Forum
Flagging DOES NOT MEAN you WONT BE ATTACKED
|
Slarow wrote
at 8:44 PM, Saturday July 7, 2007 EDT
Im tired of all the whining. Flagging simply means you are comfortable ending the game where you are now. It does not mean that you WILL end the game where you are.
Scenario: I have a chance to win, but to do so i have to attack a flagged player. If i don't attack that player i will lose. I'm not going to give up on the game just because the flagged player has. Oh yeah, and another thing. If you flag and you have one territory, it actually HELPS you to get taken out, since your dominance is only going down the longer you have a single territory. |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 11 - 17 of 17
|
LAG monster wrote
at 8:32 PM, Tuesday July 10, 2007 EDT What the flag should mean is I flag I give up and want to finish the game in the position im in. If you're 5th then you should die in that position. Too many people flag and then everyone leaves them alone and they finish 2nd or 3rd.
|
|
Improv42 wrote
at 6:57 AM, Wednesday July 11, 2007 EDT 1)Why screw with another player, just because they are conservative, and stop? Being selfish, and attacking them just pisses people off
A) If they're in your way, whether you're leading or not, a flag shouldn't stop you from doing what you want to do. 2)Sitting away does NOT help, since everyone wants them out first cuz they're wasting space B) Agreed. 3)If you need to attack someone flagged to keep going, then why not flag your self? If you don't have enough to keep going alone, then you're fighting a lost fight C) Are you nuts? I must flag just because the guy next to me did? Fuck that. If I can get his territory and build myself up, I will. I agree that if I've only got two states left, that's really petty, but there's no rule against being petty in this game. It makes you an asshole, not a rule breaker. But if I've got a decent shot at winning or getting 2nd if I get a few of a flagged player's lands, I'll take them. 4)A white flag means something. So, naturally, you don't attack. Yes, people have gradually used them too often, when some games could have gone on further, but, give me a war where one side surrendered, and the other side said "fuck off, you're a waste of space" D) The flag means almost nothing the way the rules are currently written. As for "give me a war...", you DO realize this is a game, don't you? The object is not "peace with honor", it's conquest. Let the behavior of those sweeping the board determine what a flag means, and let those who fly it decide as well -- both by their own actions. Let them then be judged as worthy or jerks by those who play against them. 5)Ryan put it there for a reason. And I don't think he had the idea of being immediately killed when he implemented the flag system. E) I'll believe what Ryan thinks when RYAN tells me, thanks. 6)Fuck your stupid honor crap. Continuing fighting while others are not is good, but, they're on their own, not doing any harm, or skewing the game all that much. Non-trucers, whom I disagree with, still have a more honorable cause then fighting a guy whose given up cuz you don't honor that. F) So you say "fuck your honor crap" but "honor MY honor crap"? Sorry. That doesn't hold water. A flag means whatever it means to those flying it and seeing it. That's all it CAN mean at this point. |
|
LAG monster wrote
at 8:56 AM, Wednesday July 11, 2007 EDT heres an easy solution to the whole thing. Get rid of the flags completely. So then one person has to dominate the entire board just like in the original dice wars. SO then no one can bitch about flags anymore.
|
|
JKD wrote
at 11:17 AM, Wednesday July 11, 2007 EDT The complaints with flags are much less than the complaints when there were no flags. All flags do is speed up the game, people just like to use them for an excuse when they lose.
|
|
Agent Zer0 wrote
at 8:21 PM, Wednesday July 11, 2007 EDT "We've all been there, when we've felt we don't want to be attacked, so we flag, praying an idiot doesn't fuck with us so we can keep out land, and not jeopardize it. "
I agree with the rest of your post. The higher up you go, the more familiar you get with other players. I do think that attacking flagged people to get to unflagged territories is understandable, but it's poor taste for a flagged 3rd place player attack a smaller flagged player to win more land and rank higher. What goes around comes around. Most of these respondents likely wouldn't want the same thing happen to them. |
|
Wavelength wrote
at 8:48 PM, Wednesday July 11, 2007 EDT The standard for most players is that flagging means that you won't attack anymore, and you're asking not to BE attacked anymore.
You can say otherwise in a wiki or a forum all you want, but that's the state of the game right now. A classy player won't pick on a weakened one who's given up. That doesn't mean that he should grind the other players down to even lower places because they tried to capitalize on their chance to win, of course. |
|
Improv42 wrote
at 1:56 AM, Thursday July 12, 2007 EDT "What goes around comes around. Most of these respondents likely wouldn't want the same thing happen to them. "
Ah, but it HAS happened to them, and that's the point. Whether it's someone flagging and even being "away" and then unflagging or coming back from "away" to improve their standing, it's happened. It sucks, but that shit gets weeded out at higher levels by communal etiquette. The truth is that the flag means only what the people using and seeing them think it should mean in that game or situation. |