Here’s another simple idea that can make the cut before Halo 4 goes gold.
I call this “File Share Packages”.
Ever wanted to play a specific map that was intended to be played with a specific gametype, but couldn’t find one part or the other?
Enter File Share Packages (or Packages for short).
With file share packages, you download one item and get multiple things.
Allow me to explain with an example:
I want to play Grifball on the default official map.
I go to the file browser in the “Packages” section.
I download the “Default Grifball Package”.
The default Grifball map is added to my maps list.
The default Grifball gametype is added to my gametype list.
The “Default Grifball Package” is also added to my packages list.
So, after downloading this package, I can play the map alone, play the gametype alone, or when I’m making a custom game, instead of clicking the map or gametype browser, I can use the package browser that will conjure up BOTH the map and gametype associated with it instantly.
You could, of course create multiple permutations of the same package.
I also thought of the concept of “working” and “non-working” packages.
Working packages would be those that could simply be clicked to conjure up a map and gametype, while non-working packages could simply be amalgamations of user files (screenshots, films, gametypes, maps, etc.).
Whacha think guise?
Also: Do you like backsmacks? I also have a thread on Assassinations, if you feel like checking it out.
> It does sound like a good idea however the person could just as easily put what it goes with into the description of the gametype/map.
>
> As for the non-working package idea, i can get down with that.
Of course, we’ve all looked for items related to other using clues from the description, but anything short of a “link in description” is quite useless IMO.
To make a fileshare item relevant, it needs to work without people spending half an hour looking for it, only to find out one part was removed from the user’s fileshare or is no longer in the top search results, or worse, that the name of a vital component is different than it’s counterpart.
> > It does sound like a good idea however the person could just as easily put what it goes with into the description of the gametype/map.
> >
> > As for the non-working package idea, i can get down with that.
>
> Of course, we’ve all looked for items related to other using clues from the description, but anything short of a “link in description” is quite useless IMO.
>
> To make a fileshare item relevant, it needs to work without people spending half an hour looking for it, only to find out one part was removed from the user’s fileshare or is no longer in the top search results, or worse, that the name of a vital component is different than it’s counterpart.
>
> I just think it’s a matter of convenience.
I suppose so but there would still be a similar problem even with this implemented due to people being lazy and not putting the two files into a package. Sorry, i just can’t help but point out that there will still be problems in this system and i’m not saying it’s bad, in fact i think it’s better than the current one however i just feel if it was changed it would be so that there wasn’t any problems.
Though i guess you’re right, it’s simply a matter of convenience.
> > > It does sound like a good idea however the person could just as easily put what it goes with into the description of the gametype/map.
> > >
> > > As for the non-working package idea, i can get down with that.
> >
> > Of course, we’ve all looked for items related to other using clues from the description, but anything short of a “link in description” is quite useless IMO.
> >
> > To make a fileshare item relevant, it needs to work without people spending half an hour looking for it, only to find out one part was removed from the user’s fileshare or is no longer in the top search results, or worse, that the name of a vital component is different than it’s counterpart.
> >
> > I just think it’s a matter of convenience.
>
> I suppose so but there would still be a similar problem even with this implemented due to people being lazy and not putting the two files into a package. Sorry, i just can’t help but point out that there will still be problems in this system and i’m not saying it’s bad, in fact i think it’s better than the current one however i just feel if it was changed it would be so that there wasn’t any problems.
>
> Though i guess you’re right, it’s simply a matter of convenience.
That’s always easy to get around.
You just set a minimum of 2 files that must be added to the package in order to be allowed to save it and share it.
But really, constructive criticism is always appreciated, so if you see problems, tell me (as long as it’s not aggressive) and I’ll try to solve them.
> > > > It does sound like a good idea however the person could just as easily put what it goes with into the description of the gametype/map.
> > > >
> > > > As for the non-working package idea, i can get down with that.
> > >
> > > Of course, we’ve all looked for items related to other using clues from the description, but anything short of a “link in description” is quite useless IMO.
> > >
> > > To make a fileshare item relevant, it needs to work without people spending half an hour looking for it, only to find out one part was removed from the user’s fileshare or is no longer in the top search results, or worse, that the name of a vital component is different than it’s counterpart.
> > >
> > > I just think it’s a matter of convenience.
> >
> > I suppose so but there would still be a similar problem even with this implemented due to people being lazy and not putting the two files into a package. Sorry, i just can’t help but point out that there will still be problems in this system and i’m not saying it’s bad, in fact i think it’s better than the current one however i just feel if it was changed it would be so that there wasn’t any problems.
> >
> > Though i guess you’re right, it’s simply a matter of convenience.
>
> That’s always easy to get around.
>
> You just set a minimum of 2 files that must be added to the package in order to be allowed to save it and share it.
>
> But really, constructive criticism is always appreciated, so if you see problems, tell me (as long as it’s not aggressive) and I’ll try to solve them.
Wait a second, i’m not sure if i understand what you mean by that. Are you saying that if someone makes a map they are forced to accompany it with a gametype regardlless of whether or not it needs one? That kind of ruins the convenience for people who just want to make stuff in forge. (e.g. forge art)
Though again i guess that could easily be worked around by the person just putting slayer. But as you as said it’s a matter of convenience and if that’s what you meant then it kind of ruins the convenience.
> > > > > It does sound like a good idea however the person could just as easily put what it goes with into the description of the gametype/map.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the non-working package idea, i can get down with that.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, we’ve all looked for items related to other using clues from the description, but anything short of a “link in description” is quite useless IMO.
> > > >
> > > > To make a fileshare item relevant, it needs to work without people spending half an hour looking for it, only to find out one part was removed from the user’s fileshare or is no longer in the top search results, or worse, that the name of a vital component is different than it’s counterpart.
> > > >
> > > > I just think it’s a matter of convenience.
> > >
> > > I suppose so but there would still be a similar problem even with this implemented due to people being lazy and not putting the two files into a package. Sorry, i just can’t help but point out that there will still be problems in this system and i’m not saying it’s bad, in fact i think it’s better than the current one however i just feel if it was changed it would be so that there wasn’t any problems.
> > >
> > > Though i guess you’re right, it’s simply a matter of convenience.
> >
> > That’s always easy to get around.
> >
> > You just set a minimum of 2 files that must be added to the package in order to be allowed to save it and share it.
> >
> > But really, constructive criticism is always appreciated, so if you see problems, tell me (as long as it’s not aggressive) and I’ll try to solve them.
>
> Wait a second, i’m not sure if i understand what you mean by that. Are you saying that if someone makes a map they are forced to accompany it with a gametype regardlless of whether or not it needs one? That kind of ruins the convenience for people who just want to make stuff in forge. (e.g. forge art)
>
> Though again i guess that could easily be worked around by the person just putting slayer. But as you as said it’s a matter of convenience and if that’s what you meant then it kind of ruins the convenience.
No, don’t worry, the idea of Packages is completely seperate of other file types.
You could put the map on your file share alone and then package it with a gametype and re-release it as a different entity.
> > > > > > It does sound like a good idea however the person could just as easily put what it goes with into the description of the gametype/map.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the non-working package idea, i can get down with that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, we’ve all looked for items related to other using clues from the description, but anything short of a “link in description” is quite useless IMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > To make a fileshare item relevant, it needs to work without people spending half an hour looking for it, only to find out one part was removed from the user’s fileshare or is no longer in the top search results, or worse, that the name of a vital component is different than it’s counterpart.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just think it’s a matter of convenience.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose so but there would still be a similar problem even with this implemented due to people being lazy and not putting the two files into a package. Sorry, i just can’t help but point out that there will still be problems in this system and i’m not saying it’s bad, in fact i think it’s better than the current one however i just feel if it was changed it would be so that there wasn’t any problems.
> > > >
> > > > Though i guess you’re right, it’s simply a matter of convenience.
> > >
> > > That’s always easy to get around.
> > >
> > > You just set a minimum of 2 files that must be added to the package in order to be allowed to save it and share it.
> > >
> > > But really, constructive criticism is always appreciated, so if you see problems, tell me (as long as it’s not aggressive) and I’ll try to solve them.
> >
> > Wait a second, i’m not sure if i understand what you mean by that. Are you saying that if someone makes a map they are forced to accompany it with a gametype regardlless of whether or not it needs one? That kind of ruins the convenience for people who just want to make stuff in forge. (e.g. forge art)
> >
> > Though again i guess that could easily be worked around by the person just putting slayer. But as you as said it’s a matter of convenience and if that’s what you meant then it kind of ruins the convenience.
>
> No, don’t worry, the idea of Packages is completely seperate of other file types.
>
> You could put the map on your file share alone and then package it with a gametype and re-release it as a different entity.
If that’s the case then i think it’s a solid idea.
> You mean like the File Sets we’ve had since Halo 3?
> > You mean like the File Sets we’ve had since Halo 3?
>
> Care to elaborate?
>
>
> If there was a feature similar to this thread readily available in-game, I think I would’ve noticed.
That’s because it wasn’t an in game thing. It was a feature exclusive to Bungie.net.
And yes, in case you were wondering, I would support in game File Sets
> > > You mean like the File Sets we’ve had since Halo 3?
> >
> > Care to elaborate?
> >
> >
> > If there was a feature similar to this thread readily available in-game, I think I would’ve noticed.
>
> That’s because it wasn’t an in game thing. It was a feature exclusive to Bungie.net.
>
> And yes, in case you were wondering, I would support in game File Sets
Ok cool then.
It’s just that I don’t recall anyone ever mentionning them, or seeing the feature at all.
I mean, it’s not very usefull if people don’t know about it, right?
> > > > You mean like the File Sets we’ve had since Halo 3?
> > >
> > > Care to elaborate?
> > >
> > >
> > > If there was a feature similar to this thread readily available in-game, I think I would’ve noticed.
> >
> > That’s because it wasn’t an in game thing. It was a feature exclusive to Bungie.net.
> >
> > And yes, in case you were wondering, I would support in game File Sets
>
> Ok cool then.
>
> It’s just that I don’t recall anyone ever mentionning them, or seeing the feature at all.
>
> I mean, it’s not very usefull if people don’t know about it, right?
I feel like an idiot for not remembering the file sets but yeah, we should make it so more people are aware of them.
> > > > > You mean like the File Sets we’ve had since Halo 3?
> > > >
> > > > Care to elaborate?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If there was a feature similar to this thread readily available in-game, I think I would’ve noticed.
> > >
> > > That’s because it wasn’t an in game thing. It was a feature exclusive to Bungie.net.
> > >
> > > And yes, in case you were wondering, I would support in game File Sets
> >
> > Ok cool then.
> >
> > It’s just that I don’t recall anyone ever mentionning them, or seeing the feature at all.
> >
> > I mean, it’s not very usefull if people don’t know about it, right?
>
> I feel like an idea for not remembering the file sets but yeah, we should make it so more people are aware of them.
I guess we all agree we need in-game file sets then.
