I’ll go on a quote-by-quote case for this one.
> Sprint lowers your gun and renders it unusable for the time you are engaged in it. This contrasts with previous Halos where your weapon was always at the ready, so the frequency where someone could be jumped is increased and as such the winning factor in battle has been increasingly who cleared the chamber first.
Which goes against the fundamental design of Halo’s gameplay. It’s not about who shot first, but who has better positioning, aiming, strafing skills, etc.
> The concept of adding a speed boost to Halo’s already above average walking speed has also said to impede map design and balance, since maps have to be scaled to accommodate the new traversal speed. While such a measure has been accused of harming maps, it is considered a damage control measure since experiments conducted have concluded that older, smaller maps have been rendered unplayable by the speed introduced by sprint.
Conversely maps made to accommodate for sprint are irreparably changed to be dependant on sprint due to how its sightlines and proportions change. Simply removing sprint for a “classic” playlist or gametype won’t work because the design of a map will be vastly different.
> Sprint also presents an opportunity for players to retreat from an unfavourable encounter and live to fight another day. While some assert that the knowledge of knowing when you have been outmatched is a factor of a smart player, others have argued that such a mistake should be punished severely and that the unforgiving nature is key in pushing the skill gap, as the opportunity to immediately fix your error in judgment will only encourage such errors and sloppy play.
It not only does this, but also extends the time of encounters - especially if an opponent decides to run away, forcing the attacker to go into a wild goose chase that is longer than necessary. Players escaping from bad decisions was always in Halo, but sprint exponentially increases that in a negative manner. Sprint is nothing more than a placebo to make Halo’s gameplay feel faster when in truth it slows it down and utterly ruins its prior pacing that was so carefully set up with the weapon’s killtimes, shields, grenade throw distances, splash damage radius of explosives, etc.
> Have I synchronised with this line of thinking?
No, you’ve been dodging the points that have been made time and time again without addressing the issues at hand.
Now, onto your comment about nitro in racing games.
> A nitrous in a racing game is a simple boost in speed that does not impede functionality of the car, sans a bit of turning radius, but the car’s other functions are not impeded.
Incorrect. A cars’ manoeuvrability is greatly impeded when using nitro to gain extra speed. A vehicle trades off its stability, grip and a whole slew of other important aspects in order to be faster. This all being said, going into nitro does not critically disable one of its base mechanics like sprint does with a Spartan that is forced to lower a weapon.
> Now let’s say sprint is a meter based mechanic where the Spartan’s speed is increased. He does not lower his weapon but at the cost of accuracy at range and limited turning radius, just like a car.
That’s a fallacious comparison because the car doesn’t have a weapon. The car (or a player driving the car) doesn’t have to worry about going out of nitro to “attack”. It can, however, continue to go forward, faster. The only trade-off with nitro is that it gets harder to control. Sprint’s trade-off is the inability to attack whatsoever. It would be more accurate to compare sprint to nitro in a car game that features vehicular combat that temporarily disables your weapons (miniguns, rockets and any countermeasure abilities like oil slicks) whenever you use nitro.