Skip to main content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Post

Clarifying the forfeit of {tHc} in "{tHc} vs Team 2" tremulous match

Few hours ago we held a scheduled match between {tHc} and Team 2 as part of a Tremulous tournament of the Freedomware Gamefest '07. Since Team 2 is predominantly US and {tHc} predominantly European we had played Team2's map of choice on the European server and {tHc}'s map of choice on an US server. On both each team was supposed to play as aliens and humans.

The first server, from EU, went fine. Team 2 chose a map which both team played fairly well. Team 2 ended up winning both as aliens and as humans, but both teams were fairly good.

Second server, from US, didn't go as good. Not long after the first round started two {tHc} players left the server while at least one of those who remained started complaining about not following our own gamefest rules. Reason why it seemed this way is because the first server had the g_friendlybuildablefire option set to 1 (as is now apparent) and the second one had it on 0. I am not too surprised at why would someone see this discrepancy as us not following our own rules, at least initially, since it is an inconsistency, but since we don't actually have the rule that states this option as either on or off and hence the rule defaults to the default setting in Tremulous, I didn't actually break our own rules.

I would admit, of course, that this inconsistency is ultimately bad and that not having specific rules about such options is not an ideal situation, but not every single tremulous option was discussed and ruled upon and we accepted the undefined options to remain as default. There are some who say that Tremulous doesn't have default options, but I am compelled to think otherwise. If you don't set it to anything yourself it must default to something. Even if it is random, well then it is assumed random. No liability can be assumed on the gamefest organization, after the fact, for not defining this particular rule, especially considering that the rules were made based on community input.

What this option allows is simply for a team to shoot and destroy their own objects, which is apparently something that is a part of {tHc}'s strategy. We shouldn't get into the reason for this. They're right to have their own strategy no matter what it is.

So, why were they forfeited then? Because instead of addressing the issue with me on the server they left and declared they don't want to participate anymore. I wont name anyone though. If they sticked around I would've restarted the match with the option they wish turned on. If I would fail at that (due to pending rcon password issue) we would've used thc's own server which they already offered before. Team 2 was fine with all of this.

Even after they left we asked them to join back. They refused and settled for a forfeit instead. And that's what it ultimately was - 0 points.

So that's the story. I just wanted to post this out as a useful case for future matches. I admit, organization is not ideal. We don't have absolutely everything defined and ruled on. But this is a community event we are building together. We are forthcoming. If something is wrong and is a valid concern it will be addressed to the best possible benefit of all. Going ballistic about it doesn't help anyone.

And of course, based on all this experience, 2008 game fest will be significantly improved.

As for {tHc} I don't want to make them look bad. There are various different people in that clan from what I've seen and many are willing to continue playing. They have their ways and they are fairly good. I hope they go far in this fest. They still have 3 matches to fight and a chance to qualify.

Thank you.


what about camping ?


I didn't play this match, but what I've heard from my mates is that they left because "Team 2" were praticing camping, not for the frinedlyfirebuilding, always 2 tyrants in their base against nude rifles... But seems it wasn't a camping situation for you...
tHc = the Hell with Campers.
Better things to do than having a boring game, tournament or not.

The definition of camping

The definition of camping is available in the rules (which are linked from the tournament page. You can see it here:

I'll quote:


No base camping

When the team is camping they remain in the safety of their base making sure to kill every attacker while themselves remaining fairly invulnerable. Once they reach stage 2 of the game they become stronger than the opponent and rush out to destroy it. This strategy is usually called "camping" and is within this tournament prohibited.

However, when a team waits somewhere in the middle of the map and/or hides and plans a surprise attack, this is not "base camping" and is an acceptable strategy. Also, if only a very small portion of the team (one or two players) remains in base to defend while others are out of the base and attacking, this is acceptable too.

Team 2 didn't play very offensively, but they were going out of their base and approaching yours quite a few times, even if they were often too afraid to actually enter it. The fact that they did go out of their base and hence put themselves out for you to get them if you can is the reason why I can't pronounce their strategy as camping. If at whichever moment and tHc player saw two tyrants in base waiting, how can they be sure they were always there? I watched the game through various perspectives and I didn't saw real camping going on. And if I saw any indication that they might want to engage in it I encouraged them to be offensive.

I think you simply don't like the way they play or have a definition of camping different from the ones in the rules. Rules are rules and this one is defined.

It's also interesting to note that the first complaints I did receive in-game from tHc were about the frinedlybuildablefire option. Later Azrael mentioned he doesn't in fact like clan war games anyway (and that was a really bad time to suddenly decide this and fire out of the match). Now you're complaining about camping. What's next? (No I don't want to hear.)

How can you explain that


How can you explain that some unpowered buildings are still up after 5 minutes? (No, it wasn't strategic, just aliens never entrered the base). Yourself warn several times team 2 about camping. So they just move camping from the base to the corridors. We play for fun, not for victory, and these matches was borring, really without fun.

If some people want only to win and don't care about gameplay, now there is some bot in tremulous.

The server configuration problem is the last straw which breaks the camel's back for some of us.

Do you know Fair-play ?


So being tyrants, with 9evos against nude rifles and waiting at the middle of the map isn't camping ? lol... (I didn't read the rules because not many time so may not play the tournament, and as you can see, my english sucks)
They explained me about the "friendlyfirebuilding mistake", they were angry because "Team 2" was camping on the old nodes (they moved the base), so builders couldn't go decon it without being killed, and they couldn't destroy it.
Camping (not base-camping, but it's still camping) and "spawn-kill-camp", what a fair game...
So they prefered to lose by forfeit instead of having a boring game for the same result. (so easy to win taking any risks... but horribly boring)
No complains, we're just exposing facts and what we think about it, we don't care to win your tournament and lose matchs if we have a good game. We could play without any risks too if we'd like to win, but it's too boring...

btw Azrael said he doesn't like CW anymore because camping is a major problem in tremulous, and he thought your rule could prevent it...

a bug wrote: How can you

a bug wrote:

How can you explain that some unpowered buildings are still up after 5 minutes? (No, it wasn't strategic, just aliens never entrered the base).

Perhaps you were guarding them? As I said, they didn't play very offensively. That alone doesn't prove any camping.

a bug wrote:

Yourself warn several times team 2 about camping.

I never game any specific warnings nor did I mention "camping" as such. Only if I saw real camping going on would I warn about it. Second warning would result in a forfeit in such a case. What I was doing was merely inquiring and then encouraging more offensive play, not because they were camping, but because I wanted to discourage them in starting to do so, seeing that they weren't really offensive. First thing I did was ask zmef why is he standing in base and he replied he was guarding. I was watching him and he was about the only one guarding the base. Others came for weapons and then left. It clearly was not camping according the the specified definition which allows a player or two to remain in base guarding while others go out.

a bug wrote:

So they just move camping from the base to the corridors.

There is a reason why the rules about camping state "base camping" rather than just camping, exactly because of argument you just tried to make. Grouping elsewhere in the map is actually allowed, for whatever purpose they wish to do so. We don't consider that unfair because they are still exposed and just as them you can go in groups as well and attack them. It's your business whether you do so or not. Base camping is considered unfair merely because of all the turrets/acid tubes in addition to the whole team being too invulnerable to the enemy. But as long as they're out of such safety, they're exposed to the opposing team, in this case you.

a bug wrote:

We play for fun, not for victory, and these matches was borring, really without fun.

What motivates you may not be what motivates other teams. Some play for fun and some play to win. Some play for both at the same time. You can't criticize anyone for being differently motivated than you. If you lose a match because you don't care for winning and they do.. well then who is exactly to blame???

a bug wrote:

If some people want only to win and don't care about gameplay, now there is some bot in tremulous.

What you consider a good game play is very relative and often subjective I'd say. But the thing is this is a tournament, qualifications stage, is it really that surprising to you that some will play to win? It's not a darn FFA match!

a bug wrote:

The server configuration problem is the last straw which breaks the camel's back for some of us.

Well you may perceive it as such, but in reality it means nothing except for what I already said in a blog post. Instead of storming out you should've brought it to me and I'd resolve it. This is not a healthy way to achieve anything.

And how do you know they

And how do you know they had 9 evos? How can I be sure you're not manufacturing facts you claim to stand by? They didn't raise a god damn tent nor build turrets at the middle of the map. Your definition of camping may just about include everything you don't like your opponents doing. So it's easy for you to just go and brand it "camping" and keep shouting "camping camping camping" until you're red in your face and until you convince yourself how everyone else is unfair except you.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Maybe you should rename your clan into "to hell with tremulous".

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.