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 31 - 40 of 220 Next › Last »
chori wrote
at 8:26 PM, Saturday October 31, 2009 EDT
Totally agree Vermont!! Should be like this. Unfotunately not happen, but your analysis should be in the wall of rules.
qrs wrote
at 11:28 PM, Saturday October 31, 2009 EDT
skrumgaer, you don't even know the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs (flag in "I flag to X" would still be intransitive), so stop trying to play grammarian.

Nice write-up Vermont. The thing is, a verbal flag is basically a truce + pledge to take a lower place at the end, so even if the flagger over-expanded, it's often convenient for the person flagged to to respect it.
Cool or Not wrote
at 11:01 AM, Sunday November 1, 2009 EST
Everything is said. Thanks. This is Great!!!
kiwiz wrote
at 11:05 AM, Sunday November 1, 2009 EST
+1

I'm so tired to explain #3 each time to ppl...
tired to play coward truces "hidden" behind the early vflags.
that kills the fun of kdice :)
know_it_all wrote
at 2:35 PM, Sunday November 1, 2009 EST
there is a system? lol.
DanRathers wrote
at 7:50 PM, Sunday November 1, 2009 EST
1. I agree with most of this, but I do believe it's dishonorable to attack someone who's flag to you if you don't make it clear in the chat what you're doing.

2. This rule is pointless. With the current flagging system you can't just put up a flag after over expanding, so we're in the same situation that rule #1 is designed to cover. The players that the over expanding guy flags to can decide whether or not to take some of his land to better their position, but they shouldn't do anything to cripple him in his fight for his position.

3. Even early in the game a truce and a flag are different beasts. Doing nothing to hinder your neighbor is nothing like guaranteeing him a placement.

Vermont wrote
at 10:16 PM, Sunday November 1, 2009 EST
I'll respond to each of your statements directly.

1. I agree with most of this, but I do believe it's dishonorable to attack someone who's flag to you if you don't make it clear in the chat what you're doing.

- That's fine, say it in the chat then, if you feel you need to. I didn't say it was ALWAYS right to do so, just that it is not always wrong. Playing chat box politics is always a good idea anyway.

2. This rule is pointless. With the current flagging system you can't just put up a flag after over expanding, so we're in the same situation that rule #1 is designed to cover. The players that the over expanding guy flags to can decide whether or not to take some of his land to better their position, but they shouldn't do anything to cripple him in his fight for his position.
- Clear I was referring to a vflag, not an actual flag. And again, that person may need to take some land, even if it cripples the other person, to either fight for his own position or to gain dominance points. Flags are not magic invincibility potions. They were simply introduced to help the game end faster.

3. Even early in the game a truce and a flag are different beasts. Doing nothing to hinder your neighbor is nothing like guaranteeing him a placement.
- You clearly have not watched or played enough games if you do not realize this to be true. Two players doing "nothing to hinder" each other has the same or nearly the same impact on the game: if people do not respond they will finish 1-2 more than 75% of the time, and will both finish with positive points more than 90% of the time.

I will say this again, because you do not seem to understand:
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.

(As further testament, Ryan just changed the scoring to encourage people to do less of the type of flagging you seem so fond of.)
Vermont wrote
at 10:18 PM, Sunday November 1, 2009 EST
@chori: It can be more like this if more players start countering early verbal flags and not letter people use flags as supreme protection.
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:27 AM, Monday November 2, 2009 EST
grs:

From Wikipedia:

" It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Unaccusative verb and Unergative verb. (Discuss)

"In grammar, an intransitive verb does not take an object. In more technical terms, an intransitive verb has only one argument (its subject), and hence has a valency of one. For example, in English, the verbs sleep and die, are intransitive. Some verbs, such as smell are both transitive and intransitive."

luxsolis wrote
at 12:48 PM, Monday November 2, 2009 EST
a verbal flag can be acepted or not acepted personaly i only write a bad reviw when my flag was acepted and then that player atacks me
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