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
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 41 - 48 of 48
PreGameAlly wrote
at 12:38 PM, Wednesday June 18, 2008 EDT @Dudeface:
Your scenario is just multiplayer dynamics. What you're implying is that you don't like the social/alliance aspect of the game. You could have: 1) Tried to truce your enemy with the common "let's stop killing each other" or "let's take care of teal first" suggestions. 2) Tried to truce the winner of the other fight or somehow get him on your side, e.g., "I've left you alone / helped you, teal" (if true), "I'll flag 2nd to you, teal" 3) Worked to position yourself so that it's harder for the 3rd player to attack you, and easier for him to attack your opponent. If they only had 1 place to attack you but 3 or 4 to attack the other player, it's more likely they'll attack the other guy. 4) Be more social throughout the game--I think it's generally true that people will attack the silent guy over the one that's talking, all else being equal. ...or many other things. The point being that flagging really isn't the issue in your scenario, and you can choose to work with the system and rules rather than just complaining about them because they don't match your preferred playing style. If you want a "every man for themselves", "everyone goes for the leader" version of kdice without flags or other social complications, then dice wars is for you. |
Vermont wrote
at 8:20 PM, Wednesday June 18, 2008 EDT Grun, thanks for soliciting community input on this. I think that's a pretty reasonable way to go.
My take is that flags are nothing more than an indication to the player above you that you cannot beat them, nothing more. They should not be used as a 'defense.' The player above still has full rights to kill you or anyone else. However, everything else being equal, it would typically make more sense for them to kill an unflagged player. I tend to agree with players like Bone Roller that like the ability to flag for any place (that you are at or lower.) Putting players in a situation where they have to sit out for three turns to leave a game is just silly. Another part of the problem is that many top players will use any trick they can to win, and given the current flagging system, even if they think it is silly to not attacked flagged players, they will certainly use that as a defense if they think it will keep them alive. It's all well and good to try and change the attitude rather than the system, but as we've seen time and time again in kdice and in life, people will do what they can to get ahead. This is a competition after all, even if not everyone plays it as such. Expecting people to not be competitive because they are trying to play against the system isn't reasonable. My two cents. |
ProxyCheater wrote
at 1:25 PM, Monday June 23, 2008 EDT Here's a situation I've run into a few times. I'm in 2nd place, and weaker players around me start flagging. I have a choice - respect the flags and take 2nd, or keep growing by not respecting the flag and have a better shot at winning the game.
I see nothing wrong with not respecting the flag in that situation. I should be able to go for the win and not be violating some rule of flag etiquette. Certainly I'm not going to be happy if I'm the weaker guy in that situation, and there's no reason that guy (and the 1st place player) shouldn't retaliate (gets murky when 1st and 2nd are truced). However, it's usually where the weaker guy is not in a position to fight back, usually it's quite the opposite - small stacks next to bigger ones where the 2nd place player can grow easily and catch up to the 1st place player. If on the other hand, the 2nd place player is already flagged 2nd, or if the winner already has the game locked and the only reason the 2nd place player is taking spaces is to steal dom, then I think that would be wrong. Bottom line is that I don't think a player needs to respect flags if it means taking a lower place in order to do so. |
mccan532 wrote
at 11:35 PM, Monday June 23, 2008 EDT I understand the reasons for flags, but come on this game is about winning. The amount of games i play nowadays where everyone down to 5th has flagged. I think the best way to describe tactics just to get the most points is "LimpDick Tactics". It used to be fun when all the little guys all turn on the guy dominating, and somehow manage to win. Now people are too scared to take on the big guys and flag out.
I have never flagged and never will, i will always prefer to try and win. Either by mutually beneficial allciances or my own tactics. Remember this is supposed to be a game about winning and domination, not being the school yard wimp who cuddles up to the bully! |
Mr.Wrong Bet wrote
at 7:21 PM, Tuesday June 24, 2008 EDT No respect fopr flag pussies unless they actually earn their place..not if they pussie out in order to win from stronger opponents..
it happens alot..people flag very soon in the game...in order to win points and not be attacked..PUSSIES |
mccan532 wrote
at 10:33 PM, Tuesday June 24, 2008 EDT OK my hate for flags has gone up a whole new level. i just played a game that ended in 3 rounds because everyone flagged as soon as one person got a decent start! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
I used to love this game, now its just all about the points, who cares about points! seriously this used to be about tactics, cutting people and trying to win. Now people see one big stack, flag, and dont even try to win. one word PATHETIC !!!!!! |
Chomsky wrote
at 1:25 AM, Friday June 27, 2008 EDT Recent Game:
4 players, 2 weak (one of which is flagged 3), 2 strong. I grow and brown is my rival 11 to 9. All 8stacks and brown attacks once, loses, and flags. Would i be within my right (and maybe my duty) to max my dom and extend the game, taking browns spots? |
cheersmates wrote
at 12:06 PM, Wednesday July 1, 2009 EDT Bone-Roller... I like your point of view, I just wonder how many times a 1st place player will get gang-raped by everyone for "not respecting the flag" of a player who's lands are keeping me from definitively keeping my 1st place position...
"""As to respecting flags, they are not a guaranteed protection. If I am in first and am blocked by a flagged player from attacking or intimidating someone who is currently in 2nd or 3rd, I may need to kill or decapitate the flagged player in order to ensure my 1st. It is unfortunate, but in such a case the flagged player will have to be ruined. Also, a player who takes territories from me and then flags will almost always be killed first and will be given the lowest possible placement. On the other hand, a strong second who concedes to me will almost always be rewarded, even up to allowing that player to eat some of my territories in order to bolster their dom. And yes, it is a given that truces ALWAYS trump flags. Loyalty must be encouraged and rewarded."""" |