adcurtin: the point of the game is getting points
greekboi: im not even sure that people like kdice
EddyB has left
adcurtin: dumbass
greekboi: lol
greekboi: definitely not about playing a fun, interesting strategy game and beating 6 other people
greekboi: you right, my bad

Replay value and it increases the risk associated with actions.

For example; if you take the money aspect out of poker; it becomes a completely different game.

Maybe I'm alone; but I actually think that the 500-5k game play is fine. There is a ton of strategy; competing interests; truces; diplomacy; manipulation; etc.

What this game needs is a committed developer and a marketing budget.

The problem with the 500-5k games is that you can eliminate risk and variance with extreme social play, hence the game is stagnant. The game needs to get back to mattering what happens in the game and actually occurs on the board. The flagging system needs to be fixed along with dom and the allocation of points based on position (specifically 6/7 need to be less negative to encourage riskier openings). A determined player should be able to use actual strategy and not have to rely on social relationships or chat alone to be successful.

A complete game requires both game play and social strategies as you move up the ladder and while kdice has never been complete the current iteration is the furthest it has been from a complete game. Some of this is simply the stagnant social structure that has been hashed over countless times.

Reduce the number of players from 7 to 5 or play on 4-stack tables. The rewards for not flagging would be greater, hence less folderol involving vflags. I only play 4 stacks now and the only tourney I play is the Friday 5's because the table size is a maximum of 5.

nah.

I don't play for points but I'm still an ass to people. maybe that's just me tho

What would happen if we just removed negative points all together? It would have the effect of making risk taking far more important.

However I think it would also cause people looking to cheat the system to just flag out round 1 and leave when they have a bad start.

If we had a counter weight to that; for example flagging out in the first 8 rounds results in losses of points; but dying does not. The result should be a game that is more fast paced and everyone is striving for first place because you don't lose anything for failing.

The most common reason for flagging early is always about "stop loss". Stopping a loss of points. My above idea would correct this phenomena any thoughts?

If there was a zero possibility of losing points. I know that would make me change my strategy to one where flagging is just non-existent. Only fighting and trucing would be necessary.

My assumption is that early flagging is the only thing wrong with the game; because that is how I see it.

I see basically nothing wrong with the game except early flagging, lack of developer support, and no marketing budget.

Lack of developer support being the number one reason that this site (and his others) are dying, some more quicky than others.