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.
Kitty Tanaka meo wrote
at 8:12 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. |
toxic_avenger23 wrote
at 10:07 AM, Wednesday January 13, 2010 EST Agreed, with the very ending:Your flag DOES NOT prevent you from being attacked - it is not what it was designed to do.
What I do find irregular tho is this; there have been so many people of this site that I have personally seen that DESERVE a higher place due to hard work. Rarely, however it doesn't seem to amuse whoever is in first. To me, working for a place is the way this game should be played BUT people who "farm" or flag to a player just bc of friendship deserve an auto-kill(opinion). I do try and respect other flaggers but lately I haven't been playing much so I don't know what it the rightful thing of doing. I just would like some people to explain to me(in chat) about this. Vermont, thank you for posting this and I hope I did not make a total a$$ outta myself. Good luck on the tables!! |
Vermont wrote
at 9:00 AM, Thursday January 14, 2010 EST I can't decide if kitty really just didn't fully read my post, chose to ignore parts, or is someone's alt just looking to give me grief.
|
TheBetterYodel wrote
at 8:15 PM, Saturday January 16, 2010 EST Maybe you need to take a step back and amend this with a "Farming" and "Fairplay" Thread?
Just a thought. |
TheBetterYodel wrote
at 8:16 PM, Saturday January 16, 2010 EST Maybe you need to take a step back and amend this with a "Farming" and "Fairplay" Thread?
Just a thought. |
Vermont wrote
at 8:14 AM, Monday January 18, 2010 EST Making a separate thread about that would be interesting, but even more controversial than this one has been. Flagging had a concrete history and reasons for its existence its many forms, while etiquette is far more in the eye of the beholder.
|
MKH90 wrote
at 7:44 PM, Tuesday January 19, 2010 EST The problem with verbal flagging is, that the meaning of it differs depending on who's using it, in which part of the game it comes into play (early, midgame, endgame), and several other factors. Mostly it just becomes an absolutely ridiculous 6-on-1 alliance against a person who decides to not verbal flag, but who still wants to raise his position and would have a chance at it if it weren't for the ludicrous alliance against him/her.
Because of this, I only honor system flagging, and even in those cases, if you're in my way with small stacks, sorry, but you know what's going to happen; It's not a magic spell against me, especially if I have to get faster stacking against another big opponent. |
TheBetterYodel wrote
at 3:08 AM, Saturday January 30, 2010 EST Verm I would disagree. Morals are not in the eye of the beholder. That's a cheap excuse to say that there are no morals. Common decency and fair play DO follow certain rules in this game and stabbing + fake flagging are a major problem in the game.
There is a group of people (like das and monte to name 2) who love to spam threads, overpowering others, about how rightful being a cunt is etc....That doesn't mean there is a large percentage of the game that doesn't feel that this is the right way to play...Regardless of the rules. |
Vermont wrote
at 9:05 AM, Tuesday February 2, 2010 EST Yodel, lumping all types of "morals" into one category is pretty disingenuous. Most reasonable people agree there are both objective and subjective truth. *
As an example, it is a fact that Ryan introduced flagging to help the game end faster - this is objectively true and not by opinion. An example of subjective truth would be my taking a stand on whether backstabbing is right or wrong. It's not against the rules specifically, and there are divergent opinions on its use and ethics. Objective truths would not be, in your words, in the eye of the beholder. As I stated previously, I was trying to keep this post more focused on things people could agree on, and you saw how many arguments were made as it was. If I tried to also include things like lying and backstabbing this would have been even more unproductive than it turned out to be. I learned a valuable lesson here in the fact not many really care what I think anyway, unless it happens to agree with them. * Yes, there are those that would argue there is no objective truth at all. However, you are few and far between and I believe you'd change your tune if I stole your wallet and told you I didn't believe in your views on theft. (Yes, this was oversimplified, but how many people on this site have actually studied philosophy?) |
Retard Strong wrote
at 11:04 AM, Tuesday February 2, 2010 EST Minored in Philosophy at UofMN - Duluth
|