I decided to start this poll because of the discussion, which is going on in COTM05 pre-game discussion.
What should predator class be?

I have not cast a vote myself as I have no strong opinion about this yet.

Why not leave the predator level the way it is?

The challenge is greater (as is the 'risk' of losing), but the chances of reward (medal/reward) are also greater.

I like Predator the way it is also. If it were redesigned to be merely a handicap, with no chance of reward for extra challenge or risk, why would anyone who wanted to get a medal play it? It seems Predator would end up being a completely seperate competition from Open if it were redesigned as only a handicap system.

Edit: I went with Dynamic (below) and voted for alternating. However, I should also mention that the first (and only) time I ever played Open, rather than Predator, was in the recent game where the Zulu's expansionist trait was removed. That was a clear disadvantage, with no possibility of reward (except for Dynamic's lucky barb, possibly!). I doubt I will voluntarily incure any such handicap in the near future. I'm not nearly good enough! yet! :)

I think the predators "bonus" may be different for different games. I want the AI bonus but some players believe that this is bonus for human and I vote for various changes. ;)

I would stop having the predator class at all, and this is why:
The level of additional challenge is mostly minimal. When a severe handicap is imposed on the player, almost nobody will take it. (one time , IIRC, predator started without a worker and there were almost no predator players).
As far as the AI benefits are, sometimes good players can turn that into their advantage. (I used predator class when my goal was spaceship or diplomatic victory because my reasoning was that a stronger AI will help me researching). To avoid this kind of cherrypicking and the discussion following whether this is OK or not, eliminate the predator class completely.

Instead use every two months or so one of the two games, gotm or cotm, to provide a real challenge for the predators, such as a deity or even Sid game.

Ronald

Well, Bradleyfeanor has quoted my opinion from the COTM05 prediscussion thread, so I think it's obvious if I say: Leave it the way it is.

And, BTW, the AI bonusses already vary per game for the predator level...

I like Predator the way it is also. If it were redesigned to be merely a handicap, with no chance of reward for extra challenge or risk, why would anyone who wanted to get a medal play it? It seems Predator would end up being a completely seperate competition from Open if it were redesigned as only a handicap system.

Flip that around: How can someone playing Open compete for a medal? Is Open class just another level, like conquests, to help a player master the game before they move on to the real GOTM?

I am not sure there is a problem with the way it is. I am more interested in the answer to the question: Was it designed/intended to be a handicap or a higher risk/reward scenario? My perception up until now was that it was a handicap to provide more of a challenge to achieve the same results. So I guess the answer to your question might be: For the glory of accomplishing something despite the handicap.

I would stop having the predator class at all, and this is why:
The level of additional challenge is mostly minimal. When a severe handicap is imposed on the player, almost nobody will take it. (one time , IIRC, predator started without a worker and there were almost no predator players).
As far as the AI benefits are, sometimes good players can turn that into their advantage. (I used predator class when my goal was spaceship or diplomatic victory because my reasoning was that a stronger AI will help me researching). To avoid this kind of cherrypicking and the discussion following whether this is OK or not, eliminate the predator class completely.

Instead use every two months or so one of the two games, gotm or cotm, to provide a real challenge for the predators, such as a deity or even Sid game.

Ronald

Though I'd definately support this idea as well...

The predator level is fine the way it is, the only improvement to make games more comparable between predator class players and open class players is removing the predator class.

One of the goals of GOTM is to compare like games, so I'd like to limit the number of changes to the player as this can vary the start so much. I don't like removing civ traits as that means we are essentially playing different games.

I thought the point of the classes was, conquests - so that new players can play on a high difficulty level than they are used to, and predator - so that stronger players will still play Regent/Monarchy games. It is not designed so that Conquests and Open players have a better change of scoring better than predator. It is merely designed to encourage more participation.

I think what might be interesting is to not tell the predators what the changes are and let them adjust on the fly to the additional challenge. I think knowing that the AI can help with research or if the AI has extra units can be an actual assist to the top players. If they didn't know that the AI was up a level on research or if the AI had an extra settler or that they had no worker would provide a more balanced challenge. (I checked other)

I would stop having the predator class at all...

You have a very good point, and your arguement is sound. But I would like to see predator stay for two reasons:

1) I really enjoy trying to decide which game type (Pred v. Open) will benefit me the most in my chosen victory goal, and

2) I definitly like the additional challenges on the lower difficulty games. Without the additional challenges AND the chance at a medal, I imagine I would not play some of the lower difficulty GOTMs.

2) I definitly like the additional challenges on the lower difficulty games. Without the additional challenges AND the chance at a medal, I imagine I would not play some of the lower difficulty GOTMs.

In my opinion, the challenge is the competition with our fellow participants, not the AI. I would love to play a chieftain game once.

Ronald

You have a very good point, and your arguement is sound. But I would like to see predator stay for two reasons:

1) I really enjoy trying to decide which game type (Pred v. Open) will benefit me the most in my chosen victory goal, and

2) I definitly like the additional challenges on the lower difficulty games. Without the additional challenges AND the chance at a medal, I imagine I would not play some of the lower difficulty GOTMs.

It is a friendly competition. So, I think great participation and having fun are couple of the primary goals here.

At the same time, the thought of players selecting between Open and Pedator for the most optimal chance for a medal is somewhat disturbing. It kind of makes me want to have two versions of the medals: normal for an Open win and "with clusters" ( :) ) for Predator so I know the level of accomplishment.

I'm for removing the predator class in the current form of changing something in the game.
The influence on the game, if beneficial or not is just random.

If we still want a predator class, I would recommend to have self imposed rules, like no RoP abuse or peace treaty abuse.
This would be only on a honour system, but that's the whole competition anyways.

the thought of players selecting between Open and Pedator for the most optimal chance for a medal is somewhat disturbing

I have always viewed the two classes as an additional game decision, just like whether I found on the start or venture off into the great unknown.

I suppose the Pred/Open decision could give experienced players an additional advantage, which might not be a good thing in the spirit of even competition. I had not really considered that until this "Predator poll" started. Is that what you find disturbing, or is it another factor?

Now I think that it was wrong not to include in the poll an option to remove predator class, seems like many people support such an idea.
I still didn't cast a vote myself as I keep changing my opinion.
I have a tendency to favor existence of predator class, however.
Yes, indeed, the only way to make a competition fair is to play exactly the same game. But choosing between predator and open class also requires knowledge of this game and good skills.
It is just important that all players will have a clear understanding of two things:
1. what predator class is
2. That competition begins not with the first turn, but with a decision of what class to play.

I had no clear understanding of these things yesterday and I am not sure that I have it now.

I have always viewed the two classes as an additional game decision, just like whether I found on the start or venture off into the great unknown.

I suppose the Pred/Open decision could give experienced players an additional advantage, which might not be a good thing in the spirit of even competition. I had not really considered that until this "Predator poll" started. Is that what you find disturbing, or is it another factor?

Yeah. but if that's the way it works... More stuff to master, I guess. :)

I think that flipping the class in every game is worthless. :(

Predator and Open are 2 different games, just as Open and Conquest are different.

If you make me choose of playing between Pred. and Open, let me play Conquest as well, IF I fancy that.

Predators have a definite advantage on gaining techs faster that Open, and of course learn the vital techs turns ahead. It's not a competition.

There should be a poll too about Palace-jumps and ship-chaining, but I leave it with that. I haven't submitted any games since since the famous "bread-crumb-trailing" in COTM2, where I did get an award, but lost interest after that.

Good luck to you all.

I voted for "A penalty for human player (e.g. removing a trait)". I think the intention of the predator class is to make a harder game, and the current predator class making for faster victories is just a side-effect of how this has been implemented.

Predators have a definite advantage on gaining techs faster that Open, and of course learn the vital techs turns ahead. It's not a competition.

This wouldn't be the case though if the Human were penalised rather than giving the AI all sorts of goodies.

I would like to get rid of the predator class. It is an unnecessary complication and makes games harder to compare.

When a severe handicap is imposed on the player, almost nobody will take it. (one time , IIRC, predator started without a worker and there were almost no predator players).


I was one of the "few" :smug: . Some called us heroes..... others, less charitable, called us simple-minded buffoons :) .

I liked the suggestion by Lord British in the other thread. Where players at certain level in the GPR have to play predator. At the moment we have players cherry-picking the games they choose to go predator on. Like smackster I tend to play predator on regent/monarch while going back down to open on higher levels. I feel the increased unit support costs feeds through to make the AIs better trading partners on the lower levels for me.

I was one of the "few" :smug: . Some called us heroes..... others, less charitable, called us simple-minded buffoons :) .

I liked the suggestion by Lord British in the other thread. Where players at certain level in the GPR have to play predator. At the moment we have players cherry-picking the games they choose to go predator on. Like smackster I tend to play predator on regent/monarch while going back down to open on higher levels. I feel the increased unit support costs feeds through to make the AIs better trading partners on the lower levels for me.
Maybe anyone that has finished any game any time in the top 10 should play predator, as the GPR doesn't tell the whole story.

Personaly I'd like to get rid of Predator, and as Klarius suggested if anyone wants a harder game, just use self imposed restrictions.

Predator - it sounds pride! :smug:

To avoid this kind of cherrypicking and the discussion following whether this is OK or not, eliminate the predator class completely.
I would like to get rid of the predator class. It is an unnecessary complication and makes games harder to compare.You can have my vote. :goodjob:

I selected to alternate them, which seemed closest to the current method, although the AI always has a bonus, and sometimes the Human has a penalty.

Here's the quote describing Predator level in the GOTM35 web page:

Players who choose to play in the Predator class game must overcome an extra set of obstacles built into their game to provide an extra level of challenge. The intent of these changes is to raise the difficulty without altering strategic play progress from that which you would see for comparison in the conquest class and open class games.

Players who might be interested in playing the Predator class game could be those players who have participated in the Elite or Leader divisions of the Medal Play Series or players who just want an extra level of excitement or challenge.

For the purposes of global ranking and comparison to all other GOTM scores, the Predator class game scores in the QSC and GOTM results do not receive any compensating scoring bonus for the added elements of challenge.

So, with respect to what Predator IS :

- it is NOT a method to equalize players
- it IS designed to compare to the other classes, so it shouldn't modify the overall game play progress; therefore it can't be too much of a change
- it IS designed to appeal to Elite players, or to those who want an extra challenge

I can guarantee you that if you eliminate Predator level, you will still see the same names at the top each month.

Making Predator level really, really difficult makes any comparison between levels impossible, and given a choice, top players wouldn't choose Predator. IMO, removing the Expansionistic Trait for the Zulu in GOTM34 was cute and interesting, but dramatically changed the game play so implementing that 'challenge' violated the 'raise the difficulty without altering strategic play progress' intention. Removing the starting Worker in GOTM30 is more of an added Delay than a change to game stategy.

I consider myself an Elite player (at least in my own mind :) ) and except for the 1st month it was implemented (Deity Level Spain, Gotm20), have always played Predator by default (it is a matter of Pride!) I find it a bit disturbing that Top Players are choosing between Open or Predator for game advantage. I have no problem if an Open level player chooses to play Predator of course.

Requiring players who do well to play Predator level may result in losing their involvement which can't be a good thing. Really making Predator level hard would drive people from it; you might as well eliminate it, unless it became a separate award category. You might provide some recognition to consistent Predator play, but that is obvious by reviewing the Results tables.

So I'd pretty much keep things the same.

Two things I would like to say:

1. I assume elite players are just that - they do not score higher because they play predator - but because they are better than us mere mortals. I had this feeling since I started GOTM (a couple of months back) that predator could, if handled correctly, lead to an earlier finish than Open depending on the added AI benefits and your game style. I tried Predator once, but seemingly to no positive effect :)

2. Let's say you do better than someone 'just' because you played predator and the other played open. That means you actually understand more of the game mechanics than your worthy opponent and I think you deserve to win.

All this to say: I dont care if Predator is removed or changed. The better player will in general win. If it makes more experiences players stay in the game, I vote to keep as it is.

For a test try to change Predator to increase production cost by 1/3 for all improvements and military units (if possible - I dont know the limits) and you will see all returning to Open :crazyeye:. Let me know if I am wrong.

Predator - it sounds pride! :smug:

Absolutely...

Predator sounds good, irregardless of the penalty I want that accolade!


:D

Two things I would like to say:

1. I assume elite players are just that - they do not score higher because they play predator - but because they are better than us mere mortals. I had this feeling since I started GOTM (a couple of months back) that predator could, if handled correctly, lead to an earlier finish than Open depending on the added AI benefits and your game style. I tried Predator once, but seemingly to no positive effect :)

2. Let's say you do better than someone 'just' because you played predator and the other played open. That means you actually understand more of the game mechanics than your worthy opponent and I think you deserve to win.



Although I agree with what you are saying let me re-phrase it, so that you will see that there is a problem.

1. If an inexperienced player is playing predator, he is likely to do it worse than in open class.
2. If an elite player is playing predator, he sometimes is likely to do better than in open class.

Now are we OK with such situation or not?

I am still undecided about this issue. I think I will wait for Ainwood to wake up and see his opinion before I vote. After all, this issue concerns him more than it concerns anyone else.
But I think we shouldn’t remove predator class because
A. This game is not only about competition, but also about fun. There is RNG anyway, so games cannot be the same anyway. You discover a new continent, then read spoiler and see that history of that continent was different for different players.
B. It is pride. And it is cool and I would like to play it some time. :cool:

I would stop having the predator class at all, and this is why:
The level of additional challenge is mostly minimal. When a severe handicap is imposed on the player, almost nobody will take it. (one time , IIRC, predator started without a worker and there were almost no predator players).
As far as the AI benefits are, sometimes good players can turn that into their advantage. (I used predator class when my goal was spaceship or diplomatic victory because my reasoning was that a stronger AI will help me researching). To avoid this kind of cherrypicking and the discussion following whether this is OK or not, eliminate the predator class completely.

Instead use every two months or so one of the two games, gotm or cotm, to provide a real challenge for the predators, such as a deity or even Sid game.

Ronald

although i voted for a human disadvantage, i completely agree with this.
If there was the option to remove predator class completely, i would have voted for that.

Asuming the advantages and disadvantages even out, I don't see why we should have 2 different games on one score board.

I also see no reason to call one game predator and the other open as it is just for some players ego to play predator. If it is harder or not is not an issue in this case.

I like predator the way it is. If the top players take advantage of it sometimes, that doesn't bother me. And it provides a good opportunity for growth in level of play to the open level players too. I actually decided to play GOTM35 Predator because I always do so horribly with Ainwood's raging barbarians and I wanted to practice dealing with barbs with lower combat bonus. I also wasn't that concerned with score since I cleared 9000 in COTM4 and hope to do the same in the regent level COTM5. Of course, it will be the first game since COTM2 that I haven't submitted, because I didn't fare particularly well against the barbarians and just wasn't having much fun. But next time, I will be a little smarter and do a little better because of having tried predator class.

I have a question.

...but the class bonuses might be a bit later, 'cause I don't tend to set them until a day or two before release).


why?

Although I agree with what you are saying let me re-phrase it, so that you will see that there is a problem.

1. If an inexperienced player is playing predator, he is likely to do it worse than in open class.
2. If an elite player is playing predator, he sometimes is likely to do better than in open class.

Now are we OK with such situation or not?


Yes, personally I am perfectly OK with this. It highlights one of my points, actually. Determining what game (OPEN/PREDATOR) to play is part of the challenge.


A. This game is not only about competition, but also about fun.


What you mean, its about fun??? :D
I am inclined to agree with you. Otherwise, we would soon be out of here all of us. But its like all situations in life, competition kinda spices things up. I had fun for a long time playin' all by me lonesome. But we all know it ain't too satisfying. Finding this site, makes it all come alive. Thanks to everyone :goodjob:

I voted for "alternate", but with some additional remarks. I don't like modifications "completely" altering the gameplay like removing a trait from the civ (e.g. GOTM 34 Zulu without expansionist). OTOH thinking again, "no Great Leaders" might be an interesting variant. But would this be a "comparable" game? I don't think so.

To sum it up: "making it harder" by increasing AI bonuses or removing a worker is fine, making fundamental changes I don't like.

I have a question.



why?
Simply because I don't play test all three version independently. I play the open game, see how it pans out and see what I think the weaknesses and the strengths are of the given map. I put some arbitrariness into it and choose the conquest bonuses and the predator 'handicaps'. For example, If the game is heavy on early trading, I might give the conquest players some more gold. If defense or exploration is an issue, or I think that a conquest player would benefit from not needing to build a warrior early(for example to get a settler factory on-line earlier), I wil give them a warrior.

Note that I have tried to move-away from giving the predator AI extra settlers - because I think these help rather than hinder.

On the actual issue, I have no strong views on this either way. The Conquest bonuses I think aren't always worth the 15% score penalty, so maybe the bonuses should be increased. For the predator level - I think that the top players will still be at the top regardless of the penalties imposed or not. Maybe its the implimentation that needs to be changed, not the intent?

To be honest with you I never gave this issues a thought before today. I have been lurking the GOTM for a while and I have even played older games to see how I stack up. Before COTM I has never made time to play myself in the competition. That being said I guess I viewed the Conquest/Open/Predator somewhat differently than you. I presumed it was to be used to keep all players interested and able to play each month. So a New Player might be willing to try out a Emproer game if the conquest save was available and an Elite player might still want to play a regent game if it were "tricked" up a bit even though it will probably be a breeze win.

In the spirit of competition if an elite player can make a predator game work to his advantage... Great it is part of what makes him an an elite player. I do not feel that anything needs to change. If you did want to change something my suggestion would be to have only conquest games available on Monarch or higher and Predator games available on Monarch and below.

I picked other. Keep it the same.

I voted for "alternate", but with some additional remarks. I don't like modifications "completely" altering the gameplay like removing a trait from the civ (e.g. GOTM 34 Zulu without expansionist). OTOH thinking again, "no Great Leaders" might be an interesting variant. But would this be a "comparable" game? I don't think so.

To sum it up: "making it harder" by increasing AI bonuses or removing a worker is fine, making fundamental changes I don't like.
Can I ask why removing a trait is so bad? I would only ever remove the lesser trait (eg I'd never take away industrious, for example). Is this based on the concern that predator can no longer compete with open? Four out of the top six in the results were predator.

Can I ask why removing a trait is so bad? I would only ever remove the lesser trait (eg I'd never take away industrious, for example). Is this based on the concern that predator can no longer compete with open? Four out of the top six in the results were predator.I said I don't like it and that is a personal preference. E.g. it will (in most cases) result in a fundamentally different QSC (but should we care while QSCs are in limbo?). It has nothig to do with the results that can be achieved.

BTW: I have the impression, that since COTM there are less predator submissions in GOTM. But it may be too early for statistical significance.

The Conquest bonuses I think aren't always worth the 15% score penalty, so maybe the bonuses should be increased.

Disagree. Conquest bonuses are needed to encourage new players to play on difficult levels. E.g. to help them survive. If conquest bonuses will match 15% score penalty, people will start thinking about conquest as a way of getting better score. I do not think this was a purpose. I was choosing conquest to help me survive in COTM3 (didn't survive, though), not to increase my score.

As for predator class, I more and more think that it is probably OK as it is right now. What is not OK is its description:

“Players who choose to play in the Predator class game must overcome an extra set of obstacles built into their game to provide an extra level of challenge. The intent of these changes is to raise the difficulty without altering strategic play progress from that which you would see for comparison in the conquest class and open class games.

Players who might be interested in playing the Predator class game could be those players who have participated in the Elite or Leader divisions of the Medal Play Series or players who just want an extra level of excitement or challenge.”

This description should contain a sentence that playing Predator class may increase chances of earlier victory under certain conditions.

Can I ask why removing a trait is so bad? I would only ever remove the lesser trait (eg I'd never take away industrious, for example). Is this based on the concern that predator can no longer compete with open? Four out of the top six in the results were predator.

It is not, in this particular game (GOTM34) removed expansionist trait can also be used as an advantage: slowing research pace and promoting units to elite.
In fact, if in COTM5 expansionist trait will be removed for predator, it will be my first predator. I was planning not to research after horseback riding or iron working and going for conquest or domination. So I would prefer to play without expansionist trait.

It is not, in this particular game (GOTM34) removed expansionist trait can also be used as an advantage: slowing research pace and promoting units to elite.
In fact, if in COTM5 expansionist trait will be removed for predator, it will be my first predator. I was planning not to research after horseback riding or iron working and going for conquest or domination. So I would prefer to play without expansionist trait.
I think it was an extreme example, and I can't really see how this can help, much better to get a free tech than a 1 in 8 chance of an upgrade of one troop.

I think it was an extreme example, and I can't really see how this can help, much better to get a free tech than a 1 in 8 chance of an upgrade of one troop.

Why?
If you get a lot of techs, it will become cheaper for AI, it will be more difficult to destroy AI. Killing barbs is easy, though.
I agree, however, that a setler from a goody hut is indeed a very useful thing. But chances of getting it are not good.
A conscript warrior from a goody hut is also a pain. If you get it far from your capital you have not much use of it, but you have to pay for it.
I do not know whether it is really better to play this game (COTM5) without expansionist trait and this in part why I would like to try it.
In GOTM34 you indeed need to research something to get oversees, but COTM5 is a pangea.

I also finally made my decision and voted for ‘alternate’. I also think that it will be nice to know penalties in advance (at least a day before save is published). I think that discussion of possible benefits of particular penalty will help to understand the mechanics of this game.

Disagree. Conquest bonuses are needed to encourage new players to play on difficult levels. E.g. to help them survive. If conquest bonuses will match 15% score penalty, people will start thinking about conquest as a way of getting better score. I do not think this was a purpose. I was choosing conquest to help me survive in COTM3 (didn't survive, though), not to increase my score.Well, anyone getting in the top 50% shouldn't be playing conquest class. It is my opinion that an 'open' class player who played the open class and the conquest class would score better (once the conquest 15% penalty is applied) in the open game, by at least about 5% to 10%. The conquest bonuses are not really designed to make the scores comparable; simply to improve the confidence for the conquest players and give them an early helper. I was not meaning that the bonuses should be increased to the point where a given player can score 15% more points on conquest than on open, but redressing the balance slightly might help. :)


As for predator class, I more and more think that it is probably OK as it is right now. What is not OK is its description:

“Players who choose to play in the Predator class game must overcome an extra set of obstacles built into their game to provide an extra level of challenge. The intent of these changes is to raise the difficulty without altering strategic play progress from that which you would see for comparison in the conquest class and open class games.

Players who might be interested in playing the Predator class game could be those players who have participated in the Elite or Leader divisions of the Medal Play Series or players who just want an extra level of excitement or challenge.”

This description should contain a sentence that playing Predator class may increase chances of earlier victory under certain conditions.
The aim of the predator class is NOT to increase the chances of an earlier victory. At times, it is possible that this has happened, however it is more due to the skill of these players and the design of the 'handicaps' than the goal of the class. As stated previously, this is why I have moved away from giving extra settlers to the AI, especially on lower levels. This is why I removed a trait and removed a worker and have been removing the barb attack bonus => These are designed to directly hinder the player, and are much more difficult to manipulate towards your own advantage. Dynamic just got very, very lucky in GOTM 34. <shrug>

Having played predator and open games, and observed others' posts in the predator-as-advantage dialogue in the past, it seems to me that the consensus among upper level players is that tech research usually goes quicker on predator, which is usually an advantage for several victory types. For players that are new to predator, sure there is a greater chance that they lose, but for most deity-level players, predator is an obvious advantage at monarch or below. Sure, the best players could still get early vic medals for diplo or space, but IMHO predator gives a boost.

I think predator should be more of a handicap for the human player, rather than a boost for the AI, which can be 'surfed' by the human player to his/her advantage. I think having no worker, a lower unit support, or fewer happy citizens per city would be a nice handicap. This would truly make predator victories a matter of pride!:D

BTW I love Denyd's idea to keep the handicap condition secret a secret from players!:lol: But I suspect this would rub the Planners who like to know all parameters beforehand...

I've played Predator in every game since it was introduced. I do it because the challenge is like a red flag to a bull. (In some ways I'm as predictable as a C3C barbarian :lol: )

After reading through this thread I find myself agreeing with Ronald, i.e. best solution being to get rid of Predator class. It seems to me that there are too many conflicting things which people want or expect from Predator class. Many of those not playing it want to be sure it isn't an advantage, reasonably so. Some of those playing it see it as an additional choice, some as an additional challenge. I don't think that a single solution will satisfy everyone.

Is there a downside to eliminating Predator class? I guess the question there is whether we'd have some players dropping out as a result. There hasn't been much (just a bit) said by Predator players in this thread saying that having the extra challenge matters much to them, so I'm thinking that looks like a lesser factor than making other people happier. I think that some Predator players will have more fun - currently if the change for Predator class in a game results in a clearly more difficult game, I think that some players are torn between feeling that they "ought to" play Predator vs. going where they see there's more scoring potential. Removing Predator class would let everyone who currently plays in either class feel more comfortable that the playing field is level. And good players looking for an additional challenge can always make their own. There are many examples of self-imposed goals or limitations in past GOTM games.

I've voted "other" on the poll. I think the best thing is to drop Predator. My second choice would be to require playing as Predator if some precondition has been met but I think that might prove frustrating to some players. Third choice, leave it as is, it does add some interesting twists to the game. (And even that last point adds to the case for removing it as others have said re incomparable timelines.)

Well, anyone getting in the top 50% shouldn't be playing conquest class.I wonder if modding the condition to "top 50% at the same diffiulty level" or something like that would be a good idea. I not sure it would have helped me, but it might have been wise for me to have played the last emperor/demi-god duo on conquest class, even though I wasn't eligable under above rule.

The aim of the predator class is NOT to increase the chances of an earlier victory. At times, it is possible that this has happened, however it is more due to the skill of these players and the design of the 'handicaps' than the goal of the class. As stated previously, this is why I have moved away from giving extra settlers to the AI, especially on lower levels. This is why I removed a trait and removed a worker and have been removing the barb attack bonus => These are designed to directly hinder the player, and are much more difficult to manipulate towards your own advantage. Dynamic just got very, very lucky in GOTM 34. <shrug>I think this answers my question about the intent of predator class and any perceived advantages. Sounds like you are all over this one. :)

I will vote keep it the same.

Arrrr, interesting that no one has considered eliminating Conquest class. A swift kick in the butt is the best education. If you got killed, take notes and don't repeat your mistakes. Give bonuses to Open class, make Predator demonstrably more difficult, and add a seperated results column- Predator medals and Open medals. For curiosity and pride, continue the combined results column, so that when SirPleb gets first place anyway people will continue to heed his advice. Let's ramp up the learning curve of novices through hard knocks!!!

I would stop having the predator class at all, and this is why:
The level of additional challenge is mostly minimal. /.../
As far as the AI benefits are, sometimes good players can turn that into their advantage. To avoid this kind of cherrypicking and the discussion following whether this is OK or not, eliminate the predator class completely.
?
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/swordsman_smaller001.gif
Remove the predator class so everyone has to toy around with regent AI?

IMO, the problem is that the AI bonus has not been valuable enough. When the difficulty is regent, AI support is raised to monarch; when the difficulty is monarch, AI support is raised to emperor. The average predator player is quite comfortable at the emperor level, and since most games are regent or monarch, many games will in fact become easier for the predator player - you're right so far.

The ideal is extra settler and deity support for the AI. This will make the AI harder to break and will increase the reward if you succeed. Changing the build ratio for the AI to 60% in an emperor game would be OK too.

It is a fine line for ainwood to walk if we want both the challenge and the chance for medals, but this is my suggestion.

Iincrease the AI bonus a lot! This increases the challenge.
Removing a trait or worker just makes the game less fun.

There are many examples of self-imposed goals or limitations in past GOTM games. I have also played only predator games (except my first GOTM) although not nearly as well as you. I for one am not attracted to those self-imposed handicaps. Comparisons to other players are important and largely disappear in a 5CC, 3CC or 1CC. I have too little time to experiment in a zillion ways so I may well be one of those guys that drops out if the games don't offer a real challenge.

I hope that predator will stay, I really will regret that I started this thread if it will be removed.
If it will stay I have an idea for one of predator's variants:
Ainwood starts the game, instead of saving it immideatly he presses enter, then saves it. In other words predator class starts one turn later. Will it be very bad?

Can I ask why removing a trait is so bad? I would only ever remove the lesser trait (eg I'd never take away industrious, for example). Is this based on the concern that predator can no longer compete with open? Four out of the top six in the results were predator. Fine. If it will make some people happier. As long as the extra challenge is available.

I feel one issue is missing in this thread, though:

Those people who complain about the advantages of predator, why don't they choose it themselves? Some people do and still want scrap predator, but they seem to speak on the behalf of others.

If it will stay I have an idea for one of predator's variants: Ainwood starts the game, instead of saving it immideatly he presses enter, then saves it. In other words predator class starts one turn later.
I was just about to post the same idea. :)
Only, one turn is probably not enough to make difference, it should be more like 5.
Equivalently, the Conquest class players could receive 5 extra turns at the start (is that possible?)

solenoozerec, Hannabir,

That would mainly affect the score of the predator players, not so much the challenge itself. Don't you want the best players to win the medals?

Why?
If you get a lot of techs, it will become cheaper for AI, it will be more difficult to destroy AI. Killing barbs is easy, though.
I agree, however, that a setler from a goody hut is indeed a very useful thing. But chances of getting it are not good.
A conscript warrior from a goody hut is also a pain. If you get it far from your capital you have not much use of it, but you have to pay for it.
I do not know whether it is really better to play this game (COTM5) without expansionist trait and this in part why I would like to try it.
In GOTM34 you indeed need to research something to get oversees, but COTM5 is a pangea.

It always good to get techs before the AI so that you can trade them, that is pretty fundamental to winning this game. I've played most games without expansionist trait and I'm never had a warrior promoted to elite from a barb from a goodie hut generate a leader, and I've played a lot of games of civ.

Without expansionist trait has also meant no scout at all, and you get contacts slower, that is another fundamental method for winning the game, particularly on higher levels.

solenoozerec, Hannabir,

That would mainly affect the score of the predator players, not so much the challenge itself. Don't you want the best players to win the medals?

A good point, if it is just a score, it is certainly not what predator is intended for.

It always good to get techs before the AI so that you can trade them, that is pretty fundamental to winning this game.

I thought so too, but in my last two games (GOTM34 and COTM4) I understood that this is not always the case. If I want to win a game as soon as possible I need to make sure that research is going slow on a planet. I prefer to kill spears, not pikemen. It turned out to be a successful tactic, as in these two games I scored over 9K. While in my first GOTM I barely managed to win (almost lost) and in the second one I lost despite I was playing conquest class.

I've played most games without expansionist trait and I'm never had a warrior promoted to elite from a barb from a goodie hut generate a leader, and I've played a lot of games of civ.


I did not play a lot of games, however I got many warriors promoted to elite from fighting with barbs. Sure I never got a leader, because it is simply impossible. But consider fighting with barbs as training of future leaders ;)

I thought so too, but in my last two games (GOTM34 and COTM4) I understood that this is not always the case. If I want to win a game as soon as possible I need to make sure that research is going slow on a planet. I prefer to kill spears, not pikemen. It turned out to be a successful tactic, as in these two games I scored over 9K. While in my first GOTM I barely managed to win (almost lost) and in the second one I lost despite I was playing conquest class.

Sometimes you want to speed them up and sometimes you want to slow them down, depends on the game situation. But what you are suggesting (don't pop goodie huts for tech as it will help the AI) will not help that.


I did not play a lot of games, however I got many warriors promoted to elite from fighting with barbs. Sure I never got a leader, because it is simply impossible. But consider fighting with barbs as training of future leaders ;)
I have played a lot of games, yes leader farming from barbs is fine. But you were talking about getting barbs from goodie huts as a method to get a leader, which I'm sorry to say makes no sense.

Sorry but for the sake of the rest of the forum I wont continue this discussion.

smackster

Sometimes you want to speed them up and sometimes you want to slow them down, depends on the game situation. But what you are suggesting (don't pop goodie huts for tech as it will help the AI) will not help that.

And why?


I have played a lot of games, yes leader farming from barbs is fine.


As I mentioned before, I did not play a lo of games... yet I know that leader farming from barbs is not possible :(


But you were talking about getting barbs from goodie huts as a method to get a leader, which I'm sorry to say makes no sense.

I never wrote it because it is impossible to get a leader this way.


Sorry but for the sake of the rest of the forum I wont continue this discussion.

smackster

No offence, but you are right, istead of discussing further, just read again my previous posts a little more carefull :)

The aim of the predator class is NOT to increase the chances of an earlier victory. At times, it is possible that this has happened, however it is more due to the skill of these players and the design of the 'handicaps' than the goal of the class. As stated previously, this is why I have moved away from giving extra settlers to the AI, especially on lower levels.

Now I wish I had voted for "other" instead of for varying between the Player penalty and the AI advantage. This will only go to confirm what Sir Pleb said already about everyone having a different opinion on this, but here goes anyway...

I had no idea that predator was intended only to increase the difficulty but not to give any reward. The extra settler and increased AI support level was my favorite Predator mod! It was the most dramatic in increasing the risk, and also the most dramatic in increasing reward (especially for Diplo, Space and Domination games). It was fun watching the AI close in and settle around my capitol, destoying all my carefully laid expansion plans. Because I knew, if I could just turn the tide, I could convert that adversity into an even faster win.

I had thought that was one of the purposes of Predator. So my vote would be to add this to Predator's stated purpose, as Solenoozerec (man, that's hard to spell) mentioned. Sometimes it could help (if you play it right), and sometimes it could hurt.

I don't think a Predator level makes sense if it is only designed to be a handicap. I can only imagine two types of player choosing such a class: those who are looking for an extra challenge and are not concerned about winning or medals, and those who are so good that they think they can best the field in spite of the challenge.

I don't think having these players play a "handicapped" class would be a good thing for two reasons: 1) I personally always want to see the person that played the best game win the gold medal. It is ok to watch the top players step back and play a variant occasionally, but I don't want them to always do it, and that is what Predator is if it is always a challenge and never a reward: a variant. I can learn from a player who plays a variant, but I can't compare the finer details of my game to theirs. 2) I don't want to reach a place where the upper echelon is playing Predator, and a great new player comes along that wins the medals but keeps playing Open for "too long." It could lead to some ugly discussion threads.

I definitely do not want to see Predator level become mandatory for the top players, especially if Predator evolves into/remains :hmm: just a handicap. If this were to prevent the best players from winning medals or to lower their standings on the GPR, both of those things would lose their value. Not that either of them is perfect now, but they would become even less meaningful.

Sometimes you want to speed them up and sometimes you want to slow them down, depends on the game situation. But what you are suggesting (don't pop goodie huts for tech as it will help the AI) will not help that.
And why?
Well, for example, the AI could pop goodie huts for tech. I don't see how that would slow research.

I did not play a lot of games, however I got many warriors promoted to elite from fighting with barbs. Sure I never got a leader, because it is simply impossible. But consider fighting with barbs as training of future leaders ;)

Right! At LOW GAME LEVEL units often promoted to elite from barbs attack. And the leader appeared from the war against AI of course.
I often get leader from single unit elite win if it was very early, I don't know why. In GOTM34 I was very lucky with it. :)

Well, for example, the AI could pop goodie huts for tech. I don't see how that would slow research.

A good point.
However, only expansionist civ is likely to pop it for tech. Plus I do not suggest to leave goodie huts intact. I was suggesting to drop expansionist trait and pop a goodie hut for barbs instead of a tech. As a result even expansionist AI cannot pop a tech out of a goodie hut that does not exist anymore :)

Any other explanations why lack of expansionist trait cannot slow down research?
I am not an experienced player, I cannot be sure that I am right and I would appreciate an explanation to why I am wrong.

I was suggesting to drop expansionist trait and pop a goodie hut for barbs instead of a tech. As a result even expansionist AI cannot pop a tech out of a goodie hut that does not exist anymore :)
Unfortunately, the goody-hut contents are randomised - you can't specify the contents in advance, so you can't specify that they won't have techs.

Unfortunately, the goody-hut contents are randomised - you can't specify the contents in advance, so you can't specify that they won't have techs.

But how they can pop out a tech from a goody-hut that I already destroyed?
There is probably something is wrong with the way I am writing since people tend not to understand me :cry::cry::cry:

I will try again: Let say there is a goody hut. I do not have an expansionist trait because I play predator and this trait was removed. Now I go to a goody hut and destroy it.
What will happen? - I guess, most likely I will see three conscript barbs there. (If I had an expansionist trait there would be a good chance of getting a tech).
Now, how AI can get something out of this goody hut if it is not there anymore?

As an open class player, currently, I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a predator class that potentially offers the elite players a risk/reward scenario. No one is denied playing predator after all, so the potential reward is there for all, it just requires exceptional ability to crack it, and so get a reward.

I am not sure if it is possible to turn a human handicap into an advantage. So if it is to be an AI advanatge, I am with Megalou on the point that it should be a significant advantage. When the game has been on regent, with the predator penalty being increase AI bonuses to monarch level, I have been very tempted to play predator myself!

While I don't have a problem with the risk/reward scenario, I also do not have a strong opinion on this, and have abstained from voting so far, while I thinik about it a bit more.

solenoozerec, Hannabir,

That would mainly affect the score of the predator players
Perhaps you misunderstood - the AI has started already!! ;)

Perhaps you misunderstood - the AI has started already!! ;)

One turn won't make much difference. The AI often gets that advantage if the player decides to move away from the starting position, so one extra turn won't make predator much more challenging...

An interesting discussion goes on here. :)

I beg to strongly disagree with Ainwood about his decision to remove starting bonuses from AI. IIRC, the GOTM29 game (America) was extremely challenging one especially early on on Predator with Sid level unit support and 2-3 starting settlers for the AI. It was a very exciting and brutal game overall but not for those who played Open IIRC.

For some games it matters, for others it does not. As it was in GOTM34 (Zulu), there was little extra challenge in Predator versus Open. And IMO, I don't really care if it is removed or remains but voted for bonuses for AI. At least in this case playing Predator can be rewarded to a certain extent. And certainly, early contacts in C3C can do you more harm than good (regarding Republic slingshot), so playing without expansionist trait is a clear advantage.

With broken barbarians in C3C there is little point in playing with defense bonus against them however. I have played the last Maya COTM on Open class mainly because it is a large map which is a great challenge already. :)

Another IMO, the Predator class in C3C and PTW are completely different. Also, third IMO, I'd like to see some more Predator games played to compare. As it stands now, very few ppls actually play on Predator. Even extremely strong ppls. I'm extremely curious to know why...

I'd like to see some more Predator games played to compare. As it stands now, very few ppls actually play on Predator. Even extremely strong ppls. I'm extremely curious to know why...
If you check the statistics Predator is actually chosen by between 10% and 20% of players in the GOTM series. Overall the ratio is 18% since Predator was introduced in gotm 20.

Perhaps you misunderstood - the AI has started already!! ;) Not misunderstood, but I may have oversimplified my first response. I feel that if the human player has no land for 5 turns this will be equivalent to a plain deduction of points, since land area and fast finish are the main generators of score. At high levels the challenge might increase a little with your suggestion also, I grant you that, but there are better ways to create that challenge.

Upon hearing from ainwood as to the intended purpose of Predator class and his ongoing efforts to minimize any unbalance aspects, I would be satisfied to let things play out the way they have been going.

IMO, I think there is been some misunderstanding of what Predator is supposed to be and some unintended rewards for excellent play on Predator. The most important thing is for everybody to be on the same page regarding the Predator class. A good starting point is for the community to reach common understanding of what Predator was intended to be, what it currently is and how it has/is evolving. This thread has been a good clearing of the air towards that goal.

From there we can evaluate what is best for the GOTM community. My problem was not so much with the thought of there being rewards but with inconsistency between my perception of Predator and some of the information out there that seemed to contradict that perception. I am sure that all the rumor and speculation have only helped magnify people’s feeling of being disadvantaged. (on both sides of the issue.)

IMO, I think that it might a good exercise to gather information from the experts on the different ideas (past and future) for adding challenge to the Predator class. They can help us understand what was the most challenging and help evaluate effects they have/had on scoring. This would: a) help ainwood with his efforts at maintaining balance; b) allow informed discussion on the whole topic of rewarding greater risk.

For example, giving the AI an extra settler, how does that help/hinder a player? Or more AI unit support? Or changing AI/player traits? Does the change provide more help/hindrance depending on difficulty level? How much can it help? Does it allow a player to further increase AI research and thereby achieve an earlier finish date? Does it help increase base Firaxis score? What does it translate to in terms Jason score? Is the difference significant enough to be unbalancing? Can the Jason Scoring be adjusted for the Predator differences? Are there techniques/exploits that could be voluntarily restricted on Predator to limit the impact of the unintended advantages?

Or. Is there a need to redefine Predator class around the principle of risks and rewards? It could become another step up in a player’s evolution beyond just levels of difficulty. That would present some issues in regards to recognizing player’s accomplishments but if everyone understands what is required to achieve a medal or an award then there can’t be controversy arising from misunderstandings, rumors, or speculation.

In the end, we have to keep it fun and interesting, so that the really good players will hang around with us and show us the way. ;)

My opinion is that the Predator class should be eliminated. The only way it should remain is if the AI is unchanged, and the human is penalized. I agree with the argument that the top players will still be the top players regardless of Predator-induced faster times, but, any scoring or time BONUS should not be available. Playing Predator should be a big lapel pin stating said player is an elite player. Kind of a "I can play the game as well as, or better than you, with one arm tied behind my back" mentality.

I voted "other"

Hergrom

I voted for "the human should be penalised". This doesn't have to necessarily have to involve removing a trait, but i feel its the only fair way to actually make the game harder for the human.

Having said that, i wouldn't be bothered if things remain as they are. I play Open every single game, and the challenge that i get from the game is trying to beat my own Firaxis/Jason score every time. I don't mind whether I'm in amongst the Predator players or not - they are playing IMO a totally separate game and the results should be viewed as such.

If a player consisently ends up being the best Open player every single GOTM, then i think this should be commended. Perhaps there should be a special award...

Having said that, i wouldn't be bothered if things remain as they are. I play Open every single game, and the challenge that i get from the game is trying to beat my own Firaxis/Jason score every time. I don't mind whether I'm in amongst the Predator players or not - they are playing IMO a totally separate game and the results should be viewed as such.

If a player consisently ends up being the best Open player every single GOTM, then i think this should be commended. Perhaps there should be a special award...
I think this is worth reiterating again, that the intent of GOTM is to be able to compare all games, and the classes were not intended to change that. Otherwise we'll start needing seperate spoilers for each class, and creating divisions. The more we do to effect the player in Predator (rather than the AI), the more these games don't bare comparision.

I think this is worth reiterating again, that the intent of GOTM is to be able to compare all games, and the classes were not intended to change that. Otherwise we'll start needing seperate spoilers for each class, and creating divisions. The more we do to effect the player in Predator (rather than the AI), the more these games don't bare comparision.

Well, in that case, there should not be a Predator class. Since the relative differences between Predator and Open (whether they be advantages or diadvantages) are different from one game to the next, it is impossible to compare. I personally never try to compare my game to that of an elite player since I know we are playing a different game...

Well, in that case, there should not be a Predator class. Since the relative differences between Predator and Open (whether they be advantages or diadvantages) are different from one game to the next, it is impossible to compare. I personally never try to compare my game to that of an elite player since I know we are playing a different game...
Agreed to a certain extent, I think we should remove it. But generally the opening sequence is the same for us all. Removing traits, or workers, or whatever means that the opening sequence is not the same.

My choice would be to make the game harder for the player rather than easier for the AI. Increase costs like settlers to 40 shields or make it tougher to explore/expand like can't build galleys or settlers are treated as wheeled or keep the military smaller like increase unit support to 3gpt. Making the AI better, unless is a huge jump, just quickens the pace to victory for the top players. Maybe giving the predator class a special victory condition like conquest victory without being able to declare war, no upgrades/pre-builds or no paying unit support (keeps army small), would add a new bone for the big dogs to chase.

A couple of points:

I have been studying the AI to try and see the effect of various bonuses. There are always risks of unintended side effects, so balance is important. I like the direct penalties to the human, because they are the most predictable (eg. If a trait is removed, we know that this is a direct penalty; by increasing AI free unit support, the usually this means more units - the 'unintended side effect' can be more gold.)

Remember that the bonuses / penalties need to be fairly easily implimented. For example, changing tech costs for the player only is not possible unless the AI trade rate is messed with; changing costs of certain units for the player only is not possible without full 'custom units' which require a download / install.

I would like to promote a bit of discussion from the predator players in particular as to what they think are 'fair' handicaps, along with some justification.

OK, I've got a couple of ideas. I've tried to list these in a way that they could be used to aid Open/Conquest as well as hinder Predator.


Remove/Add traits
Reduce/Increase starting gold
Add/Remove starting units
Add/Remove initial starting techs
Change individual player difficulty (not sure what this does, but in the editor you can change the difficulty level for player 1 independently of the others. Maybe this can be used to change Player 1's production level?)
Render some of the tiles around the start location unusable via pollution (for Predator)
Add some roads around the start (for Open/Conquest)

IMO, many ppls involved in this discussion greatly overestimate the skills and willingness to accept challenge for Predator players. As it stands now, about 10-15% ppls play on Predator. If this would be a serious handicap without possible advantages to compensate, there will be probably only SirPleb left as a Predator. As for me, I will quit playing it if it is indeed a serious hindrance like increased tech cost or build costs.

Lets consider this COTM/GOTm played on Monarch where Predator had unit support for AI increased to Emperor. Monarch to Emperor unit support is a huge difference indeed. AI gets a free spearman/pikeman in each city immediately after it is built and when it flips back to the AI. This means an extra free defender in all AI cities. Certainly, some ppls can say that this helps with leader farming for the predator ppls since they can slaughter more AI units. I suggest these ppls try for themselves. It immensely increases the difficulty of the game. Or take the COTM3 game (byzantines) for example. There on Predator India got 2 free defenders into each city that flipped and there were indeed very many flips in that game. Not mentioning barbarian hut locations so that to survive, many Predator ppls (including myself) had to let Indian warriors in to fight them and hence experienced early poorly prepared war with Gandhi.

Overall, I'm thinking hard each time which class to play. Sometimes playing Predator is very risky and can get you into a really big trouble at start or later on.

There is always an option of doing it like it was with Medal Play series which was having 3 games at 3 difficulty levels. I just want to ask: Do you seriously believe that Deity game is more easy than Emperor and Emperor more easy than Monarch?

Edited: If some ppls want a real challenge, there is always HOF and a multitude of recent SGs started on Sid. What is going on here as I see it that that a number of ppls who want to score better in GOTM without improving their skills want to create some handicap for those ppls who perform consistently better than them. No offense intended please. It is just an impression that I get from some posts.

If this would be a serious handicap without possible advantages to compensate, there will be probably only SirPleb left as a Predator.

And me. I've started playing predator, and will continue to do so as long as it exists, no matter what the player handicap/AI incentive.




Overall, I'm thinking hard each time which class to play. Sometimes playing Predator is very risky and can get you into a really big trouble at start or later on.

I guess we're approaching it differently. I'm after an exciting game first, then I try to get a good score.

... I guess we're approaching it differently. I'm after an exciting game first, then I try to get a good score.

Nope, I'm looking for an exciting game as well. But there are other means to get an exciting game which I mentioned above.

Regarding score: I really don't care much except that GOTM is played for score. This is the goal of the game which is getting a good score. If you don't play GOTM for score, there is no point to play it at all IMHO. There are possibilities of imposing certain restriction like no Palace moves or RoP abuse but still the goal of the game stands.

I just want to ask: Do you seriously believe that Deity game is more easy than Emperor and Emperor more easy than Monarch?

No. But if I want to go, for example, for diplo victory, I might get it faster on Emperor than on Monarch. Am I wrong?

I lost COTM3 playing conquest class, yet I never was getting techs at such rapid rate in other games on lower difficulty levels.

Anyway, I think that Ainwood listened to Megalou's (sorry if I spelled wrong) suggestion and went even further by increasing support unit from regent to emperor. I think it will increase the difference between open and predator too Is it good - I have no idea. But I am intrigued to see how many people will play predator and how it will effect their game play and score.

I don't like starting with only one trait on Predator, because (a) that makes the game too different from Open (not just harder, but goals will differ) and (b) it makes the civ you get less interesting.
Removing the two starting techs (or one of them) could be an option though IMHO.

For the Conquest class, perhaps extra knowledge of the map would be a nice bonus. Participants would learn the importance of picking a good starting tile without the decision being complicated by the need to find it first.

No. But if I want to go, for example, for diplo victory, I might get it faster on Emperor than on Monarch. Am I wrong? ...

This is essentially equalized by Jason's score so not an issue.

... I lost COTM3 playing conquest class, yet I never was getting techs at such rapid rate in other games on lower difficulty levels. ...

So all these techs did you no good? :)

This is essentially equalized by Jason's score so not an issue.


I disagree. If you are playing pred and I am playing open on the same game and you are able to get tech's quicker because of AI bonuses you are able to finish at a faster pace then I can. How is the jason score going to make a difference in that?

Of course I don't think the rules or the game should be change so take what I say with a big grain of salt.

I disagree. If you are playing pred and I am playing open on the same game and you are able to get tech's quicker because of AI bonuses you are able to finish at a faster pace then I can. How is the jason score going to make a difference in that? ...

Wanna switch? I play Open and you play Predator and to see who is getting the techs faster and able to use it to your advantage... Please do not be confused with this. :)

I have not played the same game on Predator and Open and probably neither of ppls here did. That would be a nice comparison btw.

I disagree. If you are playing pred and I am playing open on the same game and you are able to get tech's quicker because of AI bonuses you are able to finish at a faster pace then I can. How is the jason score going to make a difference in that?
The statement concerning Jason was referring to different difficulty levels, not player classes, and was a somewhat off topic reply to a somewhat off topic post. Predators don't play the whole game at a different difficulty level, they sometimes just get specific components set to those of a higher difficulty level.

I guess we're approaching it differently. I'm after an exciting game first, then I try to get a good score.

Why in the world should someone have to choose one or the other? In the past, when the AI was given advatages, we were able to have both if we played a strong game.

Lets say the "Handicap Predator" crowd gets its way, and Predator is made such that it is a definite handicap, one that the player cannot turn to his advantage. Lets say they do such a good job that the best players out there like Sir Pleb, DaveMcW, Ronald and others, can't place in the medals even when playing the best game. What will have been accomplished at that point? The only thing that will accomplish is to ensure that the wrong people get the medals.

And lesser (but aspiring!) players like me will be faced with a LOUSY choice. Do I want to compete with the best players on the handicaped level to see if I can best them, or do I want to have even a slight chance at capturing a long sought after medal? That would not be fair at all, and it would make the GOTM much less fun for me. If I get a medal, I want it to be because I earned it, not because the better players were all playing in a different sandbox!

Now I wish for Predator to be abolished. It was nice to have it for the extra challenge on the low level games, but it is just going to screw up the whole competition if things keep going the direction they are. This "Handicapped" level will only make the medals, awards and GPR meaningless.

When everyone is done turning Predator class into Handicapped class, why don't you call up the Olympic committee and convince them to have all the best athletes tie sandbags to their butts at the next Olympics? That way, someone else could win. Wouldn't that be great?

This is essentially equalized by Jason's score so not an issue.

Yes if you want to go for a medal. No, if you want to go for an award.

So all these techs did you no good? :)

Yes they did… to my self esteem. It was cool to lead in research on demigod for a long time.


I have not played the same game on Predator and Open and probably neither of ppls here did. That would be a nice comparison btw.

I think it will not be a good comparison, because your second game is always likely to be better than the first, no matter what class you play.
No way to compare :(

When everyone is done turning Predator class into Handicapped class, why don't you call up the Olympic committee and convince them to have all the best athletes tie sandbags to their butts at the next Olympics? That way, someone else could win. Wouldn't that be great?

Couldn’t be said better :hatsoff:
Fortunately there is no democracy here and those votes above do not mean much. The fate of predator-class seems to be in Ainwood’s hands who seems to value reason more than votes :hatsoff:
Anyway, I hope predator will stay and it will not be just a level at which good sprinters are taken their legs off.

Yes if you want to go for a medal. No, if you want to go for an award. ...

It is unclear and depends on the difficulty level, number of AIs and many-many other things. For example, you can see that the fastest Space victory ever was achieved on Chieftain: here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=90442)

my 2 cents:

I see predator as the 'normal' class. If you're capable of playing te game on this level you must do this. I do not understand people that choose to play 'predator' when it fits their strategy and than go back to 'open' for comfort.

Once 'predator', always 'predator'

There is an 'open' and 'conquest' class for players that are not that experienced yet and need a chance to finish the game successfully.

Hence, keep it as it is, sometimes give the human a set back, sometimes give AI an advantage, or a combination of both. I trust ainwood and staff to come up with a balanced game anyway.

Seeing how several people seem to try to play ancient age conquest for COTM5.. How about dropping predator class each month, and instead have a sponsored variant. Then in addition add another award for whoever does best within the limits of the sponsored variant.

Examples of variants could be 5CC space, OCC, AW, and so on.

If somehow you dont manage to stay within the rules of the variant, you would instead switch to the normal competition at any time (thou playing within special rules for parts of the game would prolly hamper your score a lot vs those that didnt play with special rules from the beginning).

my 2 cents:

I see predator as the 'normal' class. If you're capable of playing te game on this level you must do this. I do not understand people that choose to play 'predator' when it fits their strategy and than go back to 'open' for comfort.

Once 'predator', always 'predator'

There is an 'open' and 'conquest' class for players that are not that experienced yet and need a chance to finish the game successfully.

my 3 cents :)

The intent was that this is voluntary for those that want a harder game, but doesn't mean we have to play a harder game.

Just because I can beat GOTM at a certain level doesn't mean I have to play an ever harder game does it. I understand why people like to play harder and harder games, but for me there is a difficultly level which I'm comfortable with and still get enjoyment out of.

For example with both Emperor and Deity games, I don't feel the need to make it harder, regardless of the fact that I'm confident I can win those games. In fact to me if you make it too hard, I'll just run out of time, as there are only so many hours I can devote to GOTM each month. I've won games from nowhere before, with a few backward cities and know that any game can be won.

Even the sponsored variant is a risk, as I've just recently played GOTM35 as a 5CCC, and frankly gave up as it would take too long to win, and the enjoyment factor had gone. I know I could have won it, but it proved too difficult.

I think this just shows we have people who get enjoyment out of different things (I hate MM for example) and the current system seems to allow me to have a hard game without it taking over my life (anymore than it already does).

smackster

In terms of distortion, a sponsored variant has much more of an effect on the medal table than any bonuses / obstacles for predator could ever have.

.....or as SirPleb put it "....a red flag to a bull".

I checked "other" in the poll, so now I feel obliged to throw in my 2 cents worth, or is it 2 pesos worth since I'm in Mexico!? :crazyeye:

First, in the poll, I was looking for 2 more options:
1. Predator Class should be eliminated
2. Predator Class should be restricted to certain players (i.e. Top 10 GOTM finishers)

I played Predator in GOTM34 after returning to GOTM after a 17-month "layoff" in HOF and picked Predator, because I thought I was supposed to!......pretty stupid in retrospect. Other than ignorance (i.e. Me), ego, "red flag", elitism etc, why are people picking Predator? The challenge is NOT to win the game (for experienced players).........it's to BEAT other players scores. So I'm thinking NOW: Okay Drazek & Ronald, both top players, played at Open level in GOTM34 and came 2nd & 4th........I played Predator and came in 5th......What if I had played Open level?.......(Ahhhh, the rationalization of the human mind!) :lol:

Another Point: "If an elite player is playing predator, he sometimes is likely to do better than in open class"......If this is TRUE, I'm definitely an Open player!
(Because, I would need some convincing on this one!)

Anyways, I read Ronald & SirPleb's posts........totally agree...........of course SirPleb is always diplomatic OR perhaps just sees the "Bigger Picture" that us CivPlebs don't.

Bottom Line: Either eliminate Predator Class OR make it mandatory for players meeting certain requirements (i.e. Names starting with S and ending with b). :)

There should NOT be a choice between Open & Predator.........Strong players WILL play........NOT to win the game (that's a given) but to see how they compare to the other strong players......AND the comraderie in the Forum! :)

BTW, Conquest Class, particulary at higher game levels is a GREAT idea.........to encourage more participation! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Well done ainwood & the GOTM Team! :goodjob:

to Smackster:
I agree, open or predator is a choice, and comes with what you want to get out of the game on time, enjoyment, challenge or whatsoever. No debate there.

It influences the final score, and makes games incomparable and leads to Eman's question: What would I've scored if I played open/predator...

So, as GOTM is also about score (pride), ranking etc. predator/open are different playgrounds. Hence,

Take predator out, or make it mandatory for certain players.

I only see 2 things that are real advantages for predator level, both caused by the same thing:

-More AI cities (conquering is faster than filling gaps, so more territory score)
-Faster AI tech, espescially beneficial for space and UN victory, maybe neutral for conquest domination also caused by the AI having more cities.(advantage you get to knights faster, but equaled out if it gets the AI pikes it might have never had otherwise)

Extra AI starting militairy units are no advantage

Since i think predator should not be a strategic choise, it should simply not include extra settlers for the AI.
If noone plays predator when it is purely a disadvantage instead of a tactical choise, then that proves this whole discussion is justified and predator class probably should be removed.
I think it should only be for those who feel uncomfortable playing at the chosen difficulty level. Therefore, i think both the bonusses and score penalty could be increased with high difficulty gotms.

For conquest class i think the same applies, i think it should not be a tactical choise (not for better or for weaker players). Therefore, i think the bonusses should not equal the 15% score penalty and thus conquest players should have virtually no chance to get top3.

The way it is now, i think the conquest bonusses are worth less than 5% score, so no problem of tactical choise there. (with 15% penalty, over 13k Jason would be needed for gold, i don't think that is made possible by the conquest bonusses)

For conquest class i think the same applies, i think it should not be a tactical choise (not for better or for weaker players). Therefore, i think the bonusses should not equal the 15% score penalty and thus conquest players should have virtually no chance to get top3.

The way it is now, i think the conquest bonusses are worth less than 5% score, so no problem of tactical choise there. (with 15% penalty, over 13k Jason would be needed for gold, i don't think that is made possible by the conquest bonusses)
Conquest class can't win any of the fastest or highest score awards. It's really only a gentle way into the competition for people who are not yet comfortable at the difficulty level of their first game or two. Like training wheels on bikes. Once you've reached a position in the top 50% in any game you are required to remove your training wheels and play for real.