Personally, I really enjoyed the movement abilities in Halo 5. I felt it added another layer of depth to the game that was quite enjoyable. That said, if 343 did decide to remove those abilities, I wouldn’t be against that decision. I feel like if they did then the maps would be built around the player movement. Regardless of how 343 decides to take the gameplay in terms of movement abilities, I’m fairly confident it will still feel and play like a Halo game
I like your thinking. But then people who got used to sprint in Halo 4 and 5 (like me) would have to get used to regular movement again. I do think that maps should definitely be smaller unless it’s firefight or 8v8. Instead of outright taking out sprint, we could instead take out the boost, spartan charge and ground pound, because I don’t think anyone will miss those.
> 2533274821339472;3961:
> > 2533274794648158;3960:
> > No, Halo’s gameplay has always showcased combat at all ranges, but the majority of it is mid-range due to the map design.
>
> it was medium and close range. how many kills did you used to get with melee. A lot
Naturally yes there’s some melee combat, but in the case of Halo it’s extremely shallow. I definitely wouldn’t want to design the game where close combat is at the forefront. Gun battles are far more interesting and skillful.
> 2533274794648158;3964:
> > 2533274821339472;3961:
> > > 2533274794648158;3960:
> > > No, Halo’s gameplay has always showcased combat at all ranges, but the majority of it is mid-range due to the map design.
> >
> > it was medium and close range. how many kills did you used to get with melee. A lot
>
> Naturally yes there’s some melee combat, but in the case of Halo it’s extremely shallow. I definitely wouldn’t want to design the game where close combat is at the forefront. Gun battles are far more interesting and skillful.
thats a poor argument. it takes effort to move in melee distance and has a fair balance. if you can get in melee distance then the guy using br got out thought. if a game is just about precision weapons then its a pretty boring game just like halo 5 was. the line between close ranged combat and medium ranged combat is what made halo 3 so exciting, not just boring precision weapon teamshooting, thats why halo 5 gets called sweaty because team work gets abused with the long range precision weapons and there is no alternative way to play if you dont have a team communicating like the other team. thats pretty shallow game design to me
> 2533274821339472;3965:
> > 2533274794648158;3964:
> > > 2533274821339472;3961:
> > > > 2533274794648158;3960:
> > > > No, Halo’s gameplay has always showcased combat at all ranges, but the majority of it is mid-range due to the map design.
> > >
> > > it was medium and close range. how many kills did you used to get with melee. A lot
> >
> > Naturally yes there’s some melee combat, but in the case of Halo it’s extremely shallow. I definitely wouldn’t want to design the game where close combat is at the forefront. Gun battles are far more interesting and skillful.
>
> thats a poor argument. it takes effort to move in melee distance and has a fair balance. if you can get in melee distance then the guy using br got out thought. if a game is just about precision weapons then its a pretty boring game just like halo 5 was. the line between close ranged combat and medium ranged combat is what made halo 3 so exciting, not just boring precision weapon teamshooting, thats why halo 5 gets called sweaty because team work gets abused with the long range precision weapons and there is no alternative way to play if you dont have a team communicating like the other team. thats pretty shallow game design to me
This reasoning confuses me because Halo 5 is the easiest game in the series when it comes to closing the distance between you and your enemy. And no, strafe battles with precise aim will always be more skillful than going in for melees, which have ridiculous lunge and aim assist properties. I’m not saying they don’t have a place, but they’re more of a convenience rather than a showcase of skill.
I finally come to the conclusion that sprint isnt the main problem, the main problem is weapon balance. The Battle Rifle in halo 3 was a medium range weapon and the assault rifle in halo 3 was a close range weapon. Theyre not like halo 5 where they both act like long range precision weapons that can compete each other. Halo 3 AR was only effective when chained with a melee or a smartly placed grenade which was often at close range. The only reason this gameplay was allowed was because the br was trash at long range so it forced the br users to get closer and enter AR territory where you had to watch out for melees and smartly placed grenades.
This was actually the magic of halo 3. It was because the starting weapons encouraged players to gravitate towards each other for excellent close quarter combat. Also because the starting weapons took so much creativity to kill with, it gave a lot of incentive to fight for “easy” power weapons.
I know people love the halo 5 BR for being long range so for halo infinite, the pistol should be the new halo 3 br. The long range BR should just be a pick up on the map. the AR should never out perform the pistol unless you chain the ar with a grenade or melee. So to sum up up, the AR should be trash at medium range and the pistol(halo 3 br) should be trash at long range so that the AR still has the chance to get close to the player and chain melee and grenades. That was always the gameplay loop of halo 3.
> 2533274794648158;3964:
> > 2533274821339472;3961:
> > > 2533274794648158;3960:
> > > No, Halo’s gameplay has always showcased combat at all ranges, but the majority of it is mid-range due to the map design.
> >
> > it was medium and close range. how many kills did you used to get with melee. A lot
>
> Naturally yes there’s some melee combat, but in the case of Halo it’s extremely shallow. I definitely wouldn’t want to design the game where close combat is at the forefront. Gun battles are far more interesting and skillful.
read my above post
> 2533274831283807;3958:
> I think sprint will remain, less or no armor abilities, no clamber, boost, ground wave.
I actually think its more likely to lose sprint and retain some abilities like the thruster and air stabilizer
Sprint or no sprint, the Halo sandbox has always revolved around precision weapons. Short of flat out removing all scoped weaponry or radically overhauling how Halo functions at almost every conceivable level that is never going to change.
Dread it. Run from it. The precision weapons come all the same. Auto starts just add an unnecessary middle man to the proceedings which results in more lopsided matches.
If you think Halo 5 “focuses too much on long range combat” the easiest change you can make is to simply remove sprint so the maps don’t need to be elongated to compensate for sprint and the weapons don’t need their range increased to compensate for the larger maps
> 2533274819446242;3970:
> Sprint or no sprint, the Halo sandbox has always revolved around precision weapons. Short of flat out removing all scoped weaponry or radically overhauling how Halo functions at almost every conceivable level that is never going to change.
>
> Dread it. Run from it. The precision weapons come all the same. Auto starts just add an unnecessary middle man to the proceedings which results in more lopsided matches.
>
> If you think Halo 5 “focuses too much on long range combat” the easiest change you can make is to simply remove sprint so the maps don’t need to be elongated to compensate for sprint and the weapons don’t need their range increased to compensate for the larger maps
halo 3 br was a medium range weapon. halo 5 br and pistol were ultra long range telescopic lazar guns and doesnt belong as a starter weapon in classic halo
> 2533274821339472;3971:
> > 2533274819446242;3970:
> > Sprint or no sprint, the Halo sandbox has always revolved around precision weapons. Short of flat out removing all scoped weaponry or radically overhauling how Halo functions at almost every conceivable level that is never going to change.
> >
> > Dread it. Run from it. The precision weapons come all the same. Auto starts just add an unnecessary middle man to the proceedings which results in more lopsided matches.
> >
> > If you think Halo 5 “focuses too much on long range combat” the easiest change you can make is to simply remove sprint so the maps don’t need to be elongated to compensate for sprint and the weapons don’t need their range increased to compensate for the larger maps
>
> halo 3 br was a medium range weapon. halo 5 br and pistol were ultra long range telescopic lazar guns and doesnt belong as a starter weapon in classic halo
And the BR was an unreliable lottery cannon, it was just the least worst option we had for Halo 3, the starting weapon should be accurate(that doesn’t mean it needs to be hitscan though), but I digress. Even if we accept your hyperbole, it only serves to further prove my point. Sprint and the other “advanced movement” mechanics result in larger maps that require weapons to be more effective at range to be useful within said larger maps. It also requires weapons be easier to use so players can actually hit these fast moving targets in the larger maps.
Again, if your goal is to lower the average engagement range in Halo, you should be against sprint and friends returning.
> 2533274819446242;3972:
> > 2533274821339472;3971:
> > > 2533274819446242;3970:
> > > Sprint or no sprint, the Halo sandbox has always revolved around precision weapons. Short of flat out removing all scoped weaponry or radically overhauling how Halo functions at almost every conceivable level that is never going to change.
> > >
> > > Dread it. Run from it. The precision weapons come all the same. Auto starts just add an unnecessary middle man to the proceedings which results in more lopsided matches.
> > >
> > > If you think Halo 5 “focuses too much on long range combat” the easiest change you can make is to simply remove sprint so the maps don’t need to be elongated to compensate for sprint and the weapons don’t need their range increased to compensate for the larger maps
> >
> > halo 3 br was a medium range weapon. halo 5 br and pistol were ultra long range telescopic lazar guns and doesnt belong as a starter weapon in classic halo
>
> And the BR was an unreliable lottery cannon, it was just the least worst option we had for Halo 3, the starting weapon should be accurate(that doesn’t mean it needs to be hitscan though), but I digress. Even if we accept your hyperbole, it only serves to further prove my point. Sprint and the other “advanced movement” mechanics result in larger maps that require weapons to be more effective at range to be useful within said larger maps. It also requires weapons be easier to use so players can actually hit these fast moving targets in the larger maps.
>
> Again, if your goal is to lower the average engagement range in Halo, you should be against sprint and friends returning.
“Sprint and the other “advanced movement” mechanics result in larger maps that require weapons to be more effective at range to be useful within said larger maps”
give me a good reason why starting weapons need longer range just because the maps a bit bigger. there is no good reason.
if players are too fast to shoot and it means you have to get closer for a better shot then thats a good thing. might actually have to put some effort in for a kill for once instead of relying on sweaty teamshooting all the time.
all im saying is, weapon balance is much more important than sprint because halo 5 without sprint would still be trash
> 2533274821339472;3967:
> I finally come to the conclusion that sprint isnt the main problem, the main problem is weapon balance. The Battle Rifle in halo 3 was a medium range weapon and the assault rifle in halo 3 was a close range weapon. Theyre not like halo 5 where they both act like long range precision weapons that can compete each other. Halo 3 AR was only effective when chained with a melee or a smartly placed grenade which was often at close range. The only reason this gameplay was allowed was because the br was trash at long range so it forced the br users to get closer and enter AR territory where you had to watch out for melees and smartly placed grenades.
>
> This was actually the magic of halo 3. It was because the starting weapons encouraged players to gravitate towards each other for excellent close quarter combat. Also because the starting weapons took so much creativity to kill with, it gave a lot of incentive to fight for “easy” power weapons.
>
> I know people love the halo 5 BR for being long range so for halo infinite, the pistol should be the new halo 3 br. The long range BR should just be a pick up on the map. the AR should never out perform the pistol unless you chain the ar with a grenade or melee. So to sum up up, the AR should be trash at medium range and the pistol(halo 3 br) should be trash at long range so that the AR still has the chance to get close to the player and chain melee and grenades. That was always the gameplay loop of halo 3.
Bold - I don’t know what Halo 5 your playing, but the BR in 5 is laughable!! I don’t know a single person that takes it seriously and I actually talk to people in the game, unlike most. It’s a terrible weapon!!! No offense, but you must be pretty out of touch with the community if you think the majority of people like the Halo 5 BR and I’m talking Halo 5 players here only too because you couldn’t be more wrong.
> 2533274815533909;3974:
> > 2533274821339472;3967:
> > I finally come to the conclusion that sprint isnt the main problem, the main problem is weapon balance. The Battle Rifle in halo 3 was a medium range weapon and the assault rifle in halo 3 was a close range weapon. Theyre not like halo 5 where they both act like long range precision weapons that can compete each other. Halo 3 AR was only effective when chained with a melee or a smartly placed grenade which was often at close range. The only reason this gameplay was allowed was because the br was trash at long range so it forced the br users to get closer and enter AR territory where you had to watch out for melees and smartly placed grenades.
> >
> > This was actually the magic of halo 3. It was because the starting weapons encouraged players to gravitate towards each other for excellent close quarter combat. Also because the starting weapons took so much creativity to kill with, it gave a lot of incentive to fight for “easy” power weapons.
> >
> > I know people love the halo 5 BR for being long range so for halo infinite, the pistol should be the new halo 3 br. The long range BR should just be a pick up on the map. the AR should never out perform the pistol unless you chain the ar with a grenade or melee. So to sum up up, the AR should be trash at medium range and the pistol(halo 3 br) should be trash at long range so that the AR still has the chance to get close to the player and chain melee and grenades. That was always the gameplay loop of halo 3.
>
> Bold - I don’t know what Halo 5 your playing, but the BR in 5 is laughable!! I don’t know a single person that takes it seriously and I actually talk to people in the game, unlike most. It’s a terrible weapon!!! No offense, but you must be pretty out of touch with the community if you think the majority of people like the Halo 5 BR and I’m talking Halo 5 players here only too because you couldn’t be more wrong.
let me rephrase, people love a long range br. i remember when 343 nerfed its range with spread a few years ago and everyone went crazy because it recked its consistancy. i dont know if thats still in, havent played in years. my point is people want a br with long range but it shouldnt be a starter weapon.
> 2533274821339472;3973:
> “Sprint and the other “advanced movement” mechanics result in larger maps that require weapons to be more effective at range to be useful within said larger maps”
>
> give me a good reason why starting weapons need longer range just because the maps a bit bigger. there is no good reason.
>
> if players are too fast to shoot and it means you have to get closer for a better shot then thats a good thing. might actually have to put some effort in for a kill for once instead of relying on sweaty teamshooting all the time.
>
> all im saying is, weapon balance is much more important than sprint because halo 5 without sprint would still be trash
I’m saying all weapons end up needing a longer range because the scale of the game has increased. You think its an accident that suddenly every weapon has the ability to ADS? Even the bloody sword? You can argue the severity of sprint’s effects on the maps and sandbox if you want, but if you think that designers are not taking into account base movement traits when adjusting aim assist, red reticle range, projectile speed, map size, etc, then I don’t know what to tell you.
If you don’t want players to engage from farther away then again you shouldn’t want sprint to be there regardless of how marginal you might think it is.
Yes, if you remove sprint from Halo 5 and change nothing else, Halo 5 is still going to be less than ideal(to put it mildly), I think that is a big reason why a “classic” playlist in a sprint game would bad idea, the game just isn’t built for it. My point is that is Halo 5 had been designed without sprint in mind it would be a fundamentally different game with smaller maps on average with a sandbox to match. You can tweak the sandbox all you want(and you should! I’m not saying the weapon balance is unimportant), but at the end of the day, the Halo designed with sprint is going to have a sandbox that is easier to use at range than a Halo designed without sprint.
P.S. Halo 3 is sweaty teamshot central due to the BR’s random spread. To be clear, I’m not defending Halo 5’s general level of aim assist and magnetism, I would much prefer a harder to use projectile precision weapon as the starting weapon, I just hate random spread and bloom on precision weapons so I don’t think Halo 3 is a good example either.
> 2533274819446242;3976:
> > 2533274821339472;3973:
> > “Sprint and the other “advanced movement” mechanics result in larger maps that require weapons to be more effective at range to be useful within said larger maps”
> >
> > give me a good reason why starting weapons need longer range just because the maps a bit bigger. there is no good reason.
> >
> > if players are too fast to shoot and it means you have to get closer for a better shot then thats a good thing. might actually have to put some effort in for a kill for once instead of relying on sweaty teamshooting all the time.
> >
> > all im saying is, weapon balance is much more important than sprint because halo 5 without sprint would still be trash
>
> I’m saying all weapons end up needing a longer range because the scale of the game has increased. You think its an accident that suddenly every weapon has the ability to ADS? Even the bloody sword? You can argue the severity of sprint’s effects on the maps and sandbox if you want, but if you think that designers are not taking into account base movement traits when adjusting aim assist, red reticle range, projectile speed, map size, etc, then I don’t know what to tell you.
>
> If you don’t want players to engage from farther away then again you shouldn’t want sprint to be there regardless of how marginal you might think it is.
>
> Yes, if you remove sprint from Halo 5 and change nothing else, Halo 5 is still going to be less than ideal(to put it mildly), I think that is a big reason why a “classic” playlist in a sprint game would bad idea, the game just isn’t built for it. My point is that is Halo 5 had been designed without sprint in mind it would be a fundamentally different game with smaller maps on average with a sandbox to match. You can tweak the sandbox all you want(and you should! I’m not saying the weapon balance is unimportant), but at the end of the day, the Halo designed with sprint is going to have a sandbox that is easier to use at range than a Halo designed without sprint.
>
> P.S. Halo 3 is sweaty teamshot central due to the BR’s random spread. To be clear, I’m not defending Halo 5’s general level of aim assist and magnetism, I would much prefer a harder to use projectile precision weapon as the starting weapon, I just hate random spread and bloom on precision weapons so I don’t think Halo 3 is a good example either.
i didnt get the good reason i asked for. the designers of halo 5 had no idea what they were doing. the reason players are further apart is because the weapon balance creates it. then you have to increase melee range, give sword zoom etc to compensate. if we gave halo 3 halo 5’s weapon balance even without sprint it would create the same long range boring precision shooter.
> 2533274821339472;3977:
> i didnt get the good reason i asked for. the designers of halo 5 had no idea what they were doing. the reason players are further apart is because the weapon balance creates it. then you have to increase melee range, give sword zoom etc to compensate. if we gave halo 3 halo 5’s weapon balance even without sprint it would create the same long range boring precision shooter.
I didn’t give you a “good reason” because I was never claiming that starting weapons specifically “needed” longer range in the first place, only that movement mechanics affect the design of the whole sandbox. Weapon balance and the design of core gameplay mechanics are inextricable linked. Players are further apart because the maps a literally bigger to compensate for sprint and the effective range of the weapon sandbox is increased to compensate for the larger maps and faster targets, this isn’t that complicated. I just agreed with you that just removing sprint from Halo 5 is not enough to fix Halo 5’s problems because considerations for player movement and map design are baked into the game at every level including the sandbox and would require huge changes to actually fix beyond just balance. You can’t just remove sprint and fix all of Halo 5’s problems, likewise, you can’t simply balance away Halo 5’s problems either.
If you don’t like how Halo 5 plays(I don’t like how it plays either), then you shouldn’t want to see sprint in Halo Infinite. Even if Infinite has the best weapon design and balance it could possibly have, with sprint in the picture it is going to compromise every aspect of the game and bring you closer to that Halo 5 gameplay that you don’t care for.
> 2533274819446242;3978:
> > 2533274821339472;3977:
> > i didnt get the good reason i asked for. the designers of halo 5 had no idea what they were doing. the reason players are further apart is because the weapon balance creates it. then you have to increase melee range, give sword zoom etc to compensate. if we gave halo 3 halo 5’s weapon balance even without sprint it would create the same long range boring precision shooter.
>
> I didn’t give you a “good reason” because I was never claiming that starting weapons specifically “needed” longer range in the first place, only that movement mechanics affect the design of the whole sandbox. Weapon balance and the design of core gameplay mechanics are inextricable linked. Players are further apart because the maps a literally bigger to compensate for sprint and the effective range of the weapon sandbox is increased to compensate for the larger maps and faster targets, this isn’t that complicated. I just agreed with you that just removing sprint from Halo 5 is not enough to fix Halo 5’s problems because considerations for player movement and map design are baked into the game at every level including the sandbox and would require huge changes to actually fix beyond just balance. You can’t just remove sprint and fix all of Halo 5’s problems, likewise, you can’t simply balance away Halo 5’s problems either.
>
> If you don’t like how Halo 5 plays(I don’t like how it plays either), then you shouldn’t want to see sprint in Halo Infinite. Even if Infinite has the best weapon design and balance it could possibly have, with sprint in the picture it is going to compromise every aspect of the game and bring you closer to that Halo 5 gameplay that you don’t care for.
you didnt address my last point. “if we gave halo 3 halo 5’s weapon balance even without sprint it would create the same long range boring precision shooter.” so if we give halo 3 halo 5’s weapon balance, it will ruin it. we give halo 5 halo 3’s weapon balance, i can only see improvements. i even think it will play close to classic halo and i know sprint cant be removed because thats what 5 is designed for. thats obvious.
“likewise, you can’t simply balance away Halo 5’s problems either.” you would be surprised how easy it would be to re balance it all because like ive said, sprint, map size is not the main thing breaking halo. if only you could understand how bad the weapon balance is and how it affects player behavior.
the reason im supporting sprint is because its not going anywhere im afraid. im just trying to help people to understand that we should be alot more worried about weapon balance anyway.
I’m honestly kind of split on the issue of classic vs modern movement, as I think Reach and 5 did sprint well (you could do it, but with drawbacks) as well as movement like clamber in 5 being a welcome addition for me. If they are going modern, I would prefer the removal of thrusters, Spartan Charge, and Ground Pound (leave it as 5’s specialty, not a standard) while keeping good innovations such as sprint that prevents shield regen, clamber, etc. If they go classic, I still am hoping they leave clamber in as it is really useful in a variety of situations and isn’t intrusive to the point of being contrary to classic movement. Either way, I’m sure that it will take some getting used to like 5 did at first, but I’m excited to see what they ended up doing.
> 2533274821339472;3979:
> you didnt address my last point. “if we gave halo 3 halo 5’s weapon balance even without sprint it would create the same long range boring precision shooter.” so if we give halo 3 halo 5’s weapon balance, it will ruin it. we give halo 5 halo 3’s weapon balance, i can only see improvements. i even think it will play close to classic halo and i know sprint cant be removed because thats what 5 is designed for. thats obvious.
>
> “likewise, you can’t simply balance away Halo 5’s problems either.” you would be surprised how easy it would be to re balance it all because like ive said, sprint, map size is not the main thing breaking halo. if only you could understand how bad the weapon balance is and how it affects player behavior.
>
> the reason im supporting sprint is because its not going anywhere im afraid. im just trying to help people to understand that we should be alot more worried about weapon balance anyway.
Your point is irrelevant, throwing a weapon sandbox designed for a different game with different mechanics is never going to end well. Putting that aside I don’t think Halo 3’s balance is very good either for a variety of reasons. I don’t think adding Halo 3’s “balance” to Halo 5 would result in a much better game.
I have not said anything to the effect of “sprint is the main thing breaking Halo” This isn’t a zero sum game. There can be multiple causes to any given problem that can feed off one another and make it worse. My overarching points with my initial post is that 1.) Precision weapons are always going to be the lynch-pin of Halo gameplay. and 2.) Sprint contributes to an increase an increase in map size which leads to an increase in “long range gameplay.”
If course if you think sprint isn’t going anywhere(I’m certainly not very hopeful it will get removed) then I don’t blame you for focusing on weapon design and balance. Lord knows I’ve had my own complaints about many aspects of the Halo weapon sandbox over the years. I just don’t think you can hand wave away sprints influence on the game and the sandbox at large. You can do your absolute best to mitigate its effects on the rest of the game, but you simply can’t escape the influence of base movement mechanics in its entirety.