Forum
new idea for flagging.
|
Sophalis wrote
at 11:06 AM, Monday March 3, 2008 EST
think about it.
why is it that, whenever someone wants to flag, they only have the option of flagging for whatever position they are currently in? the three main reasons why people flag, currently (although correct me if i've missed a couple) are: 1) they have no chance of doing well / have been screwed over, and want out 2) they want to prove to whoever's in a higher position that they aren't a threat, when the higher placed player would otherwise feel threatened and concentrate his/her attacks on them 3) they've just ninja'd and want to say "flagged" in the chatbox, and whine if anyone attacks them that they aren't "respecting flags" we've all had our fair share of the third kind, and, basically, they're really annoying. and i believe, although i may be wrong, that the second kind is why the new flagging system was originally implimented. so how about if players were given the option to flag for any place (bar first, obviously) ? this would /not/ mean that they "deserved" that place, simply that it was the highest they wanted to get in that game. this would pacify higher places, mean that players could make it completely clear what they wanted to get out of a game, and also give people the option to get out if they didn't want to be there any more. what's more, it would also save us the annoying situation of being third by one stack, having second flag, and first then take you out because you "haven't flagged", when all you wanted was a decent shot at second. |
|
Mike_Mike wrote
at 7:30 AM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST What happened to the other 2 guys? lol
|
|
dasfury wrote
at 7:32 AM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST I'll take some cake for breakfast.
wtf = ftw Think about it. |
|
integral wrote
at 7:36 AM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST Honestly, it's not the flags that is the problems here.
The same thing was happening before this flagging system, with the idea of "virtual flagging". The biggest problem with the virtual flag was that generally only "chatbox friendly" users could take advantage of this tactic. Also there was a "backstabbing problem " where if someone said they are fine with second would then get bigger than first and make the first player flag. I think this is the major reason why the flags are the way they are now. Implementing a 2 flagging system is WAY more trouble than it is worth and will not change the way this game is played in any major way. At the end of the day, most players will do whatever they can to get + points, and if that means throwing hissy fits then they will do that. Maybe the problem is that plus points are even awarded. How different would this game be if it was winner take all? |
|
|
Sophalis wrote
at 7:37 AM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST that's a ridiculously interesting thought, int
|
|
|
dasfury wrote
at 9:25 AM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST So guess what? It was this guys birthday, and I GOT TO HAVE CAKE TODAY!
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 10:14 AM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST I think #3 isn't a big problem. Its usually fairly obvious when you shouldn't respect flags. It's pretty much common knowledge so don't let their whining cause you to second guess not respecting their ninja flag.
I have a couple thoughts about being able to flag for any position. Initially I thought this was right but I have a couple reservations: - Anyone can flag for a position which means less clarity when everyone has flagged 2nd (it would happen much more often). Having a little bit of a barrier to flag for a position reduces this. It can also be said the only the person in a particular position should be able to flag for it (maybe flagging for a lower position should be allowed). - One of the extra bonuses to this flagging method that wasn't much talked about is its ability to detect undisclosed truces (and pgas). For example if you guarentee 1st a win with a 2nd flag and he and 3rd don't stop attacking you then you can be pretty sure something is up. The flag lets you detect this type of thing early and act accordingly. If you could flag for any position it would be easy for 3rd to flag for 2nd early and use that as a reason to attack. So as a result of writing this I would say that being able to flag for any position less that your current one could be allowed. |
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 10:33 AM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST I think flagging for any position is silly and Ryan states the reason pretty well. Although often times when two people truce the person in first feels that the person they truced with should get 2nd, this goes for spoken, unspoken and those pesky Pre-Game truces, unfortunetly only the PGA ones are illicit so thinking that the flagging system will help detect the PGA's is only a marginal benefit as spoken and unspoken truces that happen in game are far more common then PGA's and can often be missed. So the person that was fighting for first then flags for 2nd might not realize that the person in 1st has other plans for who gets 2nd and this leads to many unfounded PGA claims which are the most obnoxious part of the game, I mean it is your fault if you miss a truce happening or don't expect 1st place to reward their truce partner.
Seriously Ryan the flag and surrender significantly reduced the whiining factor and really helped increase the rewards for being aggressive since you could get decent finishes for 5th 6th and even 7th sometimes even if you had a poor start if you were willing to be risky and steal some dom. Anything that encourages stacking to 8's and relying on luckfest should be discouraged but the current flagging system encourages it and encourages rather obnoxious whinning or in the words of r0n "bootlicking" |
|
jurgen wrote
at 10:36 AM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST i agree this woud be difficult to implement (probably will also make flagging even more confusing) but I at least want to mention this idea that might help to limit the ninja flag abuse.
Could you put a limit on the place you're trying to flag for and that also takes into account the number of dice you have. Say you ninja to 2nd but you only have 4th highest number of dice. You could then limit flag possibility to 3rd or even 4th. Or somthing similar would be: if you want to flag for a certain place and someone else is already flagged for that position, you can only do so if you have at least the same amount of dice. |
|
sunvic wrote
at 5:09 PM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST Where is this going?
Seems we agree on something. |
|
Pat Whalen wrote
at 9:35 PM, Tuesday March 4, 2008 EST ehem, i beleive it was my originally idea we agreed on : P
|
