> Sprint is useful overall. It bring players from point A to point B faster without needing a vehicle. I commonly used it back in Reach and I still enjoy it in Halo 4.
Of course it is useful, but useful does not automatically mean good.
Armor Lock was the epitome of useful, would you use the useful argument for Armor Lock?
Clearly, usefulness by itself is not an argument in favour of something.
Also, if A is one side of the map, and B is the other, the sprint does NOT get you there faster. Map size has been increased to accommodate sprint.
If A is non-cover and B is cover, then sprint certainly gets you there faster, but that is part of the problem.
Condoning A to B (non-cover to cover) reveals that you like sprint because it acts as a crutch. This is part of why other people dislike sprint.
> Although I see where you’re coming from, I disagree. For starters, when someone knows they are about to die and decide to flee, they typically turn for the nearest cover, that split second of readjusting their trajectory gives an advantage,
That split second of readjusting their trajectory may give a small advantage to the player who is shooting, but it does not compare to that advantage that the escapee gains when he/she decides to flee. The balance is thrown off nonetheless.
> not to mention they are no longer firing, giving you the opportunity to finish them.
This does not mean much at all, as it would not really make the difference if they were firing at you.
A player who flees is most often a player who is losing the fight. If a player who is losing the fight decides to stay, then they will most likely lose.
When that player decides to flee, they give themselves a very real chance of surviving an encounter which they might not have survived, had default sprint not been in Halo.
> Or the fact they are stunned and slow down when shot during sprint.
Stunned and slowed down to an extent, but not to the extent which would make the difference. Not to the extent which would balance sprint to the point of balance which is created when sprint is not present.
> If you miss and fail that opportunity, that’s your own fault.
If you fail to kill a player who is running away with sprint, it is very likely that you would have killed them had they not been able to sprint.
> And people will try doing this regardless of sprint.
That is not an argument in favour of sprint.
People will try running away without sprint, but they certainly wont gain an advantage over the player that they are fleeing from without sprint.
The running away is not necessarily the problem, it is the unfair advantage that is given to the escapee.
As a result of this advantage, people are encouraged to run away more often than they would without sprint.
> Keep in mind it’s also a double-edged sword. They can run to cover, but so can you. It’s not a one-sided fight unless you want it to be.
Again, this does not work as an argument in favour of sprint. Just because the ability is available to both players does not negate the fact that it creates an advantage for the player who is playing badly.
If the “everyone has it” argument was valid, then Incineration Canons as loadout weapons would be fine, as everyone would have them.
But there is always so much more to take into account.
> And sprint should be the least of your worries in regards to ‘get out of jail free’ moments. Take the Hardlight shield for example, it’s basically a mobile armor lock.
If the Hardlight Shield is to return, I at least want it to be a map pickup. I don’t agree with advantages that people start out with and do not have to work for. Map pickups however, are a different story.
Also, you must see that it isn’t the most convincing argument to say that because there is something you perceive to be a worse “get out of jail free card” than sprint, therefore sprint isn’t actually a problem.
If sprint is a get out of jail free card and Hardlight shield is an even worse get out of jail free card, sprint is still a get out of jail free card.