i believe that change is definitely worth testing, and probably an improvement. there might be a couple kinks, such as those crazy-fast games that happen 1/50 games or so, where everyone knows what place they will get by round 4 or 5.... but those are crazy-rare.

i look forward to testing this new idea.

(i agree with grun on all his points though. it gets tiring to explain to a table that you respect 8-stack flags, but not 3-stack flags. thankfully, the higher tables have pretty much understood and accepted this concept. its just the occasional new-to-the-higher-tables player that gets offended by this tactic, and to whom we all must explain the logic.)

I was just in a game where there were four powers of about equal might yet second and third flagged to first when there would've been a pretty interesting battle. Since I was in fourth by a tiny, tiny margin at this point, I was out of luck.

I tried, at the very least, to attack third place in hopes of getting something. This only provoked the first place player to steal every territory of mine he could.

The conversation went as follows:

Kyraeu: sigh... you won't even let us fight?
[SECOND PLACE]: we want the game to end
[FIRST PLACE]: no
[FIRST PLACE]: i wait flag all game when i had i can't wait

(Names edited out because I don't think it matters who said these things, and I'm not trying to start a lynching. My issue is with the idea, not the people. And for those wondering, this was on a 500 table.)

It seems like he's saying he's waited too long. Second and third had flagged a mere round before. I'm not really sure what he's talking about. The game ended when he and third annihilated me on round 10.

First of all, it's silly that second and third both flagged so quickly.

Secondly, it's silly that he decided to attack me because the game had gone on too long. It was ten rounds. Is the propensity to flag quickly creating an assumption that games should go quickly?

Thirdly, I dislike the fact that I was attacked simply because I was the only person who hadn't flagged. I usually try to stay out of the lower players' business when my first place is assured (ie, 2nd and 3rd have flagged). Maybe this is just me being pissed about the last game, though.

We should test out the "x amount of rounds must pass before you can flag" idea. Maybe it should be 4 rounds, maybe 8, who knows what's best.

But my main concern is that in the last 100 games or so I've played.. it seems WAY more rounds are being played to determine... 2nd place, rather than first (which is dramatic - and more entertaining for all to watch).

That's my #1 concern. The focus of the game should be on who's gonna be the winner - and the drama should center around that - not on 2nd because of the flagging situation.

It's tough to find the right balance, but I think the game will be rejuvinated in a BIG way if we can get it so that either players choose to play for first more (through incentives.. or by trying out this flagging idea where you have to wait a few rounds).

Test server inc?? :D

Ryan,

Your point #3 (on flag=quit) about people waiting to flag would not be a problem if we went back to the system of putting chips into the pot every reound.

I am with DannyDCB. The August server was the golden age of kdice.

Co-sign with Danny and Skrumgaer.

I am so happy with the change that Ryan announced that I am considering to change my avatar!

p.s. Kyraeu, I usually get people teaming up against me just because I want to fight for position while everybody else flagged. It is annoying to get insulted (with little creativity) by many players with the incredible (but never tested) ability to predict the game outcome in round 5 and their insightful minds that are able to figure out how dumb I am.

I have had several comebacks from 7th or 6th to 2nd or 1st. I have them in my list of the best kdice games I have ever had. My opponents in those games agreed. Great games! But all of them took people that were willing to fight rather than flagging.

It should be all about the quality of game play. I personally get most enjoyment in making every attempt to win a particular game. The problem is that others have the goal of getting the most overall points. While this certainly makes sense, unfortunately the flagging system allows them to do so at the expense of actually trying to win the game at hand. And this then allows whoever is in first at the moment (even if poorly positioned and weak) to automatically obtain truce-like friends and easily take out the "better" players (in the sense of the ones who were actually positioning themselves to win). This is so ironic, since the best way to win is actually to be somewhat careless and get people to truce-flag.

Whatever the final solution, I hope it aligns winning the immediate game with winning the points race. Anything else and the game suffers.

Grun, I made a comment about your blog and it didn't show up, then I posted on your wall and it didn't show up either...

Seriously, have you nothing better to do than attempt to micro-manage a dice game involving thousands of players? You can sit there and emote, complain, write a book, start a kdice religion...etc. It's not going to change the way individuals play their game - no matter how unfair or wrong their gameplay may seem to you.

Some of your friends/supporters may agree with you, and that's great. Maybe you should just simplify and play and chat exclusively with those individuals; and maybe that will provide you with some sort of balance.

Obviously this game means the world to you; but I don't think anyone really cares that YOU are displeased with the kdice community...or that you think people are scared, vulnerable...whatever. You need to get off your pedestal.

Love it, terrapin.

Best post I've read for bleedin' ages.