Well said woody. I think people tend to respect flags a bit much especially when the flagger flags for a high position without any real dice size.

I really do believe the current flagging is the most balanced for the game up to this point but I do see how it leads to less aggressive play.

So I've been thinking about the "neutered" thing and just bumped into a thought that might push this in the right direction without changing the structure of the flags/game.

I was watching a game and everything was falling into place. Second flagged to first and then third and then forth. However, first really wasn't that big and it would be easy for 2nd and 3rd or even 2rd and 4th to take down 1st. So the question is why is 2nd so happy with 2nd? Well, because 2nd really isn't that bad in terms of points.

This is a motivation issue. What would cause 2nd to risk coming 3rd or 4th? A bigger payout for 1st.

On the extreme end 1st would get all points. This would cause the problem where you have an endless cycle of people ganging up on the current first. I think at the moment were closer to the other extreme where it doesn't really matter which place you come in... or in this case 2nd isn't that much worse than first. So my suggestion is to push things closer to the other extreme.... upset the balance a bit... make smaller players more aggressive an less willing to settle.

The current point distribution for place looks like this:

26.5%
22.4%
18.4%
14.3%
8.2%
6.1%
4.1%

There is typically a more noticable difference between 1st and 2nd due to dominance. I could bump things to this:

30.7%
21.2%
17.3%
13.5%
7.7%
5.8%
3.8%

The reason these are weird percentages is because they're based on shares. The first set of share are like this:

13, 11, 9, 7, 4, 3, 2

and my proposed new shares are like this:

16, 11, 9, 7, 4, 3, 2

actually I like this one:

17, 10, 9, 8, 5, 4, 3


- bottom 3 are close and negative
- middle three are close and not negative
- forth breaks even (1/7)
- first gets a big share: 30.4%

of course dominance is totally seperate

Ryan, what about the possibility of adding a surrender option in addition to the positional flag?

I'll consider the surrender thing seperately.... in general I don't want to add new buttons since it ads complexity. What I was considering to address is allowing you to flag position at or less than your current position.... so if you want out you flag last.

it has already been voiced, but i wanted to echo with my own thoughts.
flagging is not cowardice, it is strategic.
if you want to fight purely for the sake of fighting, play mortal kombat. the flagging system adds an aspect of intelligence to a game that is made up of equal parts skill and luck.

also, you don't HAVE to respect flags. if you're weaker than someone who has flagged, then fight them and take the advantage. if you are stronger and just want to take out the flagged player anyway, nobody can stop you.
however, the way you handle a flag does give a great snapshot of character...

ps, i think the suicide button is a GREAT idea!

Ryan - love the proposed change in points distribution; a little more reward for 1st would help the game, without totally killing points for good finishes.

Bye SDZion! Don't let the screen dice hit you on the way out.

Two things.

Making the loss of points for 6th & 7th, or even 5th as well, the same would possibly be a good thing....while it is unlikely for a kdice moron to come in 1st in any game, even the very best players can get totally screwed by bad start/roll combinations on the first couple of rounds and crash out for 7th so reducing the loss 7th gets you in exchange for increasing the loss 6th and 5th get you might help people feel a bit better when that happens. Another advantage is to encourage the person in 5th to go all or nothing....as it wouldn't really matter if they ended up finishing even lower.


Secondly, while I am a big fan of Dominance in games where I end up with 100% of it, at other times it's really annoying, really struggling all game due to a bad start or tough opposition but managing to hold out for 3rd place doesn't seem worth it when you get hardly any or even negative points, maybe a change so that Dom (positive or negative) couldn't be more than 50% of your score...although from what I hear of how scoring works that may not be even possible.


Oh wait, 3rd thing afterall: that 'change the colours for colourblind people' idea has been around for ages, and while I am blissfully ignorant on the subject, I can't imagine it would be one of the most technically difficult things to change. I'm not colourblind, but every now and again I run into a player who is and can't help feeling sorry for them (as I attack them and swear blind that purple is doing it).

Hey

I didn't play a while (because of exams) and now the flag-system is new for me.
At this point I liked more the old system, mayby as time advances, I will like the new system more.
But I think it makes less room for truces. My last game I got some comment of a player.. I was in first, was truced, and the 3th person flagged. Me and my trucepartner won over the 3the one. He said it wasn't fair because he flagged second (and before my trucepartner)...
I chose trucepartners above a flag, but I sometimes get "problems" with the new system... because people ar mad because you attack them when flagged, but it are usually cowards who acuse me... There are (many) players who hide after a flag...

I think it was easier to play with a conscience with the old system.

Greetz J.