People run away too much

Games Other Halo
122

> How do we know halo has passed its time? The last two halo games were so radically different, that I would dare say we haven’t really seen if Halo is still relevant in this COD era. In fact the last game in the trilogy competed well with COD. It wasn’t until COD elements were injected into Halo, that Halo started to slip in popularity.

see, your the kind of person i dislike the most on these forums if im honest, the ‘halo 3 was the last true halo game’ type of person… reach did well so that was ok, but halo 4 has died on its back… and is likely to stay dead…

your above statement implies that we simply say reach and 4 arent halo games, and they are, they have halo lore campaigns, spartans, a generally similar multiplayer (reach is still my favorite on account of invasion) so they ARE halo games. personally, if halo went back to being as drab as halo 3 was for me, i’d abandon it without hesitation.

123

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

> > How do we know halo has passed its time? The last two halo games were so radically different, that I would dare say we haven’t really seen if Halo is still relevant in this COD era. In fact the last game in the trilogy competed well with COD. It wasn’t until COD elements were injected into Halo, that Halo started to slip in popularity.
>
> see, your the kind of person i dislike the most on these forums if im honest, the ‘halo 3 was the last true halo game’ type of person… reach did well so that was ok, but halo 4 has died on its back… and is likely to stay dead…
>
> your above statement implies that we simply say reach and 4 arent halo games, and they are, they have halo lore campaigns, spartans, a generally similar multiplayer (reach is still my favorite on account of invasion) so they ARE halo games. personally, if halo went back to being as drab as halo 3 was for me, i’d abandon it without hesitation.

The “drab” game Halo 3 was the last Halo game to compete on xbox live. Reach and H4 are Halo games, with watered down mainstream NON-HALO elements. They are not core Halo.

Reach was the beginning of the end. Halo 4 was the nail in the coffin. The majority of fans don’t like the direction Halo is going. Numbers don’t lie. It’s silly to continuously profess that Halo must change in the midst of failing populations.

124

> see, your the kind of person i dislike the most on these forums if im honest, the ‘halo 3 was the last true halo game’ type of person… reach did well so that was ok, but halo 4 has died on its back… and is likely to stay dead…
>
> your above statement implies that we simply say reach and 4 arent halo games, and they are, they have halo lore campaigns, spartans, a generally similar multiplayer (reach is still my favorite on account of invasion) so they ARE halo games. personally, if halo went back to being as drab as halo 3 was for me, i’d abandon it without hesitation.

I can’t believe you would get into such a tizzy about such a trivial issue of semantics.

Clearly, if a game has Halo in the title, it is officially a Halo game. No one would argue against that.
That’s what your argument basically is, but it is absolutely meaningless because you are replying to someone who means something entirely different with their use of the words “not Halo”.

If someone says that “Halo 3 was the last true Halo”, they are quite clearly referring to Halo 3 being the last Halo game with core gameplay which was consistent with the first.
They most certainly are not claiming that Halo 3 was the last Halo game to have Halo in the title, or to have anything in it which related to the Halo universe.

125

> I can’t believe you would get into such a tizzy about such a trivial issue of semantics.
>
> Clearly, if a game has Halo in the title, it is officially a Halo game. No one would argue against that.
> That’s what your argument basically is, but it is absolutely meaningless because you are replying to someone who means something entirely different with their use of the words “not Halo”.
>
> If someone says that “Halo 3 was the last true Halo”, they are quite clearly referring to Halo 3 being the last Halo game with core gameplay which wa consistent with the first.
> They most certainly are not claiming that Halo 3 was the last Halo game to have Halo in the title, or to have anything in it which related to the Halo universe.

I know, but its rather irritating to see reach and 4 got burned at the stake like witches by people, they’re fine games, sure they arent the same… but thats always a bad thing, reach did fine… halo 4’s problem is its a sloppy mess in the middle, its neither a casual game or a competative one, its trying to be both and overextending itself…

126

Run away! Run away!

127

> Ok, so I’ve just had a quick look over some of the posts and it would seem that some people are having a tough time understanding the problem that sprint creates with respect to players sprinting away.
>
> Allow me to explain:
>
> Scenario 1 - Without default sprint.
>
> John begins to shoot Tom, lands about 2 shots with his BR and then Tom realizes what is going on and has a decision to make.
> Understandably, Tom decides he is going to run to the nearest cover, because he doesn’t feel confident that he can out shoot John.
>
> Luckily for John, he is able to continue shooting Tom as he chases him, and before Tom reaches cover, John lands the last few shots and kills Tom.
> John made the right decisions and was able to shoot Tom before Tom was able to shoot him, and so John was rewarded with a kill.
>
> Scenario 2 - With default sprint
>
> John begins to shoot Tom, lands about 2 shots with his BR and then Tom realizes what is going on and has a decision to make.
> Understandably, Tom decides he is going to run to the nearest cover, because he doesn’t feel confident that he can out shoot John.
>
> Unfortunately for John, he has to sacrifice the ability to shoot in order to be able to pursue Tom at an equal speed.
> Tom continues to run, and as a result of not being shot by John, he makes it to the nearest cover.
> Our poor John has not been rewarded with a kill, even though he played well enough to land the first shots on Tom.
> Understandably, John feels frustrated because Tom was able to prolong and even outright cancel the encounter with nothing more than the simple push of a button.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Historically, part of the core gameplay of Halo was the fact that any advantage which set one player apart from another, would have to be earned.
> You played well? You made the right decisions? The game was likely to reward you with an advantage, such as a power weapon or a powerup. You wouldn’t have it indefinitely, so you sure as hell better have used it wisely.
>
> In scenario 2, our friend Tom had an advantage over John when he decided to run away from the encounter, yet he had not earned that advantage and all he had to do was press a button.
> Default sprint creates this problem in Halo, whether or not it diminishes your personal enjoyment of the game.
> It is arguably one of the smaller problems which sprint creates for the game, and is by no means the only problem, but it is a problem nonetheless.
>
> You have every right to like sprint, and you have every right not to care about this particular problem, but there are two things you simply cannot deny:
>
> 1. You cannot deny that sprint has this impact on gameplay, and if you are going to try, I would like you to address my arguments and point out specifically where I go wrong.
> 2. You cannot deny that it is not in keeping with the core gameplay of the original trilogy. What you are allowed to do is not to care about whether or not it does.

These are perfect scenarios. Anyone who disagrees with this are just being delusional.

128

> > > > UH, yeah. The game kinda encourages you to run when you know you can’t win.
> > >
> > > Why is that a good thing for halo? Somebody tell me why that’s good. Stop telling me to kill faster or finushhh ur killz lol.
> > >
> > > Tell me why it’s better for running away from a battle with sprint is better than no sprint.
> >
> > You can sprint too, and can chase them just as easily as they can run, jeez. It isn’t even unfair or anything. It’s good because it increases ones defensive options.
> > How is it bad?
>
> You can’t fire your gun when you sprint. This puts the power into the hands of the defensive player. In previous Halo games you could pursue at the same speed and fire your gun.
>
> The defensive player is usually:
> 1. losing a gunfight
> 2. approached multiple enemies without teammates
> 3. Is out of position
>
> So therefor sprint allows defensive players who fall under scenario’s 1-3 to go unpunished. Sprint undermines map control, skillful map routes,teamwork, and 1v1’s.

Oh, he gets punished alright. They get no kill and risk getting killed in the process of escaping, and even if they do escape they have to wait for their shields to regenerate and still hope nobody can get a shot off on them. Sprint modifies map control and teamwork. Also, quit relying on old ideas and tactics that were from a different games and come up with new ones if the game is so different.

129

> 343 has made it so easy for people to run away from a gunfight. Every time I’m about to kill someone they would run away from me so I would need to chase them just to get my kill. By the time I catch them they’ll be with their teammates, then I get double teamed. It’s so annoying.
>
> I don’t know who in 343 thought it was a good idea to make sprint a default feature. Better yet they made a perk that makes you keep your speed while sprinting when being shot facepalm

Seriously, this “I got the first shot so stand and take your medicine” mentality is the epitome of absurd.

Who give a rat’s butt if you are annoyed because I ran away to stay alive? If I’m alive and you’re dead, why should I care about your opinion of me? You can call me whatever you want. You’re dead.

I’m not playing the game to advance your K/D ratio. I’m playing the game to advance MINE.

Call me noob, coward, whatever. Sticks and stones. Better yet, chase me towards my teammates so that we all get a chance to advance our K/Ds.

Sun Tzu’s opinion on running away is the polar opposite of yours. I believe he knew more than you do.

130

> Seriously, this “I got the first shot so stand and take your medicine” mentality is the epitome of absurd.
>
> Who give a rat’s butt if you are annoyed because I ran away to stay alive?

This is absolutely not what anyone is saying. Have you even read the posts?

“I got the first shot so you should sit there and die” < not what he meant.
“Running away should be more difficult and/or less effective” < is what he meant.

A good player runs away if he’s losing a battle. A better player avoids those situations in the first place. With sprint, the better player’s strategy of avoiding bad situations is negated by sprint being able to bail everyone out regardless of how stupid their decisions were.

With sprint: do whatever you want, and if it doesn’t work out, sprint will bail you out.
Without sprint: be careful, because if you do it wrong, you’re screwed.

131

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

> > 343 has made it so easy for people to run away from a gunfight. Every time I’m about to kill someone they would run away from me so I would need to chase them just to get my kill. By the time I catch them they’ll be with their teammates, then I get double teamed. It’s so annoying.
> >
> > I don’t know who in 343 thought it was a good idea to make sprint a default feature. Better yet they made a perk that makes you keep your speed while sprinting when being shot facepalm
>
> Seriously, this “I got the first shot so stand and take your medicine” mentality is the epitome of absurd.
>
> Who give a rat’s butt if you are annoyed because I ran away to stay alive? If I’m alive and you’re dead, why should I care about your opinion of me? You can call me whatever you want. You’re dead.
>
> I’m not playing the game to advance your K/D ratio. I’m playing the game to advance MINE.
>
> Call me noob, coward, whatever. Sticks and stones. Better yet, chase me towards my teammates so that we all get a chance to advance our K/Ds.
>
> Sun Tzu’s opinion on running away is the polar opposite of yours. I believe he knew more than you do.

Please, just stop talking. You clearly don’t know what this thread is about. Did you even read any of the post on this thread. I’m guessing you just read the title, got offended, then you decided to post nonsense. You standing still letting me kill you is not what I meant. Making Sprint less effective is what I meant.

Seriously read before you post.

132

> Jazzii man Ok, so I’ve just had a quick look over some of the posts and it would seem that some people are having a tough time understanding the problem that sprint creates with respect to players sprinting away.
>
> Allow me to explain:
>
> Scenario 1 - Without default sprint.
>
> John begins to shoot Tom, lands about 2 shots with his BR and then Tom realizes what is going on and has a decision to make.
> Understandably, Tom decides he is going to run to the nearest cover, because he doesn’t feel confident that he can out shoot John.
>
> Luckily for John, he is able to continue shooting Tom as he chases him, and before Tom reaches cover, John lands the last few shots and kills Tom.
> John made the right decisions and was able to shoot Tom before Tom was able to shoot him, and so John was rewarded with a kill.

Yay, he did it.

> Scenario 2 - With default sprint
>
> John begins to shoot Tom, lands about 2 shots with his BR and then Tom realizes what is going on and has a decision to make.
> Understandably, Tom decides he is going to run to the nearest cover, because he doesn’t feel confident that he can out shoot John.
>
> Unfortunately for John, he has to sacrifice the ability to shoot in order to be able to pursue Tom at an equal speed.
> Tom continues to run, and as a result of not being shot by John, he makes it to the nearest cover.
> Our poor John has not been rewarded with a kill, even though he played well enough to land the first shots on Tom.

NNNNOOOOOOOOOoo!!! JOHN WHY, WWWWHHHYYYYYYYYY!!!But seriously it isn’t like john can’t pursue him behind the cover, or wait until Tom comes out. John’s not so great if he didn’t think of that, and don’t say he was too far away if he was so far away he shouldn’t have even bothered to try following him.

> Understandably, John feels frustrated because Tom was able to prolong and even outright cancel the encounter with nothing more than the simple push of a button.

IT’S OK JOHN, THERE IS STILL A WHOLE GAME LEFT TO PLAY(i asssume) DON’T GIVE UP YOU’LL GET ANOTHER CHANCE!!!

> Conclusion
>
> Historically, part of the core gameplay of Halo was the fact that any advantage which set one player apart from another, would have to be earned.
> You played well? You made the right decisions? The game was likely to reward you with an advantage, such as a power weapon or a powerup. You wouldn’t have it indefinitely, so you sure as hell better have used it wisely.

Not necessarily, Sure use the advantages that you get, but just having the advantage was never a guarantee that you would be rewarded, nor was it the core, although it was important, sure. The core of the halos multiplayer was about outplaying the other player with what you had or found, and not hating on them for doing the same.(or the whole game for allowing it). But if you find yourself relying on having one of the advantages, then your playing the game wrong.

> In scenario 2, our friend Tom had an advantage over John when he decided to run away from the encounter, yet he had not earned that advantage and all he had to do was press a button.

Well, first, it isn’t an advantage if everyone has it. Then, second, sprint actually balances the scenario. John gets the first shots off and hits tom, who sprints. This doesn’t give him an advantage, it simply neutralizes Johns.

> Default sprint creates this problem in Halo, whether or not it diminishes your personal enjoyment of the game.

“Problem,” sure.

> It is arguably one of the smaller problems which sprint creates for the game, and is by no means the only problem, but it is a problem nonetheless.

And the others are…?

> You have every right to like sprint, and you have every right not to care about this particular problem, but there are two things you simply cannot deny:
>
> 1. You cannot deny that sprint has this impact on gameplay, and if you are going to try, I would like you to address my arguments and point out specifically where I go wrong.

Did.

> 2. You cannot deny that it is not in keeping with the core gameplay of the original trilogy. What you are allowed to do is not to care about whether or not it does.

Well, this isn’t the original trilogy is it.
The wording makes me feel like this is really biased. I bet you were really freakin proud when you made this.

133

When in one on one battles, I lower this persons shields and he runs away, even though he equally weakened my shields. Talk about no self confidence. Even if his/her shields are not weakened, the person still run. I hate it. I have to say, the best athletes are on Halo 4. They can run and run. They can bark but no bite. Sucks really, I wish someone would come and bite me! So, I can shoot their face off! lol.

134

This is the key issue.

Sprint with forced gun lowering makes it easier to perform well on average. This is because less skills are required to maintain a high k/d or high damage output to damage received.

The reason for this is that sprint diminishes the importance of certain skills such as map control, positioning, reading of the game i.e. prediction and decision making. It doesn’t add any skills to balance this diminuition of skill in other areas.

So really whether you like sprint or not comes down to how skill based you want the game to be.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with running away from situations, infact it is the most logical thing to do sometimes however that doesn’t mean that it should be easy to run away. In Halo 3 for example running away was very possible however to stand a chance of running away you needed to play a lot smarter and be very aware of your positioning. Remaining near cover when being aggressive so you can retreat quickly and being aware of player locations to minimise the chance of being caught from different angles as you cant sprint very quickly.

135

> > Should I just stop and let you kill me then?
>
> Judging by that statement I’m guessing you’re one of the people that run away during gunfights because you can’t kill your opponent by yourself.

So because a person chooses to do that it makes them a poor player? You may not agree with people ‘running away’ but like it or not if you’re stupid enough to run around a corner while this guy has a Boltshot then it’s your own fault you died.

It’s not even that much of an issue. I mean come on, how much serious time is that going to delay the game by? Five? Ten seconds? Big deal.

136

The theory of getting the first few shots equalling “I deserved that kill” is ridiculous. If in a 1v1 fight my opponents gets the first few shots, why should I stick around for you to get the kill, when I can run away, seek safety with my team and kill you? Halo is a team game after all.

By the way if you’re dying from chasing people who have run away, who have turned a corner and charged a boltshot it is your fault, not theirs. They have outplayed you by anticipating you are going to chase, you have not anticipated that they are attempting to trick you. It’s as simple as that. Sprint doesn’t ruin gameplay at all, people just seem to think that Halo revolves entirely around the ideas of better aim, strafing, who is better in a 1v1. The game has adapted and your tactics have too along with it.

137

Annoying yes but not as bad as it was in Reach. At least in H4 the guns kill fast enough to somewhat balance it out.

138

> > Seriously, this “I got the first shot so stand and take your medicine” mentality is the epitome of absurd.
> >
> > Who give a rat’s butt if you are annoyed because I ran away to stay alive?
>
> This is absolutely not what anyone is saying. Have you even read the posts?
>
> “I got the first shot so you should sit there and die” < not what he meant.
> “Running away should be more difficult and/or less effective” < is what he meant.
>
> A good player runs away if he’s losing a battle. A better player avoids those situations in the first place. With sprint, the better player’s strategy of avoiding bad situations is negated by sprint being able to bail everyone out regardless of how stupid their decisions were.
>
> With sprint: do whatever you want, and if it doesn’t work out, sprint will bail you out.
> Without sprint: be careful, because if you do it wrong, you’re screwed.

Running away is running away, sprint or no sprint.

The OP was “annoyed” because people run away. The OP believes sprint disrupts his ability to get “deserved” kills. The OP is “annoyed” because his opponent does the smart thing.

I stated as briefly as I could that his being “annoyed” is no one’s problem but his. Sun Tzu determined that in a no-win scenario it is best to stay alive if possible, because if you’re dead you’re no good to anyone.

If you are playing a game that has sprint turned on, you should expect people to run away and be prepared to deal with it. No one cares if you are annoyed.

Or, just play the games that don’t have sprint.

If you can kill the running player then just kill them and move on. This thread was clearly designed to give the OP a chance to call anyone that defends running away a coward and start a fight. Running away is not cowardly. It’s a tactic. No one wants to spend their limited time in the game sitting in the respawn screen.

OK, you are now free to call me names again. I’m still right.

139

> NNNNOOOOOOOOOoo!!! JOHN WHY, WWWWHHHYYYYYYYYY!!!But seriously it isn’t like john can’t pursue him behind the cover, or wait until Tom comes out. John’s not so great if he didn’t think of that, and don’t say he was too far away if he was so far away he shouldn’t have even bothered to try following him.

You’ll need to try harder than this.

To say that there are alternatives for John AFTER his deserved kill has escaped him is to completely miss the point, and is not an argument in favour of sprint.
That argument could be used for almost anything.

If Tom was to use Armor Lock because John started shooting him first, it’s not like John has lost out on the ability to kill him at all from that point until onwards.
John can simply wait for Tom’s Armor Lock to run out, but is that an argument in favour of Armor Lock? Of course not. The encounter is still undeservedly prolonged, if not cancelled at the mere push of a button.

It doesn’t matter how many options John has after Tom has run away; John has still lost out on a kill which he worked for, simply for the fact that Tom pressed a button. Anything John does after that is ADDITIONAL work for John, which he shouldn’t have to do.

If you still don’t understand what I’m saying, perhaps a more extreme example will help you to recognize the flaw in your argument:

Let’s imagine that instead of a button which allows you to sprint, it is a button which allows you to become temporarily invincible as you’re running away.
Tom could activate it as he runs away, so as not to risk dying from any incoming shots.
The equivalent of your argument in this situation, would be “It’s not like John can’t wait for Tom’s invincibility to run out”, but the obvious (or at least it should be obvious) problem here is that Tom is using an advantage which he hasn’t earned, and is at nothing more than the simple push of a button.
Never mind that he played poorly and made bad decisions, all he has to do is push a button as he runs away and all is fine for him.

So the excuse that John will still have options actually does nothing to support your argument, if your argument is that sprint isn’t a problem.

Now to address some another thing:

“It isn’t like John can’t pursue him behind the cover” - Of course not, and you are doing nothing at all to point it out, as that is 100% besides the point.
No one is suggesting that John can’t pursue Tom; what we are saying, is that John will have to sacrifice the ability to shoot, in order to pursue Tom at an equal speed. This inability to shoot is not a problem for Tom, because Tom’s objective is to escape, not to kill. This is where the undeserved advantage comes from.

Seeing as Tom will be running to his nearest cover, John will automatically be further away from that cover, which means that as long as Tom keeps running from cover to cover, John will likely never catch up to him in order to kill him in the first place.
The cover is keeping Tom safe, but it is likely that the only reason he was able to get to that cover, was because sprint granted him the opportunity to run away from John without being shot (if John is to pursue him at an equal speed).

> IT’S OK JOHN, THERE IS STILL A WHOLE GAME LEFT TO PLAY(i asssume) DON’T GIVE UP YOU’LL GET ANOTHER CHANCE!!!

I’m not sure if this was meant solely as a joke, or as an argument.

> Not necessarily, Sure use the advantages that you get, but just having the advantage was never a guarantee that you would be rewarded, nor was it the core,

I’m sorry, did you just say that like it went any way to proving any of my points wrong? Of course there is no guarantee, what on Earth is that supposed to contradict?

“nor was it the core” - Actually, yes it was. You can sit there and deny that all day long, but that is based on nothing more than ignorance to what core gameplay really is.

> although it was important, sure. The core of the halos multiplayer was about outplaying the other player with what you had or found, and not hating on them for doing the same.(or the whole game for allowing it). But if you find yourself relying on having one of the advantages, then your playing the game wrong.

To put it simply; no, that is not the core. You’re demonstrating a serious misunderstanding of what Halo gameplay originally was.

“outplaying the other player with what you had or found” - This is such a tremendous oversimplification to say the least; it applies to so many different games that I can’t believe you dared to suggest that this is the core of Halo gameplay. This is more evidence that you really don’t know what core gameplay is.

And how exactly is “not hating on them for doing the same” a part of core gameplay? You do realize that hate is an emotion and relates to your mind, not the gameplay of Halo.

Seriously, don’t talk about that which you have no clue about.

> Well, first, it isn’t an advantage if everyone has it. Then, second, sprint actually balances the scenario. John gets the first shots off and hits tom, who sprints. This doesn’t give him an advantage, it simply neutralizes Johns.

What exactly is difficult to understand about this? I’ve never had anyone struggle with it as much as you are.

“it neutralizes Johns” - It neutralizes Johns advantage of being the first to shoot, which is the advantage which John EARNED due to playing better than Tom.
All Tom had to do to neutralize Johns EARNED advantage, was press a button.

Tom doesn’t need the ability to shoot in order to accomplish his goal of escaping death.
John DOES need the ability to shoot in order to accomplish his goal of killing Tom before he escapes.
In order to pursue Tom at an equal speed, John will have to sacrifice the ability to shoot.

If you still don’t understand, then nothing will help.

> “Problem,” sure.

Yes, I know full well that you don’t see it as a problem, because you’ve demonstrated that your values as a player are not based on those which the original core gameplay catered to.

> And the others are…?

New to the forums I take it?

Without going into detail, sprint significantly impacts map design in multiple negative ways.

> Well, this isn’t the original trilogy is it.

No, clearly not, so why the need for ‘Halo’ in the title of an FPS game which makes little effort to adhere to the core gameplay of the very games which gave rise to the popularity of the name ‘Halo’?

> The wording makes me feel like this is really biased. I bet you were really freakin proud when you made this.

Well, you have been unable to demonstrate a bias in my post, so I don’t need to say much to that.

Am I proud? I dedicate an awful lot of time on the forums to correcting fallacies which relate most commonly to gameplay. This isn’t my first detailed post and I’m more than used to it by now.
So no, this has been a walk in the park for me, and walks in the park do not exactly make me proud.

140

> Well, first, it isn’t an advantage if everyone has it.

Untrue. The pursuee has always had the advantage over his pursuer, since the pursuee knows exactly where the pursuer is going to be, which is right behind him (if the pursuer tried to intercept the pursuee at a point, the pursuee is usually able to see on his motion tracker and run even further away, so interception is usually not a good idea). With sprint, the pursuee is even more advantageous than before because the pursuer cannot fire while pursuing. Thus, the pursuee can just keep sprinting away until his shields recharge. The game is now more lenient towards players who make bad decisions.

> Then, second, sprint actually balances the scenario. John gets the first shots off and hits tom, who sprints. This doesn’t give him an advantage, it simply neutralizes Johns.

One advantage was gained by skill, the other was given freely by the game. Skill advantages should not be neutralized by free advantages.

> By the way if you’re dying from chasing people who have run away, who have turned a corner and charged a boltshot it is your fault, not theirs. They have outplayed you by anticipating you are going to chase, you have not anticipated that they are attempting to trick you. It’s as simple as that. Sprint doesn’t ruin gameplay at all, people just seem to think that Halo revolves entirely around the ideas of better aim, strafing, who is better in a 1v1. The game has adapted and your tactics have too along with it.

I did that a lot in the first 3 Halo games; that’s an old trick, not a change.

> The OP was “annoyed” because people run away. The OP believes sprint disrupts his ability to get “deserved” kills. The OP is “annoyed” because his opponent does the smart thing.

I agree with you in that calling people “cowards” because they use sprint is pretty rude and nonsensical. It’s there, so people are going to use it, and so should he in order to compete.

However, I still believe that running away is too easy in Halo 4. Previous Halo games required some semblance of outsmarting and outmaneuvering in order to shake a pursuer; Halo 4 gives you a rechargeable bail-out card.

141

Sprint makes engagements longer than they need to be. All it does is prolong the inevitable, that’s its purpose.

I see no point in its existence to be honest.