A high-level decomposition of strategies for 1.1 gameplay mechanics

u just don’t know how the game works. if there was no automatic income, then humans could camp from the start, and force a draw (if the aliens r „idiots”, and rush due to boredom, then humans get stronger equipment, and could easily win).

the fact, that aliens can eventually reach a stronger hand with no confrontation, breaks this stalemate. it requires requires humans to be vigilant, to force a response from the aliens. fortunately, this exact thing should be possible, because humans have ranged weapons, allowing them, in general, to force small aliens to come out of any hiding, by otherwise threatening to snipe alien buildables from afar. aliens have to combat this by seeking to find a mistake in the execution of this poking effort by the humans.

also, i’m disappointed in the obscure handling of automatic income, where u must not die — and must not evolve — for 120 seconds to get a delivery of automatic funds. this makes it prompting for aliens to show themselves particularly right after the 2 minute mark, which the humans could take into consideration, yielding rather uninteresting moments.

furthermore, automatic income during sudden death would encourage the team with more funds to attack more rapidly, as differences in funds would „dissipate” over time.


formal game theory would assume that every player is rational and has infinite thinking capacity. instead, in analyses of computer games played by (real-world) human players, in general, it is only assumed that players don’t „suck”, meaning that they can buy totally sufficient (but conventional) gaming hardware, and that each ability can be trained to approximate the limits of (real-world) human capabilities. also, 1.1 gameplay mechanics and default layouts of mainstream maps r assumed. the imagined player count shall be around 4v4. under these conditions, the state of affairs r analyzed from the start of a game while both sides r at stage 1.

modification: for now, let’s de-fix whether there is automatic income

theorem: there is no automatic income ⇒ humans can force a draw
proof: for example, by camping behind turrets all game
lemma: this actually works
proof: obvious — granger and dretch can hardly attack in, and other classes can’t be acquired, and vice versa

theorem: this is a stalemate
proof: aliens don’t need to attack in; and then, humans won’t win either

modification: from now on, automatic income will be assumed, as in 1.1

theorem: both races strive to achieve the best outcome ⇒ this stalemate does not occur
proof: the stalemate’s most notable element is humans camping behind turrets, which is incompatible with the following theorem

theorem: humans strive to achieve the best outcome ⇒ humans r required to force recurrent player–player confrontations
proof: by the following 3 theorems, aliens would be completely happy with no confrontations, and there is a better alternative for humans

theorem: there r no player–player confrontations ⇒ aliens will eventually reach a significantly stronger hand within a fraction of longest game time
proof: aliens will automatically gain enough evolution points for dragoons within 6 minutes
lemma: this is actually a significantly stronger hand
proof: claimed by @bird („u agree to this because u said this”)

theorem: humans can force recurrent player–player confrontations
proof: for example, by threatening to otherwise whittle down the alien base first, achievable by the tactic presented in the following assumption; this is supported by the rest of the theorems

modification: from now on, it is assumed that humans will generally employ the tactic of carefully poking at the alien base perimeter: attacking alien players and buildables (in that general priority) from afar, entering the alien base to the extent necessary, and immediately stepping back when engaged with alien players; also, it is assumed that humans strive to achieve the best outcome

note: ofc, this is only in combination with appropriately (details omitted) reacting to things like alien base moving efforts, attacks on the human base, needs to resupply, etc — together forming a strategy

theorem: aliens attack humans too aggressively ⇒ humans will progressively be the victor
proof: by definition of „too aggressive”, aliens r rather predictable, and humans can often be ready to engage them (just) outside the alien base; vice versa
lemma: humans can always beat aliens in combat of player–player confrontations with no disturbances (such as a clip being emptied on an acid tube) for humans
proof: humans have ranged weapons that real-world can use; this is particularly effective against small aliens, and other alien classes can only be acquired after the humans have also significantly progressed; vice versa

theorem: aliens attack humans too sparsely ⇒ humans will progressively be the victor
proof: by definition of „too sparsely”, aliens r rather predictable, and humans can often safely whittle down alien buildables; vice versa
lemma: humans can snipe alien buildables from afar
proof: obvious

notice: aliens should make their attack timings hard to predict

theorem: aliens strive to achieve the best outcome ⇒ there is an optimal average rate of attacks for aliens
proof: by consequence of the previous 2 theorems

notice: humans can use the topical tactic to salvage the best of both kinds of opportunities: destroying alien buildables and picking off small aliens

theorem: the topical tactic is an applicable method
proof: humans can err on the side of caution when it comes to entering the alien base

note: although the method is applicable, there is the question whether the method is any better than camping (and losing)

modification: for now, let’s assume that speedbuilding doesn’t happen

theorem: the topical tactic is strong for progressing towards victory
proof: refer to lemmas presented for the theorems related to aliens attacking humans, and to the notice related to opportunities — either alien buildables get whittled down, or alien players get killed
lemma: basically, an offensive human can destroy alien buildables faster than a granger can construct them
proof: obvious

modification: speedbuilding is no longer ruled out

theorem: a fund transfer function is available ∧ the race doesn’t have too much funds in total ⇒ the race can speedbuild in its base without loss of funds
proof: the teamkiller should distribute all funds before teamkilling
note: it would be sufficient for a race to have a player with 0 funds

note: this raises an interesting question: r the aliens completely shielded by speedbuilding against the topical tactic, enabling them to force no player–player confrontation ?

theorem: the topical tactic is fairly useful for progressing towards victory
proof: performing necessary changes to the previous theorem: although grangers can build quickly, they’re vulnerable to being shot, and just-placed buildables have low health, or, if the buildables r built in a separated location, the usefulness of such buildables r questionable; these make speedbuilding not so sustainable
lemma: it takes only 1 shot at a granger to yield 175 credits for humans when the alien dies
proof: see for urself

note: the amount of success during the performance of the topical tactic depends on skills and luck

question: is there a different way for humans to force a player–player confrontation ?


Due to the fact that I have never seen you scrim let alone play the game before, I have no openness to any of your suggestions. You OBVIOUSLY don’t know how the game works if you’re making shitty statements like this.

bird, with all due respect, you may have a valid point (devhc’s presence, ignoring the possibility of him using aliases), but thats not a very convincing argument to the rest of the points DevHC has made, specifically:

i’m sure with your experience, you can easily explain how this logic is flawed in an actual match, no?

bird, my problem with this statement is that devhc actually backed his insult up. thats why i am more inclined to agree with him than you, which i think might be a problem relevant to you if more people are willing to listen to devhc (in your mind, inexperienced) and not to you (in your mind, an experienced player)

also if you are wondering, yes, i’m attempting to make you reconsider responding to him because i am genuinely interested in how the game works from your perspective

I’m not sure I understood what you mean by humans r required to be vigiliant to force a response from the aliens, but, S3 aliens with timed evoes can just get rants and adv. goons and so you don’t actually ‘‘force a response from the aliens’’, but (in a scrim more notably), you spread your buttcheeks wide and beg for the tyrants to use lube.

In S1, dretches either retkill themselves or camp corners.

DevHC’s statement seems otherwise mostly correct:

This is true: You can sit as nakeds behind 7 rets all day if the enemy team only has dretches. Not a surprise.

This is a very map-dependant situation: Try sniping aliens out of niveus’ window room or karith’s narrow staircase.

Considering both teams have 3 players filling the conditions for timed, after first timed income:

Aliens get 3 evoes, so a goon.
175*3 = 525 credits (or, 2 shotties with larmour, and a rifle with larmour for a total of 510 creds spent)

It could be an interesting option, and this statement is also true. On the other hand, if the team with the upper hand in evo count doesn’t attack, the other team is allowed an easy comeback. And this is when it may turn into a massive rant-vs-suit stalemate.

The alternative is the current situation, where the first few minutes are aliens just hiding from humans until they have the evos for Dragoons. Once aliens get Dragoons, they should never lose any scrim unless they play badly. However, I do think that this combination of rules suggested in the other thread would result in humans being able to just camp until SD and not let aliens ever get S2 for ceiling eggs. Just in general, I feel like the idea of changing the time credits/evos off needs to be tested at some point in scrims; it hasn’t been tested enough to see what effects it would have on the game.

@bird I appreciate your input regarding your thoughts about scrimmage. :slight_smile:

congratulations, u’ve successfully forgotten the context of the referenced statements.

to refresh:

this implicitly speaks about the early-game situation of stage-1 teams, near-initial (default) bases and few funds, where „4 goons” is a force to reckon with. if humans don’t kill aliens, then they will likely see this crushing force.

to aid the latter, aliens could try to avoid contact with the humans. however, in this case, the practically unattended alien base is vulnerable to sniping by the humans. thus, if the humans start sniping — they can do so (in the very early-game) —, aliens would eventually run out of time, and need to resopnd sooner or later.

of course the humans should also be vigilant to prevent any good initial base moves by the aliens, and vice versa.

ind33d, i was primarily analyzing default layouts on regularly played, exemplary maps, such as atcs,1 Niveus, Karith Station 2 and Transit. however, almost all gameplay aspects r very map-dependent.

1 ::fart::

and ?

for example, to troll ppl. the troll team’s real goal is not to acquire a „bragful” endgame outcome, but to get off on annoying others, for which camping — plus eg. watching movies in the background — is a perfect tool. even then, the trolls may lose the game, but they will have won the meta-game: they have the time of their life annoying the shit out of unadvized participants.

also, in various crappy, exploitable, proposed rules, a clan could employ a safe series-strategy („we’ve never lost !”) of only trying to win 2 matches if the clan plays aliens first, so if the first match fails, then to force a draw (as humans) in the 2nd match.

in a properly designed game, it should not be possible to bring such desires to effect.

congratulations, u’ve successfully lost track of the train of thought. u get a Z in reading comprehension. but since u’re just a mere mortal, it’s kind of expected that u can’t connect 2 consecutive sentences.

rephrasing for the absolutely retarded:

  • the game began 30 seconds ago.
  • humans r poking the alien base.
  • alien structures r being destroyed one-by-one.

under these conditions, we have:

  • dretches have to find the right situations to strike.
  • for aliens, showing themselves just before the 2 minute mark, is a rather bad idea (compared to eg. the 35 second mark and the 155 second mark.
    • if close to the 2 minute mark, consider just waiting it out.

u, on the other hand, have no experience in analysis, let alone competence. (ROFL ! see what i did they when i swapped the „competence” and „comprehension” around „let alone” ?)

this NEXT™-GENERATION(R)_RETARDEDNESS(C) calls for the creation of a dedicated embarrassment thread.

I have been the turtle and I have been the aggressor in this exact situation you are talking about on ATCS. Either the humans kill all of the hazard tubes and leave, or they push in - in which the dretches (if they choose to attack) then have the advantage.

If the humans don’t want the aliens time evo’ing they have to kill all of the hazardous acid tubes to aid in their extermination of dretches and then walk in dangerously to try and kill them or the eggs. This usually doesn’t happen and more often than not the humans leave and the dretches are unscathed.

Sure, but avid scrimmers should know not to scrim trolls. And if this does happen, they won’t scrim them again. You presented your draw theory as if it would reoccur over and over. With this community, and with these clans, people won’t play for draws.

Do you mean this thread that you’ve used to embarrass yourself?

1 Like

WRONG. humans r not required to rush in like idiots.


that may be a fact. however, such things have no bearing to any game-theoretic analyses.

no, the one that Hendrich has already deleted.

u still have no fucking idea.

1 Like

@DevHC why you don’t create a clan, get 4-5 members and start to scrim? With your knowledge of this game you will lead em to many victories! But pls the first clan war scrim against us because I want to see how pro you are.


2 shotties and a rifle should be able to take care of a goon and 2 dretches. In fact, the matchup is pretty tightly balanced - the problem is, when aliens camp for evoes until they have all 3 goons (~6 mins), and humans can’t just get inside of their base (given they built some tubes and shit) if the aliens are all in there without risking getting completely annihilated/assraped. If aliens always showed themselves around the 2 minutes mark, no one would have a problem with timed evoes as they are. The other problem is when you sit a tyrant in your base and wait for timed income for your entire team.

I was with you until this post.

With that logic, game-theoretic analyses has no bearing to facts. I think your exemplified issue of “troll” clans shouldn’t be an issue that needs to be addressed by a contingency plan because that bullshit is going to be caught out and dealt with by other clans relatively quickly. This also assumes that the “troll” clan is skilled enough to keep their camping advantage and win (force a draw).

Skill has no bearing to any game-theoretic analyses.

1 Like

[quote=“Hendrich, post:15, topic:2311, full:true”]

I was with you until this post.

With that logic, game-theoretic analyses has no bearing to facts. [/quote]

Not all facts have bearing to any specific kind of analysis, that doesn’t mean that all facts don’t have bearing to a given kind of analysis. Consider what DevHC was originally commenting on:

Also consider that this topic is about the strategies for 1.1 gameplay not limiting to the size/number, state, nor specifics of the Tremulous community/clans today.

1 Like

Then he should start a topic saying “from my point of wiev” or “my opionion”, not “you don’t understand nothing of this game” because every skilled player know “something” of this game. And Bird is one of them.

If he starts with a sentence like that he must also proves that in fact he is the number 1. And we already know that he is not. My challenge is always open: create a clan and start to challenge us.

But if he loses, he will prove that all those “game-theoretic analyses” worth as much as the director of porn videos.

You can always analyses a match, but skill is the first factor that every clan should have. And skilled players want to play skilled matches, demonstrating through a victory to be stronger than the opposite clan.

And, if a clan wins with hard win conditions (those new rules), it will proves that.

yes, and ?

a rifle can destroy buildables faster than a granger can construct them.

except if something gay happens, namely, speedbuilding — something i hadn’t taken directly into consideration. fortunately, under 1.1 gamelogic, it only takes 1 (rifle) shot at a granger to ensure 175cr of income when the granger dies.

but the possibility of speedbuilding with no loss of evos is a candidate for alterations.

yes, but why would aliens be forced to do that ?

also, why can’t ppl settle for the following: „if, during S1, the aliens have to eventually show themselves, with this situation recurring many times, then ppl have no PROBLEMs with automatic income.” ? (i argue that the premise is true.)

well-said. (it was getting kind of annoying for me to have to explain that.)

why is it always the brawny birdbrains (ie. u) — who know how to move and shoot/bite, but not how to study strategies — who think that any analysis, that seems to defy their existing understanding of the gameplay practices, is bullshit until proven otherwise — regardless of its structure of reasoning under the analyses ?

i’m like a nutrition-scientist explaining that a special non-meat diet in the long run could produce a uniquely beneficial muscle-fibre structure — because that’s how protein folds, because enzymes under these concentrations yield this-and-that; did i mention a „because” ? —, and u’re like a long-time bodybuilder with a steroid-shrunk peanut-brain who says he knows „something”, namely, that „meat = muscle_mass ∧ muscle_mass = powar”, and that i must first prove myself by personally outlifting him.

yes, the truth is determined by the outcome of 1 series.1


or i could say: the challenge is on ! as S00N™ as i acquire ppl who have significant agility-related skills, r capable of strong analytics, and r willing and ready to put the high-level decomposition to the test, i’ll contact u.

both sentence parts r correct, but have no relation to eachother. also, let’s not confuse the 1st part with what is presented in this thread.

a good question is: which of the following execution skills r most important: combat, tactics, strategy, crysis management, communication, etc; and also, how important r the following externalities: commitment to play, preparation for a match, freshness of practice, repertoire of exclusively-known TOP™_SECRET(R)_METHODOLOGY™s, etc ?

1 Like

I saw and played many clan wars: I never saw an unskilled clan win against a skilled clan only with the tactic (so I never saw an unskilled clan win -if you call Reac Jump tactic then yes, until we forbidden it). If you saw something different, please tell me. Where I found the triumph of the tactic was during ENTL, but, again, all final games where played by skilled teams: tactic, at this point, was essential.

Combat over all. You can be the best tactical team, but if a goon come alone and kill 3 guys your tactic is useless.[quote=“DevHC, post:18, topic:2311”]
both sentence parts r correct, but have no relation to eachother. also, let’s not confuse the 1st part with what is presented in this thread.

I know. Infact mine is 1st skill 2nd tactic = without skill tactic is useless (and then the rest of my post)

I could say: you know nothing of clan wars, you can’t give advice, this discussion is only for clans and players that play scrims, go talk about things that nobody cares and let us decide. If we need your help we’ll let you know¹!



1 Like

that implies legitimate authority, the problem with you is that your ideas need to be proven true which you have never done AFAIK and unfortunately, you’re not exactly the kind of person you think you are (atleast to the community) making your analysis difficult to accept

blizz (fix’d) does have legitimate authority who can demonstrate his ideas, the problem with him is that it doesn’t necessarily mean everything he says is true or what he says is actually the best possible analysis, making his analysis potentially flawed

It seems to me that this discussion in it’s current state, is not acting in the best interest of either party or the community.

Why don’t you two put your differences aside and work together to see if either of your theories are true in a real-word scenario? Wouldn’t that be more productive than slinging [OPINIONS] around and hoping they stick?

inb4 one is acting as a roadblock for the other

Then for the benefit of the community and to demonstrate objective evidence, can we all agree to put a plan into action and work together? Because I am interested in working for both of you to reach a mutual goal.

The only problem with the way he expresses his idea is his grammar, as seen with this: (no offense intended, but I didn’t catch a word)

Blizz has more experience than 95% of the current active playerbase as far as raw skill and scrim/game experience go.

Edit: after working my brains out I think you meant the peak of tactical gameplay in scrims was during ENTL, and ‘‘all final games’’ (not sure what you mean) were played by only (highly¹) skilled teams where the only difference that could be made was via tactics and strategy.

¹² most likely far above anything that can be witnessed these days
² copycat

Skills (combat) (!= top teaming on pub, yes no shit) >= communication == tactics >= crisis management.
Methodology, and preparation are also dependant on the freshness of practice, hence methodology == preparation == freshness of practice.

Applying tactics properly is a part of a player’s (combat) skills indirectly, their ability of raping ass becoming dependant on tactics themselves in high-end gameplay.
Without proper communication, you can’t manage anything in scrims against better clans, let alone situations of crisis.

I’m sorry for that. My problem is that I use Italian grammar-logic while I write in English. (ex. Giochi finali → Fasi finali → di cosa? ENTL - European National Tremulous League)

Anyway final games are semifinals and finals (maybe should be final fases of the tournament).

@Hendrich: like I wrote to him on PM (because we already had a great debate) I have nothing against him. My problem is only how he puts hisself to others.[quote=“Hendrich, post:20, topic:2311”]
Then for the benefit of the community and to demonstrate objective evidence, can we all agree to put a plan into action and work together?