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.
|
Vermont wrote
at 3:17 PM, Wednesday November 4, 2009 EST brain, I never said you MUST be wrong. Those are your words. I merely suggested that when faced with significant evidence you should consider that you may be wrong. 'Consider/may' are far different than 'must,' so don't put words in my mouth. It does not foster honest discussion.
And you really don't think listening to a large number of people on a topic, that have more experience than you on said topic, is of value? (ie "little of no concern", to quote you.) How do learn things from people more knowledgeable than you? I responded directly to each paragraph you quoted giving rational (in my opinion) arguments. In turn, you responded indirectly without addressing the points being argued. I have conceded points in this discussion on flagging and made multiple updates to my blog entry when people have pointed out valid reasons for doing so. Do you really think all viewpoints on any topic are equally correct? That's a pretty obvious logical fallacy you may want to read up on. There are many sources, so here's one at random: http://skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php A key part for you: "Recruiting the ‘I’m entitled to my opinion’ stance in any debate is functionally equivalent to saying, ‘I am entitled to be wrong!’ Entitlements do not establish truth. Human entitlements and rights are irrelevant to a scientific debate based on facts, evidence and reason." |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 3:36 PM, Wednesday November 4, 2009 EST Stupid forum. Meh.
|
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 3:55 PM, Wednesday November 4, 2009 EST Let's try this again. I curious to see if it will work this way.
"Recruiting the "I'm entitled to my opinion" stance in any debate is functionally equivalent to saying, "I am entitled to be wrong!" Entitlements do not establish truth. Human entitlements and rights are irrelevant to a scientific debate based on facts, evidence and reason." |
|
the brain wrote
at 3:58 PM, Wednesday November 4, 2009 EST Once again ignoring that there is no right or wrong here. There are merely opinions on what to do in some situation. Logical fallacies only apply in situations where someone is trying to proof something to be true, which I'm not.
The only real statement I made that could be right or wrong is that your rule 3 is ambiguous, for which I provided proof. But if you really believe there to be a wrong here, you might wanna read up on this fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Or perhaps the assumption that everyone is more experienced/knowledgable than me, which is ungrounded, and essentially saying "you have no authority" (the inverse of the appeal to authority, maybe this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) I stopped responding structurally because I'm not a fan of personal attacks (how subtle they may be), plus you continue to believe in an absolute truth that doesn't exist. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:03 PM, Wednesday November 4, 2009 EST grs:
The Wikipedia article you cite about transitivity does not say that transitive verbs take only a direct object. It merely says that the transitivity of a verb can be tested by trying to use it with a direct object. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 12:29 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Argumentum ad populum would apply if I was telling you that you were definitively wrong because many people thought you were, which I never said (and evidently must clarify again, for the third time I believe.)
I DID say that most reasonable people would consider that they may be wrong if a strong majority disagrees with them. That's a pretty rational response. I never said you MUST be wrong; that was you inaccurately quoting me and even adding emphasis inappropriately to make it easier to knock down the straw man. I also never argued that you had no knowledge, merely that you should recognize that there may be others that have more. Again, that's being pretty reasonable. If that's a personal attack in your view, so be it, but I'm personally willing to admit I'm not the most knowledgeable about pretty much everything, and it's not an attack on myself for me to listen to and learn from others. Again, that's a reasonable response. And if you read my post, I brought that up because you were refusing to consider that others may have a point, rather than to discourage your own. I believe you can appreciate that distinction. I think we have two key differences here. The first would be that I have actually acknowledged when others had a point and made updates to the initial entry correspondingly. You have stopped responding to particular avenues of discussion in the same situation when they don't bear fruit for you. The second would be in our view on flagging. If you want to believe we can have different views and both be correct, that's fine. In certain situations, such as favorite flavors of ice cream, that's a fine viewpoint to have. Your liking chocolate has no conflict with my liking vanilla. (Chocolate ftw, though.) However, if you really think all ideas are equally valid, why even have a discussion? If everyone's equally correct about a particular topic there is really no sense having a discussion about it. I never argued for an absolute but that doesn't mean I cannot argue one viewpoint's superiority. Again, I trust you can understand that distinction. I think you just got upset at the 'smarter' comment which ended up causing the discussion to become more antagonistic, but if you reread the line it was just in jest because your name is 'the brain.' My apologies if that also somehow seemed too hostile. I'd edit it out but I only have that ability on the original post. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 12:38 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST And the fact that qrs and skrum are having their own conversation here about transitive verbs is humorous. We are all learning!
|
|
Pat Whalen wrote
at 1:35 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Common KDice mentality:
"flag" = truce "truce" = alliance Whether this is good or bad is irrelevant as long as everyone realizes that this is the case. And as far as countering nonexistent truces, you basically invented it monte so you have no one to blame but yourself. lol. Your first rule is definitely the most commonly ignored. It has become common practice at this point to completely leave someone alone when they flag to you, or face negative comments or even an uprising. Rule #2 acknowledges one of the most annoying aspects of this game, when someone expands quickly after or right before vflagging, effectively stealing your position while being protected by the person who they are flagged to, who is to afraid to attack them. I especially like your 3rd rule, people definitely get away with this far to often. People need to realize that if a player flags to another player, that means the second player has one less person to deal with before he can come for you, which puts you at a disadvantage, and counter trucing is often the correct move. I absolutely agree with all of your points in principle Verms. However, regardless of what should happen, the game still always comes down to politics. This includes a couple things that are generally frowned upon but none the less are very effective tools. Bitching: whether it comes to bitching that someone is "disrespecting" your flag or preventing you from ninja flagging... it surprisingly works more often than not, and can be a very useful tool. Although, it makes you a really annoying person, and earns you some nice negative comments, trust me i know :) Reading People: If you feel like you could throw out an undeserved vflag and expand across half the board, stealing all the dom in the process, and the person you vflaged to will actually leave you alone, then go for it. If it works out then more power to you. If it doesn't work out at first refer back to bitching and maybe they'll stop eating you in time for you to still be better of than you would have been... Or even being able to assemble a counter truce against something that doesn't even exist, establishing yourself on the positive side of the standings, a maneuver which has been mastered by many, but never performed so eloquently as when monte did it. |
|
|
Pat Whalen wrote
at 1:47 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST to clarify: i was saying that in general practice a flag means the two players will not attack each other while a truce means they help each other out. Not sure how this came about, but it is definitely how it works out in most cases.
|
|
|
Pat Whalen wrote
at 1:49 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST to clarify: i was saying that in general practice a flag means the two players will not attack each other while a truce means they help each other out. Not sure how this came about, but it is definitely how it works out in most cases.
|
