Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
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.
|
Improv42 wrote
at 2:42 PM, Monday April 5, 2010 EDT Excellent exposition. I wish it were somehow linked to every game-board so that when someone clicked a little icon, this essay would come up in a pop-up window (like Forum and other windows here do).
That would end dumb arguments pretty much instantly. Thank you for this. |
|
obscurehero wrote
at 10:01 AM, Tuesday April 6, 2010 EDT sometimes i get nostalgic for the pre-flag days... or how confused i was when flagging was first instituted...
|
|
Bozy wrote
at 5:36 PM, Friday May 7, 2010 EDT Thanks for the explanation, but it raises a big question. What is a truce? I've always thought truce (in KDice) was like a permanent alliance in real life, where committing to a truce means defending your truce partner even at your own expense if they get in trouble. This is a far cry from the vflag, which is a way of saying "I bow to your strength and will not challenge you". I've never seen it commit either party to fighting for, or defending the other. Thus the saying, truces trump flags. This definition of truce seems to be the way most almost every player I've encountered views it. And if it is correct, Rule #3, is definitely not correct. Their needs to be a difference between an Mutual Defense Alliance (Truce in KDice speak) and One Sided Non-Aggression Promise.
|
|
Exsanguination wrote
at 10:42 AM, Monday August 9, 2010 EDT Another little bit of flagging that's always bothered me (and that many players view in different ways) is the (mis?)conception that once a second player has flagged to a first player, and a third player flags to the second player, that there is an implied flag from the third player to the first.
I am going to use colours to simplify my point. Let's say blue has flagged red, and green has flagged blue. Red may argue that green has implicitly flagged red. I can see where players may come from if, as an example, red lost their first place advantage because they could not expand through blue, causing green to gain an advantage over red. In this situation, we can say it's red's own fault for not continuing to expand. This is no issue in the event where red has retained first place. I am inclined to say that green has not, in fact, flagged red through blue, and I would like to see what more seasoned players think about this? Sorry in advance if this has already been discussed in the 16 or so pages before this. |
|
the full monte wrote
at 8:26 AM, Tuesday August 17, 2010 EDT (a more seasoned player's perspective...)
in my experience there is a community of dicers who strongly believe that flags are transitive, i.e. if a flags to b, and b flags to c, then a is implicitly flagged to c. however, there is also a significantly-sized community who believes the opposite, that in this scenario, a is allowed to fight c for 1st/3rd, while b sits still for 2nd. if you are player a: if you fall into camp 1, your best finish is a high dom 3rd. if you fall into camp 2, you beg player b to sit still, because, hey, you dont want his 2nd place, and you will fight for 1st/3rd with player c. if you are player b: camp 1: you inform player a that he is implicitly flagging 3rd. basically, it is your role to defend the person you flagged to. because if he starts to die, it is your duty and honor to flag out before him. so if player c dies, you get 3rd, and he gets 2nd. so you must fight for him if anyone tries to kill him, even if that potential killer has flagged to you already and is currently begging you to sit still for an unchallenged 2nd. camp 2: you sit still for an unchallenged 2nd. player c: camp 1: as soon as you see someone offer a flag to player b, you (smartassedly) say, "thank you player a, i accept that flag." when player a is dumbfounded, because he didnt flag to you, you explain the transitive property, and inform him that you will demand that player b help you kill player a if player a decides to try to attack you. camp 2: honest this hardly ever happens that someone in 1st will volunteer to join a 1/3 fight, because there is little to nothing to gain. the only time ive seen this happen is when its obvious that player c has a huge advantage, and he will gain more points from dom by engaging in a 1/3 fight which he is 99% sure to win. but, i'll be honest again (i've made this point somewhere in the past 160 posts), seasoned players will manipulate the shit out of the flagging system. i.e. if they are player a, chances are they will try to convince the noob to sit for 2nd while they try for 1st, since that is the correct play. if they are player c, they will try to convince the noob in 2nd to attack 3rd, since that is the correct play. as for myself, i typically say that flags are transitive like 90%* of the time, while the other 10%* ill be the manipulative bitch. *+/- 80% |
|
Je55i wrote
at 2:46 AM, Monday November 22, 2010 EST Interesting opinion...
|
|
MadWilly wrote
at 8:08 AM, Thursday December 23, 2010 EST and that monte is why i flag to individual players and not for positions most of the times.
|
|
Kovin? Vover? wrote
at 3:05 PM, Thursday December 30, 2010 EST To cope with this flagging problem (especially rule #2), I suggest NOT to show flagging mark near the players avatar/name. Other players wouldn't know if the person is flagged, but the person would get out of the game as usual.
So flags wouldn't be "magic invincibility potion". Of course there could be "verbal flags", but I don't think that those flags would be respected as the "button" flags. |
|
EZgo wrote
at 9:43 PM, Sunday January 9, 2011 EST 3. An early flag is essentially a truce offer.
wrong. assuming those 2 players got to the end. if you vflag than you cannot attack the other player. but if it is a truce, those two fight for 1st. so early vflag not= truce. |
|
superxchloe wrote
at 11:37 PM, Sunday January 9, 2011 EST leading up to that point though those two people are, effectively, truced. clearly when only those two are left it's not the same as a truce, but if one vflags early to someone else, the two will fight together against everyone else.
|
