'ninja flagging' in regards to the current system is using the term incorrectly.
I bring this up because the current flagging system was introduced specifically to address the ninja flagging 'problem.' Some players that play in both systems find the old system preferable, some do not. To each their own; I don't think Ryan will be changing it back anytime soon.
The issue we have now is that flags are grossly misunderstood. You see people all the time expecting that when their flag is up they will not be attacked and thus they feel you did not "honor" or "respect" their flag if you attack them. This completely erroneous assumption has lead to a great deal of complaining, frustration, and negative review leaving.
Here are the flagging facts:
1. If you flag to someone, they have the complete right to still attack you, and often should. There is nothing 'dishonorable' about it. They may need to expand to fight for a higher position and your flag should not stop them from expanding to do so. They may want to earn more dom points - it is their right to do so as they have clearly earned a stronger position. Flags are ONLY there to help the game end faster; they are not magic invincibility potions to protect you when you otherwise should die.
2. People who over-expand and then throw up a flag should frequently be attacked. Just because you put up a flag does not mean that you can foolishly over-expand and leave little stacks lying about and expect to keep them. Again, a flag is not a magic invincibility potion that protects you from attack - it's just there to help the game end faster. You'll often see people over expand recklessly throw up a flag and have it 'respected' and thus earning a position higher than they should have gotten. Good strategy on their part if they think they can get away with it, but poor form on the other players' part to let them do so. Keep in mind that that over-expanding player is taking dominance points away from the other players when they do this as well; frequently from the person who is in the best position to take their smaller stacks.
3. An early flag is essentially a truce offer. If a player verbally flags in round two, it's a safe assumption that those two players are effectively truced and will not be hindering each other's play. The other players on the board need to actively counter this or will almost always end up losing to these two players. This is not very different from being observant and countering two players who says things like "I'm cool" or "how about we be friendly." If you don't fight this behavior when possible, those players will win. You will see some people that ignore or even purposefully attack early verbal flags. This is a reasonable solution to this problem. They're probably flagging early because they are weak, so take the land and dominance points if you are in a position to do so.
In review:
Flagging Rule #1 - Flagging to someone does not mean they cannot and often should not attack you.
Flagging Rule #2 - Players who recklessly over-expand and then flag for defense should often be attacked.
Flagging Rule #3 - An early verbal flag is often an effective truce offer.
I will state the most important part again: flagging was only introduced to help the game end faster. Your flag DOES NOT prevent you from being attacked - it is not what it was designed to do.
The initial flagging system was introduced solely as a way to help the game end faster. It was a simple checkbox, not related to place. When all players other than the one in first checked this box the game would end and each player would receive place based on their current position.
Incidentally, this system led to 'ninja flagging,' where a player would wait for everyone else to have their flag up and then quickly over-expand and then flag themselves, ending the game. They would then finish much higher than they should have otherwise. This led to some fun games as people would watch and try to respond, but it also cause some frustration. Anyone who uses 'ninja flagging' in regards to the current system is using the term incorrectly.
I bring this up because the current flagging system was introduced specifically to address the ninja flagging 'problem.' Some players that play in both systems find the old system preferable, some do not. To each their own; I don't think Ryan will be changing it back anytime soon.
The issue we have now is that flags are grossly misunderstood. You see people all the time expecting that when their flag is up they will not be attacked and thus they feel you did not "honor" or "respect" their flag if you attack them. This completely erroneous assumption has lead to a great deal of complaining, frustration, and negative review leaving.
Here are the flagging facts:
1. If you flag to someone, they have the complete right to still attack you, and often should. There is nothing 'dishonorable' about it. They may need to expand to fight for a higher position and your flag should not stop them from expanding to do so. They may want to earn more dom points - it is their right to do so as they have clearly earned a stronger position. Flags are ONLY there to help the game end faster; they are not magic invincibility potions to protect you when you otherwise should die.
2. People who over-expand and then throw up a flag should frequently be attacked. Just because you put up a flag does not mean that you can foolishly over-expand and leave little stacks lying about and expect to keep them. Again, a flag is not a magic invincibility potion that protects you from attack - it's just there to help the game end faster. You'll often see people over expand recklessly throw up a flag and have it 'respected' and thus earning a position higher than they should have gotten. Good strategy on their part if they think they can get away with it, but poor form on the other players' part to let them do so. Keep in mind that that over-expanding player is taking dominance points away from the other players when they do this as well; frequently from the person who is in the best position to take their smaller stacks.
3. An early flag is essentially a truce offer. If a player verbally flags in round two, it's a safe assumption that those two players are effectively truced and will not be hindering each other's play. The other players on the board need to actively counter this or will almost always end up losing to these two players. This is not very different from being observant and countering two players who says things like "I'm cool" or "how about we be friendly." If you don't fight this behavior when possible, those players will win. You will see some people that ignore or even purposefully attack early verbal flags. This is a reasonable solution to this problem. They're probably flagging early because they are weak, so take the land and dominance points if you are in a position to do so.
In review:
Flagging Rule #1 - Flagging to someone does not mean they cannot and often should not attack you.
Flagging Rule #2 - Players who recklessly over-expand and then flag for defense should often be attacked.
Flagging Rule #3 - An early verbal flag is often an effective truce offer.
I will state the most important part again: flagging was only introduced to help the game end faster. Your flag DOES NOT prevent you from being attacked - it is not what it was designed to do.
the brain wrote
at 2:19 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST I have not responded to most points because I am no longer trying to argue about my point of view. Rather I merely discussed that you are faulty in thinking your view is superior.
The notion that sometimes not connecting can be better serves as a precedent for not being able to conclusively say that even in the general case it is better, because we have no measure of how many situations fall under this 'exception'. Granted, this example is something we all hold for truth, but it still is only an axiom (maybe we hold it for truth because nobody ever deviates enough from it). For one I know an example from backgammon where an AI made a move that many grandmasters would agree on as a bad move, only to find after simulations that it was indeed the better move. But you're right, the exception does not proof you wrong. Neither can you proof you are right. As said before, proofing anything is practically impossible. The board combinations DO factor in the amount of dice: 7 (nr of players) * 8 (combinations of dice). Granted, bonus dice should be factored in, but the amount of states with bonus dice is relatively small. The mere point of it was that the amount of game states is astronomically large, which for example, allows for an equally astronomical amount of exceptions to strategies. The reason we're still discussing is because you continue to classify my viewpoint as wrong (or in the last case 'inconsistent with what most players come to realize in a short time', i.e. I don't know how to play?). As well as that you continue to view your own viewpoint as superior without providing any evidence other than that the majority agrees with you (argumentum ad populum). I would agree to disagree if it wasn't for that. |
Vermont wrote
at 2:51 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST AGAIN you misquote me. I stated that you should at least CONSIDER that you MAY be wrong when there the majority disagrees with you. You fail to understand this. It is what a reasonable person would do. "Crap, you all think I'm wrong? I'd better go double check my figures and make sure I'm right."
I really hope I don't have to state this a fourth (fifth? can't remember at this point) time. Please be intellectually honest. And you may consider that the number of states with bonus dice is small but there are 32 of them for each player. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your math. My point actually makes the game space bigger, which doesn't change the fundamental argument since it's already so huge, so we can probably just leave it at that. If you really think all ideas are equally valid, why even have a discussion? If everyone's equally correct about a particular topic there is really no sense having a discussion about it. You consistently misquote, cherry pick parts of the discussion, and will not concede that you may have been incorrect on any point in the discussion. Meh. |
the brain wrote
at 3:18 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST The word you are looking for is misinterpret, not misquote. And how much of a misinterpretation is it to go from "but that doesn't mean I cannot argue one viewpoint's superiority" to assuming that that must mean you believe your viewpoint to be superior? Imho, a small step.
And never have I stated that I believe my view to be right. In fact, I stated on multiple occasions that it is all about opinion. That said, the majority has no authority whatsoever to determine which strategy would be better (as said, nobody is able to determine that). May I also point out that the majority you refer to is about 20 posts in this topic (the great majority of them being 1 or 2 lines long, but let's put that aside). Having a quick look at the leaderboard you can safely assume there are at least 1000 active Kdice players. And don't you think there might be a bias in the ones that actually take the effort to reply. And once again, if you don't want discussion, simply step away from arguing that your point of view (/strategy) is superior. I will gladly agree to disagree. |
Vermont wrote
at 4:05 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST You did not misinterpret because I pointed it out several times and you kept saying the same thing. You purposefully misrepresented in order to make your case seem stronger.
I'll say it yet again and we'll see if you will finally acknowledge the difference between what I said and what you stated I did. You repeatedly stated that I said you were wrong. All I said was that you should CONSIDER the possibility that you MAY be wrong. I'm amazed that you wouldn't at least reconsider your viewpoint when many people disagree. The fact that you won't acknowledge that as a reasonable course of action is ridiculous. How do you ever learn and improve upon your knowledge and opinions? And if I didn't believe my viewpoint to be superior, why would I present it or argue for it? The difference between you and me is that I will admit not all viewpoints are equally credible, and that I will admit when I am wrong. You seem to be willing to do neither. You state that you're willing to agree to disagree, as long as I admit I no longer think I'm right? Do you not comprehend the absurdity of that statement? |
skrumgaer wrote
at 6:48 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST With all the heavy hitting in this slugfest, we need some comic relief once in a while, so since I haven't heard from grs, I thought I would throw this in:
Skrum's Rules of Transitivity in Kdice 1. The transitivity/instransitivity (T/IT) of a spoken verb is derived from the T/IT of the action that the verb describes. Thus the T/IT of the verb may change according to the action it is meant to describe. For example, if "I flag to X" means "I accept a position lower in rank than X", transitivity is not met because we could have a situation such as Z flags to X, and X flags to Y, and Y flags to Z. The situation is logically impossible, but it is possible for X, Y, and Z to make statements that describe this situation, especially if there has been clever chat work done by Vermont or the brain. On the other hand, if "I flag to X" means "I offer a promise not to harm X in exchanges for a promise not to be harmed by X", transitivity is established because X has been given the power to enforce a promise. 2. If the game allows an action to be performed without verbalization, a verbalization of that action is to be interpreted to match the action (e.g. "I will flag", "I will flag for third", "I will deliberately lag out". 3. It is possible to get on the good side of two people even if they are not on the good side of each other if you say something nice about both of them in the same sentence. |
Vermont wrote
at 7:02 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST skrum, you win. End of thread. Yeah!
|
dasfury wrote
at 9:15 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST bummer, its almost at 100 posts
|
Pixel-Dust wrote
at 11:44 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Verms wins cause it is his thread. Possession is 9/10 of the pwnage.
|
Pixel-Dust wrote
at 11:46 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Das gets honorable mention for this summary of the content of this thread:
"ITT: - Verms feeds an insatiable troll. - skrum and qrs argue over the validity of wikipedia articles - progress towards educating the masses on the lameness of the vflag = 0" |
Pixel-Dust wrote
at 11:48 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Das gets honorable mention for this summary of the thread:
"ITT: - Verms feeds an insatiable troll. - skrum and qrs argue over the validity of wikipedia articles - progress towards educating the masses on the lameness of the vflag = 0" |