Moondust: A who controls 50% of the map will get the most Dom points so the fact he may come in 3rd place isn't as important as you're making out. Plus the chances are A will destroy C anyway so will end up 2nd.

With Domination points the flag rule is just unfair. They created Dom points to reward players who do well all throughtout the game and not those who truce at the end. Flagging for 2nd or 3rd place isn't needed and is unfair

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


> 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… No, it is not fair. That is the entire point of this discussion.

KDice is a war game. As such, the social dynamics should be allowed to play out without interference from the game logic. I have nothing against alliances. I used to love nothing more then when the game had a single player with control of half the board, against four or five other players. I would rally the rest of the troops to destroy a vastly superior force. It was a blast and took full advantage of the social aspect of the game. Joining forces, and screwing each other over is half the fun.

Flagging for place is automated, and partially enforced by the game. It encourages people to wuss out, and has all but eliminated the come from behind wins.

And Shevar, I know it is currently part of the game. Having programmed professionally, I have an idea what a hassle a change like removing flagging for place would entail. But sometimes it is necessary.

Flagging for place blows. In my humble opinion adding this feature was a mistake. If left in, I predict that the only regular players will be the disloyal types only interested in being on the leader board. It sucks half the fun out of the game.

Finally, my reason for posting this thread is to keep the discussion alive. Letting Ryan and the rest of the KDice crew know that there are serious, loyal fans who would like to see this change rolled back is important.

(reposted in the correct place)

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


> 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… No, it is not fair. That is the entire point of this discussion.

KDice is a war game. As such, the social dynamics should be allowed to play out without interference from the game logic. I have nothing against alliances. I used to love nothing more then when the game had a single player with control of half the board, against four or five other players. I would rally the rest of the troops to destroy a vastly superior force. It was a blast and took full advantage of the social aspect of the game. Joining forces, and screwing each other over is half the fun.

Flagging for place is automated, and partially enforced by the game. It encourages people to wuss out, and has all but eliminated the come from behind wins.

And Shevar, I know it is currently part of the game. Having programmed professionally, I have an idea what a hassle a change like removing flagging for place would entail. But sometimes it is necessary.

Flagging for place blows. In my humble opinion adding this feature was a mistake. If left in, I predict that the only regular players will be the disloyal types only interested in being on the leader board. It sucks half the fun out of the game.

Finally, my reason for posting this thread is to keep the discussion alive. Letting Ryan and the rest of the KDice crew know that there are serious, loyal fans who would like to see this change rolled back is important.

The only come from behind victory that I see flagging for place preventing is the one where a player who is a "wuss" most of the game waits for the top players to destroy themselves and takes the victory. In these cases 2nds and 3rds would drop out lower than 4th and 5th. I'm not sure this is such a glorious victory for 4th and 5th as it's made out to be. In fact it's simply taking advantage of the circumstance and momentum of another player. With flagging, the 2nd and 3rd can stop negative momentum with a flag as a measure against these 4th and 5th campers.

I think your perspective comes from the frustration of a 4th/5th camper loosing the opportunity of 1st's momentum against another player. If there were no flags 1st would have no guarentee from 2nd or 3rd so it makes more sense to attack the stronger players. This causes the strategy of 1st reducing 4 other players to the same size and then choosing who gets eliminated first - this is far worse than negotiating position earlier.

I see your point Ryan. Flagging for place is simply another form of diplomacy. I guess my point is that it is an enforced, non-voluntary form of diplomacy. And that automation takes a lot of the heart out of the battle.

in this case i will agree with Rroll's explanation. If B depended on C's help to beat A, then C will indirectly hope/expect for a 2nd, even if A is stronger than C.

2 possible ways out:
1. A should beat C out before C and B stop him.
2. C does not mind having 3rd, hence A can have 2nd. (but why would C do that?)

just my 2 cents.

@dudeface - I think it's totally voluntary. By flagging you are accepting that you can't get a higher place and you choose to do this. It's also voluntary to respect flags or not. But I suppose it's not voluntary to the players doing worse than the players who flag - their options run out pretty quickly. But this isn't a flag issue since the same thing happens with a truce.

Ahh... but Ryan, with that comment you got directly to the heart of the matter. Outside of what flagging for place does to the game as a whole, the part that is irritating on a game to game basis is exactly as you described.

"I'm flagged for second (or third) place. Please honor my wuss flag so I can prey weaker players".

At that point, weather or not first place honors the flag, the dynamic has changed and the game is lost for lower players.

The fun has been sucked out of the game for everyone, including the player in first.

You should also consider that flags are often helpful to organize the game.

Also flags help that a game usually ends after 10 or 15 minutes and not after half an hour.

surrendering isn't part of 'battle' anymore???

flagging is an important part of strategic playing...
Last time I checked this wasn't dicewars
it was kdice "strategy" game