> 2533274804813082;476:
> > 2535440283237581;461:
> > Crouching can and has been used while strafing to make the player a harder target to hit/headshot, is a great utility for ambushing (don’t show up on motion tracker), and can obviously be used to duck under a rocket without having to sprint beforehand.
>
> Crouching significantly slows down the gameplay. While it may be good for infiltration, it’s hardly a better substitiute for evasion. I disagree that it makes a player harder to hit or headshot, as you’re moving significantly slower. To which, it also can be used to duck under a rocket, yes, but that does you no good if you’re already sprinting. This is an instance of “why not both?”
If crouch were used as extensively as sprint is, it would significantly slow down the game’s pace. It is not, so it does not.
Have you ever seen/attempted crouch-strafing? Performed correctly, it objectively makes it harder to land shots (as strafing does) but even more so with headshots (as the head is changing position both vertically and horizontally). Link.“Why not both?” Because you haven’t given a utility of Slide that crouching doesn’t already accomplish and including redundant mechanics is shoddy game design.
> > Because artificially elevating ledges to justify a mechanic is pointless?
>
> They’re not articifically elevated. That’s how the map is designed.
Maps are designed to utilize the game mechanics, not the other way around. The ledges are as high as they are so that players will use the clamber mechanic; the clamber mechanic wasn’t added so that players could reach ledges that were designed to be too high for jumping.
So yes, they are artificially elevated beyond jump height to give clamber an artificial role to play in the game.
> > Because clambering requires you to face the ledge and lower your weapon, thus taking the player out of combat just to navigate the map that they’re supposed to fight on?
>
> The time to clamber is literally 34 milliseconds. That’s nothing.
I find the 34 millisecond claim dubious without a source. That aside, it doesn’t account for the amount of time needed to disengage from a firefight, turn to face the ledge, perform the uninterruptible animation, and turn back around before continuing the fight. All those extra steps instead of just jumping (maybe crouch-jumping) and pushing the thumbstick towards the edge… and clambering is considered an “enhanced” movement option?
While you’re trying to downplay the hindrance that is inherent in the clamber mechanic, there’s a medal awarded for killing a clambering player (Cliffhanger).
> > Isn’t the point of Sprint that you can’t fight while using it? Isn’t the point to require slowing down to allow offensive abilities?
>
> No, the point of sprint is temporary elevated mobility. People seem to be expecting to attack while sprinting, to which there is an option.
The function of sprint is increasing movement speed at the expense of weapon/grenade usage. Its point is to move faster while disabling offensive options (not necessarily all of them). I’ve still yet to hear your reasoning for why it’s arguably beneficial to decrease the players’ number of offensive options in order to optimally move around the map.
> > So easier to perform kills is preferrable?
>
> That’s not what I said. 4 hours ago you asked “What options does Ground Pound provide that jumping down for an assassination/beatdown doesn’t?” I answered, and with what you’ve quoted here I stated that it’s certainly easier than jumping down to assassinate. A ground pound is also not a guaranteed kill unless you’re dead-on-center, which against moving targets is challenging.
- I asked “What options does Ground Pound provide that jumping down for an assassination/beatdown doesn’t?” - You replied “Target reticule, higher damage than standard melee, knockback.” Note that this response doesn’t answer the question; it only lists attributes of the GP mechanic. - I asked for clarification: “So making it easier to perform and more effective?” - You: “Easier to perform and more effective than trying to drop down for an assassination? Yes. Much.” - Me: “So easier to perform kills is preferrable?” - You respond by essentially saying “No, I answered. Yes, it makes it easier but its still challenging.”
> > Benefits of removing Sprint:
> > - No movement interrupts combat readiness.You are able to make every maneuver while engaged in a firefight and without facing the direction you’re moving. - Players can pursue/attack opponents at the same speed as their opponents can flee. With effort, players can retreat effectively without turning away from their opponents. - Maps are designed with more diverse/interesting layouts, rather than pocketed arenas connecting to one another through lanes/corridors.
>
> - As argued, sprinting doesn’t interrupt combat readiness more than any other function or feature. Removing sprint would remove the effect of not being able to fire while sprinting (obviously) but you are still able to maneuver and fire in Halo 5. Sprinting in and of itself does not hinder this, only while sprinting. So this isn’t so much a “benefit” of removing sprint, as it’s not something absent from the game already. Removing sprint would just… remove sprint. So why? - Granted, you can’t attack opponents at the same speed. However this is another example where the “benefits” of removing sprint is… removing sprint. You can already fire at someone using sprint, you can already retreat while firing. How does sprint damage those things? - I already gave you examples from the MC Trilogy that this is not the case. Removing sprint doesn’t affect or allow for this, and maps can be diverse and interesting even with sprint included.
Sprinting does indeed interrupt combat readiness more than many other mechanics. How is this even an argument?
“Removing sprint would remove the effects it has, but with sprint you can still move slower than the maps were designed to be traversed (and must to use your guns/grenades) and shoot/be shot by weapons tuned to be effective against sprint-speed targets. What’s wrong with that?” (paraphrased to make what’s wrong with it evident)
When you concede that sprint removes meaningful options that were possible without it, yet fail to argue any that are only possible with it… I think it’s fair to call that a checkmate.
“Yeah… you can’t do this, but you can still do these other things (that are made less viable by sprint’s inclusion)! So really, what’s the point in removing it?” (paraphrased again)
You cherry-picking a handful of maps from the OT that roughly have the qualities I mentioned (and some of the few that you listed don’t) doesn’t mean that the map selections in those games weren’t more diverse or interesting. Again, “that there are maps in the original trilogy that fit that description doesn’t invalidate what I said. Diversity doesn’t mean that there are no maps like that, but that there are many that aren’t. Meanwhile, about half of the maps in H5 were recycled/tweaked versions of the other half.”