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.
|
savif wrote
at 10:01 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST by the term "vote" i was refering rather to playing and not to the replies here.
p.s. correct me if i'm wrong but the majority of the replies that agree with you are coming from those players with long history in kdice that i mentioned earlier so i wouldn't take that as a real voting. :) |
|
qrs wrote
at 10:01 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST ^aargh, getting dragged back into it...
1) The sources don't conflict: Wikipedia specifically says "direct object", as I quoted. Answers.com was an additional source. 2) Answers.com is not a wiki (even though it is owned by wikianswers.com); it collates answers from various sources. Its dictionary is the American Heritage Dictionary. I should have made that clear before. 3) You can check any other dictionary you like: they *all* say direct object. That's the definition. 4) I feel silly prolonging this discussion, which was a side point even to your original post and certainly to this thread, and I'm sorry for keeping it going after I said I wouldn't, but I felt misrepresented by your last post. ___________________________ OK, back on topic, if only to make me feel better about posting irrelevant things in this thread: Here's a possible dilemma arising from treating vflags as a truce. Suppose yellow flags to brown. Yellow is the one who offered, but a counter will affect brown as well. Even if brown doesn't accept the flag for fear of the counter, he still knows the flag has been offered, and it may well be in his self-interest to honor it, at least tacitly. By the same token, everyone else knows this as well, so they will very possibly continue their counter even if Brown tries to sit the fence. Perhaps the only way out is for Brown to attack Yellow, but then he is forced to do something he may not have wanted to do. In fact, to put it flatly, trucing is generally a good thing for the allying sides (if they are stronger than any opposing alliance), no matter what occasions the truce. This is why PGAs are so strong (and so condemned) and for this reason, "counter" needs to be no more than an excuse to ally--there's little reason for the "counter-alliance" to abandon their understanding once they have it. Maybe something else to consider. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 11:07 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST grs:
The Wikipedia article used the direct object as a test of transitivity, not a requirement of transitivity. The answers.com lists the american heritage dictionary as one of its four sources, but doesn't indicate which of the four is used for what. If all the dictionaries say the same, why not give some citations from them? Why should answers.com be a better source than Wikipedia? Remember, you can always check the little white box. |
|
the brain wrote
at 11:21 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Vermont, the only way you could proof superiority of your viewpoint is by providing a rather elaborate statistical analysis in which you'd proof that (always/often) countering an early vflag would yield more points than (not always/less often) countering (if I'm not mistaken that is what we've been arguing about, but it's easy to lose track..).
Sadly for you, such a proof is impossible in practice (only theoretically you could explore every path through the 2.8*10^52 game states (given 30 lands and 7 players) and analyze expected yields). Not to mention that you'd have to know values for things that cannot be known, such as how often a counter will actually be formed succesfully and the skill/playing style of the players involved. Any assumptions you'd make to attempt to proof it will be invariably based on your opinion of what the result should be. Making up statistics, as you did in reply to DanRathers, is just plain silly. So yes, given there is no way to proof any superiority, it remains all about opinions. The reason I started discussing in the first place was your tactless response to DanRathers. The point? Well, firstly it is simply making it known that your opinion is not the only one. Secondly, I'd say there is some value in pointing out that this is indeed about opinions, not facts. |
|
|
qrs wrote
at 11:25 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Wikipedia: "In linguistics, transitivity is a property of verbs that relates to whether a verb can take direct objects."
--a definition, not a test. American Heritage (answers.com): "Expressing an action carried from the subject to the object; requiring a direct object to complete meaning." Merriam-Webster (m-w.com): "characterized by having or containing a direct object". Is that enough citations? I want to check the little white box, but it won't let me when I'm in 1st. Maybe I'll just lag out. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 11:59 AM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST "Wikipedia: "In linguistics, transitivity is a property of verbs that relates to whether a verb can take direct objects."
--a definition, not a test. " "Relates to" is a test, not a definition. Taking a direct object is a sufficient condition for transitivity. MW's 3rd edition general definition is "passing over and taking effect" which is met is there is a direct object. If we had little colored boxes we could check on of which if we wanted to create a disability with regard to another player, the definition of transitivity would be met, but we only have the white box, which creates only a disability for the person who checks it, so there is no transitivity. So you might as well check the little white box. |
|
Vermont wrote
at 12:06 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Brain, I appreciate that you once again did not respond to the fact that you repeatedly misquoted me. Nice.
You also still won't enough concede that your assessment could be incorrect, or at least could be improved upon. I certainly have done so, both in posts and by updating the original entry. You keep stating I think my opinion is the only one, when I have been willing to change mine based on the input of others. It's tough to have a discussion when you continually cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the ones you don't. I assume you understand the distinctions I pointed out in my last post to you, but you do not acknowledge them in any way. And if you really think that you fare as well in games where opponents do not fight each other as often, and would need a full statistical analysis to believe it, there's not much we can discuss. Would you also need a full statistical analysis to believe that connecting and getting more dice is better than not, generally speaking? That winning rolls is better than losing rolls, almost always? That being on a border is better than being in the middle? Many attributes of the game can be agreed upon by all but the most mundane even though none of them have had a full statistical analysis performed on them (unless skrum has one he hasn't told us about.) You can certainly assert you have a right to your opinion and stand by it. I'll just chose to believe it is inconsistent with what most players come to realize in a short time. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 12:12 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST And, unless I'm missing something, your math is off as well. There is no mechanism to automatically end the game such as timer, round limit, or lack of territory taking (comparable to the fifty move rule in chess.)
Barring an external action like a server reboot, the game could go on ad infinitum. |
|
|
the brain wrote
at 1:05 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Comparing a complex situation like organizing a counter with a much simpler one like connecting territories is quite useless (one could probably construct at least a partial proof for the latter that uses the fact that more dice means higher rolls). That said, it would be amazingly easy to construct a counterexample where connecting is not likely to be the optimal strategy. Just as it would be easy to give an example where a counter will not help you (sitting in the back with a large stack not connected to the people you counter).
Still, the situations remain similar in that you cannot disprove anyone who claims the opposite, nor proof it yourself. Hence you cannot claim superiority of your viewpoint, as you did before. This has nothing to do with the amount of proof I need to be convinced of something, it is merely designed to set you straight. On a sidenote, my math is perfectly fine. I mentioned roughly 2.8*10^52 game states (i.e. unique setups of the board, (7*8)^30, not considering neutral territories). The amount of paths through it is theoretically infinite, but if you have noticed my brainteaser posted a couple of months ago, the infiniteness is not necessarily a burden in obtaining winning chances because eventually every path becomes a loop (if all else fails monte carlo simulation could be applied). The size of the problem, however, is a big burden. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 1:28 PM, Thursday November 5, 2009 EST Again, you fail to respond to the points made previously. If you can't acknowledge they are valid, fine. I'll let them go from here on out.
Secondly, pointing out the exception does not prove me wrong as I already took that into account in my statement. Sure, it's occasionally better to not connect or to lose a roll, but everyone understands that it is generally preferable. It's what we all look to do on our first turn if it's available. Your constructing a counter example does nothing since I already allowed that in a minority of the cases it would be the better play ("generally speaking" and "almost always" clearly allow for the smaller cases.) Again, please respond accurately. Overstating my case to knock it down, as you keep doing, is unreasonable. Re the math, you can't solely factor in board combinations but also would need to analyze the amount of dice on each territory (and any bonus dice a player has.) Also, I didn't say there were infinite game states, but that the game could go on infinitely. Again, I would think you would understand that distinction. 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 as you stated but that doesn't mean I cannot argue one viewpoint's superiority. Again, I trust you can understand that distinction. |
