OP Reapers

[crusherven]

Perhaps not open battlefield combat, but for subduing fleeing or armed suspects, etc... I would definitely call those "combat situations". If a police dog takes down a suspect with a gun, you would say that the dog has not been in a "combat situation"?

Not in any way that's relevant to this argument, no. My understanding is that police sometimes use dogs as a non-lethal means to distract or disarm a subject. Is that really the comparison you're trying to make?

However, suggestion that a reaper is as smart as a human, or even a seb stretches suspension of disbelief. They would make such better soldiers, that sebs and caesans would be redundant. Androns serve their purpose, but they are robots. They cannot think and act independently like sebs, caesans, and other biologicals can. Name one thing that a seb/caesan could do that an intelligent reaper couldn't? And don't say things like operate technology, because interfaces can be designed around their physiology.

Give commands? Respond to the greater tactical situation rather than merely what affects themselves and their current targets? Reproduce without killing something?

Science fiction is cool because anything can happen so long as it can be explained logically. There is no logical reason that the aliens would NOT use reapers as soldiers if they were just as intelligent as other biological sentients. Therefore reapers are not intelligent. What is so hard to understand?

Unless, of course, their brains just don't work in a way that makes them suitable for leading a battle or doing pretty much anything except for killing (such as piloting or repairing a ship). You seem to have this idea that "intelligence" (a nebulous term if there ever was one) is a linear progression; that you can draw a line and place Reapers, Sebilians, wolves, and humans all on a continuum of intelligence with various tasks requiring various levels of intelligence. If that is the case, you have a faulty understanding of how intelligence works. Some people are really smart when it comes to some things, like, say, composing music, but complete idiots when it comes to fixing a car.

Me: Reapers should not be using advanced tactics, they are nothing more than weaponized animals.

Crusherven: Animals can be trained to act intelligently.

Me: But they cannot be trained to think intelligently, and independently.

Crusherven: Well, then who says they are animals, they could be just as smart as humans and caesans etc...?

Hardly. My response was that it doesn't matter if they think "intelligently" so long as they can be trained to act "intelligently." A computer is the dumbest thing in the world, but a lot of people have been tricked into thinking computers are smart because programmers designed them to act that way.

[crusherven]

Yes it will run away in a straight line, exposing itself to getting shot and hide. Because it understands it is getting hurt, that is all. It would have the same reaction to anything that could hurt it.

It doesn't understand "taking cover" as soon as possible to minimize exposure to enemy gunfire, because it doesn't understand guns or projectile weapons. It doesn't zig-zag when trying to run away to cause the shooters to miss because it doesn't understand WHAT is hurting it, only that it is being hurt. It doesn't have the intelligence to comprehend those kind of tactics.

You mean pretty much the way any person will react to getting shot at, assuming they don't freeze in place? I haven't done a *lot* of hunting, but my experience is that the animal is going to find a place to hide. Besides, you're moving the goalposts here--first you claimed that the wolf doesn't even know to hide when it got shot at, and now you're saying that because it doesn't zig-zag or something it doesn't *really* know how to hide.

[legit1337]

You mean pretty much the way any person will react to getting shot at, assuming they don't freeze in place? I haven't done a *lot* of hunting, but my experience is that the animal is going to find a place to hide. Besides, you're moving the goalposts here--first you claimed that the wolf doesn't even know to hide when it got shot at, and now you're saying that because it doesn't zig-zag or something it doesn't *really* know how to hide.

Wrong. I said the wolf doesn't understand how to "take cover" behind some rocks. As in a purely military response to minimize target profile.

Unless, of course, their brains just don't work in a way that makes them suitable for leading a battle or doing pretty much anything except for killing (such as piloting or repairing a ship). You seem to have this idea that "intelligence" (a nebulous term if there ever was one) is a linear progression; that you can draw a line and place Reapers, Sebilians, wolves, and humans all on a continuum of intelligence with various tasks requiring various levels of intelligence. If that is the case, you have a faulty understanding of how intelligence works. Some people are really smart when it comes to some things, like, say, composing music, but complete idiots when it comes to fixing a car.

Demonstrating proficiency with military tactics on the battlefield usually means proficiency in leading and planning those same tactics...

Talents and areas of expertise have nothing to do with this discussion.

Intelligence IS mostly linear. Some exceptions are to be made of course, but I can say with absolute certainty that humans are more intelligent then hamsters.

Give commands? Respond to the greater tactical situation rather than merely what affects themselves and their current targets? Reproduce without killing something?

Being as "smart as a human" implies those things, except the last one, which is irrelevant to intelligence.

Like I said, if reapers were intelligent enough to do those things (IE: Intelligent enough to use military tactics), sebs and caesans would be totally redundant.

Edited April 7, 2014 by legit1337

[Amaror]

Guys! This is a thread about the balance behind the reapers. Why are you arguing about the realism behind the AI of the Reapers, which has nothing to do with their balance?

[legit1337]

Guys! This is a thread about the balance behind the reapers. Why are you arguing about the realism behind the AI of the Reapers, which has nothing to do with their balance?

It has everything to do with it.

Part of the reason reapers are so OP is that they are pretty damn smart in how they act and use their abilities.

I am of the opinion that the tactics they use in-game do not accurately mimic apex predator behavior, it is too "smart". I am honestly not trying to sound belittling here, but some people seem to be telling me that you can teach wolves how to outmaneuver/outthink west point graduates on the battlefield, or that said wolves are actually as smart as their seb/caesan handlers, who can fly spaceships...

Edited April 7, 2014 by legit1337

[crusherven]

Wrong. I said the wolf doesn't understand how to "take cover" behind some rocks. As in a purely military response to minimize target profile.

Whether or not the wolf thinks it is taking cover is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. I'm saying that the wolf (and you can ask your buddy about this) is almost never going to give you a second shot. I have never hunted wolves but that is my experience in hunting in general--however you want to describe their behavior, animals quickly and effectively react to being shot at in a way that makes them difficult to continue shooting at. We have an analogue to that in the game world--it's called cover.

Demonstrating proficiency with military tactics on the battlefield usually means proficiency in leading and planning those same tactics...

Nah, not so much. I know a lot of guys who were great at following orders, moving correctly, and doing all the right things, but lacked leadership ability. You can teach that to some extent, but proficiency in no way implies ability to teach (or lead). If you've been to college, you should be aware that there's plenty of brilliant professors who are lousy at lecturing and can't control the classroom.

Intelligence IS mostly linear. Some exceptions are to be made of course, but I can say with absolute certainty that humans are more intelligent then hamsters.

Certainly that's false in humans, inasmuch as it's even possible to measure intelligence. First, you'd have to arrive at an agreed definition of the word (which is hard enough). But as for animals coordinating their behavior--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzfqPQm-ThU

Dolphins using their tails to stir up mud in a circle to trap fish, then eat them as they try to escape. And other interesting techniques. http://www.scwildlife.com/pubs/marapril2012/dolphins.html You don't give predators nearly enough credit.

Being as "smart as a human" implies those things, except the last one, which is irrelevant to intelligence.

Like I said, if reapers were intelligent enough to do those things (IE: Intelligent enough to use military tactics), sebs and caesans would be totally redundant.

I'm not the one saying that they're as smart as humans. You're the one making that claim. I think they're cunning predators who can react to their surroundings, hide from threats, and prioritize targets. None of that requires human intelligence. In fact, I just described the behavior of a LOT of predators that we're familiar with.

I should add that it doesn't matter how smart Reapers are if they can't communicate easily. I can't remember, do they even have vocal cords? And their physical body is otherwise unsuited to a lot of physical actions. No, the aliens can't just give them prosthetics, not with the way they reproduce.

Edited April 7, 2014 by crusherven

[Amaror]

It has everything to do with it.

Part of the reason reapers are so OP is that they are pretty damn smart in how they act and use their abilities.

I can kinda see the connection there, but you're argument should be that it's unbalanced, not that it's unrealistic.

[crusherven]

I can kinda see the connection there, but you're argument should be that it's unbalanced, not that it's unrealistic.

I can only speak for myself, but honestly I don't care about the realism argument--to me this is just a fun discussion about the lore behind reapers. I suspect legit1337 cares a lot more about the realism angle than I do, but (I hope) he would agree that ultimate making the game balanced and fun is more important (and then making sure the lore text matches what we see in-game).

[Gauddlike]

We were specifically talking about prioritization in a military capacity.

Linking instinctual parameters to military ones seems like an awful lot of work when simply elevating their intelligence would be easier.

As was my post as a whole.

However the specific section you apparently took objection to was not.

Invading a planet one small farm at a time with a small number of ground troops seems like an awful lot of work when simply bombarding a couple of major population areas from orbit, or using higher technology to create an unstoppable virus, or mind controlling a few influential people, or one of any number of other possible routes would be easier.

The aliens may not have wanted an intelligent creature with the potential power of the Reaper.

They may have wanted a weapon that reacts to threats outside of its normal experience in a meaningful way.

If rewriting genetic code is as easy to them as writing the AI for an Andron then why not do it.

[ViewThePhenom]

So, we realize that none of this "discussion" is going to lead to changes to Reapers, right? Maybe once that's understood, it will drop? I'm pretty sure that balance is the most important, then everything comes after that.

Edited April 8, 2014 by ViewThePhenom

[Skybirduk]

Stop being facetious please. You know what I meant, and one of my buddies hunts wolves and moose in Alaska.

The reason I was being facetious was because of the fact that the original comment was about wolves hunting, not about them getting shot at, as a response to your act of misrepresentation.

Sources please. I have never heard of this kind of behavior, and the woman who raised me was a zoologist. Granted, her specialization was in chimpanzees... That by no means makes me an expert, but in volunteering at the local zoo every summer in my teenage years I've picked up a few things.

I don't have the first two, but the BBC (planet earth)have put the third one showing lions hunting an elephant on youtube and I am very surprised that you somehow managed not to find this video as a great expert like yourself must have excellent research skills. The comment 'sources please' indicates that you don't need to give proof, but others have to. It's a pity that you have to resort to such double standards to try and win your case.

A pack of wolves hunts together as a team to take down prey. Not because they are smart enough to say "Hey, if we work together we increase our chances of success. Let's try it out guys!", but because they are spurred on by natural instinct to do what feels right.

If instinct was all that was needed, painted wolves could be easily be re-introduced to the wild. These packs have a very bad habit of dying out instead or hanging on for dear life. I suppose you will demand sources of that as well. Sorry, I don't record everything I see over my entire life. Adult lionesses show the pride young how to hunt, contrary to the natural instinct theory.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Skybirduk

[ventuswings]

I'm pretty sure Reaper needs no change at the moment; it lost near invulnerability of the Chryssalids in exchange for the improved AI. If this resulted in serious balance problem, actual reasons regarding its detrimental effect on game-play would have been already brought up instead of semantics regarding realism, I think.

[StellarRat]

I'm pretty sure Reaper needs no change at the moment; it lost near invulnerability of the Chryssalids in exchange for the improved AI. If this resulted in serious balance problem, actual reasons regarding its detrimental effect on game-play would have been already brought up instead of semantics regarding realism, I think.

Some people just like to argue for the sake of it. As far as I'm concerned it's a done deal per Chris.

[legit1337]

They may have wanted a weapon that reacts to threats outside of its normal experience in a meaningful way.

That is impossible without intelligence.

You cannot write an equation without knowing the variables.

I can kinda see the connection there, but you're argument should be that it's unbalanced, not that it's unrealistic.

It is both unbalanced and unrealistic. Worst combo.

I don't have the first two, but the BBC (planet earth)have put the third one showing lions hunting an elephant on youtube and I am very surprised that you somehow managed not to find this video as a great expert like yourself must have excellent research skills. The comment 'sources please' indicates that you don't need to give proof, but others have to. It's a pity that you have to resort to such double standards to try and win your case.

Burden of proof falls to the person making the assertion. To spell it out for you, if you tell me that predatory animals are capable of intelligent (not instinctual), military-like behavior, it is up to you to prove yourself right, not up to me to prove you wrong (which would be impossible anyway, there is no way I could feasibly prove that every single animal on the planet was incapable of that kind of behavior without examining every single one individually).

We have the classic argument here...

Guy 1: "God exists."

Guy 2: "What no he doesn't, prove that he does and I will believe you."

Guy 1: "Prove that he does not."

Proving something is true is FAR easier then proving something is not true.

If instinct was all that was needed, painted wolves could be easily be re-introduced to the wild. These packs have a very bad habit of dying out instead or hanging on for dear life. I suppose you will demand sources of that as well. Sorry, I don't record everything I see over my entire life. Adult lionesses show the pride young how to hunt, contrary to the natural instinct theory.

Of course if you take an unsocialized animal and put it into the wild, it is going to die. As you said, it doesn't know how to hunt or survive. But learning how to go after something an kill it is much different then learning abstract concepts like military maneuvers. The argument that because a wolf learns how to hunt from it's pack/parents, that I can stick it in a college classroom and teach it calculus is just as absurd as saying it can learn how to take cover, flank under the right situations, and pick targets intelligently (IE: go after the guy carrying a rocket launcher instead of the pistoleer).

Certainly that's false in humans, inasmuch as it's even possible to measure intelligence. First, you'd have to arrive at an agreed definition of the word (which is hard enough). But as for animals coordinating their behavior--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzfqPQm-ThU

Dolphins using their tails to stir up mud in a circle to trap fish, then eat them as they try to escape. And other interesting techniques. http://www.scwildlife.com/pubs/marapril2012/dolphins.html You don't give predators nearly enough credit.

I'm not the one saying that they're as smart as humans. You're the one making that claim. I think they're cunning predators who can react to their surroundings, hide from threats, and prioritize targets. None of that requires human intelligence. In fact, I just described the behavior of a LOT of predators that we're familiar with.

I was waiting for someone to bring dolphins up. Amazing creatures .

Dolphins are certainly very intelligent compared to other animals, but can you prove such behavior is bourne out of intelligence or just instinct?

On your last point I disagree completely. In order to "hide from the threat" of a gun, they have to understand what the gun does on a fundamental level. Otherwise they are just running away from something that is hurting it without understanding what is going on. In order to prioritize that rocket launcher guy over the pistoleer, they have to understand what both weapons do. THAT requires human, or near human intelligence.

As for your argument of intelligence... I agree it is a nebulous term, and sometimes hard to define. But it can be quantified on a macro-scale. As I said a human is more intelligent then a hamster and that is inarguable.

Edited April 9, 2014 by legit1337

[legit1337]

Double post again, dammit.

[Skybirduk]

Burden of proof falls to the person making the assertion.

Since when has this forum been a proof of law with you as it's judge?

if you tell me that predatory animals are capable of intelligent (not instinctual), military-like behavior, it is up to you to prove yourself right, not up to me to prove you wrong.

You told us first that predatory animals are not capable of such things, so therefore it is you to prove it is right, according to your rules. Again you refuse to provide evidence but support your claim, yet demand that the person countering your claim must have absolute proof.

I still don't have a link to a video or documents.

So, you are incapable of typing 'Lions that hunt elephants' into your search engine bar? I would have thought that you would have wanted to check it for yourself, instead of pretending that it doesn't exist. Or is it more that you are trying to imply that I am lying?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/big-cat-week/videos/elephant-takedown/

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/risk/lion_elephant_predation_2006.html

intelligent (not instinctual), military-like behavior

Weren't you claiming that military like behaviour can only be intelligence? Not it can be instinctual as well? Moving Goalposts a lot?

Of course if you take an unsocialized animal and put it into the wild, it is going to die.

Your response gives the impression that a single animal is put back into the wild. The comment that you refer to mentions packs, not a lone animal, therefore you have misrepresented again.

As you said, it doesn't know how to hunt or survive.

What happened to the hunting and it's just instinct claims?

The argument that because a wolf learns how to hunt from it's pack/parents, that I can stick it in a college classroom and teach it calculus is just as absurd as saying it can learn how to take cover, flank, and pick targets intelligently.

Learns how to hunt? What happened to the instinct only again?

Trying to equate hunting and combat tactics with calculus? We would have most likely had tactics before written history. Calculus was worked out by two incredible geniuses, Issac Newton and Gorrfied Wilhelm Leibniz, and are you going to ask me for links about this?

[Chris]

Actually, I have had second thoughts about this thread. The posts are getting really quite long and have become quite circular - the thread is basically now just noise unless you're one of the few people actively involved in the debate (and the positions seem fairly entrenched at this point so I doubt that is going anywhere).

The thread has also veered off-topic: it's no longer about whether Reapers are OP in game terms, it's about how realistic they are. If people still feel Reapers are overpowered in the current balance then feel free to drop your thoughts into the balance thread, but let's have no more discussion about whether their behaviour is realistic as I think it's all been said at this point.