Posted on

Battlefield 3 (Part 1)

The newest Xbox Games with Gold freebie I grabbed was Battlefield 3.  Aside from the most recent Battlefield 1 (which is so numbered as to designate its setting: World War I, rather than its chronology in the game series.  Beats me), I had never played a Battlefield game before.  At the height of my gaming, I was a Call of Duty guy.  Even then, however, I just didn’t have the time to play both.  But I vaguely knew about the rival franchise because whenever someone complained about Call of Duty, which was often, the criticism always preceded the threat that they were going to switch over to Battlefield (which they never did of course).  So Battlefield was kind of like Canada after every election or major partisan issue here in the States.

Anyway, I had some time on my hands since I was procrastinating mowing the lawn, and I thought I would buy the last Fallout 4 expansion: Nukaworld.  But they still wanted $20 for it, so I said screw that.  Instead, I checked the freebies, hence Battlefield 3.  I booted the game and poured some vodka.

[SPOILERS]

The game begins with the standard calibration.  First, adjust the slider brightness until the image is just barely visible.  Oh ho game!  Not you too!  Nay, I adjusted the slider until the image was comfortably visible.  My eyes certainly aren’t getting any younger.

The story begins with immediate violence and no explanation as to why.  I mean, it’s a shooter, so presumably I’d be shooting people, but I generally like to know why.  The abruptness also confused me into thinking I was watching an extended cutscene, but as it turns out it was just setting the stage for my immediate need of using said violence.  I watched as my character jumped off a bridge and onto a moving train, breaks in the back window and beats some guy until he stops moving, then grabs his pistol.  I also notice that my left wrist has a pair of handcuffs dangling off them.  Hmm…mystery.

It’s quickly obvious that this is an intro designed to teach the game mechanics.  By this point, game controls have become pretty standard.  The only irritation with this game was that crouching was controlled with the right thumbstick–something I found unintuitive.  Also, the sensitivity was pretty high, so I had to turn that down a bit.

I shoot a few guys with my pistol and they drop pretty quick, which is surprising considering that they appear to be wearing body armor.  I’m prompted to pick up an AK-47 (ahh, the standard game terrorist weapon), which I then subsequently wield against the next enemy with all the finesse of a teenager trying to take the bra off his first girlfriend.  Apparently, the sensitivity needed more tweaking.

At one point there was a shotgun wedged in a door, I guess to hold it shut.  The game instructed me to pick it up, which I did, excited at the prospect of a more effective weapon.  But this only served to trigger an instance.  I get into a brawl and the guy disarms me, but I shove him out the window and pick up an AK-47 again, which I then immediately swap out for an AK-74.  You’d think that it’d be wiser to equip a unit with the same caliber small arms, but what do I know?  In short, I shoot a bunch of guys, go through a door, get disarmed and thrown onto the floor.  Soeth ends the level.

The game starts a new cutscene, introduced by an ominous “a certain amount of time proceeding these events…” and then a shot of my character handcuffed and being interrogated.  Ah!  We’re Quentin Tarantinoing this.  Okay, I can roll with that.  Unraveling a mystery.

There’s a lot of back and forth about why I did what I did, and me suggesting that I did what I did because I needed to do what I did.  Fascinating.  Then, we flashback to a time preceding that.  Apparently we’re Mementoing events too.

Why am I killing people (aside from this being a shooter)?  Why am I being court-martialed?  And will I ever figure out the ideal sensitivity setting?  Tune in next time…

–Simon

Posted on

A Lubbock County Almanac (January 10, 1995)

I’m home from school I brought home a Book called Experiments.

It is 3:40 PM (centrill time) and now I will call J.T.

— — — —

I called, no one was there, so I left a message on their answering maching: “Hi, J.T. This is Simon.  I’m asking if you can come over.”

It’s a beautiful day outside.  The temperature is in the 70s.

Perfect day,

I’m going out to play!

— — — —

It’s now 6:43 and I am going to Boyscouts.  Craig is over our house.  I don’t have much time so By!

–Simon

Posted on

Impatience

A small rectangular patch of earth resides against the front porch.  And because the plot is small, receives direct sunlight, and sits under the eave, it is dry and barren.  Yet its location by the front door necessitates that it be considered for landscaping purposes.  But what to do?

Liz made a number of attempts, including columbines and bleeding hearts, but to our surprise, it was the impatiens that claimed the niche.  And I, generally opposed to pesticides, have no reservations about using synthetic fertilizers.  Thus was a season of promoting these plants’ over-indulgence.

The nutritional needs of an ornamental plant is so much simpler than a child’s.

–Simon

Posted on

Query Quotient

Working for a large company, I often find myself in the scenario of needing information.  I therefore seek to resolve this knowledge deficit by sending a simple email to an individual who holds said knowledge.  Yet all too often my queries go ignored.  Why is that?  What deep underlying motivations have possessed this individual to turn a deaf ear to the needs of others?  What cruel, sociopathic inclinations govern this person’s actions?

I debated at length these social dynamics, but the answer wasn’t nearly so disturbing as my overly-dramatic introduction might have implied.  Rather, I conclude there are a few and very simple factors: Does the person feel they have time (an extension of job title and pay grade), does the person feel the inquirer is worthy of their time (also an extension of job title and pay grade), can the person benefit from the inquirer, has the inquirer committed some social slight against them, and does the person like the inquirer?

To distill this even further, from the contactee’s perspective:

  • Are you at my level?
  • Has there or will there be a quid pro quo?
  • Do I like you?

Yet all reasons are not created equal, so based upon entirely subjective reasoning, I have developed a formula to weight them properly:

  1. Each party’s pay grade.  The first thing an email recipient looks at when receiving an email from an unknown party is that person’s job title.  A lot of information can be instantly determined from the hierarchy.  If you’re higher than me, I’d better listen, for my future promotion could depend on it.  If you’re lower than me, well…(dismissive wave of the hand).  If we’re the same level, I should at least consider you a peer, and there’s the possibility that I might work for you one day.
  2. Subjectives.  How well do I know this person, do we work together, do we have a good working relationship, and do I like you?  So much is difficult to determine from an email, but in short, if you’ve pissed me off, then you’re probably not going to get an answer.  Fair?  No.  True?  Always.  From failed experiences, I know to always humble myself accordingly when initiating contact.
  3. Positive Empiricals.  Have you done good work for me before and are you a potential cardinal to my promotion?  Obviously I would want to maintain a relationship with someone who’s benefiting me directly.
  4. Negative Empiricals.  Have you done lousy work for me before and have you beat me out for a job or opportunity?  Obviously I’d want to distance myself from a poor worker, but the last point does seem petty.  However, people take ego blows very seriously, and it’s no coincidence that former colleagues have severed contact when I became competition, and especially if I won.

As for probability, I’ve determined from experience that I will always get a response from a peer if every positive category is satisfied.  I will generally always get a response from someone lower with almost all of these conditions satisfied.  And I will usually get a response from someone higher with every condition satisfied.  However, if any negative conditions are satisfied, then the response rate very quickly drops.  As I stated, it’s weighted, and formerly positive relationships are always easy to sabotage since the human mind tends to remember the bad and not the good.  Here’s the formula for reference:

=IF(Their pay grade>Your pay grade,100*((1/(0.5*(Their pay grade-Your pay grade))/4)+(Do you know them?+Do you work with this person currently?+Is person within your department?+Do you have a positive working relationship?+Do they like you?)/25)+(Have you done good work for them before?+Can you get this person a job/opportunity?)/10)-(Have you done bad work for them before?+Have you beat that person out for job/opportunity?)/5)),IF(Your pay grade>Their pay grade,70+(100*(Do you know them?+Do you work with this person currently?+Is person within your department?+Do you have a positive working relationship?+Do they like you?)/25)+(Have you done good work for them before?+Can you get this person a job/opportunity?)*10)),60+(100*(Do you know them?+Do you work with this person currently?+Is person within your department?+Do you have a positive working relationship?+Do they like you?)/25)+(Have you done good work for them before?+Can you get this person a job/opportunity?)*10)-(Have you done bad work for them before?+Have you beat that person out for job/opportunity?)*10))))

Of course, that nightmarish formula is more readily understood in its natural format: a spreadsheet, so naturally I’ve provided it along with instructions:

https://moorheadfamily.net/data/Query%20Quotient.xlsx

Out of curiosity, I tested it with a recent scenario involving someone from our Legal department.  The calculator suggested a 33% chance of receiving a response, and seeing as it took 3 weeks to get any answer, this figure seems pretty accurate.  Hopefully this tool will allow you to adjust your project timelines accordingly.

–Simon