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 1:49 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST skrumgaer, the first line of that Wiki article says "In linguistics, transitivity is a property of verbs that relates to whether a verb can take *direct objects*." We don't have to go to Wikipedia, either: the dictionary at answers.com, for "transitive" says: "Grammar. Expressing an action carried from the subject to the object; requiring a *direct object* to complete meaning."
In any case, it's a minor point. I'm willing to drop it. Flag, skrum. ;-) |
|
Vermont wrote
at 7:12 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Pat, you're absolutely correct! Good players will find ways to milk a situation for all it's worth. Good chat box skills do wonders for scoring a player points regardless of any other k-ethics.
|
|
savif wrote
at 7:42 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST i usually don't reply to posts but i really have to this time:
lately i kinda get the feeling that some players think that kdice "belongs" to them cause they have longer history here. therefor they believe that kdice should continue to be the way it used to be all the time. all of those players tend to forget something - kdice is no longer the nice little nighbourhood it used to be, it expanded and now there are 1000's of players around who wants to play and i think that this is what ryan is intersted in cause this way it might get him more MONEY (which is, sad as it may sound, the one and only reason this game exists). i guess that what i am trying to say is that kdice is evolving all the time: old unwritten rules are changing wheather we like it or not, changes that are supposed to solve one problem cause another and players are adjusting their way of playing all the time according to this evolution. the buttom line is that all those post about "how things should be or meant to be and how they became" or "how kdice sucks today" are a bunch of crap. THERE IS NO WAY TO STOP CHANGES FROM HAPPENING when there are so many players around - just adjust to them or play the way you want - trying to fight those changes with more words is pretty much wasting time. |
|
|
savif wrote
at 7:43 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST i usually don't reply to posts but i really have to this time:
lately i kinda get the feeling that some players think that kdice "belongs" to them cause they have longer history here. therefor they believe that kdice should continue to be the way it used to be all the time. all of those players tend to forget something - kdice is no longer the nice little nighbourhood it used to be, it expanded and now there are 1000's of players around who wants to play and i think that this is what ryan is intersted in cause this way it might get him more MONEY (which is, sad as it may sound, the one and only reason this game exists). i guess that what i am trying to say is that kdice is evolving all the time: old unwritten rules are changing wheather we like it or not, changes that are supposed to solve one problem cause another and players are adjusting their way of playing all the time according to this evolution. the buttom line is that all those post about "how things should be or meant to be and how they became" or "how kdice sucks today" are a bunch of crap. THERE IS NO WAY TO STOP CHANGES FROM HAPPENING when there are so many players around - just adjust to them or play the way you want - trying to fight those changes with more words is pretty much wasting time. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 8:17 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Savif, I think you've mistakenly lumped me in with the group of players that just dictate that Ryan should bring old versions of the game back. This post was certainly not made to impose the 'old way' but to help ease the tensions around flagging.
This blog entry, as I mentioned in it, was because most of the negative review leaving and frustration with the game comes from different opinions on flagging. This is actually more common from the newer players and lower-table players, as the higher table players have typically (not always) played more/longer and have a more consistent understanding of the situation among themselves. I don't think you can argue those points - it's readily apparent after looking through players' reviews, although perhaps there is a more valid reason why it happens so often. I'd be curious to hear if you have an alternate suggestion. As I mentioned at the beginning of the post most of the frustration comes from people that don't know why Ryan added the flags to the game and why he changed them the way he did. It's great to say the game has evolved - half this post actually focused on the evolution itself. I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to stop change from happening. This was just an attempt to help establish a consensus to reduce frustration with the game. Did you not read this part: "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." I give no preference to any of the flagging systems as I did not want to open that can of worms. I'd be happy to explain my preferences but stirring up that mess in this post wouldn't really be beneficial, and like I said, Ryan won't be changing it, so what's the point? I certainly never said anything about kdice being crap. Beating down words I never said is sort of a lousy tactic. I happen to like kdice a great deal and only want to see it improve. And if Ryan's goal, as you say, is to expand and make more money, my attempts to reduce frustration and negative review leaving should be viewed as a good thing. (Have you ever given Ryan any money?) Please, next time rather than arguing against points I never made, try to be more constructive. For example, I have a great deal of respect for the brain who has at least been attempting to have a cogent discussion, even if we disagree. |
|
dasfury wrote
at 8:18 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST ITT:
- Verms feeds an insatiable troll. - skrum and qrs argue over the validity of wikipedia articles - progress towards educating the masses on the lameness of the vflag = 0 |
|
Mishel wrote
at 8:19 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST vflags sucks :)
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:41 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST qrs:
We seem to have two sources of equal weight: wikipedia and answers.com (or wikianswers, which doesn't seem to be the same as wikipedia) who have conflicting statements. So we have p and not p implies q. When all else fails, check the little white box. |
|
|
savif wrote
at 9:30 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST verm,
i think i was not clear enough in my last reply which led you to write back what you wrote. as you said, your post is going along with evolving and is more trying to help people around, but yet it tries to set rules which i think should not be set at all. in a way you can say that kdice has its own life now and setting some rules doesn't effect it at all - its the crowd that sets those rules all the time and each and everyone has the right to play the way he (or she) likes. so i am sorry if i offended you in any way - i know you care and love kdice, just try not to determine what is right and what is wrong. let the people vote - u might be surprised but they are smart (well most of them are...) |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 9:42 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Thanks for the reasonable response (and what you said in chat as well.) Based on the number of people that posted here agreeing I'd say the votes are coming in and most do agree with my stance.
Perhaps rule was a bad choice of word as a couple people have assumed it's an breakable rule of the game. I was using one of the other definitions yu could think of them more as rules of thumb or guidelines if that helps you to understand what I was getting at. |
