Sprint should appear on Halo Xbox One

I’m probably gonna get a ton of flak for this, but I honestly believe that sprint should remain as a default ability. It makes the matches so much faster, and I just cannot go back to how it was before, I tried playing Halo 3 the other day, and matches were just the slowest things, imo.

But I don’t just look at sprint from a gameplay perspective. In the game fiction, the Spartan IV’s are designed to be more agile and quick than past Spartans. Their GEN2 armor systems were (assuming that they were made with the aid of Huragok) made to be both extremely lightweight yet durable. One might argue that sprint could go back to being an armor ability, but that wouldn’t fit within the context of the fiction, as even though the Spartan III’s wore lightweight variants of MJOLNIR armor, they were GEN1 variants, and humanity didn’t have Huragok then. Also, the armor ability description stated that the Sprint AA was a module that overrode the limiters on the armor which prevented Spartan III’s from exhausting or harming themselves. This wouldn’t make much sense in the new fiction, as Spartan IV’s are designed with agility and speed in mind from the get-go.

Agreed. I like sprint, I’ve gotten used to it, and it will be hard for me to adjust without it again.

Sprint makes the matches so much more thoughtless.

> Sprint makes the matches so much more thoughtless.

Though I disagree, I am interested in your reasoning. What makes you feel that it makes matches “thoughtless”?

I hope it isn’t removed, why make Campaign players suffer?

> I hope it isn’t removed, why make Campaign players suffer?

Exactly, and with Halo being able to run 60FPS, I feel that sprint would really show the difference between current-gen and next-gen Halo, at least in how big the difference is between 30FPS Halo and 60FPS Halo.

We could have the option to enable or disable it in Custom Games.

Matchmaking, I’d rather have playlists with and without it.

I’m not going to re-explain every reason why I disagree with sprint (in multiplayer), so I’ll just list them instead.

[/li]- Sprint results in maps that are larger than they should be in order to play effectively.

  • Having two movement speeds reduces the emphasis on building creative jumps into maps.
  • Sprint encourages the “flight” response more often in fight-or-flight scenarios.
  • Reducing movement speed to compensate for sprint is detrimental to strafing.
  • Cannot shoot while sprinting: Fleeing is now an attractive option in fights and the player forced to chase cannot effectively finish an opponent while doing so.
  • More “run-and-gun” gameplay as opposed to “calculated” gameplay.

Every day, it’s a new thread on this. “I like sprint.” - “I don’t like sprint.” I grow tired of this. In this post, I have little desire to completely reiterate the mindset behind each one of the points listed above. I will, however, address arguments you may have against them. As such, there are plenty of threads on the matter, most prominently this one.

And OP, while I value your opinions, my opinion is that should a conflict arise between gameplay and canon, gameplay takes precedence.

> Agreed. I like sprint, I’ve gotten used to it, and it will be hard for me to adjust without it again.

I also got used to Dual-Wielding in Halo 2 and 3, yet managed to adjust when it was removed in Reach.

Edit: I don’t see why Campaign can’t have sprint and I’m all for a Custom Games option, but I am leaning toward the stance of having the option to enable it instead of disable it, i.e. it is off by default.

> [/li]1. Sprint results in maps that are larger than they should be in order to play effectively.
> 1. Having two movement speeds reduces the emphasis on building creative jumps into maps.
> 1. Sprint encourages the “flight” response more often in fight-or-flight scenarios.
> 1. Reducing movement speed to compensate for sprint is detrimental to strafing.
> 1. Cannot shoot while sprinting: Fleeing is now an attractive option in fights and the player forced to chase cannot effectively finish an opponent while doing so.
> 1. More “run-and-gun” gameplay as opposed to “calculated” gameplay.
> [/list]

Actually, forgers are starting to find the optimal size to build maps with sprint in mind, and the ideal size is remarkably similar to that of Halo 3’s small-mid 4v4 maps. Take for example The Pit, or Orion by SecretSchnitzel, both of which support sprint really well. It doesn’t force developers to make maps too big, it just necessitates a certain formula of design.

Sprint actually gives the opportunity to have more creative tactical jump opportunities designed into maps, I don’t see how it could lessen that.

I agree with your third point, but that’s where slowdown comes into play. Simply keep shots on the sprinting player and the kill is yours. It’s not as optimal as, say, Halo 2, but it’s not bad, and it adds an opportunity for a more defensive playstyle that makes the game more approachable. Also, when playing on something like Orion, you’ll often sprint away from a fight just to run into another aggressor. If maps are designed right, sprint’s detriments are lessened or nullified.

Movement speed should be kept at its current state moving into future games (110% of what base speed was at launch). Sprint doesn’t necessitate slowing down base player movement, but the gap between base movement and sprint speed should be lessened by a bit. Strafe acceleration, while better than Reach’s, seriously needs to be sped up moving into Halo 5.

I agree, but see my earlier point on map design. In addition to that, reducing sprint speed by just a bit (relative to where it is now) and keeping base speed high would reduce the problem.

The “run and gun” problem is mainly a result of the design of Halo 4’s default maps (lacking cover in general, and forcing players to sprint to cover long distances). The fact that you can’t shoot while sprinting reduces the incentive to sprint on well-designed maps, where you can defend yourself better by walking and shooting.

> Actually, forgers are starting to find the optimal size to build maps with sprint in mind, and the ideal size is remarkably similar to that of Halo 3’s small-mid 4v4 maps. Take for example The Pit, or Orion by SecretSchnitzel, both of which support sprint really well. It doesn’t force developers to make maps too big, it just necessitates a certain formula of design.

Perhaps you’re right, but I have to disagree on Pitfall supporting sprint well. It is too small, in my opinion, and has too many tight corners in that small space, allowing players to escape way too easily.

> Sprint actually gives the opportunity to have more creative tactical jump opportunities designed into maps, I don’t see how it could lessen that.

I can see how you would think that, but certain gaps are cleared too easily with sprint in the game. Again using Pitfall as an example. The gap from flat to green box was a semi-difficult jump to make in Halo 3, but with the inclusion of sprint, is now almost effortless.

If we were to increase these gaps to accommodate for sprint and make them difficult, we’re now increasing map size, and this leads back to point #1. Keep in mind, that the jumps that utilize sprint can only be made while moving forward.

> I agree with your third point, but that’s where slowdown comes into play. Simply keep shots on the sprinting player and the kill is yours. It’s not as optimal as, say, Halo 2, but it’s not bad, and it adds an opportunity for a more defensive playstyle that makes the game more approachable. Also, when playing on something like Orion, you’ll often sprint away from a fight just to run into another aggressor. If maps are designed right, sprint’s detriments are lessened or nullified.

In team games, the additional aggressor is welcomed perhaps, but not in free-for-all. And unless your team is coordinated enough (unlikely with random teammates), that aggressor may or may not be there in the first place. Sprinting away is just too attractive of an option to eject oneself out of a fight, even with the slowdown…

> Movement speed should be kept at its current state moving into future games (110% of what base speed was at launch). Sprint doesn’t necessitate slowing down base player movement, but the gap between base movement and sprint speed should be lessened by a bit. Strafe acceleration, while better than Reach’s, seriously needs to be sped up moving into Halo 5.
>
> I agree, but see my earlier point on map design. In addition to that, reducing sprint speed by just a bit (relative to where it is now) and keeping base speed high would reduce the problem.

I believe the base movement speed could be about 120% of Halo 4’s launch, but I agree on the rest here.

> The “run and gun” problem is mainly a result of the design of Halo 4’s default maps (lacking cover in general, and forcing players to sprint to cover long distances). The fact that you can’t shoot while sprinting reduces the incentive to sprint on well-designed maps, where you can defend yourself better by walking and shooting.

Since (I think) there is a serious lack of well-designed maps in Halo 4, I can’t really confirm or deny this. The burden then is on the map developers in the event that sprint is kept. In the event that it isn’t, we already have a plethora of well-designed maps to use as inspiration for the future.

In all honesty, map design is my #1 gripe with the inclusion of sprint in Halo. Maps felt tighter and more technical before its inception. Not that anyone has said this, but it is not nostalgia that drives me to oppose sprint. I just personally think it is detrimental to this franchise (at least in multiplayer).

> > Sprint makes the matches so much more thoughtless.
>
> Though I disagree, I am interested in your reasoning. What makes you feel that it makes matches “thoughtless”?

It’s to do with cover in this case.

A player does not have to position themselves with as much thought when they have sprint, as they can run to cover (get out of jail free) much more easily.

They have an advantage in that when they choose to run away after making bad decisions with their positioning, the player that is shooting them will have to sacrifice the ability to shoot in order to chase the player at an equal speed.
This lowering of weapons does not negatively impact the player who has made bad choices and is running away.

This is not a problem without sprint, and that is exactly why sprint encourages players to be less thoughtful about their decisions.

> I hope it isn’t removed, why make Campaign players suffer?

I’m mostly a Campaign player, and we must put our potential bias aside and ask: why make Multiplayer players suffer?

It goes both ways.

Multiplayer is damaged much more significantly by the presence of default sprint than Campaign is by the absence of default sprint.

If maps in Campaign become so huge that a faster means of transport is desirable, there will always be vehicles.

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.

> A player does not have to position themselves with as much thought when they have sprint, as they can run to cover (get out of jail free) much more easily.

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, not to mention they are no longer firing, giving you the opportunity to finish them. Or the fact they are stunned and slow down when shot during sprint. If you miss and fail that opportunity, that’s your own fault. And people will try doing this regardless of 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.

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.

> I can see how you would think that, but certain gaps are cleared too easily with sprint in the game. Again using Pitfall as an example. The gap from flat to green box was a semi-difficult jump to make in Halo 3, but with the inclusion of sprint, is now almost effortless.

I agree about how it changes how jumps have to be designed (as you mentioned, one on the Pit is far too easy), but I don’t think it reduces the opportunity for them. Look at Abandon for example, and you’ll find a great variety of possible jump maneuvers that incorporate sprint.

> In team games, the additional aggressor is welcomed perhaps, but not in free-for-all. And unless your team is coordinated enough (unlikely with random teammates), that aggressor may or may not be there in the first place. Sprinting away is just too attractive of an option to eject oneself out of a fight, even with the slowdown.

You may be right, but if 343i can come up with ways to increase team coordination in matchmaking (search filters like Reach’s, in addition to one that matches players with microphones together), it would make games a lot less sloppy, with sprint or without. You made a good point about free-for-all, and Orion (damn, I love that map) plays well without sprint, so it could be off by default in free-for-all gametypes, as long as maps are in that sweet spot in the range of Halo 3’s small-mid 4v4 maps.

> I believe the base movement speed could be about 120% of Halo 4’s launch, but I agree on the rest here.

I think 120% might be a bit excessive, even if sprint is off by default, but it’s definitely worth looking at and experimenting with.

> Since (I think) there is a serious lack of well-designed maps in Halo 4, I can’t really confirm or deny this. The burden then is on the map developers in the event that sprint is kept. In the event that it isn’t, we already have a plethora of well-designed maps to use as inspiration for the future.
>
> In all honesty, map design is my #1 gripe with the inclusion of sprint in Halo. Maps felt tighter and more technical before its inception. Not that anyone has said this, but it is not nostalgia that drives me to oppose sprint. I just personally think it is detrimental to this franchise (at least in multiplayer).

I agree that it’s going to be harder for devs to learn to design maps with sprint in mind, since there isn’t much precedent for it, but the community has already begun to create some really nice examples of maps that can make sprint work (though there hasn’t been any such map in the BTB department, as far as I know).
I understand that it isn’t just nostalgia driving your opinion, and I would agree with you that sprint has been detrimental at least this far, but I think it can be integrated well, and that developers just need to learn how to work with it. If, even when the game’s design integrates sprint well, it doesn’t work, than no sprint should be the default, but until then, I think it’s an interesting feature to toy with that could benefit the game if it’s implemented well.

> 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.

> > I hope it isn’t removed, why make Campaign players suffer?
>
> I’m mostly a Campaign player, and we must put our potential bias aside and ask: <mark>why make Multiplayer players suffer?</mark>
>
> It goes both ways.
>
> <mark>Multiplayer is damaged much more significantly by the presence of default sprint than Campaign is by the absence of default sprint.</mark>
>
> <mark>If maps in Campaign become so huge that a faster means of transport is desirable, there will always be vehicles.</mark>

Judging we’ve been somewhat neglected since Halo 2 while multiplayer got more of a focus…

It still has a negative impact with its removal, make it a toggle, then multiplayer games can have gametypes with Sprint or without Sprint, then Campaign, Customs and whatever else is there (hopefully SpOps and Firefight)

And sections where you can’t use a vehicle? I don’t want to be made to glitch vehicles to locations Why shouldn’t I be able to run in Campaign without the movement speed being made higher? In Halo 3 on the Covenant and the Ark there are plenty of sections that would benefit from sprinting, and those have vehicle sections

> Judging we’ve been somewhat neglected since Halo 2 while multiplayer got more of a focus…

I have to respectfully disagree with this.

> It still has a negative impact with its removal, make it a toggle, then multiplayer games can have gametypes with Sprint or without Sprint, then Campaign, Customs and whatever else is there (hopefully SpOps and Firefight)

The problem here is that multiplayer needs to be designed either around sprint, or around no sprint.
Maps change significantly as a result of sprint, so while it is entirely possible to give sprint an on-and-off nature, it is not quite the same story with the impact sprint has on the rest of the multiplayer.

Also, switching between Campaign and Multiplayer would be incredibly irritating for many people, as we are creatures of habit. I personally think that sticking with one is the better option.

> And sections where you can’t use a vehicle? I don’t want to be made to glitch vehicles to locations Why shouldn’t I be able to run in Campaign without the movement speed being made higher?

It’s not that sprint in Campaign is necessarily a problem in itself, but the negative impact that it would have on multiplayer is a problem. And I really can’t see having sprint for one thing and not for another, as a good idea. That’s just me though.

To be honest, while I wouldn’t mind sprint in Campaign, I never really find myself wishing I had it when playing any Halo which doesn’t have sprint.
To me, I think the multiple, significant benefits that a lack of sprint has on multiplayer are far more important than the benefit of moving around faster in Campaign.

Gameplay and balance should always be prioritized over fiction. It’s a video game. Whenever I go back and play Halo 3, I love the lack of Sprint. It makes the game feel smoother, purer, and simpler, with less irritating and jolting distractions and gimmicks.

> We could have the option to enable or disable it in Custom Games.
>
> Matchmaking, I’d rather have playlists with and without it.

This^

And we should design maps for CLASSIC GAMEPLAY, and then ADJUST sprint to WORK FOR THEM.

> The problem here is that multiplayer needs to be designed either around sprint, or around no sprint.
> Maps change significantly as a result of sprint, so while it is entirely possible to give sprint an on-and-off nature, it is not quite the same story with the impact sprint has on the rest of the multiplayer.

This is exactly why I do not want sprint in Halo 5’s multiplayer. Classic maps don’t work well with sprint and sprint-designed maps don’t play like classic-style maps.