Not calling you out on it, your english level is more than acceptable overall. (Just requires flipping our brains more than usual to decipher some things)
Just me being a N1GG3R there.
Excellent. Unless you are being sarcastic (I’m not good at picking that up on the internetz), then all we need is a response from @DevHC and to discuss the particulars of such a plan elsewhere.
I’m not. Actually I asked to @dGr8LookinSparky to be added to develops (I’m not good at programming, but I can give all my experience of this game - so doing the tester, answer to all balance problems, etc…). Anyway I have no problems to give my contribute.
5 Likes
I just want to clarify something for this particular topic (A high-level decomposition of strategies for 1.1 gameplay mechanics) that may have been missed. While this topic may have originally been inspired by a topic related to clans, this particular topic is not restricted to clan matches, nor scrims, but includes pub games as well.
I should also add that credentials/background does not directly effect the merits of proposed concepts. What matters is sound reasoning, and empirical data. What would be cool would be if various proposed strategies were thoroughly demonstrated/tested in games with demos, and the demos were posted here in the Strategies & Tactics Category where we can have further discussion and analysis of those strategies.
3 Likes
@dGr8LookinSparky I know, and I would like to see more opinion in this thread. I just don’t like how he put hisself to others. If he wants to be a jerk, then I’ll answer to him how he deserves.
correct. this shows the following: at a high level of skill, everyone will have top combat skills, but only a few will have unmatched tactical skills. this is by some nature of (real-world) humans. thus, tactical skills r hard to get, aka valuable, and they will make the difference in „big” matches.
this is akin to how
- air is essential to (real-world) human life, but is free, because it’s everywhere in the Earth’s atmosphere; whereas
- art (such as an ugly painting capturing some thoughts of a well-known philosopher, or which has went through a series of i have no fucking idea what) is fucking useless, but is traded for amounts of resources that could support human life for a long time, to the extent that the piece of artwork it unique.
i should have asked: which ones r the most valuable ?
WRONG. this discussion is for ppl who have all 3 of reasonable analytic skills, a proper mode of rhetorical communication, and reasonable gameplay experience. so far, bird and u were just an infestation to the essence of this thread.
no, NO, NO, NO, NO !!!1! where the fuck have i made a claim that a non-n00b can’t verify by himself ? where ? in other words, where the shitfuck did i really rely on myself being some authority in any initiated claim ?1
what part of
did u fail to not de-fucking-liberately ignore ?
due to this, i have now updated the original post with the formal version of my analysis. it should raise the awareness that there is actually more reasoning than u (genenally, u, the brawny f4gg0tz2) will probably ever make in ur whole lifetime. otherwise, there is nothing new, except for a clarification of „game theoretic analysis”, internal details related to speedbuilding, and generally added verbosity („this is obvious”, etc).
often times i was thinking about creating an „argue board”, where users could put in statements and logical relationships between those statements, essentially making a tree of logical reasoning, and others could question those statements and relationships by pointing out counter-examples, non-true analogies, etc. with such an argue board in widespread practice, (non-)arguments of the form „i am a demonstrated expert, u’re not” will have no traction in light of opposing elementarily verifiable trees of reasoning.
u see, what reasonable ppl could do, is to say something like
but instead, what ppl like @bird and @Blizz do, is that they look at the whole fucking thing from a distance, and without even attempting to understand it, they say:
1 i did use „i’m a master in mathematical–logical reasoning”, but that was a follow-up to @Blizz using „i’m a master in combat”, just to show that there’s no inclusive relation between the sets of authorities.
2 TODO: start using „w” for the plural version of „u”
thx for repeating part of what i said. u forgot to mention that he believes that we can put my analysis vs his practice to the test by one-time comparing things his way.
btw, the fact that other authorities laugh at @Blizz’s absent understanding of the basics of safe base building, exemplifies why one should never automatically take „authoritative claims” for granted.
r u referring to the following jerkery ?
Because the burden of proof is on you and not on someone else?
The problem with this analogy is that ideas like “because X” in relation to nutrition has been proven and verified by actual scientists with actual substantive evidence, whereas Tremulous is a videogame where most of the ideas you’ve brought forward are stuck in the “theory” stage.
Okay. So how about we compare/experiment things your way? In a process you deem acceptable?
Would this be acceptable to users like @Blizz?
Would this be acceptable to @DevHC?
Theory might not be the word you were looking for (perhaps you meant hypothesis?). Fyi, a theory is something that has been well established, thoroughly analyzed, thoroughly tested and thoroughly independently verified. Of course any theory at any time, if even a single counterexample is discovered, can require modification, or even be entirely scraped.
1 Like
what part of
did u fail to comprehend ?
WRONG. both r equally stuck in the theory stage.1 nowhere has the (imaginary) claim related to muscle fibre formation been „proven”2 or independently verified. it’s the referred pieces of scientific work (the Xs of each „because X”) that’ve been verified. the nutritionist put together those facts, and recognized a real consequence, unless he/she made a mistake. however, in general, authority of the bodybuilder kind is no argument for the existence of a bio-scientific (or logical) mistake. analogously, game-related statements have been „proven and verified” — even independently discovered — by actual hardcore gamers with actual substantive evidence, and i have derived a consequence, unless for a mistake. however, again, authority of the gamer kind shall not hold anything against the analytic (or logical) elements.
note well yet again: i’m apparently the only analyst in the scene currently, yet verification requires no analytic intuition. the merit of analysis is a (possibly surprizing) „train of thought”: a logical structuring of specifically selected, basic statements, leading to a specific conclusion. it takes an analyst to discover the train of thought, but it takes only basic experience to verify the basic statements.
1 that’s how new scientific results surface.
2 to the extent that this term makes sense in empirical sciences.
sure: find a flaw in the train of thought.
PS: u’ve mentioned „burden of proof” (though totally out of context). can u reconstruct the statement and the counter-statement, and explain which one is more extraordinary, and why ?
The answer:
Additionally:
Perhaps it wasn’t your intention, but it seems that you are giving people the impression that your [OPINIONS] are better than their [OPINIONS]. In my [OPINION], it would be wise to humble yourself. My issue with your thread stems from the fact that your OP potentially contains theorems based on “proof” disguised (intentionally or not) as your personal [OPINIONS].
Thats not how it works, DevHC. Its not the 'non-n00b’s" obligation to prove your theorems correct, that is on you. That is the crux of where my issue lies.
[Example]
Hmm, very good theorems. Despite our differences and his lack of experience, DevHC has valid points and is a entity worth sharing ideas with. However, I disagree with the above theorem for the following reason:
Decent dretches are not supposed to be predictable at all. Wall-walking is what gives aliens the advantage against ranged-weapons during S1 and having dretches attack “too aggressively” will (eventually) guarantee evos towards one of them obtaining dragoon status (based on this concept).
Unfortunately, the era of the best (alien) Tremulous players being active are gone and few have made decent records of their (alien) scrims that aren’t 10FPS clusterfucks blaring cringey music in the background processed by Windows Movie Maker. Therefore, I’ll need to rely on a recording made by our very own @Ckit for this.
“My” proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RctEwXCz27Y&t=8m15s
If you look closely (@8:15), you can observe that the proof you based your theorem on was incorrect, due to aliens being in fact, NOT predictable and humans NOT “often” being ready to engage because of this unpredictability. It may appear that aliens (dretches) are predictable when you keep seeing players use them on the floors often, but ones that jump off the ceiling and move between walls are far more likely to evade ranged attacks and gain a kill.
((This of course is a narrow example, as better designed maps would encourage more flanking opportunities, making wall-walking {and by extension, dretches} even more unpredictable and therefore, effective at increasing their odds of being the victor.))
[/Example]
I find this process of analyst-player verification to be less efficient than what Menace has proposed earlier in the thread:
Explanation: It is far easier and faster for us to actually know if timed evos is worth removing by making changes to the actual game and getting player feedback than going through the motions with this thread. I feel that your thread has good intentions, but it’s being held-back by your unwillingness to simply play the game and cooperate with willing partners to demonstrate objective proof.
Which I feel is a shame, because people are more likely willing to listen to authorities like @bird or @blizz than you (for obvious reasons).
I lack the comprehension required to understand what you request of me, please re-word it for me for the possibility I decide to post here again.
Based on your intelligence, I don’t believe you are making this statement in good faith since that is a claim made by another person and not yourself, which contradicts this. I believe you are implying that it requires “basic experience” to know automatically that he is in fact, not DevHC.
However, this:
and
Are not the same thing, undermining your attempt to spite me. Which is fine, because I need a reason to eject myself from this thread. It is clear that I lack the intelligence, comprehension and patience requires to continue discussing with you.
I didn’t read anything but I understood that we are going to nowhere.
I propose to test those theories.
We can set different PUGs game where we test some settings.
For this I ask to @bird, @Hendrich, @DevHC, @Menace13 (and whoever wants) to write here settings you think are balanced and playable (and give to the scrim a fun rhythm).
With these settings we will play a PUG and we will see which are better.
My settings are:
Sd - 25 and TL - 40
RC Jump OFF (you can still destroy H base, without touching the RC)
Time evo\creds OFF
Share ON
4 rounds - 2 on team A’s 2 on team B’s
who first wins 2 rounds wins the scrim
RC jump should be allowed as long as there is someone inside of their base… what’s not enjoyed is using RC jump to kill h00manz when no one is there to defend.
1 Like
can’t tell if trolling, or just really retarded.
yes, i want to give that impression, because i have reason to do so:
- the opposing view has been presented first, with not only an impression of correctess, but also with threats of personally segregating those who believe otherwise.
- i have an explanation (initially informal proof, now formal proof) supporting my proposition, that u, the not-too-n00b gamer can verify (or refute ?) urself (as opposed to just a claim, the truth of which u must theoretically bet on). by contrast, the opposing view only has authority support: a clan (that scrims).
- on top of that, noone has even tried to pick apart my explanation.
PS: there is at least 1 other user on this forum agreeing to the essence of my proposition (and not explicitly taking part in the details).
don’t u mean „[OPINIONS]” disguised as a „proof” ?
what part of
did u fail to not mix up ?
bah, it will take a few more posts for u to comprehend what’s going on, so let me speed things up:
WRONG. what would the state of research be today, if, for every publication, u had to prove elementary facts like 1 + 1 = 2 ? it is well within the mainstream practice to omit many details, and refer to the target audience’s ability to fill in even large gaps.
despite this, there is a complementing practice called „help”. u may get help from someone to understanding the details, but usually only if u specify what exactly u need help on. u may even ask the original author of the publication, though response depends on his/her time and patience.
but what u’re doing is analogous to a PHP-programmer freshman poking protein researchers with „i need to fix cancer, how do i ?”. to help u directly would be a fucking waste of humanity’s time; the proper response would be: „learn protein science, or eat protein-rich shit and die !”. in this sense, the burden is on u to learn about Tremulous 1.1.
- do u not regard „basically, an offensive human can destroy alien buildables faster than a granger can construct them” as obvious ? well, i can show u a table of damages and delays in Tremulous 1.1, but to put this in the original post would clutter it for the only gain of appealing to someone who doesn’t know jack shit about the game.
- i can’t be assed to elaborate on „it takes only 1 shot at a granger to yield 175 credits for humans when the alien dies”, there’s just no simple way to put it in „paper” form. see for urself, or eat shit and die.
(fixed ur words.)
WRONG. my „predictable” refers to the inoptimally high frequency of aliens performing attack moves, not the quasi-intentional acts of popping up in human crosshairs. whether the dretch comes on the floor, on the wall, or on the ceiling, has, in general, no bearing on whether the human attack squad is ready to fend off the attack. (however, if a dretch comes always on the floor, or always on the left wall, or always on the right wall, or always on the ceiling, then that is an additional kind of predictableness).
WRONG for 2 independent reasons:
- in that video, the humans were sufficiently prepared. the PROBLEM was that humans totally sucked @ aiming, something that the game-theoretic analysis doesn’t deal with.
- even if u manage to find 1 instance of improper preparation, u still need to account for (real-world) human error, ie., that a particular sample is not representative of the usual theme.
and:
congratulations, u’ve successfully linked a video in which the 1st match demonstrates my point.
who the fuck r u to judge what a „better” map is ? (btw, this is off-topic.)
enough. u suck. period. as such, u r not a target audience for this analysis, and should not have taken part in this discussion in the first place. ppl with reasonable understanding of the game should easily see either all of the proofs, or see the first „few” proofs, and find the first theorem which stresses the difference between correct and WRONG in the conclusion.
for u, maybe, the easiest way to „verify” my proposition is to test it.1 but since the analysis assumes non-sucking players, and u suck, it will take years for u to test the proposition. but by the time u gain sufficient experience to be able to conduct representative tests, u will already be able to see my proofs. it follows that anyone should follow the proofs after all.
1 even then, u won’t gain as much assurace as an understanding of the proof, as exhaustive testing is exponentially more time-consuming.
congratulations, u’ve successfully managed to misunderstand the point of this thread, and missed warnings about this, even to this point. the following 2 questions r different:
- what is the progression of properly played Tremulous 1.1 matches ? this is the point of this thread.
- is it worth it to change <insert_gameplay_propery_here> (taking some goals into consideration2) ?
2 eg., to maximize fun for the players of scrims, or to maximize the fun for the spectator-admins of pub-games; in both cases, assuming a skill-incompetent community.
(fixed.)
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, eg. a proof. in layman’s terms:
question: does automatic income imply that aliens r overpowered ?
- @bird’s standpoint: yes. ie., regardless of the humans’ strategy, aliens r more likely to win with evocamping (statement 1: alien evocamping is stronger than human strategy 1. statement 2: alien evocamping is stronger than human strategy 2. etc).
- /dev/humancontroller’s standpoint: no. ie., there exists a human strategy that is comparably strong against evocamping (there is an N such that statement N is false.).
which of the above 2 claims is more extraordinary, and why ?
(i’ll return with some additionals after u’ve attempted to answer this.)
congratulations, u’ve been trolled.3
3 i’m the one that has been trolled the most in this thread, even if we just count ur (accidental ?) trollage.
RC hopping is an intended mechanic and hence why you take considerably less zap damage from the top. The DC needs to be fixed so it warns of attacks on all structures not just the telenodes, spamming teamstatus is dumb. Many games as humans involves running after aliens for half an hour as they run away and attempt to hit your base. (It’s not fun)
WRONG.
details ! has ur standpoint changed ? or have u just been „relaying” some standpoint all the long ?
or may be disappointed whenever he/she sees someone building and not playing the „combat game”, or whatever.
there should be no forbiddings of such systematically unrectifiable actions.
to debate this, start a new thread.1
the first few things that will be discussed shall be:
- whether camping should be forbidden.
- how to define camping and reactor-jumps.
- what r the psychological effects of such forbiddings, and how that affects games.
1 NOT: such shit has been discussed countless times before
Blizz, with all due respect, I would have to agree with DevHC that any further discussion of this will have to deviate from the purpose of the thread. I’d appreciate it if you would take the initiative to make a new thread. 
Reminder: