Sorry about the embedded codes, pasted the text from word... here is a clean version.
-----

To let everyone know where I stand, and to avoid name calling later, I start every game by posting the same message: "flagging for place is lame, m'kay"

About one in five times, someone call me a name, or tries to explain why flagging for place is good. In either case, we spend the game discussing the pros and cons of flagging for places (as apposed to flagging out when you are in last place).

My point is simple. KDice is a battle game, and flying a flag that says "I'm happy with second or third place, please leave me alone so I can prey on weaker players" is contrary to the spirit of a game that has domination and surprise reversals at its core.

Most of the time the discussion ends with everyone at least understanding why I don't honor flagging for place. Sometimes I will convert the person. Sometimes it will degenerate into name calling. Occasionally, players will gang up on me "to teach me a lesson". And once I won with a single space when the person in forth place got tired of watching and flagged out.

Today, during one of these discussions, someone countered with a phrase that crystallizes my point on this topic: "You are not going to win this argument, because being a wuss pays in KDice"

Flagging for place has become yet another way to farm points. In every other example of this practice, I shrugged, thinking that no game can be perfect. In this case I can't just shrug it off. Flagging for place encourages players to wuss out. It is counter to the spirit of a battle/war game. And flagging for place is sucking a lot of the joy out of playing KDice.

Thoughtful commentary anyone?

I totally agree. Back when I first joined kdice we didn't have the flagging system, and whilst it was annoying when you were stuck in a game in 7th place for ages with nothing to do. It's still better than players doing a rampage and getting upto a weak 2nd and then saying, I flag!

Flagging for place is ruining kdice. Drop the 'i've flaged' mentality and play to the end!

yet...another one.

...

sigh

...

I give you an example:


In round 20 (!) after a game full of fun and many reversals, there are only three players left. The second (B) and the third (C) strongest player now decide to attack the strongest player (A).

By that point A had 50% of the map and B 40% and C 10%.

The strongest player (A) is very unlucky and basically only got into 1st place because he had a good strategy all game. After a few attacks he (A) finds himself in 2nd position and with no chance to beat two players (B+C).

As it also happens in real war (since you mentioned kdice to be a war game)he decides to at least secure his 2nd place.

Now (A) has only 35% of the map, (B) 45% and (C) 20%.

(A) has no chance to win the game anymore but is still much stronger than (C). However, with (B)'s help, (C) would soon be stronger than (A).





Do you really think that (B) should ignore (A)'s flag?

In civilized world world, truce > flag.

In civilized world, truce > flag.

Corrected.

Was that a reply to my example?

moondust, you got a nice example but it isnt really a matter of the flagging system since player A's flag for 2nd is nothing but saying i am fine with 2nd. He is depending on B's mercy anyhow.

dudeface, you got your point across well and i agree with you. However, the decision has been made. The flagging system will stay like that for the next months. Maybe someday we will be able to run polls in the forum. Then the community as a whole can make a statement about this issue.

why not have the flagging sytstem in place for the last 3 positions that are left in the game? surely that would make it the best of both worlds

"He is depending on B's mercy anyhow."

So?

You should not forget that the player (A) I described was the strongest player of the game and got the position due to his strategic skills.
Fair enough that two players team up against him, but seriously Shevar, do you really think it would be fair if another player (C) who only controlled 10% of the map comes in 2nd while player (A) who had 50% of the map only gets 3rd?

Moondust - in your example, it seems that B and C either truced outright or could have done it silently. If B feels that he would have only gotten 1st with C's help, then he doews owe C, and can ignore A's flag.

Does this suck for "A"? yes, of course it sucks, but it is a social game and he could have tried to make an offer to "C" as well.