> 2533274820483063;2617:
> The new skill that needs to be learned with clamber is when to use it. Anyone who is always clambering will suffer because their fluidity will be gone. I’m not taking anything away from crouch jump from the classic movement at all.
What you’re still not understanding that this skill you’re talking about is the exact same skill as you have with classic movement. Understanding when to use Clamber—or rather, when not to use it—amounts to understanding when you can make a jump with a crouch jump and when you can’t, and being able to time your jumps appropriately. This is the skill you’re talking about, and the introduction of Clamber adds nothing fundamentally new to it.
> 2533274820483063;2617:
> IAgain, I did enjoy the classic movement but to say we the new movement didn’t add depth is not true. Even HCS players were consistently improving from one tournament to another as they learn more about the mechanics.
I have not said that Spartan Abilities, overall, have no depth. What I have criticized is your particular example of how Clamber supposedly adds depth. Don’t get me wrong, I know that there is some amount of depth to Spartan Abilties, I just doubt your ability to point out where it lies.
To clarify, no sensible person is doubting the notion that Spartan Abilities have no depth at all. The question is whether what they have makes up for what they take away, and whether all that is justified given the amount of complexity they introduce.
> 2533274820483063;2617:
> There was no Halo where in the middle of a fight you would go for a hard jump.
Well, that’s besides the point because not all jumps that require sprint are hard. With that said, there are some situations where you might want to go for a jump that requires a fair bit of timing while you’re shooting. In any case, the fact is that jumps requiring sprint decrease the player’s ability to combine movement with combat.
> 2533274820483063;2617:
> So all the options that were there in the past are still there.
As explained above, this is not true.
> 2533274820483063;2617:
> Going back to the truth jump. Going to Max speed in classic Halo did not have any risk unless trying to hide from the radar. Sprint takes away your ability to shoot. That is a risk that has to be taken if you want to make that jump. You have said timing is important in making a jump and it is. It’s also just as important to choose when to do it. Sprint adds a layer of depth because it has its uses but the combination of when and how to use it is where the depth comes from.
Risk, risk, risk. All people who claim sprint to have any meaningful depth talk about is risk and reward, risks and choices. Let me tell you a couple of things about depth. First, the fact that there exists a choice with an associated risk does not imply any depth. I can make the choice to buy a lottery ticket, and there is a significant risk of losing a small sum of money associated to it. However, there is no depth in that choice, because there is no skill or knowledge involved in the choice.
The above is of course patently obvious, but you say “but there is skill because you must know when to use sprint”. But I implore you to consider: what is it that you need to know for using sprint wisely? What particular piece of information do you need to make an educated decision on whether to sprint or not? Is this information unique to the sprint decision, or do you also use it for other decisions in the game? Is there any such information that is unique to sprint? You see, the depth fundamentally stems from your ability to obtain this necessary information and process it to an educated decision. If none of the information or the process is unique to sprint, all the skills used in sprinting are already there even if sprint is not. Then all sprint affects is the frequency at which those skills get used. But if those skills are already in very frequent use, then sprint doesn’t lead to a meaningful amount of depth.
Here’s the second thing I want to say: as a rule of thumb, knowing when to use a mechanic for its intended purpose does not constitute a significant amount of depth. A single such decision is often very straightforward when you have the necessary information. The depth, as explained above, is often in how to get that information, or in the fact that you have to make many decisions in rapid succession (as is the case with strafing). If all the depth you involved in using a mechanic is “knowing when to use it”, then that mechanic probably has not much depth at all.
> 2533274820483063;2617:
> What do you want in Infinite because I doubt we will agree on what adds depth and doesn’t. I just want to know what your looking for exactly while leaving this chat behind
I don’t know. I know I want elegant gameplay (i.e. maximal depth with minimal complexity) where movement and combat are not separated, but are mixed as tightly as possible. I want gameplay where movement doesn’t come in the way of combat abilities, and where movement is integrated to combat via clever map design. I won’t claim to know what mechanics that involves, because some I’m not so sure about, and some I may not have thought of. You see, the issue I have is that I know enough to know that I don’t fully know how mechanics would work without being able to test them out. So I can’t wish for anything too specific that I haven’t already played.
It’s a shame you want to leave the above discussion behind, because I think it’s important to try to understand depth as best as we can. And to be honest, I feel like I was just starting to get warm with the last few paragraphs.