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.
|
qrs wrote
at 4:32 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST Well the problem is that we aren't clarifying our terminology. (I actually started doing this above, but I was afraid I was getting pointlessly digressive so I deleted it.)
I use "truce" to mean cease-fire with no guarantees on either side of relative placement, and "flag" to mean truce + one side pledges to take a lower position than the other, if he is still in the game at the end. Neither implies (to me) some sort of mutual assistance compact. You might also talk about "alliances" (truce + mutual assistance) and, I don't know, "vassalage" (flag + mutual assistance). Then there's also verbally flagging for a specific position... Anyway, I hope that makes my meaning clear. All said, even though I don't see a difference between what I'm calling flagging and trucing from the other players' POV, I'll admit that from my own admittedly-subjective view of the ethics, I feel worse (verbally) trucing than flagging/accepting flags, and I don't often do it. |
|
|
qrs wrote
at 4:33 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST ^my above post was in response to "The Brain"'s on the previous page.
|
|
the brain wrote
at 5:37 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST Well, I simply disagree with that people should always counter an early flag (the key word here being always). It depends too much on the situation to call for making that a 'rule'. The real thing that you should have been pointing out is that countering a flag (similar to countering a truce) is not a bad thing.
So much for the discussion without semantics. The 'rule' is too ambiguous to not go into semantics. To start, "An early flag is an effective truce offer" is not really a rule, more a statement (which, depending on your view of the word 'truce' can be both true and false). This leaves us guessing at what rule you would be getting at, I assume it's something along the lines of the above + "And should be countered as if it was a truce". Secondly, as qrs pointed out, 'truce' is ambiguous. I dare say that if you offer a truce ingame it will mean a mutual assistance pact more often than not. But that may also be my subjective view of it. And, as I pointed out in my first post, 'early' is also ambiguous. As I argued there, I don't believe round number to be a good measure in a game that is as random as this. I challenge anyone to come up with a definition of 'early vflag' that does not depend on a round number (I know I can't). Bottom line, ambiguity like this cannot make for a good rule. It depends too much on your personal views of what it should mean. Hence, rather than 'interpreting things incorrectly' I would just say my views don't completely coincide with yours. So I'm neither wrong nor misinterpreting nor does it have anything to do with who's smarter (again something that's uncalled for). |
|
Vermont wrote
at 7:42 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST "Well, I simply disagree with that people should always counter an early flag (the key word here being always). It depends too much on the situation to call for making that a 'rule'. The real thing that you should have been pointing out is that countering a flag (similar to countering a truce) is not a bad thing. "
That's fine. You don't have to counter. Not every truce is countered either, obviously. The rule doesn't even have the word counter in it, nor does it suggest a specific course of action. However, most players understand that if they want to do well they should counter truces when possible. This is almost universally understood and I can't imagine you can disagree with it without being intentionally obtuse. "So much for the discussion without semantics. The 'rule' is too ambiguous to not go into semantics. To start, "An early flag is an effective truce offer" is not really a rule, more a statement (which, depending on your view of the word 'truce' can be both true and false). This leaves us guessing at what rule you would be getting at, I assume it's something along the lines of the above + "And should be countered as if it was a truce"." It can't be treated as a truce automatically because the person being flagged to may not accept, similar to a truce offer. In fact, I reworded the rule because it previous said 'truce' instead of 'truce offer' and it was pointed out (thanks montecarlo) that that was not correct. Responses to truces and truce offers vary, but all but the newest players understand that a truce needs to be countered if possible or you will lose. This much should be obvious. Also, please observe that the rule itself doesn't suggest a course of action; it is just to help people have a better understanding of what is actually occurring. I'm not sure it left anyone 'guessing' but you. And rules are MOST commonly statements. Some are occasionally written as commands. The other two common types of sentences are questions and exclamations, which are even less applicable, so I'm not really sure what you are going for here unless you're just failing at being grammar police. "Secondly, as qrs pointed out, 'truce' is ambiguous. I dare say that if you offer a truce ingame it will mean a mutual assistance pact more often than not. But that may also be my subjective view of it. And, as I pointed out in my first post, 'early' is also ambiguous. As I argued there, I don't believe round number to be a good measure in a game that is as random as this. I challenge anyone to come up with a definition of 'early vflag' that does not depend on a round number (I know I can't)." Most players have a consistent understanding of what a truce is. The word truce itself may not even be used in the chat but rather other text that a player hopes their opponents won't pick up on as readily. ("I'm cool" being one of the more common, for example.) And as to whether or not it is early depends a great deal on the size of the board and the relative positions of the players. Is there a grey area? Of course, which is why I didn't specify a specific round number. Is round 2 too early? Absolutely. 'Bottom line, ambiguity like this cannot make for a good rule. It depends too much on your personal views of what it should mean. Hence, rather than 'interpreting things incorrectly' I would just say my views don't completely coincide with yours. So I'm neither wrong nor misinterpreting nor does it have anything to do with who's smarter (again something that's uncalled for)." When your views do not coincide with a majority, that seem to have all come to a consistent understanding, your views may be the ones that are incorrect in the given context. I'll say again, slightly reworded for your benefit: 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 have a different viewpoint, but if it differs from the majority you should at least CONSIDER the fact you may be wrong or interpreting things incorrectly. There may actually be other players that understand the game and its history better than you. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 7:52 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST Man, that was way to long. My apologies to everyone who read that, with the exception of monte, who will probably congratulate me.
|
|
Gurgi wrote
at 7:59 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST i agree with Verms. by respecting a vflag, you are allowing a player who should be dead grow stronger. because of this, the player, more often than not, has the need to help the player who spared him. This, in many ways, is a truce because not only are you not hitting each other but will end up helping each other as well.
|
|
habit1 wrote
at 8:02 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST i say we simply call this the "Vermont Convention" and all agree to it. That way we can clearly state that we are abiding by Article 1, 2 or 3 of the VT Convention when folks complain.
and Halleluja - great post. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 8:12 PM, Tuesday November 3, 2009 EST I should correct my 'to long' to be 'too long' before the grammar police break down my door. I just had that thing replaced, too.
|
|
|
the brain wrote
at 2:01 PM, Wednesday November 4, 2009 EST I wonder when this become more than just our personal views on the matter. I think differently than you, therefore I MUST be wrong? There is no wrong or right here, just opinions. And as I pointed out those opinions will define how you chose to interpret 'rule' 3, once again, there is no misinterpretation, just interpretations different than yours.
Whether or not the majority agrees with my point of view or not is little of my concern. The same for whether or not you think you (or anyone else who agrees with you) understand(s) the game (and it's history) so much better than me. All I see is that in all your posts you try to include some underhanded subtle insult. Therefore I see no point in continuing to explain my views. |
|
torquemada wrote
at 2:03 PM, Wednesday November 4, 2009 EST Well said Vermont.
|
