Predator class

[bradleyfeanor]

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 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.

 

[TimBentley]

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.

 

[Dynamic]

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.

 

[solenoozerec]

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.

 

[ainwood]

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.

 

[solenoozerec]

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

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?

 

[Sandman2003]

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.

 

[Hannabir]

solenoozerec, Hannabir,

That would mainly affect the score of the predator players

Perhaps you misunderstood - the AI has started already!!

 

[Darkness]

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...

 

[akots]

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...

 

[AlanH]

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.

 

[Megalou]

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.

 

[Denniz]

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.

 

[Hergrom]

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

 

[chunkymonkey]

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...

 

[smackster]

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.

 

[chunkymonkey]

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...

 

[smackster]

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.

 

[denyd]

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.

 

[ainwood]

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.