Predator class

[Dianthus]

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.

 

[Offa]

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

 

[samildanach]

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" . 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.

 

[smackster]

I was one of the "few" . 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.

 

[Dynamic]

Predator - it sounds pride!

 

[zamint3]

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.

 

[civ_steve]

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.

 

[MiniMe]

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 . Let me know if I am wrong.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Predator - it sounds pride!

Absolutely...

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

 

[solenoozerec]

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.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

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.

 

[bed_head7]

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.

 

[solenoozerec]

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?

 

[MiniMe]

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???
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

 

[tao]

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.

 

[ainwood]

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?

 

[Mistfit]

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.

 

[Randy]

I picked other. Keep it the same.

 

[ainwood]

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.

 

[tao]

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.