Talk:Stunt

Revert?
I don't know exactly where you are at with this DJC... But I think a revert back to the articles state at the time before your edit might be nescessary. However, as I said before, I am not sure where you are at with the matter of Stunts/Glitches/Glitchology in halo 1. Please let me know where you're at. Thanks, Matortheeternal 18:21, November 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * That stunt wiki you're working on... I'm thinking it might be better to cover stunts in detail there. Once it has enough information, we can use interwiki links in s to link to it. [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]]  DavidJCobb  20:40, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * That is to say, I am sufficiently convinced that the concept of Stunts in Halo 1 is too complex to be adequately covered here. It may need its own wiki. [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  20:46, November 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a great idea! Hopefully the Stunt Wiki will cover all discoverable stunts in all Halo series!-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 20:51, November 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * WOW! I love the enthusiasm!  That is exactly what I am looking for!  With that enthusiasm in mind, I would like to make a request to the public of halopedia.  I am not yet extremely expierenced with the creation of wikis, and due to other projects I don't have very much available time to dedicate to stuntopedia.  If possible, I would like to make a public announcement for help.  Matortheeternal 01:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Gimme somethin' to do, and I'll see what I can do to get it done. [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:22, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that the first thing I/we should do is we should create a list of what needs to be done and what our/my goals are with the halo stunting wiki. Then we can individually embark on completing certain individual parts of said list, and we can assign other people to completing certain parts of said list as well.  I will begin developing the list this week.  We can talk via xfire and you can contribute as you wish.  Everyone else is also welcome to contribute.  When the list is completed we will officially begin work on the wiki and I will *hopefully* make an announcement here on halopedia asking for people to help contribute.  Matortheeternal 02:29, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Top of my head:
 * Iron out the categories to use
 * Recommend multiple categorization/taxonomic systems.
 * Get screenshots, videos, instructions, YouTube sources for stunts.
 * Document stunts. Can do this before categorization, and categorize them later.
 * Work out standard terminology (e.x. clipping, etc.).
 * [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:33, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of developing a more detailed and more *intricate* list. One that literally states every single thing that I/we need to do.  I can't give an example right now, but basically exactly what you are saying, but twice as detailed. Matortheeternal 02:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it. If any assistance is required, lemme know, especially with templates, HTML, and the like. [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:39, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I will need your help on just about everything. As well as as many peoples help as I can get.  Its the list that I am talking about right now.  And in that I will need help too!  But first, homework. Matortheeternal 02:42, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ima go to sleep soon; lemme know if you have any specific things you need help with tomorrow. :D [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:45, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Get all your friends interested in halo 1 stunting, and then get them interested in stuntopedia. Find out *if you can* if it would be possible to make a public announcement about this on halopedia. Make sure that will be viewed by *many* users.  (if there is a way to make it more publicly available, try to do so)  Then create your own detailed to-do-list for stuntopedia.  (include every single little task you can think of, but group as necessary.  My guess is it should talk about 10 minutes to create a full to-do-list.)  Matortheeternal 02:48, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, this page will remain in its present state (not anticipating other user's edits) until stuntopedia is well established and we can better decide the course of this article. Correct? Matortheeternal 02:52, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. [[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:53, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe change the title of the wiki to something... better?-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 16:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Stuntopedia isn't good? :[ What else is there to have?  I think stuntopedia is an awesome name! ...?  What would you suggest? Matortheeternal 18:13, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let's clear several things about the wiki: Is it mainly about stunts in Halo series or does it cover other games as well? If it's mainly concern with stunts in Halo series, then it should renamed to either Halo Stunts Wiki or something with that Halo feel. If not, then it should be called Stunt-o-pedia/Stuntopedia. The problem with the latter is that you'll be facing numerous visits from other games and it would be hard for you/the wiki to verify the stunts.-  <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 18:25, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Restarting : list... The URL of the wiki is halostunting.wikia.com.  That should clear up the problem. Matortheeternal 20:33, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * halostunting? Is halostunts reserved?- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 20:37, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of Subtank's recommendations (name change, domain change). <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  02:21, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why halostunts is better then halostunting. Stunting = the act/art of performing stunts.  Stunt=oddities in halo *blah blah blah.*  The wiki would go by the nicknames of Stuntopedia and The Halo Stunting Wiki.  I think that would prevent any major confusion.  If problems still arise, a simple announcement should do the trick.  I don't see why halostunts would be any better then halostunting in terms of domain, mind explaining why you would suggest such a change (which is still hard, even though I have a relatively small amount of material created.) Matortheeternal 14:35, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Several reason to why halostunts is better then halostunting. 1) It's shorter to type. 2) Most gamers/players would refer Stunts in Halo as 'stunts' rather than 'stunting'Examples: You always see Halo Stunts as a common server name in HCE Lobby, Conversation - "Hey, wanna do some stunts?" rather than "Hey, wanna go stunting?". That said, just conform to the society. 3) The pronunciation of Halo Stunts is better than Halo Stunting.Heh-lo Stuh-unt and Heh-lo Stuh-unt-ing. Supporting this is the collection of opinions from Halo players I interviewed/encountered in HCE matches... which also resulted in many suicides and betrayals. That's the general reasons. Oh, one more thing; might I recommend changing from Stuntopedia to a simple "Halo Stunts Wiki"? It's all for the good of the Halo Community/Society- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 14:46, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * I will acknowledge your advice about stunts may be better then stunting, but is it really such a big deal that I have to change it? Honestly, if it appears on google searches, its good enough (which it does, on the first page).  I will CONSIDER the domain name change.  However, I still don't see why it shoudl be caslled the halo stunts wiki.  I coudl say the same about halopedia!  Why can't it be called the halo wiki?  If I would change the domain, I'm thinking just stunts.wikia.com might be better. Matortheeternal 21:06, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Why "Halo Stunts Wiki"? Because "Stuntopedia" could be taken to refer to other games as well (or to real-life stunts), and the only other way to resolve that problem ("Halostuntopedia") sounds horrible. :P <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  22:23, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * I just explained how I would solve that issue... Matortheeternal 01:04, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization
Rather then make this post ever more colorful (heh) I will reply at the bottom of this category in black. Matortheeternal 14:40, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

And I shall use the same convention, with green text. <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%"> DavidJCobb  01:09, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Woah... Big Post. I will reply to it by adding text in red after what you are saying as a response...

I think that the article needs significant reorganization. To be specific, I feel that the same classifications should be used for each game -- same launch classes for H1, H2, and H3; same ledge classes for H1, H2, and H3; etc. Different classifications for each game results in duplicate content, disorganization, and extra categories and distinctions that often aren't necessary and may in some cases be misleading. <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%"> DavidJCobb  13:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the contribution, but I was somewhat crestfallen you didn't make a request beforehand. Most of the changes are positive, and I am happy to have seen such changes.  However, a few are somewhat distortive.  I haven't made any changes yet, but I would like to discuss making further modifications to make this article clearer and easier to follow.  Matortheeternal 02:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The distortions likely resulted from unintentional misinterpretations on my part; my bad. As for further modifications, I shall elaborate on my previous suggestion.
 * Ok.
 * Stunts can be categorized by game (if "Halo: Combat Evolved Stunts", "Halo 2 Stunts", etc., are approved as categories), but things in a taxonomy are sorted by their traits. Stunts should thus be categorized by type, with game having little role or mention.
 * My general idea regarding categorization is based off of how plants and animals are organized/classified in biology. My original idea is as follows: GAME-TYPE OF PLAY/OTHER RELEVANT CATEGORY-MAP-STUNT TYPE-STUNT SUB-TYPE-STUNT CLASS-STUNT (NICKNAME AND ORGANIZATIONAL NAME)  Game would be Halo 1, Halo2, or Halo 3.  However, this system could apply to any game.  Type of play would be campaign or multiplayer.  I have this section because stunts in campaign and stunts in multiplayer tend to be very different.  And, it just seems to be a logical category to have.  What I mean by "other relevant category" is if there is another game which has stunts/glitches/tricks and doesn't have multiple types of play a different category could be created in place of the "type of play" category  This organization is directly based off of plant and animal taxonomy.  There are probably about 10,000 stunts in all 3 halo's, maybe more.  Such a classifications system as I am suggesting would allow us to organize the stunts logically into categories.  It can be discussed whether or not we need so many sub-categories.  However, I want you to know that I chose my sub-categories based off of my expierence in stunting.  I will explain why I made each sub-category as I continue this editorial.
 * What differences exist between stunts in campaign and stunts in multiplayer? If there are no differences that consistently show up, then the sub-classification is unneeded. If at least one difference can't be consistently demonstrated between Campaign and Multiplayer for most, if not all stunt types, then differentiating between the two game modes serves only to complicate the classification. The problem here is that there are too many sub-classifications and categories, which serves both to obfuscate the taxonomy and possibly even the stunt categories (the ones that matter, like Ledging) themselves.
 * In general, sub-classifications ("_____ Balances", "_____ Ledges", etc) should be kept to a minimum.
 * I understand this perspective. I have tried to keep my sub-categories as minimal as possible.  I will explain each one as we go along.
 * Here's the categories -- no prose -- I would use, in list form. (Intended as a graphical display only, which is why the formatting is messy.)
 * Stunts (Fun Fact: an article's title is a header -- an H1.)
 * I think that stunts shouldn't be a category. Stunts can be explained in an article, but there is no other category relevant to stunts other then stunts.  So having a category called "Stunts" is redundant.
 * I was doing this in a kind of outline format -- listing each header, and the article title is coded as a header. I agree that we shouldn't have a section named "Stunts" in the article called "Stunt".
 * Balances (While the mechanics of balancing (and the available balance points) may indeed differ between object and floor balances, that doesn't necessarily make them notable in and of themselves... The difference (fewer usable balance points) can be mentioned in the prose for "Balances".) Fewer Balance points is not the actual relevancy. The major differences between floor and object balances is that floor balances can be performed on any flat surface.  Object balances, on the other hand, are only possible on objects.  I think this deviation is necessary.  Define "object", then. If the difference between object and floor balances is notable and not self-evident, then the classification should certainly remain; otherwise, it should be omitted (or briefly mentioned, but not given its own section). But notability cannot be determined in this case until I know what you mean by "object".
 * Air balance This category was renamed. Originally I called these balances "Phantom Balances."  I call them this because thus far, all balances that fall into this category phantom.  (They do not appear on the client port due to lag/discrepancies.) Also, I think air balance is a misleading name, because the balance has nothing to do with air.  This category is important because these balances are so different from other balances.  Yes, I decided to rename it. "Phantom Balance" could be mistaken for a balance involving the vehicle of the same name. This kind of balance involves balancing a vehicle such that it looks like the air itself is holding the object up; when defined in that manner, "air balance" makes more sense and is less ambiguous.
 * Ledging
 * Climbing ledges (or "climb-ledges") I guess this name is appropriate. However, I do not understand the reasoning for having the nickname "climb-ledges."  The "or" was intended to denote options, not nicknames. Like, pick the one you like best and we throw out the other one.
 * Walking ledges (or "walk-ledges") Same as Climbing ledges.
 * Half-ledges (recommended name change from "wall hacking ledges") Here is where I think the name change is most irrelevant. In almost all Climbing ledges, half of Masterchief (vertical cut) is outside of the ledge.  Wall hacks (as stunters currently call them) are different because more then half of masterchief is outside of the ledge (this normally results in "popping" out of the ledge.)  There are two kinds of wall hacks, ones where masterchief is hanging out of the ledge by his head/upper body, and another where only his legs/feet/lower body is in the ledge.  Ah, I misinterpreted the definition. At the same time, though, "wall hacking ledge" is... well, it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Partial-ledges? No, the meaning of that isn't self-evident... Hmm...
 * Insides
 * Terrain insides (or with a dash, terrain-insides) (Scenery could refer to Forge Objects; terrain (when used to refer to terrain and actors) is unambiguous) This name is very misleading. Terrain usually refers to the ground.  You cannot, and do not get inside of the ground.  People get inside of objects, such as rocks and trees.  And people get inside of vehicles.  I do not see the meaning of the dash.  They also get vehicles inside of things.  So in reality, there are two major types of insides.  One that involves getting oneself (Masterchief) inside of things.  And another that involves getting vehicles inside of things.  What do you mean by actors?  Forge objects are specific to halo 3.  Those words have no place in the definition of stunt.  Ah, another misinterpretation on my part. Technically, however, non-terrain objects are actors, or "objects", as they are referred to in the next proposed category.
 * Object insides (or with a dash, object-insides) (moving one actor through another) See above. I do not understand the entire "Moving one actor through another."  The only time when a player is actually inside of another player is inside of specific ledges that involve players phantoming.  Moving one non-biped actor through another?
 * Launches (I should note that the definition needs to be made more specific. If I turn on 25% Gravity in a Custom Game and jump, I'm practically flying through the air, but I'm not being launched... 'Course, anyone too unfamiliar with the concept wouldn't be able to tell the difference, as the difference is not evident from the current definition. Perhaps a reference to the high velocities or abnormal distances typically found in launches could be made?) (Also, I'm not so sure that Overshield launches need a category. The point of a launch is being launched; whether or not you survive is a different matter, and survivability isn't necessarily an important aspect of a launch. I once used a bunch of Fusion Coils to send my newly-made corpse outside of Ghost Town's invisible walls; I'd class that as a launch even though it killed me.) I didn't think it was relevant to state that launches are only considered launches when they are performed without forge or modding (this includes modifying gravity.) However, if people truly do not understand this, I believe it would be a good idea to mention it somewhere within the article.  Also, launches aren't really "legit" or "good" if you die.  The idea behind launching is living through the initial explosion (dieing in the fall is OK.)  Survival is extremely important in launching.  If you do not survive, your launch is a failure.  Launches where you don't survive are typically referred to as "noob launches."  Overshield launches specifically involve using large amounts of explosives in such a way that would normally kill a player, but then grabbing the overshield to take advantage of the invulnerability it presents.  It is a relevant category because it is the division between noob and pro launches.  But Overshield launches are not necessarily a division between noob and pro launches, in my opinion. The Overshield is merely a tool that you can use to guarantee that your attempted launch does not end up failing.
 * Respawn launches
 * Warp launches
 * Sticky launches
 * Lag-splatter launches (recommended name change from "force launches") This name is not relevant because it doesn't describe the launch. Splatter is a term from halo 3 that describes running someone over in a vehicle and killing them.  Force launches do not kill the player due to NO TK being set.  Also, force launches involve launching vehicles as with "force" as well.  When you consider the fact that warp launches are divided into two subcategories; sticky and force launches, the naming makes quite a bit of sense.  And who doesn't want to say they "used the force" to make a hog go flying?  Good points. And what do you mean when you say that the launches involve launching vehicles as well?
 * Explosion launches
 * PFR launches (omit (or mention, but don't make it a category) if it's not common) This once again shows why experience is a prerequisite for the modification of this article. It is a prerequisite for any modification, but this article requires experience which is not common.  The PFR is the most common explosive combination used for launching.  Hence "if it's not common".
 * Plasma launches (omit (or mention, but don't make it a category) if it's not common) Plasma Launches are specifically different from PFR launches, they involve using numerous plasma grenade explosions to launch vehicles. Usually by throwing the grenades straight up, allowing up to 4 plasma grenades on the target per player.  Hence "if it's not common". At the same time, though, this launch might not necessarily need its own category, since it's a relatively basic concept. If there are other similarly basic explosive launches, they can be lumped with this one into an "Other Explosive Launches" section, or something similar.
 * Tank launches (omit (or mention, but don't make it a category) if it's not common) I think tank launches are important because I think that all categories should have sections. And for explosion launches to have sections, it must have all of the sections I have suggested.  There may not be many definable stunts under this category, but it still is a major category.  (This category involves using tank blasts alone for launching)  But should all methods have categories? Tank launches are a really basic concept -- just get a shit-ton of tanks and bombs away! (I can imagine, that must be quite fun!) Again, the really basic and less-common/less-notable kinds could feasibly be merged into an "Other Explosive Launches" section.
 * Dead-fire launches (omit (or mention, but don't make it a category) if it's not common) One again, your lack of knowledge is quite horrible in this instance. Dead-fire launches are pretty much the only type of launches in campaign.  They involve using grenades dropped by enemies to launch yourself/vehicles.  Of course my lack of knowledge is quite horrible -- I just got Halo PC, and I haven't even got a chance to try out Campaign yet.
 * Flip launches
 * Super bounces (use a ) I have no experience with sword bounces, and I'm not sure what you mean by use a template:main... Why would sword bounces need to have a template?  Super bounces. Have you ever seen a section in a wiki article, and right beneath the section header, there was the text "Main article: ...", indented and with a link? The Main template does that. Super Bounces already have an article, so if we cover them here, the Main template should be used (so we can just briefly describe them, and then link to a more detailed explanation).
 * Sword flying (use a ) I know about sword flying... It isn't really launching, more like floating.  I personally would put it in miscellaneous...  But that is my opinion.  Miscellaneous would be an appropriate classification, but if I recall correctly, it is currently sorted under Halo 2 launches.
 * Wraith launches (Cannot offer an opinion on notability -- what is a Wraith launch? But sub-classes of this class have been omitted to simplify the taxonomy -- they can be mentioned or even have a paragraph, but do not necessarily need their own section, and that's assuming they need to be covered at all.) I think this is the part of the article that I copied from elsewhere. I honestly know nothing about stunts/launches/wraith launches.  I think they are the launches where you "turbo" into a tank/player to launch them.  Like the tank pinball...  Well, I think that if we cannot determine the meaning of a class, we cannot sort anything under that class; the unknown class is therefore useless and should be discarded or removed until a meaning can be devised.
 * Pressure launches (Cannot offer an opinion on notability -- what is a pressure launch?) Pressure launches are where you are "pressured" by objects. Like a box pushing you against a corner.  The pressure will result in your player "launching."  But once again, I have very little experience with halo 2 launches.  Ah... Yeah, I've seen some of that in Halo 3 too. You can't get crushed, so you get squeezed out at high velocity.
 * Locations (Description should probably be changed, recommend something like: A location is an event where one or more stunts are used to access an unusual area. If a notable amount of glitchery is required to get outside the map, it's a glitch; if it's more stunts than glitches, it's a location. But how do we judge? By quantity of glitches versus quantity of stunts, or by diversity? For example, let's say that three launches, a balance, and five instances of clipping'll (somehow) get me outside the map; is that a glitch (five glitches > four stunts) or a stunt (two kinds of stunts > one kind of glitch)?) The description is fine imo. The methods used to access areas are not stunts.  It is the getting to the area that is a stunt.  Locations are "LOCATIONS" that you get to using methods that exploit the game's physics/barriers or are abnormal in nature.  It is highly unlikely for you to use multiple stunts to get to a location.  In fact, I have never seen it before.  Most of the time there is a simpler method to get to the location, thus the previous complex method is deemed irrelevant.  However, in such cases where multiple stunts are used to get one outcome, each individual stunt is an individual stunt, and the location is its own stunt, but the combination of stunts is once again, irrelevant.  So in other words, your speaking gibberish in this paragraph -.-  But there are many instances where reaching an abnormal area through near-exclusive use of glitches (with perhaps a small handful of stunts, but many more glitches) ends up being classified as a glitch -- a classification that may well be valid.
 * Near locations (New class: reaching locations that are outside the level boundaries, but that... exist. Cave of 1000 faces, and the two I mention at the very bottom of this great wall of text comment.) What is this..? Locations in halo 1 are very different from locations in halo 2 and halo 3.  There are very few occurrences where locations can actually be divided into "near" and "far" categories.  Most locations are simply there.  And there are no major deviations other then distance between your suggested "near" and "far" locations.  You also mean to state these locations that are defined.  I don't see how any location can not be defined.  In halo 1, locations are very well defined or they aren't locations.  (Example: Top of Blue Beam Tower, Top of Infinity Tower, Cliff Behind Blue Base (BG), etc.  Perhaps "Solid" and "Nonsolid" would be better?
 * Far locations (New class: reaching locations that aren't quite as defined. Anywhere where there's more non-solid or missing pieces than there is walkable terrain, including infinite voids with invisible and walkable surfaces. I suspect that the cliffs in Blackout or the area beyond the fall-to-your-death cliffs in Avalanche would both qualify -- they're both non-solid in Pan Cam, even when not clipping, and Blackout's cliffs are also incomplete (the surfaces you can't see from the level were never modeled; imagine a zig-zag line with the "zigs" taken out, leaving only a bunch of disconnected parallel lines).) Perhaps this is why taxonomy should be seperated from halo 1, 2, and 3. Halo 1 doesn't have clipping, fall-to-your-death cliffs, or infinite voids.  This is all gibberish to me.  In halo 1 it is very straightforward.  Halo 1 does have clipping. You know that glitch where you turn friendly fire off, and then use a Warthog to ram a teammate at high speed -- so that he ends up accelerating so fast that he pops out of the other side of the wall? That's clipping. Fall-to-your-death cliffs may not exist in Halo 1, but that does not make locations fundamentally different from other games. And infinite voids are in all 3D games, though they may not be accessible in Halo 1 (having never played anything other than Custom Edition, I wouldn't know). The Halo-horizon and Threshold are textures on a skysphere. And behind that skysphere...
 * Other (Same as what it used to mean: boarding an "inaccessible" Scarab, etc.) Boarding an inaccessible scarab would be a "miscellaneous" stunt. Locations are defined places (like the top of towers, behind glass walls, ontop of trees, ontop of levels, etc.  But a Scarab is a defined place, no? Unless you're using "defined" to mean "static", "immobile", "fixed", etc.
 * I do believe that's basically it -- an outline for a potential draft. Not too many changes, but a (hopefully) significant reduction in the nesting of classes by avoiding classes-by-game and multiple nesting, and adding additional restrictions based on notability. From my perspective it has done the exact opposite. The important classes to halo 1 have been removed and other classes for other halo's have been added.  This is why the taxonomy should be separated by game.
 * On a side note, some way to organize, list, and sort stunts would be quite useful. Perhaps extremely notable stunts could get their own articles? But that's outside the scope of this discussion -- revamping Stunts. That was my original plan.  Sadly, Halopedia seems to snuff out good ideas like candles.
 * Thoughts on the outline above?
 * Oh, here are some side notes: stunts in Halo 3.
 * Possible Pelican Balance.
 * Accessing one of the other shield towers on The Covenant (there's more than just the three that get disabled).
 * I was once playing Co-op with a friend on The Ark, and as the Scarab initially walked in, he actually got launched by it, and landed on the walls outside the "arena". I died, teleported up with him, and we were able to walk up to where the Scarab supposed to walk back out to, effectively skipping everything in between our walking into the area and the Scarab battle -- and the Scarab never showed up! 'Course, we had to walk back into the level, and then backtrack to trigger the Scarab battle (the next door was locked, and would remain so until after the Scarab was killed)... I have the Film saved, if I can get one of those cables where you plug the cable into a 360's hard drive, and then into a USB port, I could transfer my stuff -- no room on my File Share (!), so someone else would have to upload it for me DX
 * <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  22:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for a reply, I was interrupted mid-reply awhile back and have forgotten to reply since then. Here is my conclusion:
 * My categories should be re-added and none should be removed.
 * The halo games should remain separate in terms of taxonomy.
 * The names should be set back to what I had them at.
 * Not doing as I suggest will deem this article a failure. (at least in terms of halo 1 stunting)

Matortheeternal 00:14, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * But do you not see a problem with the previous version (and even the current version) of this article? It simply has too much material. If we're going to have all stunt-related information in one article, then it has to be cut down a bit. Non-notable stuff has to be removed. Really basic things that don't need their own categories should be merged under "Other _________" (where blank is the highest-level classification: "Ledges", "Launches", etc.).
 * Yes, articles need some level of detail to be informative, but when you have too much detail, it stops being informative and starts being cumbersome to maintain and edit, difficult to read, and all-to-prone to what I call the "TL;DR Effect". I understand that you want to keep as much information on here as possible, but for this article to be organized and manageable, some information would have to go.
 * Of course, there may be a way to restructure this article without having to remove as much information as I have been proposing. If we can get approval for articles about the (major!) categories, such as Ledging and Launching, then we can move the info there -- shortening this article and making everything neater. If you want, I can ask an admin for approval or something. Reliable sources, however, would be an obvious requirement -- so if you want to get articles for different types of glitches (and above, you expressed a desire to do so), I'd recommend finding some sources. That way, the articles already have some sources the moment they're written.
 * Even then, though, some serious reorganization still needs to be done. The classification is too divisive, too intricate, too layered, too involved, too massive, too hard-to-follow. Categories need re-ordering and merging. We don't have to remove info on differences between game, but we should not classify stunts by game unless there are consistent, persistent, and significant differences between games. And even then, that shouldn't drive the whole system -- if Ledging, for example, is the only type of stunt with consistent, persistent, and significant differences between games, then only Ledging should be divided by game, since such a division would only be useful and informative for Ledging. Differences that are not consistent, persistent, and significant can be listed when describing further subtypes.
 * (And by significant, I mean almost as critical as the definitions of the terms themselves... Like, take the differences between Ledging and Launching -- they're completely different terms. That's a very significant difference. For a difference to, in my opinion, warrant a classification by game, it would have to have almost that level of significance.)
 * Also, with all due respect, whether or not you "deem this article a failure" is of no importance to me. Here's what I consider important: this article needs improvement. It needs to be made more readable, understandable, maintainable, efficient, and accurate. So in the event of a disagreement, I'm not gonna just immediately capitulate to your opinions. I will, however, happily engage in a debate, in order to logically determine the best course of action for a given proposal. I believe that's what we're doing right now, in fact.
 * On a similar note, I can understand that my relative lack of knowledge of stunts is irritating to you. You may even be feeling insulted right now, which is understandable -- you work hard to type out everything you know about stunts, you're a pro and knowledgeable of the subject, and here comes some newbie trying to tell you that there are some problems with your work! But knowledge of the subject matter isn't necessarily required to evaluate an article. Knowledge of readability and usability principles, and knowledge of best practices on wikis, is even more important. And I don't mean to be a braggart or to flaunt my ego, but I happen to be quite experienced in the field of glitches. Yes, glitches and stunts are different, but both their function (how they work) and their results tend to be quite similar in nature. I may not know everything about stunts, but I'm quite certain that I know enough to sufficiently critique this article.
 * Now, out of all of that, I'd say my most important point/recommendation is the creation of separate articles. I will happily ask some of the admins if it'd be okay to do that. I'm good at simplifying the explanations for glitches, and stunts aren't much different (in terms of functionality and how they work -- I'm well aware that there are differences, and I know what those differences are), so I think I could convince them that separate articles are needed. So would you like me to ask them, and see if they'd approve of us creating additional articles for different kinds of stunts? (If you would like me to ask them, then we should both start looking for sources first -- documentation, YouTube videos, anything that serves as viable proof -- so that when I/you make the proposal, it has more credibility to it.) <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  01:09, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * To begin, I would like to say that I am thoroughly happy with the respect and sincerity of your reply. Any former hostility towards you is gone and has been replaced with a sense of affinity with one who is trying just as hard as I am to make this article, and halopedia in general, more correct and informative.  I would also like to state that I am thoroughly convinced that this mode of communication is not the most effective one to use for long debates or discussions especially when evidence has a sense of involvement.  I would like to suggest now that we find a more convenient way to discuss this matter, such as through the IRC, a chat program (like xfire), or through halo itself (ingame).  I will re-address this at the end of my predictably verbose reply.
 * In direct response to your "green" replies to my feedback on the suggested system for stunts, I will state that many of the points I wish to make in regards to this taxonometric system would be better made in halo itself. I feel this would be much easier because then I can actively show and explain exactly what I want, why I want it, and why my ideas are applicable.  And you can do the same.  But I shall still respond, in brief, to your sincere suggestions.
 * There are multiple differences between stunts in campaign and multiplayer, these differences include, but are not limited to: solid ledge content being thoroughly increased, detonatable dead-fire grenades, loading zone glitches, overloading, the presence and convenience of checkpoints, easter eggs, the lack of teleporters, the fact that you can only play solo or co-op on xbox, etc. Basically, every category of stunts is different to some extent.  Not only are the mechanics of campaign different, the campaign has been coded very different from multiplayer.  A great example of this is detonatable dead-fire grenades.  In campaign, nades dropped by enemies or allies can be detonated by other explosions.  However, in multiplayer, grenades dropped by enemies or allies can’t be detonated by other explosions.  This has made launching in campaign completely different from launching in multiplayer.
 * When I say “object” I am referring to pillars, teleporters, rocks, trees, etc. This would be a lot easier to explain ingame.  Basically, an upside-down hog on top of a pillar on blood gulch can be considered balancing, but an upside-down hog on the ground is not balancing.  Do you get what I mean?  I think it would be easier to explain if we were ingame…
 * Well there are a lot of things in halo 1 that are referred to as “phantoms.” We would have called them ghosts, but there is a vehicle called a ghost already.  And we could have called them discrepancies, but that is a really lame name.  Phantoms, in halo 1, are discrepancies between the host and the client.  They can manifest themselves in various ways such as RC and warp launches.  I think it would be best for me to demonstrate this and explain why I created this category called “phantom balances.”  But if there are any categories that could be removed, they would have to be wall-hacks and phantom balances.  I think that these could still be at least mentioned in some sort of article, because they are interesting phenomena, but they are not worthy of their own sub-category (since very few stunts fall into these categories and those that do often fall into other categories as well.  This could be like an “extra” specification.)
 * When I refer to object insides I am referring to getting inside of “objects” such as rocks, trees, and pillars. I specifically denote an “object” as an object that is not stitched in with the environment but remains immobile (the object has a floor).  A great comparison for this would be rocks on blood gulch.  There are a few rocks on blood gulch that have no floor.  In other words, you cannot stand inside of them.  I would designate these as part of the terrain.  Other rocks do have a floor, and you can stand inside of them.  I would designate these rocks as objects.
 * What is a non-biped actor? I refer to the covenant, marines, etc. as AI or NPC.  I refer to masterchief as MC or PC.  When you say “actor” you make me think about “actors” in a play.  That would refer to characters, or people.  You do not move people inside of each other at any time in halo except when they are “phantomed.”  If you are referring to say, vehicles.  I think you should call it vehicle insides.  Because that makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!  Once again this would be better discussed via chat or ingame.
 * The reason I refer to overshield launches as noob launches is because they are SO much easier to do then other launches. I only thought it was a relevant category because it completely removed the advanced steps you have to take to do other dead-fire grenade launches.
 * Force warp launches are where you move your vehicle forward, increase packet loss while still moving forward, then lower the packet loss. The packet loss will result in your vehicle “warping” or “jumping forward.”  When it does this everything in its path is warped as well.  So just imagine a scorpion driving into another scorpion.  The driving scorpion warps and the other scorpion goes flying, literally flying, through the air.  That would be a vehicle force launch.
 * The reason for me having so many categories of explosion launches is that I feel that each type of explosive launch is in itself a category, since they are each different from one another and since I have a category entitled “PFR Launches.” It just makes logical sense because you can do many various types of launches, but they all end up falling into these categories.  It would help if you could take a look at how the taxonomy for biology is set up.  I consider these categories of explosion launches to be similar to the categorization by “family” in biology.  I suppose if we kept this as the only article for stunts we could remove these categories, because they are all really just sub-categorizations and may not need to be separately noted.  However, I have been trying to communicate people at Halopedia that stunts cannot be crammed into one article, so that is why it may seem somewhat “stuffed” to you.  My original idea was to have separate articles for each and every classification.  And to develop a “template” for the taxonomy of stunts so we could add articles about individual stunts and organize them all into the taxonomy while doing so.
 * In regards to the halo 2 and halo 3 stuff, I would say that these systems are not very well organized, and if I had prior experience I would be in there organizing them right now. Sword flying obviously isn’t launching, and that can and should be changed in the future.
 * In regards to locations, there is no difference between the word glitch and the word stunt. Everything that is a stunt is a glitch, and everything that is a glitch is a stunt.  Stunt is used in this article as a “super group” for all glitches, tricks, easter eggs, etc.
 * I don’t see how solidity has anything to do with locations. There are location stunts that involve getting vehicles to locations (ie launching a hog onto the pinnacle on blood gulch) and there are location stunts that involve getting yourself to locations (ie getting on top of the ceiling barrier on damnation).
 * The vocabulary from halo 3 came after the vocabulary for halo 1. We don’t use those terms at all.  And the major differences between halo 1, halo 2, and halo 3 show that they should be classified within the taxonomy separately.  Honestly, I would rather worry about halo 2 and halo 3 later, right now I am just concerned with halo 1.
 * I refer to defined as in like, it is a place, not an action. Getting inside of an “inaccessible scarab” is performing an action imo, and it is obviously from a game other then halo 1, and thus I have never considered it in my taxonomy.  We don’t have these “other” locations.  Honestly it would be so much easier to make separate taxonomies for each halo game.
 * In response to your last few paragraphs I will repeat a few things I have already said. First, I want this to be split into more articles.  You can’t cram thousands of amazing feats and glitches all into a few pages on halopedia.  I am actually trying to make a separate wiki for stunts because they are so many.  I would be overjoyed if you could secure the rights to make more articles regarding stunts.  As for my frustration with your lack of knowledge about stunts, I have thought of a solution to that problem.  If we could play maybe a total of 5 hours in halo pc multiplayer together, I could give you all the information you need to make any future changes as accurate and factual as possible.  I already have hundreds of youtube videos uploaded about stunts, so all I really have to do is link to them…

… And that’s just about it. Matortheeternal 14:40, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Added responses in red... Matortheeternal 19:54, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on gaming together are at the bottom of this post. Most of the text before that is answering the questions you asked, or asking some of my own.
 * So "phantom" is the name given to a de-synchronization ("de-sync") with the host?
 * That is correct. However, some stunters use it for define another phenomenon: the de-rendering of vehicles/players.  But I think that for the sake of not overloading definitions on a single word we should just refer to that phenomenon as de-rendering.
 * "De-rendering"? That is either a misnomer or a purely graphical glitch. To "render" is to calculate the 3D coordinates, convert them to a 2D image, and display that image on a screen.
 * "What is a non-biped actor? I refer to the covenant, marines, etc. as AI or NPC. I refer to masterchief as MC or PC. When you say “actor” you make me think about “actors” in a play. That would refer to characters, or people."
 * There is no fixed meaning for "actor", but I tend to use the one that appears to be used in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 's debug screens. I divide things between "terrain", the hard-coded and immutable level geometry, and "actors" -- everything else. The Halo series tends to use an additional distinction, "biped", for actors that represent characters, as opposed to other things like vehicles.
 * Ahhh… I think I might understand.  It would be easier to discuss in halo though.
 * "The reason I refer to overshield launches as noob launches is because they are SO much easier to do then other launches."
 * But I recall you describing failed (fatal) launches in general as "noob launches". So is the Overshield a tool that guarantees survival but permanently relegates the launch to the "noob" category?
 * The reason I define Overshield launches and Fatal launches as “noob launches” is because they require very little skill in comparison with other “living” launches. For an overshield launch, you just need a pile of nades and an overshield, with no particular arrangement required.  However, for a powerful hog launch, or a marine launch, your pile of grenades needs to be EXTREMELY tight (nades occupy very small space), and the hog’s position needs to be extremely precise, and you need to be extremely accurate in your actions to do the launch.  Other explosion launches that you “live” through require so much more skill that overshield launches and fatal launches are “noob launches” in comparison.  However, overshield launches are launches, however easy they may be to execute.
 * I understand the reason for calling some launches "noob launches". I think that Overshield launches aren't necessarily a class of their own -- they're just other types of launches, with an Overshield thrown in for good measure.
 * Ok. Goodbye Over-shield launches... (We may bring them back later if you think it is necessary; which you may after you expierence the extreme difference between them and other launches.)
 * "When it does this everything in its path is warped as well. So just imagine a scorpion driving into another scorpion. The driving scorpion warps and the other scorpion goes flying, literally flying, through the air."
 * Couldn't that be the game correcting an inside? It's like in Halo 3, when lag occasionally causes one of Sandtrap's Elephants to sink into the ground. The game corrects it by launching the Elephant into the air. The lag, I think, causes the moving Scorpion to intersect the unmoving one.
 * Yes, that is exactly what the game is doing. However, the momentum of the vehicle contributes to the power of the launch.  Respawn launches are also the game correcting an inside.
 * K.
 * "It just makes logical sense because you can do many various types of [explosive] launches, but they all end up falling into these categories."
 * "In regards to the halo 2 and halo 3 stuff, I would say that these systems are not very well organized, and if I had prior experience I would be in there organizing them right now. Sword flying obviously isn’t launching, and that can and should be changed in the future."
 * Good points.
 * "In regards to locations, there is no difference between the word glitch and the word stunt. Everything that is a stunt is a glitch, and everything that is a glitch is a stunt."
 * There is one key difference, I think. There are many things that can be done in the game that are not glitches, but that are exploits. For example, that trick in Halo 3 's level The Covenant, where you can get a ton of Marines to spawn on one of the islands... That exploits a flaw in a spawning script -- it's not a glitch, but it's an exploit, and thus a stunt. Stunts can clearly use glitches, but the key to a stunt, I think, is that the core trick, the core result, is more of an exploit than a glitch.
 * I feel that stunts aren’t really a category above glitches, or a category that is alongside glitches. A Stunt is a trick or exploit in a game, that INCLUDES glitches, glitches ARE stunts.  But let’s not get into the nitty-gritty stuff about definitions; at least, not yet.  Things become way too technical, and that doesn’t really help us right now.
 * Agreed. This is a rare case where the classification should be ironed out before the term itself is.
 * "I don’t see how solidity has anything to do with locations."
 * A location isn't very exciting if you can't stay in the area -- it's not "stunty". "Ooh, you glitched five miles out of the skybox and fell to your death, because there was no solid floor! No one cares." Know what I'm sayin'?
 * That is a given. If you cannot be at the location without falling it isn’t a defined location.  I consider defined locations as locations that you can describe relatively without exact numbers.  So yeah, 5 miles outside of the skybox and falling to your death would not be a location.
 * So a "defined" location is a survivable area whose relation can be related using directions rather than coordinates.
 * Yup.
 * "The vocabulary from halo 3 came after the vocabulary for halo 1. We don’t use those terms at all."
 * Well, if the same thing exists in Halo 1 and Halo 3, then the Halo 1 term for it should probably be used, since that term was (presumably) created first. But I agree that we should focus on H2 and H3 later.
 * Yeah, start with halo 1, worry about halo 2 and 3 later. ;]
 * Agreed.
 * "If we could play maybe a total of 5 hours in halo pc multiplayer together, I could give you all the information you need to make any future changes as accurate and factual as possible."
 * My schedule tends to vary a bit, but on weekdays, I get home at around 3PM EST, and usually get on the computer immediately. I have Halo PC and Halo Custom Edition; which should we use? <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  18:55, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I’m available then (I’m on the west coast, so GMT -08:00 here). I’ll be on halopedia at 3:00PM EST this afternoon and Friday afternoon.  However I will not be available on Thursday.  We will stick to Halo PC, Custom Edition is only for mods and people trying to cheat with devmode (in my opinion, people use it for other things too). Matortheeternal 19:46, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I happen to live with someone who behaves very much like a sociopath, and they also happen to have authority. My ability to get onto Halo PC may be... impaired. I am typing this post under the guise of checking my school grades. The problem, though, should end shortly (a complete explanation is outside the scope of this discussion). <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  00:27, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * You do mean psychopath right? But yes, I understand.  I have had similar situations in the past and I still have similar situations with psychopaths.  Let me know when your situation is no longer so serious.  Matortheeternal 22:32, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sociopath. "Psychopath", in common discourse, is used as a synonym for "nutcase". A sociopath is a person who is incapable of guilt or empathy. In any case, I don't expect my access to be limited for much longer, so hopefully I'll be able to get onto Halo PC soon. <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  20:11, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well just let me know when you are available. ^_^ Matortheeternal 14:21, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, actually. I spent most of this (extended) weekend playing Custom Edition, however, so I'll likely spend more time on Halo 3. Course, on weekdays, I'm usually on the computer at around 3PM. If you have Xfire, you can give me your account name, and if I do see you on Halo PC, I can join. <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  17:01, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll see you monday afternoon at 3:00pm your time? My xfire is matortheeternal.  Matortheeternal 02:58, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Xfire request sent. We should be able to coordinate our meetings more effectively now. <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  21:02, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * For anyone who has been watching this conversation (subtank?), we are now communicating via xfire. It is much more effective, and we have done multiple stunts/glitches in halo 1 together in the past few weeks.  If you want any more feedback, just ask.  As far as I am concerned, things are going smoothly. To see some of the screenshots/videos made by Cobb in halo 1 of our numerous meetings, click the following links: http://www.xfire.com/screenshots/davidjcobb http://www.xfire.com/profile/davidjcobb/videos/ Matortheeternal 16:13, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Move From Insides
Attaching screenshots.


 * They will be deleted. BTW, thanks Subtank.<font color="#4682B4">Thun <font color="#008080">ders <font color="#0000FF">trea <font color="#1E90FF">m328 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleteing my screenshots now? How rude.

If it happens to be that these articles are allowed, I am hoping my screenshots aren't deleted so I don't have to reupload.

Thanks..

Matortheeternal 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures can stay unless the uploader chooses to delete them or the content of the image is...extreme...<font color="#0000FF"><tt>Little</tt> <font color="#0090FF"><tt>_</tt> <font color="#7DF9FF"><tt>Missy</tt> -  18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok good.

That way I don't have to reupload all this :S

Moved from Break Point
Tell me how this is irrelevant please.


 * If we needed it, we would put in a category for stunts. Unfortunately, there is no such category. And don't go ahead making one, as it is not approved by the Administrators. As soon as/if they approve, I will help. But until then, it remains in its current position.<font color="#4682B4">Thun <font color="#008080">ders <font color="#0000FF">trea <font color="#1E90FF">m328 18:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How do I get approval from the administrators?

I think what TS238 stated was misleading...

The article would be just a brief summary, "more of a section of an article". I'm guessing having the Stunt article would be fine though this would require the Admin to settle the whole issue....<font color="#0000FF"><tt>Little</tt> <font color="#0090FF"><tt>_</tt> <font color="#7DF9FF"><tt>Missy</tt> -  18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Instead of making individual pages, which is what was done, make one big one.<font color="#4682B4">Thun <font color="#008080">ders <font color="#0000FF">trea <font color="#1E90FF">m328 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

one BIG one?

Hmmm...

I guess I can do that temporarily...

But I had a different Idea in mind... awell seems like thats the compromise I'll have to make right now.

Talk
Can someone figure out a way I can get the descriptions for the items on the list for launches to look better? Maybe something with a second column or something?

Its kinda ugly with the descriptions underneath.


 * We could create small sub-sections on the page to write them differentely. Would that work?

BTW: Please remember to sign your comments.<font color="#4682B4">Thun <font color="#008080">ders <font color="#0000FF">trea <font color="#1E90FF">m328 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will add screenshots and video clips soon. Hows it looking? <(*_*)>  Matortheeternal 23:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)