Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: The community newsletter
  • Subject: The community newsletter
Subject: The community newsletter
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
No.

There was much talk of doing a comunity newsletter, and then it was strangled in the grave by logistics and planning. So I compiled the articles i wrote for the various renditions of the newsletter-that never-was. I am publishing my own little newsletter and if anyone wants to help then i will make a group. This first one is only three articles and is a little out-of-date but still relevant.

So without further ado...

[Edited on 02.10.2008 7:36 PM PST]

  • 02.10.2008 7:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
No.

Community Griefing: Melee


Many in the Halo 3 community are upset about the melee system. However, much of the complaining is caused by confusion over specifics and exaggeration. This is to set the record straight. First, what’s the problem? The problem is that the “skill” has been taken out of the melee system. In halo 3, a simultaneous attack results in the winner being the one with the most health assuming both melees would kill the opponent. The problem with the system is that the window for a “simultaneous” attack is larger than the most of the community would like. Some estimates put the window as large as one second. Now, the question is: Why would Bungie have such a dumb system? The answer is latency. In Halo 2 there was no simultaneous attacking, but that gave the host a huge advantage, because his/her attacks are perceived before other players creating lag. The Halo 3 system means that lag is no longer a major factor in close quarters combat and neither, say many fans, is skill.
Now for some common misconceptions this video supposedly demonstrates the flawed melee system. Actually this video is a great example of lag and lunge. After you realize that this is a horribly laggy game, and that the person from whose perspective it is being watched by is not host, you can suddenly account for the stupid appearance of legitimate kills. Lunge, while some consider bad or over done, is actually a good thing. Try to melee a teammate and you experience melee without lunge. It’s not fun. In this particular video, the player seems to lunge/jump. It doesn’t look pretty in the film, but that’s not the point. If you could not lunge upwards, then jumping would become the ultimate melee defense. The second kill that the narrator attributes to a terrible melee system, is, of course, a product of the delay from lag. Basically, this video is simply a perfect demonstration of how lag makes films look stupid sometimes.
In the next AU, Bungie plans to increase the advantage needed to win a melee battle from one hit point to 26.5. This causes problems of its own. First and foremost the alternative to winning or losing is tying, in this case dying, which may interrupt some of the flow of the game. Most likely, we will see many players drift away from melee. However, to get a truly accurate picture we will have to wait for the AU to come out and play with the new settings.


I plan to discuss community problems in this column “Community Griefing.” This is a product of watching videos, playing the game myself, and research on Bungie.net.


[Edited on 02.10.2008 7:21 PM PST]

  • 02.10.2008 7:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
No.

The maps and their patterns.

the following is an almost foolproof way of predicting a map's relative success. It works best for halo but also for similar games. It's called Map Theory.

Map Theory- Popular, successful maps contain the following:

1. Ease of movement- a player can quickly navigate the map
2. Vertical Gameplay- Players can engage each other a different heights (at least 3) and in indirect ways.
3. Risk Analysis- a player has multiple paths between two points of various associated risk and speed, but no one path is more clearly advantageous over the other.
4. Balance- All players and teams have an equal chance to win the game assuming they have the same skill. This is achieved through access to equal or identical weapons and fair placement of “power weapons.” The greatest balance is found in symmetrical maps.
5. Dynamic Gameplay- Each game played plays out a little differently and remains fun and fair. Excessive placement of power weapons and the promotion of camping diminish this.


Test it. what was the most successful Halo 2 map? Lockout. it follows these rules to the letter. while a less successful map like say epitaph, fails on dynamic gameplay, the most important rule, and (more measurably) on risk analysis. Narrows, a moderately successful map, passes all of the rules but does shabby on the vertical gameplay. Vehicle and Objective specific rules coming soon.

[Edited on 02.10.2008 7:29 PM PST]

  • 02.10.2008 7:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
No.

This was done a while back, i hope i can get prommie to still help me with it


This is Discussion Center (working title) with prometheus and conko. We'll be discusing various hot topics each week. This week's is the Gamespot controversy. (Sorry it's a bit one-sided I was multi-tasking.)

conko: What do you think about the Gamespot issue? Is it right for the gaming comunity to act before we know all the facts?

Prometheus: First of all, people are right to question a devloper's role in the reviewing process. Not saying that Eidos had placed pressure on Gerstmann, Gamespot, or CNET in the review process or in the editor's firing, but the whole point of an unbiased review is simply thus, unbiased. If ratings ableit arbitrary numbers and categorizers) start being handed out like candy, then I fear that videogame quality may suffer a noticable drop. Any pressure, within reason, of course, placed on a developer is good. In the same way that your parents nagging you to finish your homework helps you preform better at school, so does the nagging of reviewers (and fans!) push game developers to produce better, and more fulfilling, games.

On the topic of pressure placed on reviews and reviewers, I'd like to bring up the topic of press packages. I think these packages, specificly the elaborated, well-endowed ones (a la Halo 3's press packages) directly influence the outcome of a game's rating. I'd think it'd be quite difficult to seriously consider bringing a complaint against a game after just being handed $800 US dollars-worth of swag (Halo 3 Legendary Edition, Halo 3 Edition Xbox 360, and other goodies not excluded). Like I mentioned in the last paragraph, these reviews are meant to be unbiased, and I'm disappointed in the perceivable "bonuses" that they may be receiving.

Now my second, much more insulting, thought: With all due respect for Gerstmann, Gamespot, CNET, Eidos, etc, etc, but why do we care so much?! Sure, I may sound like the Console Entertainment Industry Devil, but one man loses his job and we go boycott a company? We know not the details of his termination (and CNET is right in not publicly releasing the details of it), yet we still have in mind that 'the man' is bringing down the hammer on top of Gerstmann's head? Surely there are much better things to work towards! Of course I feel pity for the man after he loses his job, but what of the people who haven't had jobs for years beforehand? What of the 20,000 American, handgun-attributed deaths each year? What of the condition of HIV/AIDS, Breast Cancer, Human Rights, and Nuclear Proliferation that affect surprisingly not a single person, but millions of people?

Are we that detatched that we march against the loss of a single man's job, but feel helpless, or apathetic, against these, and many other, issues? Perhaps I'm just over-reacting, but I certainly don't see an uncomfortably high amount of concern for Teen Suicide throughout the world.

conko: But don't you think that that this firing might be symptomatic (sp) of a larger disease within the system. It's not really about the one man's job; it's that they were willing to remove any threat to their advertising income, even a longtime employee. They obviously made a bad move in firing him as it raised public awarness. This might just be the first time the corruption has become so obvious.

Also, it is a mite unreasonable to call people out because there are bigger issues. The average joe can't do much about Breast Cancer or Teen Suicide, but they can speak with a boycott and their pocketbook against a corrupt company. What do you think.



Prometheus: It may be symbolic of a larger, much more prevolent, problem, but then again, it might not. Sure, it's not right for someone to be fired after such an employment length under those circumstances, but, as the original question says, we don't know all of the facts. Furthermore, CNET/Gamespot is a commercial company; their goal is to make money. When the primary income source of a website division of a company is from advertisements specific to their industry, then a lot of focus is placed on the maintaining of these funds. Certainly not enough concentration to just amputate a part of your staff for a minor event, but, if such things were commonplace or other conditions played a significant part of the decision, then it could be justified.

As far as the resonse to my second comment, I do, and will always, agree with it, but I will still stand by my assessment. I dislike the "flavor-of-the-month" mentality of today's media, and I worry that this is just another one of these things. However, I do feel that we should now focus more on the primary issue of this debate, and drop this second-point discussion.

conko: So basically, you're saying that you are suspicious of the black-white mentality, but you don't agree with the actions of CNET as they have been presented. You state that you think that these companies should concentrate on money but "amputating" this guy is too far for a "minor event" So what's the limit. How far can they go before it's unethical.

Prometheus: For the most part, yes. I don't believe that all of the fact have been made clear as of yet, nor do I think we will know all of the story. I think one of two things will happen at this point. Either some significant discovery pertaining to Gerstmann's firing and/or developre pressure on the review process will be uncovered, or nothing of important seriousness will be unearthed and the whole thing will blow over.

As far as the "unethical" is concerned with me, it's mostly opinion. You can narrow down the point to an area somewhere to around where it is with this case; however, with the possibilty of pressure for/against certain reviews, reviewers, and ratings, there may be too many conditions for third-party analysts, you and I, to make a correct assumption when one of these cases falls well within the grey area of the circumstance.

In my conclusion, I believe that there is much more to Gerstmann's termination than we know, or will know as a result of CNET's internal affairs policies. However, I do hold that developer pressure - be it pre-emptive or post-circumstantial pressure - exists, and will be, if it isn't already, a problem. If this event teaches us anything, it's that we should be more demanding of both parties and their under-the-table interactions.

conko: That's all the time we have for now. Now to our audience. What do you think? How far is too far with developer influence on review sites? What should the gaming community do? Thank you for reading Discussion Center (working title.)

feel free to post now

[Edited on 02.10.2008 7:36 PM PST]

  • 02.10.2008 7:30 PM PDT