Forum
Respecting Flags
Posted By: Grunvagr at 9:28 AM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT
***This post is subject to change, depending on the community reaction***
Not all flags need to be immediately respected. If you are the leader, consider the flag as a request for mercy, at which point you can choose to respect it or not.
- When is it polite kdice etiquette to respect a flag?
If someone has 8 stacks (especially) and is on the fringe of the board, has more lands than someone else on the board, and gives their flag and promise to not hit you.
(There are other examples: but generally, the player should have SOME tall stack on the board still, and thus a valid reason to at least put in a plea for mercy, instead of three lands with 2 stacks, for example)
- When is it okay to ignore a flag?
If someone has been fighting you all game (draining your lands, dice count and opportunity to win)... and they flag suddenly. ESPECIALLY if they are flagging after either:
1) attacking you with an 8v7 and losing (killing their chance to win).
2) attacking elsewhere, and leaving nothing but 1 and 2 stacks everywhere... (next to your 6+ stacks)
KEY NOTE: I would advise that you should always try to respect a flag so as to not wipe someone off the board COMPLETELY.
(unless you need to go through them to relink, or are rewarding an ally with place)
***Generally, use common sense***
If teal has 2 eigh stacks on the corner of the map and flags... and blue has one 5 stack - conquers two lands and flags next to your 8 stacks. Honestly, think about it. Does he deserve to place over teal? It's a ninja move, in essence, and you can make the call as to respect the flag or not. (I would 8v4, etc and mop up, but again, it is UP to you).
Just realize that not all flags need to be respected 100% immediately. A flag is a REQUEST for mercy, not 100% immunization from all attacks (otherwise it would be coded in the game that way). A flag isn't the equivalent of the immunity idol on "Survivor" if you catch my drift.
___________________________________________
Below is a message from Ryan, while discussing the flagging system, and how we can make it better:
"Honestly, I believe the currently flagging is the most balanced. Let's consider the different types of flagging:
1) No flags. Players battle until one player has every territory. Problem: games get draw out and last 1 hour. Even if 2nd has given up 1st must still keep rolling to win. This is the original reason for flags - to end the game quicker when the outcome has already been determined.
2) If everyone, except 1st, flags then the game ends. This was a good flagging system and lasted quite a while. The problem with it is you could farm dominance very easily and you could ninja flag. For example, 3 players left, 3rd doesn't want to flag, 1st wants more dominance points, 2nd flags. 1st has more incentive to attack 2nd. Ninja flagging meant if you were the last to flag you could make a couple of attacks on your turn, gain position and flag to end the game at a higher position.
3) Instant flagging. We tried having flags to make you instantly leave the game. The problem is that if you're in last and you know another higher player can flag then you'll probably wait. The outcome was that in many games people would wait until you had 3 or 4 players down to 1 or 2 territories - the player in first laughing and gaining dominance. This was frustrating.
4) Position flagging. This flagging fixes the problem with the previous type, lower players know that higher players can't flag out and will flag when they know they are finished. It also fixes ninja flagging - once you flag you can only flag for lower positions. If two players flag for a position they have to fight it out, negotiate, or the server determines the higher player based on territories and dice. It also acts as a contract with higher players and solves the problem of higher players farming. Higher players know that a flagged player can't unflag and isn't a threat.
The problem with #4 thats being mention in my opinion is small compared to the problems that it solves. People respect flags too much. End game negotiations is part of the game and has been with every type of flagging. The real problem is that the current flagging is so easy that we have become lazy with it, use it a lot, and accept most outcomes. The better players will realize this and use flagging to get the best outcomes and this will include not respecting all flags.
With all this said, the problem I think that needs to be solved, and has existed in previous versions of flagging, is to make sure everyone knows that flagging is not a sure thing. If it were it would be enforced in the game. Since flagging for 2nd doesn't always mean you get 2nd it means that its not a hard "rule" and is open to using however you like as a strategic tool. Of course when someone doesn't respect your flag you're going to get upset, but this is part of the game like getting upset when several players decide to focus on attacking you - its part of the game. When people complain about not respecting flags you can point them here - or maybe an advisor can write a blog post about respecting flags.
I think it helps to consider the history of flagging to understand where it's at. If you have suggestions for improvement please volunteer them."
_________________________________________
Grun's Commentary:
Play the game and have fun. Remember that the point is to WIN the game and have fun. Don't flag in round 3 because someone has an 8 stack. Try the chatbox to change the course of events or understand that 8v5s DO defend, and then there you are, poised to win the game and you can get no higher than 2nd due to premature flagging.
PS: Below is a relevant link.
http://kdice.com/discussion/topics/44760615?page=5
Not all flags need to be immediately respected. If you are the leader, consider the flag as a request for mercy, at which point you can choose to respect it or not.
- When is it polite kdice etiquette to respect a flag?
If someone has 8 stacks (especially) and is on the fringe of the board, has more lands than someone else on the board, and gives their flag and promise to not hit you.
(There are other examples: but generally, the player should have SOME tall stack on the board still, and thus a valid reason to at least put in a plea for mercy, instead of three lands with 2 stacks, for example)
- When is it okay to ignore a flag?
If someone has been fighting you all game (draining your lands, dice count and opportunity to win)... and they flag suddenly. ESPECIALLY if they are flagging after either:
1) attacking you with an 8v7 and losing (killing their chance to win).
2) attacking elsewhere, and leaving nothing but 1 and 2 stacks everywhere... (next to your 6+ stacks)
KEY NOTE: I would advise that you should always try to respect a flag so as to not wipe someone off the board COMPLETELY.
(unless you need to go through them to relink, or are rewarding an ally with place)
***Generally, use common sense***
If teal has 2 eigh stacks on the corner of the map and flags... and blue has one 5 stack - conquers two lands and flags next to your 8 stacks. Honestly, think about it. Does he deserve to place over teal? It's a ninja move, in essence, and you can make the call as to respect the flag or not. (I would 8v4, etc and mop up, but again, it is UP to you).
Just realize that not all flags need to be respected 100% immediately. A flag is a REQUEST for mercy, not 100% immunization from all attacks (otherwise it would be coded in the game that way). A flag isn't the equivalent of the immunity idol on "Survivor" if you catch my drift.
___________________________________________
Below is a message from Ryan, while discussing the flagging system, and how we can make it better:
"Honestly, I believe the currently flagging is the most balanced. Let's consider the different types of flagging:
1) No flags. Players battle until one player has every territory. Problem: games get draw out and last 1 hour. Even if 2nd has given up 1st must still keep rolling to win. This is the original reason for flags - to end the game quicker when the outcome has already been determined.
2) If everyone, except 1st, flags then the game ends. This was a good flagging system and lasted quite a while. The problem with it is you could farm dominance very easily and you could ninja flag. For example, 3 players left, 3rd doesn't want to flag, 1st wants more dominance points, 2nd flags. 1st has more incentive to attack 2nd. Ninja flagging meant if you were the last to flag you could make a couple of attacks on your turn, gain position and flag to end the game at a higher position.
3) Instant flagging. We tried having flags to make you instantly leave the game. The problem is that if you're in last and you know another higher player can flag then you'll probably wait. The outcome was that in many games people would wait until you had 3 or 4 players down to 1 or 2 territories - the player in first laughing and gaining dominance. This was frustrating.
4) Position flagging. This flagging fixes the problem with the previous type, lower players know that higher players can't flag out and will flag when they know they are finished. It also fixes ninja flagging - once you flag you can only flag for lower positions. If two players flag for a position they have to fight it out, negotiate, or the server determines the higher player based on territories and dice. It also acts as a contract with higher players and solves the problem of higher players farming. Higher players know that a flagged player can't unflag and isn't a threat.
The problem with #4 thats being mention in my opinion is small compared to the problems that it solves. People respect flags too much. End game negotiations is part of the game and has been with every type of flagging. The real problem is that the current flagging is so easy that we have become lazy with it, use it a lot, and accept most outcomes. The better players will realize this and use flagging to get the best outcomes and this will include not respecting all flags.
With all this said, the problem I think that needs to be solved, and has existed in previous versions of flagging, is to make sure everyone knows that flagging is not a sure thing. If it were it would be enforced in the game. Since flagging for 2nd doesn't always mean you get 2nd it means that its not a hard "rule" and is open to using however you like as a strategic tool. Of course when someone doesn't respect your flag you're going to get upset, but this is part of the game like getting upset when several players decide to focus on attacking you - its part of the game. When people complain about not respecting flags you can point them here - or maybe an advisor can write a blog post about respecting flags.
I think it helps to consider the history of flagging to understand where it's at. If you have suggestions for improvement please volunteer them."
_________________________________________
Grun's Commentary:
Play the game and have fun. Remember that the point is to WIN the game and have fun. Don't flag in round 3 because someone has an 8 stack. Try the chatbox to change the course of events or understand that 8v5s DO defend, and then there you are, poised to win the game and you can get no higher than 2nd due to premature flagging.
PS: Below is a relevant link.
http://kdice.com/discussion/topics/44760615?page=5
jss wrote
at 11:14 AM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT I see flagging as "I want to truce with you, number one", with the added benefit that the game will enforce it so long as you remain in first place. I will only attack people who are flagged if I need to in order to stay ahead. I guess you'd see this as rewarding bad behavior. But if someone offers to not attack me, I see no reason not to take them up on their offer.
|
Johnson213 wrote
at 11:14 AM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT lol, what does the fact that I am not hot have to do with anything femme?
|
Thraxle wrote
at 1:01 PM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT I agree that truces should trump flags, but not ALWAYS. If you truce with someone who eventually gets decimated during the game and is down to 2 or 3 territories............meanwhile you were able to win most of the board and control 20 territories............and in 2nd place lies someone with ten 8-stacks..........this is the time that the alliance must end and the proper order of the game should ensue. The player with 2 or 3 stacks should flag for 3rd or be eliminated by the original ally. The player in 2nd "deserves" that posistion and earned it during the game. If the player currently in 3rd is as severely outmatched as I have described, then they should get 3rd, without the player in 1st blatently defending the origianl ally until the rightful 2nd place finisher is farmed out to 3rd.
|
Thraxle wrote
at 1:39 PM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT I think the best option for eliminating the unwanted byproducts of flagging is to allow ONLY the player in last place to flag at any point during the game. In other words, when there are 7 players at the table only the player in 7th can "resign". When there are 6 players remaining only the player in 6th can "resign", and so on and so on........
This would eliminate early flagging for high positions, increasing the competitiveness for 1st in all games. It will not slow down the game at all. It will eliminate the incessant complaining about who did or did not respect a flag. It will not allow for farming any more than the current flagging system allows. This method has nothing but upsides. Just a thought........let me know if anyone else likes this idea. |
FemmeFatale wrote
at 3:04 PM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT I've thought about that too Thraxle. I think its an excellent idea. Althought people are still gonna say "I surrender to 1st" and get mad when they are attacked.
|
nuflis wrote
at 6:17 PM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT Thraxle, that was the former "instaflag", it worked well for me.
|
Thraxle wrote
at 6:33 PM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT That is fine Femme, I prefer that the chatbox be used to form in-game alliances. But I think this method of flagging will induce more attacking and more competition to win individual games, while still maintaining the integrity of the points system.
|
Thraxle wrote
at 6:35 PM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT So this method has been used here before???
Or are you referring to the old method where you can flag and resign at any time during the game? What I am proposing only allows "last place" to flag, but I haven't been around here long, so I don't know if this method has been used before. |
manbearpig wrote
at 10:31 PM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT Flags are always kinda tricky with me. I almost always respect them, though, so as to keep from getting a bad reputation/PGEs. However, I am more of a socializer than a player, so I am rather biased.
Also, I believe honoring truces should come before honoring flags 95% of the time. Some situations, such as that mentioned by Thraxle, make up the other 5%. |
OviloN wrote
at 6:17 AM, Monday June 9, 2008 EDT Imo flagging means: I am fighting for position x and I'm no danger for player x+|y|. :]
|