Agree with 1 & 2, not three, but, Four could still work without three, just allowing you to regain the ability to stack dice.

sorry. but this time I have to disagree. so long other players are able to attack you while flagging, it should also be able to attack the other players.

we had a really good and intensive discussion on flagging some weeks ago. the conclusion of this thread was, that flagging is only a technical function (like you described it very well, kehm!), not more. flagging have got different meanings in different situations - you may flag save your position, you may flag according to the 1st and attack all unflagged, but you also may flag to rescue a 2nd place for your ally... or for whatever!

one thing I´m was really pissed of today, are some players who play this game as a single-player-"war game"... it´s a multiplayer game! and I enjoy this game by using it in all his consequences... also with the diplomatic part. but if you desroy your neighbour in the beginning, he couldn´t be a strong ally later... Cutting someone is a very important strategie - but not in all situations!

The goal is not only to capture so many lands as possible, but the goal is to defend them!
So attacking your neighbour and forcing him the same time to a counterstrike isn´t a real good strategie, so long both get weak by this insane attacks!

I totally agree with everything Kehm. You've got some great ideas there and have obviously thought about this. I'm sick of kdice games becoming a flagging contest.

Kdice should be a game of strategy, not a game of reflexes.

Well, not everyone does this flag fest so readily. I can at least speak for myself when I say that some people still fight to the end and are willing to lose a 2nd to a 3rd or worse for a shot at first. I gladly stretch out any game as long as possible - though lately I'm finding more and more people 3v1 or 4v1 me to get me to flag and it's quite discouraging.

I don't think changes to flagging should be made. Flagging is not surrendering, it is surrendering under the clause that the game ends as it is now IF everyone also flags, nothing more, nothing less.

Too many times i've heard "I flag" to ask for mercy, then 5 rounds later they are attacking you.

What should be done, is to tweak the scoring to reward first place more.

For instance, (ignore dom points for a moment)
1st = +16
2nd = +8
3rd = +4
4th = -1
5th = -4
6th = -8
7th = -16

just using this example, I think the scores should be weighted, so that 1st place gains more reward.

For instance:
1st = +20
2nd = +6
3rd = +2
4th = -1
5th = -4
6th = -8
7th = -16


I think that change would get more players to fight for first and have exciting endgames rather than a race to conquer lands, thicken to 8 stacks, take a land or two, then have a flagfest. Also, it's not a radical change, but simply reducing the gain of 3rd and 2nd a little to boost 1st place points.

Point is, the flag check has just became a huge joke, and a lot of games have became jokes, too.

For instance, 3 players battling out. One is stuck between the 2 others, but is leading. The 2 others will flag to him cause he "deserves to be first."

This nonsense is ridiculous and it's getting REALLY popular lately.

Unless Grun is playing cause he always aims for first :) I agree with you Grun, first should get the bonus it had in the sandbox when we tested domination.

1/3 1/3 1/3 was absolutely wonderful.

...so here we are.
Scoring for the game has been altered.
So now people can have only wild guesses about what their score will be like when they get out now or later...
...and thats where it allows flagfests...
I think the better way to deal with this is showing each player his own rating if the game ended just now. Its a dangerous thingy i would like to see tested in the sandbox but adjusting the gameplay effects of the white flag is least to say risky.

It all breaks down to this:
The more complex a system is the more possibilities emerge to use it to your personal favour. And be sure that people will do that.

I propose the show your own (and only your own) actual +-elo situation because it has no direct gameplay effect which limits the probable gameplay effects while helping the flag or not flag purpose.

just my 2 cents.

another point... I think this "flag fest" is only a temporary fashion. It will change during the next week.

Or do you still see the suicids like in the first weeks after the first reset???

But I would like to test MadWillys idea in the sandbox. I´m often surprised by my Dom-points - ifthey are to low as well if they are to high...

I am reluctant to flag if I think the number one player is beatable. I will identify that player by saying "[color] is beatable". Occasionaly the other players will agree. More often they don't. But with more opportunity to train them maybe I can turn more of them around. I suppose I have to play more games?

Yes, Kehm, Grun always plays for first, if I think I have a shot at it. And im reluctant to flag a game early. More than anything though, it's just a matter of peoples' playing styles.

It is normal lately to flag a game rounds 9 through early on and not really do much of the 8v8 endgames. People just need to change their mentality about playing more than anything. I don't know, I personally like to play the game for the game itself. Ratings do matter to me, a lot, since I usually have a pretty good one and am trying to protect it. But at the same rate, I hate games that are no fun to play (flagfests early).

As for willy's idea, I think that would worsen the situation, not help it. If players can constantly check to see what type of pointgain they will have there would be massive exploitation of that on the high tables. For instance, if the player with #1 rating sits in and sees he'll get +0 for a 4th place finish, he will very likely want to end the game right then and there, as that would be a +1 to score. It would simply be way too manipulable. Not to mention for people that cheat and pregame, they would then be able to maximize the pointgain for their allies, etc. I only see bad things coming from that idea, well intentioned as it is =P

Automatically unflagged by attacks is a cool idea and would make flagging more realistic, but imo would be more of a gameplay hassle than feature. The rest can already be done with the sit out button.


In the sandbox people were focusing too much on domination when they could see average size. A compromise to make it more understandable could be displaying detailed domination score when eliminated.

"Player X surrenders and finishes +11 for 2nd.
AS: 5.1, (-1,2,3,3,2,1), +10 adjustment for dominance
New Rank: 1155th Rating: +21 1797."

It's clutter but simple to compare with other players and understand what happened.