I’m sure you’ve all seen the Halo 4 “First Look” trailer that 343 Industries released in the Halo 4 media explosion from early last week.  If not, take a few moments and watch it now.

In case you’re wondering, yes I did go through that video frame by frame looking to piece together every hidden clue and subtle hint in that trailer.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to make an analysis video like I did two years ago for Halo: Reach.  Plus, it wouldn’t be the same.  I made those two videos  just 24 hours after the trailers were released by Bungie and this new Halo 4 video has already been dissected pretty thoroughly by the community.

I just wanted to discuss one main theme that caught my eye:

Player customization seems to be the future of Halo.

From the articles I’ve read and the interviews I’ve watched, it seems clear that Halo 4 will be trodding new territory for a Halo game while still attempting to keep the fundamental core and identity of all Halo games.  This will be no small feat to accomplish, but I think we’re getting more hints of a new Halo paradigm by the day.

For example, last week when the media embargo ended, this article stated:

“You’ll be able to customize all aspects of the Spartan IVs, from cosmetics, gameplay abilities, and your loadout, empowering players with a variety of choices.”

And another writeup claimed:

“Armour can now be upgraded and personalized, but whereas such modifications were purely aesthetic in previous games, this time they bring with them gameplay perks.”

Of course, perks is such a controversial word, being mainly associated with Call of Duty.  Frankie has been quick to dismiss any accusations of copying other games, but I do think we are headed to a very customizable gameplay experience.

The customization theme gains even more traction in today’s Halo Bulletin:

“In regard to the scope in particular, traditionally, Halo has had one type of each weapon per game. Taking into consideration Halo 4’s sandbox, we went with the square scope to differentiate it from other guns and rifles that have bulky scopes on them.”

These sentences seem to be implying Halo 4 is a departure from this tradition.  How far of a departure?

This article tells us:

“You have the ability to choose from a wide arsenal of weapons and abilities that can be a part of your character’s individual loadout.”

Just a guess, but I think there will be multiple weapons that cover similar “roles” in the sandbox, and the player will be free to choose which weapon he wants to fill that role. So instead of being forced to pick between official loadouts in a gametype, the gametype would just restrict to “primary medium range, secondary sidearm” starting weapons and you get to fill in BR/DMR/AR for the first slot according to your choice and Pistol/SMG/etc. for the second slot. I picture it like building a Class in Call of Duty or a Kit in Battlefield.

“We want the Battle Rifle to be an iconic status weapon. When players get it, we want them to feel empowered, especially by the way it operates.”

This seems to be pointing out that the BR is unlockable, which would fit with the “build your own Loadout” theme.

343 has already stated that customizing the armor will impact your SPARTAN’s abilities to some degree. The hints in this Halo Bulletin seem to point toward a broader customization system of weapons, and perhaps even unlockable player upgrades.

I’ll even go so far as to say that these upgrades can be scavenged from dead players just like weapons and grenades.  Imagine swapping out pieces of your MJOLNIR armor on the battlefield and augmenting your abilities on the fly.  Just some speculation.

Halo 4 wouldn’t be the first Halo game to offer incentives for playing. Reach implemented a player reward system, but I think it would have been more successful had it been more tangible. The rewards Reach offered (credits, aesthetic armor, experience based ranks) weren’t goals I aspired to when I played.

I guess you could say the goal in Reach is to become an Inheritor, but the default credit system made that impossible to do reasonably in less than two or three years. And by the time you get there, you have millions of unused credits in the bank with nothing to spend them on (the Haunted helmet costs exactly 1 credit). Add to that how little some Onyx commendations paid out compared to how long it took to finish them and the player investment system in Reach begins to seem a bit…unsatisfying. I would almost enjoy Reach more without the credit system.

I like playing just to play.

If the game insists on rewarding me for playing, I want those rewards to mean something. I don’t really need winged hearts floating around my SPARTAN or blue electricity or a gold visor. I won’t stick around to play a few more games just to unlock that stuff.

But I might play a few more if I’m close to unlocking an upgrade to my Warthog. Wouldn’t it be cool to unlock a “turbo charge” for the Hog? Or unlock the ability to carry one extra grenade? Or spawn with an extra clip of ammo? I’d play more if doing so made my character better.

Now we’re heading towards RPG territory, and Halo has always stayed far away from that. Halo’s multiplayer foundations have rested on equality. Everyone spawns with the exact same gun and the exact same SPARTAN. Well, until Reach.

Then this latest Halo Bulletin includes wording like “traditionally…” and I think it’s safe to say we’re headed for new territory in Halo.

This could lead to a really interesting dynamic for teams. When Tied The Leader was formed in the days of Halo 2, we naturally gravitated toward a squad mentality in our approach to matchmaking. Gunslingers signed up for spots on the Strike Team, Honor Guard, Roadkill, and Sharpshooters. Everyone had a role in the battle.

The hints at Halo 4′s armor and weapon customization might play right into the hands of squad specializations.

And that has me excited to experience 343′s vision of the future of Halo.

If you have any comments, questions, speculation, or theories, please drop by our forums and give us your best OOH-RAH.

Thanks for reading!

ABSTRACT:

Since the Title Update for Halo: Reach’s multiplayer went live in the fall, there have been many discussions on the changes it implemented. The Title Update most notably impacted the mechanics of the DMR and the Needle Rifle, specifically their “bloom.” The question is, does 85% bloom encourage or discourage “trigger spamming” compared to default Reach settings?

INTRODUCTION:

Anyone who has played Halo: Reach has experienced weapon bloom. Bloom describes the change in a weapon’s ability to fire accurately as the player adjusts the rate of fire. Firing many shots in quick succession will cause the aiming reticule to expand, indicating more randomness in the accuracy of each shot. To guarantee maximum accuracy, a player should wait until the reticule shrinks back to normal size before firing the next shot. This mechanic was designed by Bungie as a trade-off of pace and accuracy in an effort to balance the DMR in the overall sandbox.

If a player fires the DMR as fast as possible (known as spamming the trigger), he is making a decision to trade accuracy for more shots fired. This is more likely to work at close range where even after many shots at maximum pace (where the reticule has reached maximum bloom), the spammer may out-duel a player who chose to pace his shots to preserve accuracy. The tactic of spamming is somewhat frowned upon by some members of the matchmaking community as they feel spammed kills are cheap, due mostly to a lucky random bullet instead of skilled accuracy and a proper firing cadence. Others say spamming is part of the game, and therefore a valid tactic; a kill is a kill, in other words.

The Title Update that 343 Industries implemented into multiplayer matchmaking changed this mechanic for certain gametypes and playlists. If we designate maximum bloom as 100% bloom, the TU reduces that maximum to 85% of the original. Whether this means the “cone of accuracy” is 15% smaller, the aiming reticule resets 15% faster, or the bullet is 15% more likely to hit the target, I can’t say. But we have been told by 343 that the TU has reduced bloom by 15%.

Those who dislike trigger spamming have argued that 85% bloom encourages spamming by making spammed shots more accurate, and therefore more likely to result in a win against a pacer. Having played many TU games, I felt that 85% bloom actually punishes spamming more than 100% bloom because the player would not have to wait as long for the reticule to reset, meaning he could fire accurate shots more quickly than in 100%.

Without a proper experiment, this debate could go nowhere.

I devised an experiment to answer the question: In 85% bloom, does increasing the accuracy of a spammed shot outweigh the reduction in waiting time between properly paced shots? In other words, will 85% bloom result in more or less spammed kills than in 100% bloom?

METHODS:

In order to test this, I created a Forge World map with different sized firing ranges: short, medium, and long range (5, 10, and 15 Forge World units). On one side of the range I placed a Red Team spawn point, and on the other, one for Blue Team. Below is a screenshot of the firing ranges (click the picture for a bigger version).

Aiming at the head while unzoomed at all times, I shot and killed the stationary target 25 times by pacing all of my shots (letting the reticule fully reset before firing the next shot), and 25 times by spamming the trigger as fast as I could. I repeated this procedure for all three ranges with 100% bloom settings, and then again on all three ranges with 85% bloom settings.

Next, I captured video files of each of these tests onto my computer. Using video editing software, I counted how many frames elapsed during each kill, starting with the frame where the muzzle flash of the DMR’s first shot was visible and ending with the frame where the Team Slayer score updated on the HUD.

Using a frame rate of 29.97 frames/second, I converted these durations into seconds. I then entered all of these results into a spreadsheet to examine the effects of 85% bloom.

To better understand the results, I added some equations that make things a little clearer.

First, within each range, I compared paced and spammed kill times one at a time and chose the lowest value of each pair. Then I calculated the percentage of those 25 kills that was won by pacing. This I called “Percentage of Pace Wins.” This is useful in seeing if 85% bloom increases or decreases the amount of pacing wins.

Second, I averaged the time duration of the 25 kills in each test group. This is useful to determine whether pacing or spamming is faster on average for each range in 100% and 85% settings.

Third, within each range, I compared the average time of paced kills to the average time of spammed kills. This I called the “Margin of Win.” This is useful for determining the amount of time (and therefore shields and shots) to spare for the winner’s kill. A small Margin of Win means that both methods (i.e. pacing or spamming) were very close in the time it took to kill the opponent, so the winner of each battle will be more unpredictable. A large Margin of Win means that one method will win the majority of the battles.

RESULTS:

Here is a link to the spreadsheet containing my findings: DMR Test Results

CONCLUSIONS:

I included conclusions in the spreadsheet to minimize jumping back and forth between it and this article. I will summarize my findings here as well.

1) At short range, spamming is on average more likely to win in either bloom setting. However, 85% bloom increased the Percentage of Pace Wins from 28% to 40%. Also, 85% bloom reduced the Margin of Win of spamming from 0.178 seconds to just 0.036 seconds, further emphasizing the decreased advantage spamming has at close range in 85% bloom. Basically, at short range, 85% bloom increases the likelihood of pacing wins compared to 100% bloom.

2) At medium range, pacing is on average more likely to win in either bloom setting. But 85% bloom increased the Percentage of Pace Wins from 64% to 76%. Also, 85% bloom slightly increased the Margin of Win of pacing, further emphasizing the increased advantage of pacing at medium range in 85% bloom. Basically, at medium range, 85% bloom increases the likelihood of pacing wins compared to 100% bloom.

3) At long range, pacing is on average extremely likely to win in either bloom setting. Interestingly, the Margin of Win of pacing actually decreased slightly in 85% bloom. This can be attributed to the higher likelihood of body shots landing at long range. But this change is insignificant given that both 100% and 85% bloom have Margin of Win times of at least 1.902 seconds. That is such a huge margin of time that the number of paced wins was actually unaffected. In both 100% and 85% bloom, the Percentage of Paced Wins remained the same at 88%. Basically, at long range, 85% bloom keeps the same very high likelihood of pacing wins as 100% bloom.

4) By studying the number of shots fired in each kill, I noticed that in 100% bloom, a spammer would always win the battle unless he needed to fire 7 or more shots. This means the spammer has two chances at max bloom (5th and 6th shot) to kill the pacer, while the pacer can’t miss any shots. But in 85% bloom, if the spammer needed a 6th shot, he would always lose to the pacer. This means both the spammer and pacer have no margin for error, which gives further advantage to the pacer since his shots are more accurate.

5) I also compared the probability of a spammed headshot kill in each of these groups. At short range, 85% bloom increased headshot probability from 92% to 100%. At medium range, 85% bloom did not change headshot probability and remained at 92%. At long range, 85% bloom actually decreased headshot probability from 84% to 76%. However, this does not mean 85% bloom makes spamming the DMR better at short range. It is important to remember that based on the above conclusions, 85% bloom results in less spamming wins than 100% does at short range. I included this headshot result to show that even though at short range spammed headshot probability is increased, spamming wins are still reduced in 85% bloom at short range.  Basically, whether a spammed kill ends in a headshot is meaningless if paced shots will win.  And 85% bloom increases the likelihood of paced wins compared to 100% bloom.

Therefore, because 85% bloom increases the advantage of pacing at short and medium ranges, equals the advantage at long range, and encourages pacing by making a missed spam shot much riskier, those who prefer to have DMR pacing rewarded and spamming punished should choose 85% bloom.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

I have shown that according to my test results, 85% bloom actually rewards players who pace their shots more than 100% bloom does. I should note that this result does not conclude anything about weapon balance. That is an entirely different matter that falls outside the scope of this experiment. I conducted this experiment to clarify the effects of 85% bloom and help settle the debate about whether 85% bloom encourages or discourages spamming.

I am more than happy to answer any questions or comments about this experiment, please post them here. Thank you for reading and I hope you’ve found this informative!

UPDATE #1:

Thanks to everyone for the great feedback to this study.  I’m glad you have found it helpful!

Some quick notes that might not have been clear before: all my tests were performed with the DMR unzoomed for all shots.  Also, when I said that I “paced each shot” I meant that I waited for the reticule to fully reset before firing the next shot.  This allowed me to completely separate any effects of spam from the paced results.  I tried my best to anticipate each full reduction in order to minimize “down time” between shots.  My goal was to keep everything as consistent as possible across each test, and if you examine the pacing kill times in each group, you will find they are very consistent.

In my discussions with HBO forum member RC Master, I have seen that perhaps just including mean averages in my study may have skewed my results.  RC Master edited a copy of my spreadsheet to include more advanced statistics in an effort to help build a better picture of the raw data.  That is exactly why I made the data available publicly, and I’m glad he was willing to undertake this further analysis.

His additions can be found in a spreadsheet here: RC Master Additions

(Note that he actually added a second page to the document, look in the bottom left corner for the Frequency tab for more data and graphs)

Most notably, he has highlighted certain pieces of the data: the Minimum and Maximum of each range, the Median, and the 1st and 3rd Quartiles.  Perhaps you’re not sure how these statistical devices help us, so I will quickly explain them.

Minimum and Maximum – Fairly obvious, they are the smallest and largest values in each group of data

Median – Unlike regular Average, which can be influenced by large or small extremes, Median picks the one data point in the exact center of the “continuum” of data.  So after each range of data is sorted in order, Median chooses the middle of the line.

1st Quartile – If Median is the halfway point between Minimum and Maximum, the 1st Quartile is the 1/4th mark.  This is useful for excluding extremely small outliers in the data.

3rd Quartile – If Median is the halfway point between Minimum and Maximum, the 3rd Quartile is the 3/4th mark.  This is useful for excluding extremely large outliers in the data.

So hopefully now you can begin to see why RC Master brought these things to our attention.  Mean Average is too easily influenced by outliers in the data, and these insights help us look past the outliers to see what is really going on.

But now my question is, how will these new statistical insights affect the conclusions I have drawn?  Will my results be overturned?

To help answer this question, I decided that the new data (Min, 1st Q, Median, 3rd Q, Max) should be graphed to help visualize the trends in the data. Here is my graph of RC Master’s new data points (click the picture for a much bigger version):

The vertical axis is the time it took for the kill, measured in video frames.  The lower on the chart, the quicker the kill.  Higher on the chart means the kill takes longer.

I colored the paced shots green and the spammed shots red.

The vertical skinny lines in each plot are defined by the Minimum and Maximum data point of each set.

The box on the line is defined by Q1 and Q3 of each set (which is the middle 50% of the data).  This box discards most outliers and is less influenced by the extreme results.

And the little horizontal line across each box is the Median.

So let’s compare where these boxes are positioned relative to each other and see if we can draw some conclusions.

The first thing to notice is that none of the green plots appear to have boxes on their vertical lines, they look more like horizontal lines.  This is because pacing the DMR’s shots leads to extremely consistent results, so the data is grouped extremely tightly, squishing the box flat.

Second, spamming the DMR results in a wide range of outcomes.  These outcomes grow more and more varied from short to medium to long range.  This increase in variation can be easily seen in the increase of the vertical red lines’ height.  There’s so much variation at long range that even the red boxes at long range have stretched out.

Now, let’s take a closer look each range of the test.

>> Short Range <<

The graph makes it clear that spamming will win a majority of the time at short range in either bloom setting because most of the red box is below the horizontal green line.

In 100% bloom, the horizontal green line (pace) is in between the thin horizontal red line (spam median) and the top edge of the red box (spam Q3).

In 85% bloom, the horizontal green line is still in between the thin horizontal red line (spam median) and the top edge of the red box (spam Q3).  However, the horizontal green line is closer to the bottom of the vertical red line (minimum kill time of spamming).

Therefore, because 85% bloom puts pacing nearer the minimum kill time of spamming, it reduces the amount of times a spammed kill will win.  This leads to an increase pacing win percentage compared to 100% bloom.

>> Medium Range <<

The graph illustrates that pacing will win a majority of the time at medium range in either bloom setting due to how low the green horizontal line is compared to the red box.

In 100% bloom, the horizontal green line is near the lower third of the red box.

In 85% bloom, the horizontal green line is actually below the red box.

Therefore, because 85% bloom puts the entire green line below the red box, it definitely increases pacing win percentage compared to 100% bloom.

>> Long Range <<

The graph clearly illustrates that pacing will win an overwhelming majority of the time at long range at either bloom setting due to how much lower the green horizontal line is compared to the red box.

In 100% bloom, the horizontal green line is well below the red box.

In 85% bloom, the horizontal green line is still below the red box, but not by as much.  However, the horizontal green line is closer to the bottom of the vertical red line (minimum kill time of spamming).

Therefore, even though 85% bloom resulted in the green line being closer to the bottom edge of the red box, it also put the green line nearer the minimum kill time of spamming, reducing the amount of times a spammed kill will win.  This mix of results points toward 85% pretty much equaling the extreme majority of pacing wins as 100% bloom.

>> Conclusion <<

Using these new statistics provided by RC Master, I have arrived at the same conclusions I had in the first place.  At short range, spamming will win a majority of the time, but 85% bloom reduces that probability compared to 100% bloom.  At medium mange, 85% bloom definitely increases the probability of pacing wins compared to 100% bloom.  At long range, 85% bloom pretty much equals the results of 100% bloom.

Also, important to note is that at all three ranges, 85% bloom moved the green horizontal box closer to the bottom of the skinny red vertical line, especially apparent at medium and long range.  In other words, 85% bloom allowed less and less spammed wins to occur at these ranges, illustrated by how little is left of the vertical red line that extends below the horizontal green box.  This is direct proof that in 85% bloom, the reduction in waiting time for the reticule to return to size significantly outweighs the slight increase in accuracy experienced by spammers, especially at medium and long range.

Once again, I’d like to thank RC Master for taking the time to delve into some advanced statistics for us.  Thanks again for reading! If you have comments or questions, please post them here.

UPDATE #2:

Before I get to the update, I’d like to thank Bs Angel at 343 Industries for posting this article on Halo Waypoint.  Also, the feedback to the study has been great, I really appreciate everyone’s comments!

HBO forum member uberfoop notified me of a weakness in my analysis.  So in the interest of due diligence, I will explain what I did wrong, and then illustrate the method he described to fix it.

In my initial discussion of the data, I showed how I killed the target 25 times by pacing all my shots and then spamming all my shots at different lengths in both 100% and 85% bloom settings.  Then I explained the results by comparing a paced kill time and a spammed kill time to each other, determining a winner, and continuing on to the next pair of data.

But as uberfoop pointed out to me, this is not a good way to compare the data.  Just picking a time from the top of one list and comparing it to a time at the top of the other list is not the same as actually having both players fire at each other and seeing who actually won.

This is easy to illustrate.  Let’s say I have a group of three times for paced shots: 1, 3, and 5 seconds.  And I have another three times for spammed shots: 2, 4, and 6 seconds.  The way I compared them at first would show that pacing would win 100% of the time (left side of picture below).  But if we rearrange them, we get an entirely different result (right side of picture).

(Click the picture for a bigger version)

The best way would be to actually have two players fire at each at different pacing rates, obviously.  But since I didn’t have my experiment set up that way, uberfoop suggested that I completely jumble the numbers in each table by sorting them each randomly.  Then compare the values and determine the winner for each random pair and save the results as one sample.  Then repeat that process hundreds of times.  This would provide enough data to determine whether 85% bloom increases or decreases pacing wins over spamming wins compared to 100% bloom.

So I made another spreadsheet that jumbled and compared the data 1,000 times to ensure a large sample size.

This spreadsheet can be found here: Win Percentage of Paced Shots

Then I examined the data using all the statistical techniques I used before and graphed them to see the new trends.

(Click the picture for a bigger version)

The vertical axis is the probability of paced shots winning over spammed shots.  Low on the chart means spamming wins a majority of the time, high on the chart means pacing wins a majority of the time.

I colored 100% bloom results blue and 85% bloom results orange.

CONCLUSIONS:

We can draw some conclusions right away from this chart.

First, at short range, spamming will win a majority of the time in either setting.  But the orange box is much higher than the blue box, meaning that 85% significantly increases the winning percentage for pacing.

Second, at medium range, it is clear that pacing will now win a majority of the time in either setting.  But again, the orange box is higher than the blue box, meaning 85% once again improves the odds of pacing beating spamming.

Third, at long range, the orange box is slightly lower than the blue box, meaning that pacing win percentage is slightly lower in 85% than 100%.  Does this mean 85% encourages spamming at long range?  Definitely not.  Look how high up the chart both the blue and orange boxes are at long range!  Spamming is extremely unlikely to win in either bloom setting at long range, so the slight reduction in 85% will not be that noticeable in real world outcomes.

HARDCORE STATS:

There are those of you out there that have probably read through this and thought to yourself, “This guy sure is getting corrected a lot on his statistics.  I bet he doesn’t really know what he’s doing.”  Well, I don’t compute and analyze statistics for a living, if that’s what you mean.

So I brought in someone who does.

My friend Joel is an actuarial scientist at a insurance company here in St. Louis.  We went to college together, and he definitely knows his stats.  I showed him my study, and he crunched some serious numbers.

Here’s what he came up with:

Just for fun: Modeling as a normal distribution.

Z going to represent the time difference between P (paced shooting) and S (spam shooting). A positive Z value means spamming wins, while a negative value means paced kills faster.

Z is approximately normal, with μ_Z=μ_P-μ_S, and σ²_Z=σ²_P+σ²_S.
P(Z < X) = (X – μ_Z)/σ²_Z

So, givens for our six situations:

Short Range, 100%
μ_Z = 2.262 – 2.085 = .177
σ²_Z = .00303 + .20014
σ_Z = .45075
=(0 -.177)/.45075 = -.3938

Plugging into normal distribution, spamming has a 65.17% chance of winning.

Short Range, 85%
μ_Z = 1.981-1.945 = .036
σ²_Z = .00150 + .22236
σ_Z = .47314
=(0 -.036)/.47314 = -.0762

Plugging into normal distribution, spamming has a 53.19% chance of winning.

Medium Range, 100%
μ_Z = 2.350 – 2.628 = -.2776
σ²_Z = .00321 + .40822
σ_Z = .64143
=(0 – (-).2776)/.64143 = .4328

Plugging into normal distribution, spamming has a 33.36% chance of winning.

Medium Range, 85%
μ_Z = 2.010 – 2.306 = -.2963
σ²_Z = .00288 + .29903
σ_Z = .54946
=(0 -(-).2963)/.54946 = .5393

Plugging into normal distribution, spamming has a 29.46% chance of winning.

Long Range, 100%
μ_Z = 2.481 – 4.654 = -2.1728
σ²_Z = .01771 + 4.71985
σ_Z = 2.17659
=(0 -(-)2.1728)/2.17659 = .9982

Plugging into normal distribution, spamming has a 15.87% chance of winning.

Long Range, 85%
μ_Z = 2.053 – 3.955 = -1.9019
σ²_Z = .00144 + 6.23487
σ_Z = 2.49726
=(0 -(-)1.9019)/2.49726 = .7616

Plugging into normal distribution, spamming has a 22.36%chance of winning.

Before you say, “It’s all Greek to me,” let’s take a look at the percentages he provided.  He calculated the percentage of spamming wins, so lower is better.

At short range, 85% bloom decreased the percentage of spam wins from 65.17% to 53.19%.  Now instead of spammers winning the majority of the time in 100% bloom, their chances are reduced to basically 50-50 in 85% bloom.

At medium range, 85% bloom decreased the percentage of spam wins from 33.36% to 29.46%.  In other words, 85% bloom makes it even less likely that spammers will win.

At long range, 85% bloom increased the percentage of spam wins from 15.87% to 22.36%.  Yes, 85% bloom did increase the spammer’s chances at long range, but even 22% is still punishingly low.  It’s really not a good idea to spam at long range in either setting, ever.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

So after all of these recalculations, new statistics, new charts, and hardcore number crunching, we have still arrived at the exact same conclusions I originally posted:

At short range, spamming wins a majority of the time, but 85% bloom reduces that probability.  At medium range, pacing wins a majority of the time, and 85% bloom further improves that probability.  At long range, pacing wins an overwhelming majority of the time, but 85% bloom slightly decreases that majority.  This decrease will in all likelihood never be noticed in real world settings because spamming loses almost all the time at long range in the first place.

Therefore, I conclude that 85% bloom discourages trigger spamming in comparison to 100% bloom.

THANKS:

Once again, I’d like to thank everyone who has contributed suggestions, ideas, time, and brain power to this study.  I have thoroughly enjoyed the progression of the analysis as it took its various twists and turns.

Thank you for taking the (admittedly long) time to read this, and I hope you have found this article helpful and informative.  Maybe you even learned a thing or two about statistics along the way (I know I did!).

If you have any questions or comments, please post them here.

Thanks again!

UPDATE #3:

Last one, I promise!  :)

HBO forum member RC Master brought up another good point.  Joel assumed the data distribution is normal, but it most likely isn’t.  Normal distribution means it will make a nice “bell curve” when graphed.  But since our data has a hard lower limit ( around 50 frames) and is mostly bunched up around the lower end, perhaps his percentages aren’t quite applicable.

For example, Joel’s numbers at Short Range 85% bloom shows at 53% chance of spamming winning.  But if you look at the blue and orange chart I showed earlier, 85% bloom at short range doesn’t get very close to 53% at all.  It’s more like 40%.

This means our suspicions about the data not being a normal distribution are probably correct.

Therefore, my results in Update #2 where I re-examine the Win Percentage of Pacing using uberfoop’s suggestion is more likely to give us true, “real world” percentages. After all, I repeated the random pairing 1,000 times, so we should get a very accurate result of pacing win percentage.

Since we have such a large sample size, we can use Standard Deviation, Mean Average, and the Confidence Coefficient of 1.96 to determine our Margin of Error for these Percentages.

Therefore, with a 95% confidence level, the Pacing Winning Percentage results are:

Short Range: 100% bloom >> 28.00%  (+/- 0.05%)
85% bloom >> 38.70%  (+/ 0.15%)

Med. Range: 100% bloom >> 62.98%  (+/- 0.17%)
85% bloom >> 69.32%  (+/ 0.28%)

Long Range: 100% bloom >> 85.18%  (+/- 0.21%)
85% bloom >> 84.11%  (+/ 0.23%)

 
Basically, in 85% bloom, Pacing Winning Percentage was increased by 10% at short range (big improvement), increased by 6% at medium range (good improvement), and decreased by 1% at long range (you’ll never notice this difference).

Therefore, my conclusions are not only upheld, but improved.  Compared to 100% bloom, 85% bloom discourages trigger spamming at short and medium range, and there is virtually no difference at long range.

Thanks again for reading!

This pack includes the most content ever released for a game in one shot.  It contains 6 rebuilt maps from Halos past, an updated-for-Reach version of each of those maps, plus one Firefight board.  That’s a staggering 13 new playgrounds for gamers to frolic on.

Halo CE itself inspired Battle Canyon (Battle Creek), Penance (Damnation),  High Noon (Hang ‘Em High) and Solidarity (Prisoner). Added to that array of small and medium sized maps is Installation 04, the firefight scenario that takes place on Alpha Halo (the ring from Halo CE, for those less fanatical about the Halo story).  The PC version of the original game also brought the vision behind Ridgeline (Timberland).  Add a dash of Halo 2 Big Team Battle goodness from Breakneck (Headlong) and you’ve got a pretty diverse combat recipe for Halo veterans and rookies alike.

One thing you’ll notice right away is the attention to detail paid by 343i and Certain Affinity while building these remakes.  They are visually stunning with the vibrant colors and environmental details that you expect from the Halo Universe.  Their attempt to immerse you in the scene they’ve set does not stop at the edge of the playing field.  Look through any window on High Noon and you’ll see the blue lightning from massive power generators cast against the cloudy orange sky and a setting sun.  Penance offers a magnificent cavern waterfall without losing any of its’ Covenant installation feel.  Breakneck shows what war has wrought on New Mombasa, with a number of transports crashed into the buildings and fires still burning untended.  But while the pure beauty of the maps comes out in such details, the real question has to be what they add to the multiplayer experience of Reach.

I think gamers will find that they add quite a bit.  You get a dose of nostalgia from the old maps (including the return of on-map power ups and a more powerful pistol) but you also get a set of tweaked maps that are right at home in Reach.  Battle Canyon sports a new combination of lifts and teleporters, to better balance the map in a world that includes Armor Abilities.  Breakneck has entirely new open sections on buildings that allow for new strategies to be built.  For those of us who never had the chance to play Halo CE on their PC (like me), Ridgeline offers an entirely new patch of ground to test our skills upon complete with an array of vehicles and undulating terrain to help foot soldiers avoid that oncoming Ghost.

The Anniversary Map Pack has already been integrated into Reach, so you can dive right into the action.  You will find these maps in the regular playlists that fit their size, as well as a handful of special Anniversary playlists including a 4v4 list that mixes slayer and objective games (Anniversary Squad) and a similar list built for larger 8v8 squads (Anniversary BTB).

If you’ve got an itch to scratch for some Halo and you don’t want to shell out $40, this pack is a great alternative checking in at just 1200 MS Points on the Marketplace.  They really add a whole new dimension to the post-TU Reach world.  I mean when was the last time we saw a map pack of any kind released that included this much content?  In a world where DLC seems to grow more expensive and prominent, this is a very affordable option that I know will add many hours of fun to my Halo time.

Time for a little Gunslinger Rush?

I asked the Gunslingers to submit their best clips from Call of Duty: Black Ops.  Many responded with amazing plays and hilarious shenanigans.

I went to work, cutting and splicing clips to the beats, the highlight reel becoming more awesome by the week.  Then one sad day, I realized that the montage had been lost in the constant shuffle of hard drive organization, backups, and formatting.  I thought all hope of this group effort ever seeing the light of day was lost.

Until now.

Just last week, I discovered all the old footage and project files buried in the archives of one of my hard drives.  After adding a few more clips and some titles, it was show time.

I now present to you the Gunslinger Highlights of Black Ops.

For the past year, the Gunslingers have had a blast playing Black Ops.  The suspense and adrenaline rush of a Hardcore Search & Destroy match.  The antics of cross-map tomahawks and Pony ‘nades.  The “swell” feeling of diving to prone off of buildings and out windows.  Black Ops provided us with some great experiences.

Even as we control new territory in Modern Warfare 3, we look back and salute Black Ops.

Can I get an Ooh-rah?

Today, combat evolves once again as 343 Industries, the inheritors of the Halo legacy, relaunch that seminal title with remastered visuals, re-orchestrated music, and restyled multiplayer maps for your Reach experience. Bungie has left big shoes to fill, and 343i seems well prepared to keep the Halo legacy alive and well. Halo: Combat Evolved has never looked better than it does in the Anniversary edition, and with its opening salvo, 343i demonstrates that it is well prepared to take up Bungie’s mantle. We are looking forward to what they have in store for us, as we revisit old war fronts now and as we land boots down and weapons hot in new battlefields with Halo 4 next year.

This past week, the Gunslingers joined the rest of the gaming world by answering a new Call of Duty.  Storming the bunkers and breaching the buildings of a new title is always an exciting time.  We can revel in the enjoyment of new weapons and game types, and laugh at the ridiculous outcomes (like say walking off a cliff) that come from not knowing our new playgrounds very well.

Another sensation that pops up frequently in the early days of a new game is confusion.  At TTL, we pride ourselves on things like teamwork and cohesion.  But not even those trademarks can bridge the gap into a new game when… you just don’t know what to call something.   This happens most frequently in the early days of a game and often leads to a spirited round of what we dubbed “Callout Bingo”.   Whether it comes from one teammate or several, you will hear a handful of exclamations like “he’s over by the wall” or “running down the street” that are about as helpful as “under the B, 39” in most cases.  Then you will almost always hear some variation of “Sorry, I don’t know where I am.”  Don’t worry buddy, we all feel your pain.

Over time we have tried several methods to build a library of callouts.  During the earliest days of TTL we were lucky in that Halo 2 had been out for some time, and most of the common callout names had been fairly well established even within the larger Halo community.  There were ready-made diagrams pulled from strategy guides or straight out of the ether of the internet to help those that were unfamiliar with the names, or were just picking up the game for the first time. 

When Halo 3 launched, we were determined to maintain a communication advantage by laying down callouts for each multiplayer map while the game was still fresh.  Bungie gave us some great tools for this monstrous task with their theater and forge additions.  Suddenly it was easy to get wide-angle shots of the various maps.  While the project did bear some fruit in terms of helping coin terms for a number of locations on different maps, by the time it was finished most of the work had already been done organically. 

We would never again try to assign callouts on a large-scale manner as we did with Halo 3.  Among the handful of reasons including the colossal amount of work it took, the most prominent would be that it’s just fun to learn them in the game, as a community.  Would I rather stare at a map with labels on it, or run down an alley tossing grenades at cars (and hopefully, opponents)?  That’s a pretty easy call for me to make.

As a group we were also expanding beyond Halo at the time, which led towards some different callout challenges.  After Halo’s vibrant color palate and built-in callouts such as weapon or vehicle spawns, it was pretty jarring for me personally trying to tell the difference between two nearly identical buildings standing next to each other, both the same dingy shade of green-grey.  When we had only a small beachhead formed on the Call of Duty shores standard callouts included “Kali’s Building” or “Pony’s Spot”. 

With only a double handful of Gunslingers in the mix in this new realm, we could get that specific.  But that was a long time, and three Call of Duty games ago.  When you’ve got eighty pairs of boots hitting the ground on opening day, nobody’s got exclusive rights to any spot anymore.  And that’s when the collective mind cloud of TTL gets put to work.

Sometimes the map designers have mercy on us gamers, providing say a collection of brightly colored fire engines at an intersection (Interchange) or a crashed chopper with a working mounted machine gun (Bakaara) to help us orient ourselves.  Other times, it feels as though we’re largely left to fend for ourselves thanks to a collection of warehouses (Carbon) or a myriad of streets (Bootleg) where it can be tough to distinguish one building from the next. 

As weeks turn to months in Modern Warfare 3, certain locations will gain the classic TTL monikers “Whack Shack” or “Scrub Throne” (origin stories remain classified… for now).  We have already had the joy of celebrating the return of the “Bang Bus”.  Already I am hearing “He’s by that thing over there” less and less.  But it’s going to take many more games to finally work the last “Under the B, 23” out of the Gunslinger vernacular yet again.  

Luckily, that’s the fun part right?

Tort

From the European front of our virtual warfare playground comes my side of the story. I’ve been following the Tied The Leader blog from day 1, randomly got teamed up with some Gunslingers in the H3 Beta period and haven’t been kicked out left since. Next to Halo I’ve also been playing Call of Duty since the Modern Warfare 1 days and have wasted enough time to get to maximum Prestige in all of them so far. (Yes, Skyrim, I’m looking at you)

Playing the aggressive, usually objective based role in our parties you can most often find me in the thick of it amongst things like Flags, Bombs, Territories and heaps of my own dead avatars.

Stay tuned to the new Tied The Leader blog for more stories about the bonds formed through playing video games, Pony being Pony and more TTL shenanigans.

Bjorni.

Aside from the new control panel that sits before you, and the new names on the door, not much else changes.  Tied the Leader will continue to be what it has always been.  Gamers will still flock to this site, and the forum that lurks mysteriously behind the veneer, in search of the teammates that will guarantee for them a good game.  Thoughtful exchanges on gamer culture and the politics of multiplayer will still rage in our halls.  Battling entities will rise and fall, and be replaced by bold new entries into the tapestry that gamers create for themselves – and for one another.

TTL has always been for lovers instead of haters.  We are not here to review games or criticize the people who make them.  We do not exist to second-guess the creative process that gives life to the experiences we enjoy together.  Our community exists to lead people to those front lines that are imagined in pixels and code.  Enthusiasm is the product in which we traffic.  Passion for our shared pastime is what the citizens of this pretended war room have in common.  The playing of games as a venue to meet the finest of people is our offering.

You are welcome to follow that campaign.  You are encouraged to join.  The table has been set – and reset again.  The TTL Mission stands fast.

In the words of our Founder Emeritus, come on in and get yourself some…