Forum
Flagging refinement...
|
Ryan wrote
at 7:20 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT
I've been taking in some of the discussion around flagging and have been considering another refinement. First of all, the current flagging leads to the most balanced games so far. Having these position contracts through flags lets you know early if someone respects your flag.
Can this flagging be refined to capture all of the current advantages and maybe make a slight gameplay improvement at the same time? Let's talk about it. The area I'd like to make an improvement on is how flagging tends to push people to concede to first. Even though 2nd and 3rd (or any others) can truce to take down first it seems this rarely happens. I think it may be a subtle thing in flagging since when you flag 3rd you're flagging to 1st AND 2nd. In otherword you're always flagging to 1st. What if you could only flat TO 2nd? Or in other words flag to red (or whatever color you want). So, you would flag to someone. This would give the other player the assurance that you've conceded to him without necessarily conceding to first. Would the flag stick? How would the game end? How would this work? And could it work? |
|
Johnson213 wrote
at 7:33 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT i like the direction this is going!
|
|
schmack wrote
at 8:18 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT i have trouble with this though.
I recently was in a game where I flagged for 3, but so did another player. My flag for 3 was legit but the other player chewed some off of 5th place (who also flagged for 5th) to flag for 3..... Then 1st place kept growing and decided to eat me up when clearly I was the stronger 3, i.e. more 8 stacks, and a handful of 5, 6, and 7 stacks. Both palyers got negative "doesn't respect flags" commentary from 5th place and me who ended up in 4th. |
|
meagain wrote
at 8:22 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT Ryan,
To set a starting point. Could you please, tell us what exactly is the current state of the flagging system? I am asking this because I am not aware of the late changes (if any). Thank you. |
|
Thraxle wrote
at 8:24 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT Ryan, this form of flagging is exactly the type of game play accomplished on the higher tables, only it's done through the chatbox there. In-game trucing allows exactly what you are describing.
On the other hand, the idea of flagging to a particular player would eliminate the possibility of backstabbing or revolting against the player you flagged to. Lets say red flags to yellow while yellow is in 1st with 5 players remaining in the game. If yellow ends up finishing 4th, does that mean red is automatically 5th regardless of red's current position? The logistics behind what the flag means needs to be clearly defined, otherwise this will be very confusing. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 8:33 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT Yeah, exactly, I'm not sure how it would all come together. Just trying to brainstorm on this one. I think the basic idea is a good starting point:
Instead of flagging applying to every position greater than yours it applies to one player. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 8:45 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT In the yellow/red scenario red would always finish behind yellow even if yellow drops to last.
Is this bad/good/confusing? Its bad/confusing because its quite a bit different from the current flagging. Its good because it is harsher consequences for flagging. It means asking a truce in chat to a stronger player will probably be denied without a flag. Also flagging to someone and then attacking them makes no strategic sense. |
|
unlucky9999 wrote
at 9:21 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT Dear Ryan,
Yes, this is an interesting idea and i'd definately like to try that in the sandbox. Allthough, I think it would have some negative impact. Some players, me for example, would say that i would flag later, because if you would flag to someone, others would target him (at least i know i would), because then you could take out 1 or 2 players with the same blow. So my thought is, that it should be tried out in sandbox 1st , and then if it works and makes the game better, implented at the main site. P.s. Ryan, dont forget that you wanted this game a simple and enjoyable game, so dont implement things, if they arent tested 1st ;) |
|
|
Dark_lunatic_K wrote
at 9:35 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT Here's my advice for flagging refinement:
If you flag 3rd, you can no longer select a 2nd or 1st place person to attack, it's barred. |
|
Big Jumblies wrote
at 10:55 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT In respect to honoring flags, maybe this is something to consider... If you do go with the idea of flagging to a color, if that color attacks you, the flag is removed and you would have to re-flag (if you still want to flag to them).
That way when someone doesnt honor your flag you have the option of trucing against them, etc. |
|
|
dontthinkso224 wrote
at 11:26 PM, Sunday August 10, 2008 EDT This is a *great* idea.
I envision it as follows; 1) no more flagging for place at all, only color. This really is the essence of what a "flag" should mean (to surrender to a player, not for a place), I'm surprised nobody has suggested it before. 2) the game ends when everyone left alive is flagged to the same color (a la the olden days.. :) I'd assume at this point the flagged players would be ranked by size or maybe dom. This will probably be a point of contention, as people are generally accustomed to flagging for "third", and then expecting (read: demanding) to get that place from the person they flagged to. This expectation is probably one of the less fun aspects of the game, and it would be great if it could be divested from the culture. |
