Predator class

[solenoozerec]

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.

 

[solenoozerec]

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.

 

[smackster]

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.

 

[solenoozerec]

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.

 

[ainwood]

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>

 

[Lord Jimbob]

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!

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

 

[SirPleb]

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 )

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.)

 

[Denniz]

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.

 

[Jove]

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!!!

 

[Megalou]

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.

?

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.

 

[Megalou]

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.

 

[solenoozerec]

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?

 

[Megalou]

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.

 

[Hannabir]

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?)

 

[Megalou]

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?

 

[smackster]

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]

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.

 

[solenoozerec]

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

 

[smackster]

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

 

[solenoozerec]

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