Im ok with 2nd

...or with + points

To detenmile: i think you missed my point. as you found out yourself, everyone has the same set of weapons. you think it would be easy to kill noobish players because they make noobish mistakes like overextending or two-basing. By process of natural selection, these players are kept at the lower tables until they figure out rational playing. what i am referring to and what this thread is about is players that dont make serious mistakes (regularly) but perpetuate bad game ethics. they flag early instead of fighting, they dont know when the right time to flag has come, they have no feel for truces and counters, they bitch in horrible english when they lose a game, overall they dont take a reasonable approach to the game.

my points is, i'd rather have a kdice where epic battles are fought and the loser can happily say gg because it was fun to let the dice decide the outcome, not some round 2 flag by a 10-dice player.

To sam: flagging for position works out for me, i dont think we should go back to old-style flagging. flags in round 8 is good, too. sure, it was fun once and again to prevent a ninja flag but it was also annoying to being fucked over by a ninja. monthly resets are fine by me as well. remember when rnd got 2nd or 3rd by playing like 4 games in a month, because he didnt get reset? and for god's sake, dont change the new dom system. it disencourages farming, but still rewards appropriately.

"Some form of permanant score, like ELO. There should be a way to recognize people for maintaining success and encourage them to maintain that long term success. " ---> we have all-time leaderboards for that. (http://kdice.com/careerStat)

To moondust, no, we dont need more advisors. let the players handle their problems. power corrupts, i thought we all agreed on that already. and which top player would give up his playing rights just so he can ban some players once in a while?


what we need is stronger incentives for trying to get 1st. "most wins" stat in the leader board is a good start, there should be a medal for that category.

i think more like highest win % should be the category. but with a cutoff at about 30-50 games

Ok, I think I actually pretty much agree with you Captain LAGER, even though I am a new guy.

What you are against, it seems, is not v flagging in general, but v flagging early, when the winner is not yet determined.

And that I agree with. It is really annoying when the situation is developing to what could be a dynamic and interesting game, and then a strong 2nd and 3rd/4th flag to 1st in round 4.

Something I disagree with however, is if in later game 2nd and 3rd truce up to beat a strong 1st, instead of flagging to him and fighting for 2nd among themselves.

Lager, to me a Moderator has not the same function as an Advisor.

The Moderator is the guy who bans people for inappropriate behavior (what fiero did last year).

The Advisor tries to spot flaws in the game as a whole and helps to develop the game by making useful suggestions how to improve it. (what sam and vermont did earlier in this thread)


You complained that there has been something wrong with the game recently and I tell you that it is not the new people who are responsible for things like vflags, but it is the game itself.
Vflags have actually been the result of the strange layout of some tournament maps and were transfered from there to the regular tables.


Ryan pointed out himself (look at my former post or the log for Feb.) that he hasn't the resources to spot certain flaws.
The solution to this would be the introduction of one or two new advisors (preferably experienced players who have been around for some time), who are allowed to keep in touch with Ryan from time to time, so that he can implement their suggestions.


Does that sound better?

lager the only way your problem can be fixed then is by eliminating the points all together. which isnt a bad idea at all. then you can have tables based on win % instead of points. But as long as vflagging is a efficient way of acquiring points ( which it is and i dont think that can really even be disputed ). i do agree that there are many players who dont know when a battle is lost and as a result the flag to early. and that is very annoying, but at the same time everybody is guilty of this at one point or another. keep in mind you old schoolers have been playing for like 2 0r three years together and you all`should have a pretty good idea about when to flag and when not too.
as for people being afraid to counter. it depends on what you goal in this game is, and what makes this game fun for you. i am all for forming counters, but if i where to be playing strictly for points i might just try to weasel a 3rd out of the situation by joining the original truce. or if as a counter the odds are favorable that we will win and i will benifit from it im all for it. however since i couldnt care less about points you can guarantee that i will always be on the countering side.

Moondust, it IS about the players. I will start a list of names in my profile, not as a PGE list, but as examples for my OP.

Old guy here, I still love the game, but pay as a member to a) support the site, b) keep me off the 0 tables with the noobs. I don't have the time to get into the top 100, I only play about 100 games a month. If you're a fair player you might get respect at the top tables, but I think the "club" atmosphere on the 2K tables has improved.
Bottom line is the game is still fun to play.

This game will always be predicated on vflags and PGA undertones.