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.
|
Wammy wrote
at 12:48 PM, Monday November 2, 2009 EST Agree
|
|
killa mcgrill wrote
at 2:00 PM, Monday November 2, 2009 EST My name is Killa McGrill and I approve this message.
|
|
the brain wrote
at 1:31 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST Vermont, I think that saying DanRathers is fond of early flags is uncalled for. His 3rd point is very valid, regardless of whether or not you like early flags.
It very much depends on your view of the word 'truce'. If you use it as a synonym for 'cease fire', then yes, they are the same. But I believe that in Kdice the word truce is almost exclusively linked to garantueed positions (you take 1/2, regardless of offers by other players). And as such the 'cease fire' that results from the flag is different from a 'truce' which would imply garantueed positions, because with the first the other players can still flag to the bigger player (which was flagged to initially) and fight the player which flagged initially. Depending on the player of course, but I find that the bigger player usually accepts this. In a truce the bigger player would generally not accept this (either you accept 3rd or die). That is not to say that early flags won't often result in a 1/2 or that it isn't annoying that if you call for a counter that people say 'but it isn't a truce!'. But still, in my mind, 'I flag' is not equal to 'truce?'. Personally I don't think the adapated scoring will help that much, at best it will make it more appealing to truce rather than accept a lower position. The main issue is still that Kdice by design is a game where positions often are decided before the actual end of the game, and the current flagging system (real flags, mind you) doesn't cope with that very well (round 8 is arbitrarily chosen and you're not always in the position you want to flag), which has logically lead to the vflag. |
|
Vermont wrote
at 2:13 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST If the other players at the table do not treat that flag as a truce, they will lose to both those players an overwhelming majority of the time.
It is an 'effective' truce offer, meaning it has virtually the same end result, even if they're using a different word for it. These days it actually works better to say flag because people are not yet savvy enough to counter it, particularly at the low tables. You can pretend it doesn't work like a truce if you don't want to, but you'll both lose more points and have more boring flag fests as a result. |
|
qrs wrote
at 3:06 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST @skrumgaer:
I'm not sure which Wikipedia article you were looking at, but transitive verbs are verbs that take a *direct* object (not a prepositional object, as in your sentence, where the preposition "to" is required precisely because "flag" is intransitive.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitivity_%28grammatical_category%29 does mention this. Sorry for the off-topic reply, everyone! On-topic, it *is* frustrating when people think/pretend that verbal flags are not truces. There is a difference to the players directly involved, but none to all the others. |
|
|
the brain wrote
at 3:12 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST My point was that the end result does not have to be the same, because other players can flag accordingly. Whether or not you feel that's boring is once again irrelevant. If you want to counter every early flag you come across, go ahead. I know I've been in enough situations where that would be impossible to do.
On top of that, because the players in a cease fire are not bound to help eachother, it is not impossible to offer 2nd to the flagged player and go for first yourself. |
|
|
the brain wrote
at 3:15 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST My point was that the end result does not have to be the same, because other players can flag accordingly. Whether or not you feel that's boring is once again irrelevant. If you want to counter every early flag you come across, go ahead. I know I've been in enough situations where that would be impossible to do.
On top of that, because the players in a cease fire are not bound to help eachother, it is not impossible to offer 2nd to the flagged player and go for first yourself. Yes, it's annoying if someone uses the 'it's not a truce' argument to make people resilient to organizing counter, but even if there's no counter there's still a difference. 2nd is definitely open and, if you play it right, 1st might be too. In a real truce 1st and 2nd are only an option if you counter and beat the truce. |
|
|
the brain wrote
at 3:16 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST My point was that the end result does not have to be the same, because other players can flag accordingly. Whether or not you feel that's boring is once again irrelevant. If you want to counter every early flag you come across, go ahead. I know I've been in enough situations where that would be impossible to do.
On top of that, because the players in a cease fire are not bound to help eachother, it is not impossible to offer 2nd to the flagged player and go for first yourself. Yes, it's annoying if someone uses the 'it's not a truce' argument to make people resilient to organizing counter, but even if there's no counter there's still a difference. 2nd is definitely open and, if you play it right, 1st might be too. In a real truce 1st and 2nd are only an option if you counter and beat the truce. |
|
|
the brain wrote
at 3:34 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST Excuse me for that... the server wasn't updating. Last post is the most complete though (after I saw qrs' post :P).
|
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 4:18 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST "My point was that the end result does not have to be the same..."
The real point is that it often IS the same, given people's current attitue. You can argue semantics all you want but until people being countering they will continue to lose points. Surely you understand this. I am obviously arguing that it should NOT be the same end result, but that will not start happening until more people understand why flags exist and how to deal with people who use them inappropriately. I'm pretty sure most everyone else that responded to this thread has understood my point and agreed with it. Not that you couldn't be smarter than all the rest of us (you are the brain,) but please at least consider the fact you may be wrong or interpreting things incorrectly. |
