Editing Talk:Stunt (section)

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

<span style="color:#006600">And I shall use the same convention, with green text.</span> <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%"><b>File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] [[User:DavidJCobb|<span style="color:#000;position:relative;top:.15em">DavidJCobb&nbsp;</span>]]</b></span> 01:09, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

<span style="color:#CC3300">Woah... Big Post.  I will reply to it by adding text in red after what you are saying as a response...</span>

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%"><b>File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] [[User:DavidJCobb|<span style="color:#000;position:relative;top:.15em">DavidJCobb&nbsp;</span>]]</b></span> 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.  [[User talk:Matortheeternal|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.
:::<span style="color:#CC3300">Ok.</span>
::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.
:::<span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span>
::::<span style="color:#006600">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.</span>
::In general, sub-classifications ("_____ Balances", "_____ Ledges", etc) should be kept to a minimum.
:::<span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span>
::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.)''
:::<span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span>
::::<span style="color:#006600">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".</span>
::**Balances<br>''(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".)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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".</span>
::***Air balance<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">Yes, I decided to rename it. "Phantom Balance" could be mistaken for a balance involving the [[Phantom|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.</span>
::**Ledging
::***Climbing ledges ''(or "climb-ledges")''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">I guess this name is appropriate.  However, I do not understand the reasoning for having the nickname "climb-ledges."</span><br><span style="color:#006600">The "or" was intended to denote options, not nicknames. Like, pick the one you like best and we throw out the other one.</span>
::***Walking ledges ''(or "walk-ledges")''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">Same as Climbing ledges.</span>
::***Half-ledges<br>''(recommended name change from "wall hacking ledges")''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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...</span>
::**Insides
::***Terrain insides ''(or with a dash, terrain-insides)''<br>''(Scenery could refer to [[Forge Objects]]; terrain (when used to refer to terrain and actors) is unambiguous)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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.</span>
::***Object insides ''(or with a dash, object-insides)''<br>''(moving one actor through another)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">Moving one non-biped actor through another?</span>
::**Launches<br>''(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?)''<br>''(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 (Level)|Ghost Town]]'s [[Invisible Walls|invisible walls]]; I'd class that as a launch even though it killed me.)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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.</span>
::***Respawn launches
::***Warp launches
::***Sticky launches
::***Lag-splatter launches ''(recommended name change from "force launches")''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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?</span><br><span style="color:#006600">Good points. And what do you mean when you say that the launches involve launching vehicles as well?</span>
::***Explosion launches
::***PFR launches<br>''(omit (or mention, but don't make it a category) if it's not common)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">Hence "if it's not common".</span>
::***Plasma launches<br>''(omit (or mention, but don't make it a category) if it's not common)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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.</span>
::***Tank launches<br>''(omit (or mention, but don't make it a category) if it's not common)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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)</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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.</span>
::***Dead-fire launches<br>''(omit (or mention, but don't make it a category) if it's not common)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">Of course my lack of knowledge is quite horrible -- I just got [[Halo: Combat Evolved (PC port)]], and I haven't even got a chance to try out Campaign yet.</span>
::***Flip launches
::***Super bounces ''(use a {{[[Template:Main|Main]]}})''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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?</span><br><span style="color:#006600">''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).</span>
::***Sword flying ''(use a {{[[Template:Main|Main]]}})''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">Miscellaneous would be an appropriate classification, but if I recall correctly, it is currently sorted under ''Halo 2'' launches.</span>
::***Wraith launches<br>''(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.)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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...</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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.</span>
::***Pressure launches<br>''(Cannot offer an opinion on notability -- what is a pressure launch?)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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.</span>
::**Locations<br>''(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)?)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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 -.-</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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.</span>
::***Near locations<br>''(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 <strike>great wall of text</strike> comment.)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">Perhaps "Solid" and "Nonsolid" would be better?</span>
::***Far locations<br>''(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 (Level)|Blackout]] or the area beyond the fall-to-your-death cliffs in [[Avalanche (Level)|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).)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">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...</span>
::***Other<br>''(Same as what it used to mean: boarding an "inaccessible" Scarab, etc.)''<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span><br><span style="color:#006600">But a Scarab is a defined place, no? Unless you're using "defined" to mean "static", "immobile", "fixed", etc.</span>
::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.<br><span style="color:#CC3300">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.</span>
::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]].  <span style="color:#CC3300">That was my original plan.  Sadly, Halopedia seems to snuff out good ideas like candles.</span>
::Thoughts on the outline above?
::Oh, here are some side notes: stunts in Halo 3.
::*[http://www.bungie.net/Online/Halo3UserContentDetails.aspx?h3fileid=55783048 Possible Pelican Balance.]
::*[http://www.bungie.net/Online/Halo3UserContentDetails.aspx?h3fileid=78642596 Accessing] one of the [http://www.bungie.net/Online/Halo3UserContentDetails.aspx?h3fileid=23409333 other shield towers] on [[H3:The Covenant|The Covenant]] (there's more than just the three that get disabled).
::*I was once playing [[Co-op]] with a friend on [[H3:The Ark|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%"><b>File:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] [[User:DavidJCobb|<span style="color:#000;position:relative;top:.15em">DavidJCobb&nbsp;</span>]]</b></span> 22:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

<span style="color:#CC3300">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)
[[User talk:Matortheeternal|Matortheeternal]] 00:14, September 25, 2009 (UTC)</span>

:<span style="color:#006600">But do you not see a problem with the previous version (and even the current version) of this article?</span> 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 to