> I like thruster. It’s omni-directional and useful in and outside combat. Tweak it to be primarily a momentum changer instead of a pseudo launch pad, add a visual indication that it’s on a cool down and this mechanic has a lot of potential.
It is a momentum charge; thruster packs give you a short boost in any direction you desire. Your “pseudo paunch pad” would mean it’d launch you upwards in some fashion, not in a straight line. Also, there definitely is a visual indication that it’s on cool-down: it’s the blinking red triangle on the top of the screen.
> Don’t give accuracy bonuses to weapons when they zoom (AR, SMG, Saw), otherwise it’s not just a cosmetic change like people claim.
Either you’re mistaken or this is a straight-up lie; zooming in with the weapons in question like the AR or SMG don’t increase your accuracy: your reticle stays the same size, your bullet spread is unaffected, you move at the same speed, et cetera.
> Every argument I’ve ever heard for pro-sprint is shallow and easy to shut down. I’ve yet to hear a single argument over the years that proves otherwise. Here, I’ll go through a small list of every argument I’ve heard so far.
This is both incredibly naive and even a little insulting for people like me who are okay with the addition of sprint. I have no grudge against sprint haters—we all have our own opinions—but when you’re going to call the opposing arguments “shallow and easy to shut down”, I think you need to take a step back and inquire: why is there a two-sided argument on the matter? No one in their right mind argues that cigars are good for you because, indeed, it’s a proven fact that they’re a detriment to your health. Then why are there just as many people against sprint as there are for it? If one side, as you claim, is so easy to shut down, why is it there? Unless you’re pretentiously implying that all people who like sprint have a shallow way of thinking, which is even more insulting.
Listen, I know it’s tempting to think your side is right and the opposing are easy to debunk; put any two people with politically unlike opinions in the same room and they’ll both say to each other: “Well, he’s wrong and I know what I’m talking about.”
Thing is, before being so adamant about what you say, be open-minded and accept the other side of the coin. Not agree with it, mind you, but be more “I understand your side” and less “Nope, you’re wrong!” At least, that’s what I do.
> 1. It lets me go fast.
> Fast base movement speed achieves this, and is superior in every way.
This is irrelevant from the point as to why people wanted sprint in the first place. No matter how fast the base movement speed is, people will still want an optional mode that makes them go even faster (i.e. sprint). I suggested a solution to this in the form of an omni-directional sprint mechanic.
> 2. I get to locations faster.
> Believe it or not, regardless or whatever mechanics are in place, it’s up to the map designers how fast you reach a location. If the map designers want you take 10 seconds to reach a location, you’re going to take 10 seconds. And since they’re bound to maintaining Halo’s original “pace” for the sake of balance, you’re not getting anywhere faster than you were in the past, except this time you are in fact required to sprint for the entire duration.
You still get to a place faster if you’re sprinting. If what you meant to say was that you still cross the map at an identical pace in comparison to previous Halo games, then yeah, I can understand that criticism.
> 3. It’s a risk/reward.
> You can justify ANYTHING with this argument. For example, Armor lock. Sacrifice all mobility for temporary invincibility and a charged EMP blast. Dump all your remaining bullets into one powerful shot at the cost of a massive reload detriment, etc.
So what you’re saying is that there are the legitimate risk/reward mechanics and poorly justified risk/reward ones? In that case, I argue that sprint would be in the former category. With the way it’s tied to your shields, it is very balanced. What made the old Halo games special was that your load-out for each match was your own skill and knowledge of the map. In Halo 5, that same depth is brought back, and with sprint.
I agree on points 4–7. None of those are good reasons to include something.
> 8. It’s balanced now.
> So is Team Rockets or Shotty Snipers. Balance doesn’t suddenly make something interesting or deep. If anything, the fact we now have a button mapped to our controller that stops our shields (A signature Halo system that inspired recharging health in dozens of games since CE) from recharging is only a sad testament to how far we are willing to go to make this mechanic work. I wonder what we’ll destroy next for the sake of unimaginative balance?
This is another example of you not considering the opposing arguments. Balance doesn’t make something deep, yes. So what? Sprint doesn’t take away depth from the game; it works in the sense that you rely on similar skills of Halo 2 or 3. I’m not even sure as to what you’re trying to get across here. There’s nothing wrong with changing a signature feature (people need to let go of nostalgia), and the way they changed your shield workings make firefights more interesting, in my opinion.
> 9. The old games feel slow.
> If you think that now, and didn’t then when you played them back when, is that the game’s fault, or yours?
This also isn’t the soundest of reasons, so I agree. My favorite game is Halo 3, arguably the slowest Halo game. Considering that, Halo 5 is my third favorite Halo game. Figure that out.
> The absolutely mind boggling part is that I could list off all the issues (this list isn’t even complete) sprint has brought, and your immediate conclusion is I want a carbon copy of H1/2/3.
And what’s your immediate conclusion for the people who are okay with sprint such as myself? That we like to act on ignorance by saying you want a carbon copy of Halo 2 and that we only make shallow arguments? Real clever conclusion there.