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.

« First ‹ Previous Replies 131 - 140 of 220 Next › Last »
skrumgaer wrote
at 11:39 AM, Monday November 23, 2009 EST
To avoid being countered, simply say "I will flag for [place n]. Everyone knows you don't flag to a person, you just flag.
MadWilly wrote
at 5:05 AM, Tuesday November 24, 2009 EST
thats pretty much the reason why I demand individual personal flags. Keep a complex game simple. making it complex usually ruins the game.
and visible flags from round 2 are a good idea imho.
Commander Fuzz wrote
at 11:41 AM, Tuesday November 24, 2009 EST
As somewhat of a noob, this confirmed many of my suspicions about how flagging is abused and misunderstood. Great instructive writing Verm.
kplayr wrote
at 6:59 AM, Wednesday December 2, 2009 EST
I like skrumgaer's point
amoshag wrote
at 11:10 AM, Sunday December 6, 2009 EST
It's nice to know how flagging was in the past, but you know, the one who lives in the past dies in the present. My point is that what matters is how people perceive flagging now, in the present. And most people doesn't see flagging as a way to end the game fast, they see it as a way to ensure not getting attacked from an higher ranked player when they fight for lower rank. I use the term 'ensure' because most people see this that way, and if another player does attack a player which flags to him, most players will see this as a very unfair move, and most of the time the table will revolt. Your explanation is well done as an historic view point, but again, what matters, is how people play the game NOW.
Cirquedaddy wrote
at 4:47 PM, Monday December 14, 2009 EST
Fantastic summary even though I have long thought that the flagging system should be abandoned completely.
MikeMike83 wrote
at 5:35 PM, Tuesday December 15, 2009 EST
Verm i love your post and have taken to quoting it to people regularly since i read it.

But actually the last response prior to mine brought up a great point that i think merits some discussion...

Flags have certainly resulted in longer drawn out games more often than shorter games as the winning player is now discouraged from trying to dominate the whole board... which is really how u win... as evidenced by the fact that it is the tactic which is incentivized... i.e. most points.

So ya... maybe flags were introduced to speed up the game but mostly i just have to sit through 38 round 5 territory vs 5 territory for 2nd fests... how can the system be altered to change that... and should it?
Yce wrote
at 3:51 PM, Wednesday December 16, 2009 EST
I want the game back without flags!
We want the carnage...
minibiatch wrote
at 11:06 AM, Friday December 25, 2009 EST
As Willy suggested: back to real early real flags.
Games gonna be faster, and less bitchy. But well, i guess most people will still think something like "oh, im flagged, noone attack me please"...

I think it's just not possible to suit every demand. Depending on the level of the table the gameplay is way too different.
Kitty Tanaka meo wrote
at 8:07 AM, Monday January 11, 2010 EST
So basically, Vermont, what you're suggesting is that flags serve no real purpose and that every game should be a free for all where people are as dickish to one another as possible. Well if that's how it was, I'd be finding another place to play.

As it stands, most people work it is that once a player locks up a high spot, and players below them flag, it's polite to allow those below them to fight amongst themselves for the lower ranks. And not only does that make more sense given the way the flagging system in place actually works (once a player raises a flag below your place, they become unable to finish ahead of you), it makes for a much more friendly and enjoyable game.

The way you want it, it means every game sucks for all but one or two out of 7 people. Great if you're one of those winners, I suppose, but sucks for everyone else and alienating 5 out of 7 players with every game is not a way to win the good will of your player base.

Moreover, half of what you're saying only makes sense on the 500 and higher level tables where there's dominance in place. I avoid those tables specifically because I find the kind of cutthroat play style they encourage to be anything but a good time.

Basically, what you're saying is you don't believe in sportsmanship or grace in victory, and advocate the bigger players on each table bully the hell out of those smaller than them, ruining their good time.

Remind me to never sit at a table where you're playing.
KDice - Multiplayer Dice War
KDice is a multiplayer strategy online game played in monthly competitions. It's like Risk. The goal is to win every territory on the map.
CREATED BY RYAN © 2006
RECOMMEND
GAMES
GPokr
Texas Holdem Poker
KDice
Online Strategy
XSketch
Online Pictionary