Sennex

I was debating on taking pics of all the special weapons I have found so far. Wasn't sure if folks would care or not.

I was expecting this game to be like the others, so I just went with a generic "Pre-made #10", and then added a scar to it. I had assumed that I would only ever see helmets, or NPC's when I was talking, I didn't expect to see my character. Damn was I wrong, and now the hero of the wasteland looks like a porn star with a scar on his face. (Loading game now, will get a pic in a few here)

One huge thing finish all of your side quests before doing the Reunion quest! seriously, I need to reload now

Like any people, it somewhat depends if they are in their home country, or travelling around/ visiting

WOO Found it in Fort Hagen.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/5-reasons-youll-stop-playing-star-wars-battlefront-within-a-week 5 Reasons You'll Stop Playing Star Wars: Battlefront Within a Week The gates have opened for Star Wars: Battlefront thanks to EA Access. After spending many hours in the beta and now launch, I'm convinced that it'll be the shortest-lived AAA first-person shooter of 2015. Here's why. 1. Game Mode Filler There's a reason you haven't heard much about the game modes outside of Drop Zone and Walker Assault: the other modes aren't very good. Take for example Heroes vs Villains, which features several famous Star Wars characters in a battle to the death. While it sounds like a good time, it accentuates the shallow design of these characters. They are limited to one offensive attack, and only three abilities. It feels like you're playing a low level SMITE character. Hero Hunt is one of several game modes you're likely to only play once or twice. Or look at Fighter Squadron, a mode which should showcase exciting air battles like the Battlefront's of yesteryear. Unfortunately, the TIE Fighters and other airborne vehicles don't feel good to control. It's shocking given the pedigree of EA DICE, as well as the importance of these vehicles in the Star Wars universe. Meanwhile, Droid Run's design results in players just hulking themselves into control points. Every player becomes a hunk of meat as the game's lack of teamwork mechanics results in a chaotic mess. This shortcoming is particularly problematic given that Star Wars: Battlefront is a multiplayer-only experience. EA DICE wants you to spend months playing this game, but hasn't introduced enough enjoyable content to keep you coming back for more. 2. A Low Map Count Four planets are featured in this game, with 12 maps across them. While this number might not seem too bad, only a few of them are playable on the popular modes. In the case of Walker Assault and Supremacy, there are only four maps available for play. These are moderate sized maps like Hoth in the beta, and where most players are likely to spend the lion's share of their time. Meanwhile, Drop Zone only has six map options. These are smaller, more focused maps like Sollust in the beta. This lack of maps is already netting the game a lot of negative attention, something you may remember Titanfall experiencing. But that game had 15 maps at launch, almost all of which were available in the most played game modes. It's safe to say that repetition is going to hit Star Wars: Battlefront hard. 3. It's Lacking Social Features Remember when Splatoon received all that heat for not supporting in-game voice chat? Well, Star Wars: Battlefront doesn't either. Any communication you have with players on your team will have to be performed by creating a party on the console of your choice or by using third-party software on PC. Organized team play isn't something Star Wars: Battlefront understands. There are no clans, or anything of the sort. Organization of any form has been completely overlooked. You're expected to just log in and start playing without interacting with anyone else. This is the theme with Star Wars: Battlefront. It's clear that it's been designed to be a game where your grandpa can head online and just start shooting people in a Star Wars setting. When playing game modes that require some degree of coordination, it's frustrating to an unbelievable degree. 4. Oversimplified Gameplay If you've played Halo 5: Guardians during the past month, you'll instantly notice Star Wars: Battlefront's lack of depth the moment you boot it up. There aren't very many weapons, and each of them are designed to be as basic as you could ever imagine. You'll find yourself and your enemies using the same weapons most of the time, and they require a low amount of skill to use due to their low recoil and the game's high level of aim assist. This is problematic for players who like to be rewarded for effort and skill in their video games. Hardcore players are already being turned off by the low skill ceiling. You shouldn't expect to see any fun-to-watch tournaments, team matches, or a lasting impression on live streams. 5. Nowhere to Turn If this was any other EA DICE release, you could just into a single-player campaign when you feel like enjoying the gameplay and atmosphere without all the intense competition. Unfortunately, there is no campaign in Star Wars: Battlefront. There is no story, but at least you can play as Darth Vader for a few seconds. This comes as particularly surprising given that Star Wars is known for its story and immersion. This is a game that could benefit tremendously from even a short campaign. Sadly, you'll have to stick to some derivative Horde-style co-op missions and online multiplayer. Conclusion Star Wars: Battlefront is clearly a game that was made specifically to cash-in on the enormous release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. It's one that completely ignores modern game standards, and makes little effort to give you reason to come back for the weeks to come. But it's also a game that succeeds on delivering an experience that's authentic to the Star Wars franchise. It's beautiful no matter which platform you play it on, and there's been a ton of attention given to ensure it contains all the things you look for in a Star Wars game. For this reason, it's going to sell millions of copies and create tons of buzz next week. Unfortunately, many of the millions of people who buy it are going to quickly forget about it.

Here is an update of sorts: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-man-arrested-germany-smuggling-firearms-explosives-linked-french-attacks-1528726

What? I been in fallout 4. Guess it's time to read the news. Edit: for anyone like me that is late to this. here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34814203?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central http://www.dailymotion.com/us?ff=1&urlback=%2Fvideo%2Fx3dqzx9_images-de-la-fusillade-au-bataclan_news

Dual 27" monitors

First play through I always max Luck out, and then maybe Int. My second playthrough is ALWAYS a 1 Int character. It is so much fun playing as a moron in these games (Fallout 2 being the best for it)

Fallout 4 isn’t just causing a wave of “sick” days across the planet. The excellent open-world role-playing game is also eating into the time people spend on …other habits. Pornhub, one of the world’s most popular adult video sites, told GamesBeat that it saw a 10 percent drop in traffic among gamers after Fallout 4 came out earlier this week. On November 10, traffic started to drop at around 5 a.m. after most people finished downloading and installing the game. That decrease from normal patterns continued until around 3 p.m. Gamers then seemed to disappear again beginning at 6 p.m. “We can’t say we’re too surprised with what happened to our traffic during peak gaming hours,” Pornhub vice president Corey Price told GamesBeat. “Based on the data, it looks like a huge surge of people decided to indulge in some wasteland wandering by taking the day off of work and school to play, while the rest of the world had to wade through what we assume were the longest hours of work ever in anticipation of some alone time with their consoles.” Above: Surprisingly, gaming habits can have a huge impact on adult video sites. Image Credit: PornHub The release of Fallout 4 is easily one of the biggest of the year. Publisher Bethesda released some early sales data today, and it confirmed that it has already shipped 12 million copies of the game. The postapocalyptic adventure is also one of the most played PC games ever, according to data from the digital-distribution platform Steam. At its peak, more than 400,000 people were all playing Fallout 4 at the same time, and that number regularly rests around 350,000. You gotta think that a few of those Fallout fans also spend some time on Pornhub … or maybe you don’t have to think about that. But despite losing some traffic, Pornhub understands. “As huge fans of the game, we can’t say we blame anyone for swapping Pornhub time for some Pip-Boy surfing instead,” said Price. “We would have done the same.” Oh, and it’s not like the gamers didn’t return. Pornhub use among gamers skyrocketed starting at around 11 p.m. on November 10 — I guess the vault dwellers needed a break from The Commonwealth.

I used to do this in Fo3, I haven't really bothered in this one yet. Levels are easy to make, and I need to recycle things so I can make better towns

Can't get the list to paste correctly, so here is where I found it http://www.gosunoob.com/fallout-4/crafting-materials-fo4/

Yea, can't really argue with any of that. Once again though, so much wasted potential.

So, I finally went there this morning. 3 hours later and it still isn't clear. I should have brought the power armor LOL

I enjoy studying the math and trends in games.

Since you guys are focussed on that post, here are some other points:

It will end up being a better game than Fo3. I have no doubt of that. The bugs are just killing it for me though, so I am going to wait until closer to Christmas (who am I kidding, I will jump in for an hour or so this weekend, until my screen disappears again)

That doesn't really hold true though, the reason being at max level, most mobs only give about 6-12 XP. Also, after finishing the quests, your XP gains drop off significantly, unless you do bounties. I misread your post. Using it on missions, will indeed level it up, as will turning in bounties with it equipped, and using motes. That is how it has always been.

All of CoD is P2P servers. It is one of the reasons I stopped after Bo2, and will stick with BF from now on

Post #5 October Crucible Stats https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/3r5em7/octoberish_crucible_stats/ It's your Crucible statistician Kerrsive here, and I wanted to give you guys a look at the Crucible figures I've been tracking over the past few weeks. I hadn't been tracking these things lately, but with the revamp of Guardian GG[1] , I thought I'd get back to charting out Crucible stats. And without any further ado, here are your weapon class stats for the last two-plus weeks. Crucible Weapon Kills -- Late October1 of 3 Total Kills by Weapon Type 2 of 3 Total Kills by Primary and Special Weapons 3 of 3 Total Kills by Heavy Weapons and Abilities [2] Methodology: I use Destiny Tracker's Population Stats[3] each day to get a running total of the Crucible kills for each weapon type. I use a spreadsheet to calculate the daily kills for each weapon, I aggregate the daily totals, and I use the totals to give me a percentage. Then I make charts with lines and stuff. Green section on the charts represents Iron Banana. Yellow section represents Trials of Osiris. The charts all show the same information, but I made three: (1) all weapon types, (2) primaries and specials, and (3) heavies and abilities. The data does not change between the charts; I simply made multiple to make them clearer and less jumbled. Going forward, I'm going to track this more. Enjoy. Edit -- The one thing I will say about these stats is: Bungie, your nerf of special ammo has done nothing to stop shotgun dependency. It has ruined the other two classes of special weapons because there is never ammo for them. Shotguns don't waste ammo because they are one-shot kills. Snipers and pulse rifles are much less forgiving with ammo (I have 72% sniper headshots in Crucible, so don't tell me to "get gud"). I never have sniper ammo while kids run around with shotguns for primaries. Your ammo nerf didn't change shotgun abuse. Undo it.

Post #4 How big is the Dreadnaught? Tl;dr: Length of the Dreadnaught is equal to the Moon's diameter: 3,475km. Hey Guardians. I have seen few popular posts that discuss the mindblowing size of the Dreadnaught. Let's face it, that thing is HUGE. I wanted to nail down a more accurate sizing of the Dreadnaught and this [1] photo seems to be the best, though it is horrible due to the perspective. Here [2] are notable landmarks for the Rings of Saturn with Dreadnaught included. Edit 1: User /u/JazzmastaJ [3] posted a similar analysis here[4] with a much more detailedimage [5] . Between the two of us, we should be able to nail down an accurate range of size. So let's add some numbers. The C Ring is 17,500km across compared to Earth's diamater, which is 12,740km. So already we know that earth will fit inside C Ring with room to spare. B Ring is 25,500km across, but due to the perspective of this photo that number really isnt of much use. I took the liberty of comparing the distance from the edge of C Ring to the edge of the 'hole' that the dreadnaught created and it appears to be about 8,750km (due to perspective it could be as large as 12,115km but lets be conservative). The Dreadnaught is about 40% the size of the hole, and the hole itself appears about the same size as the distance from C Ring to said hole (making the hole 8,750km). This gives the Dreadnaught length as 3,500km! (Our moon is 3,475km in diameter) That's no moon... Let's talk about mass. Most of the dreadnaught is seemingly empty space. In the darkblade strike you walk into what seems to be a middle chasm and mostly empty space with giant hanging prisons or something. Let's guess that the Dreadnaught is about 25% mass, and 75% empty space. I would assume the material is probably somewhere between the density of Iron (7.8 g/cm3) and Limestone (2.7 g/cm3) for an average of 5.25 g/cm3. The width of the Dreadnaught appears to be 27% of the length, making it 950km across (diagonally since it is a diamond shape). We can now calculate the volume: 950x950x3500= 3,158,750,000km3. Multiply by 25% for mass: 789,687,500km3. 5.25g/cm3 = 5250 kg/m3 & our mass = 7.897e+17m3 Multiply! 5250 * 7.896875e+17 = 4.15e+21kg! (7.35e+22kg is the moon's mass) but these are hard number to conceptualize, there is only one option... Do more math! Okay! Let's find out what the gravitational pull would be if you were standing on the edge of the hole the Dreadnaught made. We have the mass, we can assume a standard 100kg Guardian, we know the radius of the hole (8,750,000m), and we can look up the universal gravitational constant (6.67408e-11 m3 kg-1 s-2). Now plug into the gravitational force equation: F=G((m1*m2)/r2) = 0.3617N. Which gives an acceleration of 0.0036m/s2. This is 0.03% of Earth's gravity which would hardly compare to Saturn's gravitational influence on the Rings. Edit 2: Some have pointed out that other images in-game would provide better scale and I believe they are right! If you can find a good image and put it up on imgur I can take a look and refine my results. I noted below that the current possible range of size should be somewhere between 3400km - 5500km based on perspective of the first image. Hopefully we can get that range narrowed down some. Edit 3: /u/JazzmastaJ [6] came up with some great images: Image 1 [7] & Image 2 [8] . Based on some rough calculations and measurements: Image 2 shows the Dreadnaught at 1,275km (quite smaller than our original numbers). Image 1 is more difficult. I cannot tell quite where C Ring ends and B ring begins, there are two options that give the Dreadnaught size at: a) 1,600km or 3,635km. 'a' is more in line with image 2, but 'b' is more in line with our original calculations... Conclusion: We need more data! Edit 4: /u/monarch_j [9] pointed out this[10] post where /u/DLuke5853 [11] came up with a length of 3,444km which is very nearly the number I got from the first image! I am calling it now, that the design of the 'naught is intended to be the diameter of the Moon and is therefore 3,475km

Post #3 https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/3s6wdz/equilibrium_adjustment_in_destiny_a_crucible_data/ Equilibrium Adjustment in Destiny - A Crucible Data Analysis Story *Warning – This is a rather long discussion of some data analysis, which reaches conclusions that most likely everyone already knows. But it’s a cool data-story. If you want the quick and dirty, you can see the related graphs in this album [1] * Background Last week, u/MasterBarek [2] visited my website and suggested looking at K/D stats for individual weapons over time. The idea was that seeing usage weapon rates like those here[3] is useful, but information on the effectiveness of weapons in PvP, and possibly identifying under-utilized guns, would also be nice to see. After thinking about the problem and analyzing some data from the API and my website, I came across some patterns which I thought people might find interesting. What follows is a discussion of the data analysis I went through, and some probably not novel conclusions that came out of it. The basic patterns are similar for most weapon types, so I’ve focused the discussion on Pulse Rifles and Nirwen’s Mercy. I’m more of a PvE person personally, so I would appreciate any other thoughts / explanations as I don’t have the most in-depth understanding of PvP issues. Comparing Weapon Effectiveness and Usage So, one initial thought might be that more effective weapons should be used more, and we should see a positive relationship between usage rates and effectiveness. I’ll explain later why I think we don’t end up observing this, but for now I want to focus on measuring effectiveness. For each match, the API lets you observe how many kills a player got with a specific weapon, and how many overall kills/assists/ and deaths. It does not let you see how many times a player died while having a specific weapon in hand. So, in terms of K/D, I look at the number of overall kills to deaths of players who used specific pulse rifles as my first measure of effectiveness. Of course, Kills aren’t the only measure of performance. To get at overall performance, I also look at two other statistics. First, what is the ex-post win percentage of players who used a specific weapon? This is pretty simple – for each player-game observation (where the player got at least 1 kill with the specific weapon), what is the percentage of observations that won? For a more specific measure, I used an SVM to calculate the probability of winning a match based on your Specific weapon Kills / Remaining kills/Deaths/Assists/Suicides/Resurrections Performed/and Orbs dropped. This is a quick and dirty approach, which only has a successful prediction rate of around 70%. Regardless, I like this a little better than the ex-post win percentage, because players who had a good game but lost will still end up having a pretty high “effectiveness” score. Below are scatter plots for each measure of effectiveness vs. the number of player-game observations in a random sample of Rift and Control matches where player’s used a pulse rifle: K/D Measure [4] Ex-Post Measure [5] SVM Prediction Measure [6] It may not be surprising that there’s not a clear relationship. That is, the guns which are used most have effectiveness ratings pretty much in the center of the distribution. Does that mean people are using bad guns? I think the answer is no, and here’s my thinking: 1) As we move down to less-used guns, there are less observations, so the measurement of effectiveness is getting noisier (more variance). 2) We are observing an equilibrium outcome, and the “effectiveness” measure we see is mostly reflecting the fact that it is a highly used gun. Point (2) is really the main explanation and deserves a little more discussion. Consider this extreme example: Imagine there was a gun that was so good, everyone used it. What would the expected win-rate be of players using it? Well, since everyone is using it, it would be 50%. This doesn’t mean the gun is bad, or that there are better alternatives out there, in fact it’s quite the opposite. Equilibrium Adjustment – The Case of Nirwen’s Mercy So my hypothesis (which is not novel, and has likely been known in this game’s community, as well as other games like LoL, for some time now) was that what we are seeing in the scatter plots is just the result of a game-theory type equilibrium playing out. Once a good gun is discovered, it initially does really well. Then more people discover it. This can happen from either playing against it, or through information dissemination – Social media / watching streams / etc. As more people start to use it, the average “effectiveness” stats will start falling. Additionally, we might expect that the first people to discover the good gun will be high-skill players, both because they simply play more and also they might be more likely to notice advantageous differences between weapons. Nirwen’s Mercy provides a great way to test this hypothesis. As can be seen here[7] , Nirwen’s Mercy suddenly became very popular in mid-October. So, using a random selection of Rift/Control matches, I gathered the Skill rating for players using Nirwen’s Mercy over time, sourced from Destiny Tracker[8] . Measuring player skill is a very complicated and difficult task, and DTR does a rather nice job at it. Then, I plotted the average player skill against usage and effectiveness: Nirwen’s Mercy – Daily Average Skill vs. Average Usage [9] Nirwen’s Mercy – Daily Average Skill vs. Average Effectiveness [10] Now, these measures are noisy for sure, but the graphs seem to show that the hypothesis plays out somewhat nicely. The rapid increase in usage is accompanied by a decline in average player skill. Moreover, on the initial uptake of the weapon, the average player performance with the weapon falls quite substantially. This makes sense, as it was a new weapon and players need to learn how to use it effectively. After about 4-7 days, behavior seems to reach equilibrium. So adjustment time in Destiny appears to be rather quick. Epilogue I saw this and thought it was a cool example of how player behavior adjusted to an equilibrium in Destiny. Similar patterns played out for the shotgun Conspiracy Theory-D, and the graphs for that are below: Conspiracy Theory-D – Daily Average Skill vs. Average Usage [11] Conspiracy Theory-D – Daily Average Skill vs. Average Effectiveness [12] So, hopefully that was interesting, and provides some food for thought. The main takeaway for me is that measuring weapon-effectiveness based on match outcomes alone is probably not going to be very informative, and I’ll need to do some more thinking as to whether or not a reliable measure can be created using just the API available data.

Should probably put that in its own post.

Post #2 You will never be Max Light Level, and I'll show you why. (statistical breakdown) So, I decided to do some math and figure out how exactly the new "Forever 29" thing was going to play out. The following data uses a few assumptions, some of which I put into Bungie's Favor, as I didn't know exact numbers. In the data below, the following was assumed: The Max Light Level will increase in 4 months (or approx 18 weeks). This is based off the release schedule of year 1. All items in the Raid have a 50% drop rate (obviously, they don't. Some items are in more than 1 loot pool) An item has a 10% chance to drop at max light level. This means you have a 10% chance of a 50% chance to get a max light level item in any given slot. You're only means of Max Light Level gear is from the raid So on to the data. This is template for a single player in the equation. Basically, every they get one roll at each slot every week. If that Roll is a 1-5, then they hit a jackpot and got Max LL item. An "O" is flagged at the bottom to show that a Max LL item in this category has been obtained. If after 18 weeks, a player has obtained 1 max LL item for each category, they have hit Max LL and their "X" becomes and "O". http://i.imgur.com/Fmnf8N2.png [1] Now, These markers carry over to this template here: http://imgur.com/2SC3Vcr.png [2] What you'll notice is that in 20 cases, 0 players will have reached max light level. Obviously, 20 isn't enough for a solid statistic, so I ran it multiple times. Out of 2000 players, only 12 players reached max light level. Or 0.6%. Again, obviously some of this is bad data and doesn't match the actual drop rates in game, but I'd like to think I've been generous with the possibilities. If anyone is curious about the excel functions. The basic attempts are used as =RandBetween(1, 100). Conditionals were =IF(OR(Attempt1<DropRatePercentage, Attempt2<DropRatePercentage, etc... So what this means, is that yes, we are back to the Forever 29 scenario. You will never be max light level. Lastly, there are obviously other ways to get Max Light Level items, and that is great, but considering all of them are also on weekly 1-time resets, your odds are still terrible.