The return of classic movement mechanics?

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> > 2535441307847473;5587:
> > Has it? Halo CE had lots of exploration, especially in the earlier missions, but since then we haven’t had many wide open campaign missions, Halo 4 was particularly linear.
>
> Halo 2 was full of exploration, as was Halo 3. Particularly on the Ark. A theme of a game also does not mean map exploration alone, but a general theme. Halo 4 literally has us exploring a new world and finding out more about the Forerunners.

I suppose metaphorically Halo has lots of exploration, but as a mechanic exploration rarely rewards the player like it does in DOOM with secret upgrades and power ups.

> > I fail to see how that would disrupt anything, perhaps ramping BMS up to DOOM levels would be excessive, but a smaller increase would be more than reasonable without sprint.
>
> There already have been increases to BMS. But this is absolutely not the point of Sprint. Again - as has been stated multiple times - the purpose of Sprint as a movement mechanic and tool is to have situational temporary increases to movement. BMS is just that; the Base Movement Speed. Cruising speed. The optimal rate of movement for general traversal and combat movement. Sometimes the situation will call for that to be less, and other times perhaps more.

Sprint is not a highly situational ability with a long cooldown, its a base ability with a very low if not non-existent cooldown, this means that it is not just occasionally used when the player wants to move faster, instead it is used as the new general traversal speed, this is where most of the issues came from.

> DOOM does not present these types of situations. There is never a moment in DOOM where you need to move slowly, and the game always pushes you to be moving as fast as possible. Cover is nearly non-existent, you don’t really have shields to mitigate damage, and your only option is to keep moving to avoid damage.

Actually there are moments in DOOM where you will want to be moving slower to make precise jumps on to small platforms, mostly when looking for secrets. Also moving isn’t the only way to avoid damage in DOOM, there are also weapons which can stun enemies, and enemies can be faltered when hit by certain weapons, especially when you aim for weak spots.

> > Still waiting for some convincing arguments about how negative it would be but I digress
>
> If you’re expecting End of the World predictions, I’m not one for that. However, correct me if I’m wrong but most of the concern surrounding Sprint is in relation to Multiplayer, particularly Matchmaking. And yet the stances seem to come to the solution to remove Sprint entirely.

For the most part yes because the player and the AI have always had vastly different abilities and maps don’t need to be as precisely balanced in the campaign as they are in multiplayer.

> First negative is that this removes a movement option from players in a gamemode that’s not regarded in the complaints. Secondly, as Halo is vehicular based, but a vehicle is not always a guarantee, the removal of Sprint would see a return of areas where movement becomes stale, drawn out, and a chore. This disrupts the flow of the game.

I’m not sure what exactly your first point is, sprint’s presence has always been a major complaint since its inclusion. As for the second point, sprint actually makes movement far more stale because it forces the player to look forward instead of being able to look around and take in the scenery as they traverse across a large area. Sprint also does nothing to get you across large areas faster to make them less stale, if the developers want an area to take a long time to cross, then it will, remember, whatever speed you are allowed to move at is precisely the speed that the developers have planned for, meaning that traversal times cannot be cheated.

> > what I want to talk about here is campaign since it actually leads into yet another problem with sprint which is AI targeting.
>
> I’m sorry, am I to actually consider the challenges presented to the AI?

Not challenges to the AI, the challenges of the developers when it comes to designing the AI.

> There are several problems with this notion. Firstly, it is assuming still and yet again that the utilization of Sprint is to be sprinting all the time.

Never once have I said that the player will always be sprinting, on the contrary I specifically mentioned that the problem presented to AI design is that once the player stops sprinting then their accuracy and reaction time will be too high.

> Secondly, even with a player sprinting all the time, this has never been an issue for the AI. In Reach and Halo 4, Sprint is limited and timed. You physically cannot Sprint constantly. In Halo 5 you can, yet your shields do not recharge and you will take enough damage to where it is not a sound tactic.

The fact that sprint is not always a sound tactic means that players must needlessly limit themselves thanks to a mechanic that punishes them for moving at full speed, rather than simply allowing them to traverse at full speed and fight back.

> Thirdly, if - and that’s a pretty big if - a player is able to speed past every encounter and foil taking damage from the AI, so what?

How in the world do you not see a problem with players being able to skip entire sections of the campaign? Aside from stealth missions, encounters with enemies are not meant to be optional.

> > Many have complained about the insane speed and accuracy of sniper Jackals in Halo 5
>
> The biggest complaints that I see common for Halo 5 Jackal snipers is the ridiculous damage that they do to vehicles. Not to mention Jackal snipers have always been insanely fast and accurate; Sprint has nothing to do with this, and it has everything to do with them using Beam Rifles. Outskirts and Delta Halo in Halo 2 remain some of the most nightmare encounters with Jackal snipers because of this accuracy and speed, as you even bring up.

Actually in Halo 3 Jackal snipers were slower to react and would typically miss their first shot, but they also appeared in larger numbers, which made them remain threatening. I did indeed bring up Halo 2 Jackal snipers but I also mentioned how their problems were largely the result of a lack of time for balancing.

> The “effects” of Sprint on AI targeting is a non-issue.

You didn’t even address it, the problem is that the AI need to essentially have two levels of targeting and reaction times, but in Halo 5 this didn’t seem to be fully implemented.

> > > Halo also has its own style of play, and sprint isn’t equally applied in the games that it appears in.
> >
> > Neither has weapon balancing been equally applied. Look at the constant evolution of the magnum. Or various vehicle changes. That something is changed to find a more optimal method of application doesn’t mean that it needs to be scrapped entirely.

At the same time however there have been mechanics that have been scrapped entirely such as dual wielding because they have been too difficult to balance.
1/4

[spartan1745841]

i fell quite conflicted about sprint because i joined at halo reach i did quite like that sprint where it was fast but it only lasted a short bit but i am not a big fan of halo 5 sprint because i feel like it was a bit to fast to be able to do be able to do constantly however if it was slowed down a bit so that you still do move a noticeable amount faster than just normally walking i would be quite fine with it, and on the other advanced moment mechanics like ground pound and spartan charge i really don’t like them for the reason of them being a one hit melee kill without a melee wepon

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> > Halo may not be as intense as DOOM but it is closer to DOOM than it is to an open world RPG.
>
> Not really. For example, minus fodder enemies like the -Yoink!-, DOOM’s combat encounters are always in an arena. You can step into a room and know that there’s going to be a battle. In contrast, with Halo - and several open world RPG games like Skyrim or Cyberpunk - combat can be encountered in any area, with degrees of intensity. We’ve all likely memorized Halo, so it’s not a surprise anymore, but there are a number of varied battle scenarios. Arena-styled defenses like the courtyard on Outskirts. Random Hunters in a closed space on Assault on the Control Room. Long corridors filled with enemies like on Cortana.
>
> The only closeness that Halo and DOOM really share is power armor and guns.

The size of the areas that encounters happen in is not the only consideration to be made here, the bigger distinctions between FPS games and RPGs are that of interactions with NPCs and skill points. In RPGs, the player must enter numerous towns to speak with NPCs to discover quests and then decide to either work on certain quests, or simply explore the world, in an FPS like Halo though, there is no choice, the player is instead given an objective and they must complete that specific objective to move forward. You also don’t spend a significant amount of time talking to NPCs either. As for skill points and skills in general, these do not exist in FPS games, or at least not in any significant way, its not as if you need to get 50 kills with an assault rifle to increase your automatic weapon skill, and its not as if you can’t use certain weapons without a certain skill threshold, or that weapons fire less accurately if you aren’t skilled enough. Generally, in an FPS you start off as a badass, and in an RPG you start off as a mostly normal person and then you slowly become a badass.

> > What you haven’t backed up however is what the point of presenting what is and is not basic even does for the conversation. Who cares if sprint or any other mechanic has become a basic mechanic in so many other games, we should only care if they work with Halo’s formula.
>
> And in like form, it hasn’t really been shown or proven that Sprint does not work with Halo’s “formula”. The “formula” hasn’t even been agreed upon or solidified as factual.
>
> Pointing out the common basic is just that; the basics. From there, does a game add or remove to that to fit a given theme or playstyle? DOOM, for common example, omits Sprint because there is no need for it. (Yet it does have a Dash function). It also removes reloading, which is another basic mechanic. Because again, that fits with DOOM’s theme; you are supposed to be in constant, rapid combat. No downtime for taking cover, letting shields recharge, or reloading. Run and gun until there’s nothing left, that’s the DOOM way.
>
> But that’s not the Halo way. Halo gives you a limited magazine, where you are forced to reload. Sometimes, like with SPNKr’s, that reload is costly. Halo also gives you shields to manage. And now, when you are in a potentially compromising situation, Halo offers Sprint to potentially find safer ground and regain the advantage.

What I and others argue is that the increased potential to find safer ground and regain the advantage is detrimental to the games flow and balance overall, and it lowers the risk of poor positioning and decisions, among many other issues that we have been discussing. I also believe that it is simply not needed as the franchise has thrived without it before.

> > This is probably the weakest argument for sprint of them all, a real Spartan is more than capable of moving at full speed without swinging their arms back and forth, their muscle strength, response time, and advanced power armor allow them to easily fire accurately on the move.
>
> Cool, so let’s add hipfire to Sprint for Campaign, and perhaps as a Tactical Perk for Multiplayer to keep a level playing field. Because again, I’m not only talking about Multiplayer. Raising the BMS is not a viable option.
>
> The point is that Spartans can move faster than 15 mph. Much faster. Yet they don’t move at top speed all the time. And while a Spartan can do amazing things, sometimes they do slow down to fire accurately; look at snipers like Linda.

The inclusion of tactical perks implies the existence of a loadout system which destroys the existence of equal starts which is core to Halo. Raising the BMS is certainly a viable option, it addresses the issues that many find with the older games while not introducing the other numerous issues that sprint creates.

Lore arguments are once again worthless as the multiplayer can never be totally lore accurate, and even so, Spartans can fire snipers accurately on the move, but not accurately enough to hit targets from miles away.

> > Which mostly involve either running away or running to a fight or objective which both reward players for running away and do not punish players as badly for poor positioning.
>
> Sprinting toward a fight does not reward players for “running away”, neither really does Sprinting from a fight. Again, your shields do not recharge, so each hit taken is costly. And if they do manage to get away, then perhaps the pursuers should either be better shots or coordinate for better map control. Sometimes people get away; this has happened long before Sprint.

Getting away with broken shields is better than dying, its a reward plain and simple, people may have gotten away before, but it was never as easy.

> > How exactly do you determine whether or not something is a gimmick? Wall running works in some other modern FPS games, why doesn’t it in Halo? And once again sprint being a standard is both wrong (not every FPS has it) and meaningless, what matters is whether this “standard” is good for Halo.
>
> A gimmick is something meant to attract attention. To stand out. That Sprint is a standard movement mechanic (it is; four games that omit it do not negate this) means quite plainly that it cannot be a gimmick. When a vast majority of FPS (and other) games have the mechanic, it doesn’t stand out.And y’know, I think wall running could work in Halo. But that’s hardly relevant right now, and it’s still a gimmick.

At the time of Halo 4’s release and even more recently I have heard people say that they were attracted to the game because of sprint and that they may even not play another sprintless Halo. Even as a supposed standard a newly included mechanic can function as a gimmick if people are attracted because of it, especially if its inclusion is detrimental to the game.
2/4

[TheKiltdHeathen]

Who are “some people”? I understand you’ve said that such arguments aren’t directed at me if I’m not making the claim, yet you’ve quoted me to state that and thus far I believe I’m the only one that has put forward - with numerous examples to support - that a Sprint mechanic has become a standard inclusion. I have also been quite clear that being a “standard mechanic” (demonstrable across a very large list of games) does not mean that a games success hinges on inclusion of Sprint.

Just to put my stance in the clear, unburied in quote blocks and essay replies.

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> > When it comes to cover, the problem doesn’t emerge from a lack of it on the map, but rather its spacing. On maps designed for sprint, cover has to be spaced farther apart which means that unless the BMS is significantly increased beyond reason the cover will be too far apart to use as easily.
>
> I think you need to provide some examples for this “spaced-out” cover compensating for Sprint. 4v4 maps, designed with Sprint in mind, have ample cover for BMS as well. Plenty of corners, props, and doorways. Long hallways existed in Halo 2 and Halo 3, and quickly gained reputations as sniper traps and kill zones. Areas like the ramps on Lockout and Blackout, several hallways on the Pit, and sidepaths of Construct.

In maps where cover is easily reachable with BMS, it will be even more easily reachable with sprint, meaning that either cover camping, or heavy CQC with be encouraged, where otherwise more medium or even long range combat would have been viable. Of course there were hallways and other good sniping spots in the older games, but their length would need to be increased if sprint was in the game, otherwise map traversal would occur too quickly.

> > > 343 have already introduced remakes of older maps that are larger than the originals
> >
> >
> >
> > > And they’ve released maps that are exactly the same size as maps from Halo 3 (Pitfall, Ragnarok) that function very well with Sprint and without. That map size has increased to accommodate Sprint - potentially - does not mean that it requires it, or ruins sticking to BMS.I asked before for examples of areas where Sprint was a necessity, and all that was given were Trick Jumps and shortcuts; only one trick jump required Sprint, and it also required a thruster and clamber. So, can you provide some examples for where Sprint is an absolute necessity, and the map cannot reasonably be traversed with BMS?

In any cases where maps were not stretched, map traversal was faster while sprinting and in the case of Halo 4, moving around with BMS was slower. In either case, sticking to BMS when everybody else is sprinting is again not a viable option. I’ve already gone over this but yes, technically any map can be traversed with BMS, but if sprint is a base mechanic then you’re just hurting yourself, sprint is required in the sense that you can’t play on an even level against others who use it when you refuse to.

> > When I said slow down I was referring to the players speed not the time it takes to stop sprinting.
>
> Then that’s a problem on the player’s side, and not the mechanic itself. Especially that you can fully turn while sprinting in Halo 5, if a player is so inattentive, they would be equally so even without Sprint.

No, the fact that the game forces you into an animation and to look forward to move at full speed is in no way the player’s fault. Sprint passively takes away a player’s ability to be attentive, by making them slow down to check rooms rather then being able to look around while moving at full speed.

> I have always acknowledged that Sprint has disadvantages. How many times have I pointed out that your shields don’t recharge?

Once again, lowered shields are much better than being dead.

> No, I don’t see a problem in removing the ability to fire while sprinting because 1. A pull of the trigger immediately ends sprinting and begins firing,

And as I’ve stated before, you’ll still be at a disadvantage because of the forced forward direction of sprint.

> Sprint is a tool to be used tactfully, not all the time (also stated many times)

Except this isn’t how sprint is used in practice because its a base movement mechanic which is required to keep up with the pace of other players, people typically only stop sprinting when they spot an enemy or a vehicle/object to interact with, of course people should stop to look around but that involves slowing down which in the past wasn’t even necessary.

> There will always be something to present risks, and something that removes a players ability to “minimize” this. Everytime you reload, everytime you jump, everytime you leave cover. It’s combat, and there are always going to be risks.

Yep, there will always be risks, but sprint takes away your ability to minimize many of those risks, putting minimize in quotations doesn’t invalidate this.

> That Sprint presents risks to its usage is a non-argument. All your counter-points here that amount to “well, that’s on you” or “you should be…” can be just as easily applied to Sprint. They’re not rebuttals when it boils down to “get good”.

This is a strawman argument, you brought up certain situations which involved risk, I explained how these situations could be influenced by player choice in order to make them less risky, the problem with sprint is that it isn’t a choice, you’re forced to use it to remain competitive on the battlefield, it creates risk in areas of the game where there was either none or less before such as moving through a potentially unsafe area, and it removes some risk from other situations such as running away. You declaring this a non-argument doesn’t make it so, I could just as easily dismiss everything you have said as non-arguments but I prefer to actually counter them.

> > That’s only the case if the maps are too big, otherwise the BMS is fine and will suit the needs of the player,
>
> How do you know? As an example that I’ve given before, my friend and I were just playing some ODST Firefight. Several times Sprint would have been absolutely useful for us to rush to meet enemies dropping in before they got the chance to spread out. But, because the BMS was all we had, they were able to lead us on goose chases mopping them up. Sprint has application, even in the older games where the maps weren’t “built” for it, and you don’t need a wide-open field to use it. Even a brief stint of speed in a small hallway can sometimes be the difference between setting an ambush and being ambushed.And again, with your other examples you’re assuming that only Matchmaking is being considered. Enemies deploying and spreading out applies to Firefight and Campaign, where Sprint has just as much application.

This once again shows the illusion of speed that sprint creates, if the developers wanted the enemies to be safe from being attacked while being dropped off, then their spawn would have been placed farther away or perhaps behind a barrier, you cannot do anything faster than the developers allow you to. The supposed potential for the application of sprint in the older games only exists because you aren’t acknowledging the goals of the developers at the time.
3/4

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> > Meaning that vehicles have been effectively nerfed and Scorpions will camp at one end of the map even harder than usual.
>
> Vehicles were nerfed the moment boarding became a mechanic. Regardless, I’ve been saved many times by attentive and skilled teammates who killed the boarding Spartan before they could do damage. If they managed to board me, because Sprint alone rarely allows a player to catch up to a vehicle. Rather, with an application of map control, it can aid in cutting off a vehicle. What was more detrimental to vehicles was removing the ability to flee a vehicle once you’ve been boarded.

Boarding did nerf vehicles, but it was not as easy to pull off without sprint. A lot of those Spartan who you were saved from likely wouldn’t have even managed to board you without sprint, either way it discourages vehicles from moving as far forward because of the increased speed at which a vehicle can be boarded. As for not being able to flee from a boarded vehicle, you’re usually kicked out when you are, and in the case of the Scorpion and Wraith you can point your gun towards a nearby wall and blast the spartan off if you’re close enough, and even if you could flee the resulting explosion from the vehicle would usually kill you anyway.

> > Overall, it seems that you aren’t considering all of the risks that sprint presents and are downplaying the ones you have considered.
>
> Then by all means, bring up some of these unforeseen risks, more than arguments of “get good”.

Strawman argument is still strawman. You know yoinking well that the list that I responded to was not my entire response.
4/4

[Celestis]

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> Yet the lore is brought up when people say that Sprint doesn’t belong in Halo. As though the mechanic and motion that it emulates has no place in the overall game. Which is, canonically, ridiculous.

Gameplay always trumps lore.
Canonically, Spartans can also go prone, hell, we even see it in Reach’s third mission. That doesn’t mean that adding a prone ability would necessarily make the game better.
See, I’m not arguing for the removal of sprint because of lore. I just don’t see any merit in it from a gameplay point of view.
It’s just that there isn’t a canon reason to include it in the first place, unlike for the aforementioned proning, as the current implementation (weapons down to go zoom) goes contrary to how Spartans have always been portrayed.

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> one of the drawbacks - and at this point, a very minor one - is that you cannot shoot while sprinting.

I absolutely disagree that it’s a minor one. The lack of synergy between movement and shooting is one of the biggest complaints against the sprint mechanic. Shooting while running worked completely fine for a decade, why did it suddenly need to get a drawback?

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> Halo 5 was reported as the most played of any game on Xbox One, as well as the most played on Xbox Live, during its first week

This is actually a very interesting source that I didn’t know about yet. I’m particularly talking about the “21 Million hours played” figure after a week. Because we have another number from Major Nelson’s “End of the Year Summary” that on average, people played 20 hours of H5G in 2015. Perhaps it’s possible to use these numbers to extrapolate how the sales per week developed.

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> Specifics for how big of a chunk that is are unknown.

Correct, so the gross total income cannot be used as proof. It’s like comparing the weight of a container of apples to that of a container that includes an unknown amount of apples mixed in with an unknown amount of oranges mixed into it.

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> You have no way of knowing that, if the digital sales don’t have an exact figure. You’re estimating.

Probably. That being said, we know from EA’s financial reports in 2015 that roughly 10% of all video game sales at that time were digital. So slap another 500k on that 5-Million-number, it’s still lower than anything after Halo 2 (and probably Halo 2 itself as well).

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> But going off this theme, does the increase in scale from weeks for Halo 2 to months for Halo 3 suggest Halo 3 was a failure? Odd, as it’s gone on to be the best selling game ever, apparently.

The “increase” only exists because I couldn’t find a 3-Month-figure for Halo 2. However, knowing that the game needed mere weeks to sell what H5G shipped in three months is still a valid comparison.
That being said, if you can find how many units Halo 2 sold after three months, I would gladly take it into consideration.

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> If Halo 5 sold fewer consoles than any other game, then I guess not a whole lot of that $400 million can be hardware, huh?

Probably less than previous titles, yes. That being said, the game itself costs around ~60$ while the H5G console bundle was priced at 500$, with the themed controllers coming in at 70$. The hardware contributes far more per unit sold to that 400M$ figure than the game itself. Obviously, this also applies to Halo 4 and Reach, but actually not to Halo 2 and 3, as those games didn’t have a console bundle. (Halo 3 weirdly enough had a Limited Edition Console that came without the game. I should know, I had to drive to a local store after it was delivered, as I had nothing to play on the device.)

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> The article also goes on to note that Halo’s “decline” coincides with the departure of Bungie, and the prior poor release of the Master Chief Collection. This could mean a myriad of things, all of which are pure speculation.

For the record: I don’t care about what the rest of the article said, I only quoted it for the numbers.

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> Areas still exist in the game where stealth is atmospherically suggested, and taking things slow does give you an advantage of not being noticed by the patrols.

Not in campaign, it doesn’t. As already said, movement speed does not affect how enemies react to you, the only criteria is line of sight. You can be running around in circles all you want as long as you are behind a corner. Also, you’re misrepresenting how exactly the game encourages you to “take it slow”: The best approach is to wait until said patrols have their back turned to you, then sprint forwards to backsmack them. The “slow” part comes from waiting for the perfect opportunity, not from actually moving slowly behind the enemies, as that only gives them more time to turn around yet again. It would be different if the enemies in the game also had a motion tracker, that could be fooled by crouching, but that isn’t the case.

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> This objection also omits the still-valid point of moving slowly in Multiplayer to stay off motion tracker.

I omitted it precisely because it was a valid point. I didn’t have any objections to that particular statement, so I didn’t quote it.

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> I disagree. Giving the models a defaulted animation for walking indicates that 17 mph - max BMS - isn’t supposed to be the only speed you travel at. Functionally, this -Yoink!- in suggesting to the players to explore their surroundings.

This cannot be the case because the player himself doesn’t see this new walking animation. You’d have a point if Halo had been a third person shooter but as Halo is played from first person perspective, this is plain false.

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> While speeding through the game is an option, and has made its own sub-community, Halo has always been story-driven, emphasizing environmental and thematic exploration as well as analyzing the battlefield and applying a wide range of tactics. Contrary to what Celtic Dragon suggested, the central theme of Halo has never been going as fast as possible all the time. Subtle themes aside, this is plainly disproven with the various territory defense areas (e.g. cargo bay of the Truth and Reconciliation) and rail-segments (gondolas on Delta Halo and the Library of Delta Halo).

Moving at max speed is not the same thing as speedrunning. Evading enemy fire with fast movement is just as crucial in those defense segments as it is in the “get from A to B” sections.
Furthermore, those very gondola segments were highly criticised in Halo 2 for being nothing but boring padding of game time, which is likely why they are completely absent from Halo 3.

> 2533274804813082;5612:
> To be fair to history, Sprint has been a thought since Halo 2, and the coding for that still remains in the game. It was cut due to time and technical difficulty with application (they opted for the move forward long enough and Sprint engages). I couldn’t say why it wasn’t in Halo 3, but it certainly would have worked with the maps. Pitfall (Halo 4) is evidence of that.

That is blatantly false. Sprint only existed in the very early stages of Halo 2’s development and was cut quickly from the game due to pacing issues to the point that not even all weapons got animations for the mechanic. This was confirmed by an artist who did exactly those animations as well as by Creative Director Marcus Lehto. It’s total absence in Halo 3 supports this, as that game specifically introduced nearly all features of earlier games that the team couldn’t get to work previously; such as the Mongoose, Flamethrower, enemy variants like the Drinol (reimagined as a flood pure form), etc. However, not only is sprint not in the game, there isn’t even a trace of it in the data files, like in Halo 2.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2535441307847473;5622:
> I suppose metaphorically Halo has lots of exploration, but as a mechanic exploration rarely rewards the player like it does in DOOM with secret upgrades and power ups.

No, not metaphorically. Thematically. Finding this huge, mysterious ringworld in space. Exploring it’s secrets. Learning of the Hierarchs plot, finding yet another Halo Ring. Discovering there are more all over the Galaxy, and a larger structure called the Ark. Going to the Ark. Exploring a living Forerunner world. Breaching into the Domain and the center of Builder culture.

And while Halo doesn’t have upgrades, there have been secrets and hidden items (powerups were never hidden in either game) since Halo 2. Skulls and Terminals and Easter Eggs only attainable through skill jumps. Hell, counting that actually there were a few in Halo: CE, like the MEG room and the Thirsty Grunt.

> instead it is used as the new general traversal speed, this is where most of the issues came from.

This looks like a claim that can’t be backed up. Preemptively, mine can in that if the “new general traversal speed” was intended to be the speed that Sprint put you at, they would have simply increased the BMS. But they didn’t; rather it is something you have to manually engage, like jumping. To be fair, I think Halo 4 did it best where it’s limited to a burst and a cooldown, but even in Halo 5 this doesn’t change that it is a temporary boost to movement speed, not general traversal.

> Actually there are moments in DOOM where you will want to be moving slower to make precise jumps on to small platforms, mostly when looking for secrets. Also moving isn’t the only way to avoid damage in DOOM, there are also weapons which can stun enemies, and enemies can be faltered when hit by certain weapons, especially when you aim for weak spots.

I’ve gotten all the secrets and Doom Guy dolls, and can’t think of one where I needed to move slow. At most, stopping to plan where I was going to jump next.

As for avoiding damage, stunning an enemy stops you from being damaged by that enemy. What about the three Imps hopping around the fringes hurling fireballs at you, or the Cacodemon flying up above doing the same? Unless it’s a boss fight, DOOM doesn’t present you with only one enemy to worry about.

> I’m not sure what exactly your first point is, sprint’s presence has always been a major complaint since its inclusion.

In Matchmaking. I’m talking about Campaign, which would be affected if Sprint is completely removed as has been suggested before.

> As for the second point, sprint actually makes movement far more stale because it forces the player to look forward instead of being able to look around and take in the scenery as they traverse across a large area. Sprint also does nothing to get you across large areas faster to make them less stale,

Firstly, you seem to be still applying the assumption that players are going to be sprinting all the time. That’s not necessarily the case, yet even if they do (as you mention scenery we’ll assume Campaign), so what? It’s their game to play, and if they’ve seen it before and don’t feel the need to slow down and appreciate the view every time, who are we to tell them how to play? Secondly if they’re in a vehicle, they’re likely not paying attention to the scenery regardless.

Lastly, your last quoted statement is demonstrably, factually false. Sprint does factually add speed to your movement for periods of time (I would support a return to a limited duration), and does shave time off your traversal. Neither is this a matter of “cheating” the map.

I said before - I don’t remember if it was to you or not - especially in Halo, player agency is a huge factor of map traversal. Several options are presented for a variety of playstyles and preferences. There are very rare instances where a given stretch is intended to take a certain length of time (The Maw and Halo are the only two that come to mind.) This ideology was greatly spoken on in the latest Ask343 video.

> Not challenges to the AI, the challenges of the developers when it comes to designing the AI.

Which remains still a complete non-issue. Less so, in fact, as Halo uses a majority of hitscan weapons and magnetic projectiles, and AI targeting relies on codes, not human judgement and reflexes. Having an AI target a sprinting Spartan is no more difficult than having them target a faster moving vehicle. Or accounting for variables in sporadic player movement.

And, if you’re not suggesting that a player will be sprinting all the time, screwing up the AI targeting, then the moments where a player slows down is when the AI catches up. Even still I won’t be shedding tears for the AI if a player manages to get away. We’re supposed to prevail against the AI.

Your argument, as well, that their accuracy and reaction time will be “too high” is also preposterous. Were this the case, then the AI would be set even higher to compensate for vehicle speeds. But I’m willing to bet that’s not actually how it works.

> The fact that sprint is not always a sound tactic means that players must needlessly limit themselves thanks to a mechanic that punishes them for moving at full speed, rather than simply allowing them to traverse at full speed and fight back.

The fact that reloading is forced on players often at inopportune times means that players must needlessly manage their ammo while in combat, thanks to a mechanic that punishes them for missed shots and wasted rounds, rather than simply allowing them to continually fire from a massive pool of ammo.

See, anything can be spun negatively without actually making a rebuttal. That it isn’t a sound tactic to Sprint across a battlefield of enemies because you’re going to still take damage does not mean Sprint is bad. It’s in the same league as knowing not to fire a rocket in a very close tunnel to take out a patch of Flood Infection Pods.

> How in the world do you not see a problem with players being able to skip entire sections of the campaign? Aside from stealth missions, encounters with enemies are not meant to be optional.

You’re keen to take a very “One Way To Play” Approach. How do I not see a problem with it? Well, for one how they play the Campaign isn’t my business. For two, that’s been common since Halo: CE. Anyone who’s blown down the Banshee in Assault on the Control room and skipped everything to the point that enemies just didn’t spawn will tell you this. Anyone who speed runs maps will tell you this.

> I did indeed bring up Halo 2 Jackal snipers but I also mentioned how their problems were largely the result of a lack of time for balancing.

Y’know, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it shown anywhere that Halo 2 was so nightmarish on Legendary because of a “lack of time for balancing”. And that’s really the only time Halo 2’s Jackals become ungodly insane; Legendary, and Heroic if you’re inattentive.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> At the same time however there have been mechanics that have been scrapped entirely such as dual wielding because they have been too difficult to balance.

Dual wielding (and so far as we know Spartan Charge and Ground Pound) is the only mechanic to have been scrapped entirely. So far as Reach, it was apparently removed because the Sandbox “wouldn’t support it”. There’s no source given on that bit of information, and it’s odd in that some AI dual wield. I can hunt for it, but I remember it being said once that it was removed because Frankie didn’t like it, and it wasn’t something that saw widespread use.

Regardless, it has yet to be shown how Sprint is unbalanced. Just a lot of opinions on it, and what Halo “should be”.

> 2535441307847473;5624:
> The size of the areas that encounters happed in is not the only consideration to be made here, the bigger distinctions between FPS games and RPGs are that of interactions with NPCs and skill points.

Then DOOM is closer to an Open World RPG than Halo is. DOOM has weapon upgrades, armor and stat upgrades, and equipable perks.

Skill points and skills also do exist in FPS games like Cyberpunk 2077, Fallout 3 & 4, and Borderlands 1-3. Hell, Cyberpunk even does reward skill progression by using the skills; your example of “50 kills with an assault rifle to increase your automatic weapon skill”.

> What I and others argue is that the increased potential to find safer ground and regain the advantage is detrimental to the games flow and balance overall,

How. You argue it, but you haven’t quite supported it. How is it a detriment to the flow and balance of the game?

> The inclusion of tactical perks implies the existence of a loadout system which destroys the existence of equal starts which is core to Halo.

Really depends on what those tactical perks are, doesn’t it? None of the ones that have been introduced offered any great advantage to players, and neither would a “Hipfire perk”. So long as shields don’t recharge while Sprinting, incentivising measured movement whilst in combat, being able to fire while Sprinting becomes no great advantage at all.

Loadouts also do not tread on Halo’s “equal starts” ideology when every weapon given to you in those loadouts are not Power Weapons, and offer no great advantage over other loadouts weapons.

I don’t know how many times I’ve said the point of Sprint isn’t to be going fast all the time so I’m just going to stop repeating myself there. Raising the BMS is not a viable option. It does not address our concerns with removal of Sprint.

> Even as a supposed standard a newly included mechanic can function as a gimmick if people are attracted because of it,

Hear-say isn’t evidence or a solid argument. It’s interesting that you’re still saying “supposed standard” when I can provide you a laundry list of games that have Sprint. It is a common. It is a standard. That you heard from a guy who heard a girl talking about her brother being exited for Halo 4 because it’s the second Halo game to have Sprint and he’s never going back doesn’t change that it’s not a gimmick, by definition.

> 2535441307847473;5626:
> In maps where cover is easily reachable with BMS…

And where are some of these areas?

> …if sprint is a base mechanic then you’re just hurting yourself, sprint is required in the sense that you can’t play on an even level against others who use it when you refuse to.

And if memory serves, this vein is deriving from the suggestion of making “MLG/Classic Playstyle” playlists that remove Sprint to provide a Classic experience. Where no one would have Sprint in that playlist.

So again, can you provide examples where Sprint is an absolute necessity to traversing the map?

> Sprint passively takes away a player’s ability to be attentive, by making them slow down to check rooms rather then being able to look around while moving at full speed.

Then don’t sprint into rooms you’re unsure of. It’s as simple as that.

You’re picking - intentionally or not - tactically unsound examples to try and support how Sprint is bad and detrimental. It would be like me trying to argue that splash damage is bad and punishes players because you can’t fire a rocket indoors without consequences.

> And as I’ve stated before, you’ll still be at a disadvantage because of the forced forward direction of sprint.

The current iteration of Sprint let’s you turn and spin a full 360 degrees, in a very tight turn. Strafing also immediately ends Sprint. So your “forced forward direction” is far less draconic than you make it to be.

> Except this isn’t how sprint is used in practice

Of course it is. Problem being is that you’re posing bad uses of it as though they’re the only use for it. Hypothetical “they sprint, then you have to Sprint, everyone sprints and not a shot is fired” scenarios that just don’t happen with detrimental frequency. If everyone’s too busy sprinting around the map, matches would never be won. Only they are, and kill counts are consistently frequent.

> …sprint takes away your ability to minimize many of those risks,

How. Provide examples. By removing your ability to fire? Instant firing that ends Sprint. By removing your ability to turn? 360° turning while sprinting. What minimizing abilities remain?

> This is a strawman argument, you brought up certain situations which involved risk, I explained how these situations could be influenced by player choice

No, it’s not a Strawman. And those same solutions of “know when to reload” and “be more attentive” can, as I said, be just as easily applied to Sprint. Know when to use it. Don’t sprint into an uncleared room. Don’t sprint into a kill box.

It is absolutely a choice of when to press that button, nothing forces you to use it, and hyperbole about “remaining competitive” doesn’t make it so. Especially when there are viable solutions of compromise suggested, such as Classic ranked playlists, and it’s met with “nah, just get rid of it” and everything boils down to opinion.

> This once again shows the illusion of speed that sprint creates,

There is no illusion, Sprint factually adds speed to your movement. And again, you’re treating the Developers as a god, with a list of Thou Shalt Nots, when the map is made, and Player Agency is given the free reign by design. They call it a sandbox for a reason, and “Play How The Devs So Intended” is not it.

> 2535441307847473;5627:
> Strawman argument is still strawman. You know yoinking well that the list that I responded to was not my entire response.

Then provide some, rather than baselessly accusing of Strawman argument.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> Giving the models a defaulted animation for walking indicates that 17 mph - max BMS - isn’t supposed to be the only speed you travel at. Functionally, this -Yoink!- in suggesting to the players to explore their surroundings.

I’m sure all animators know that when they are giving the character a walking animation, in any game, 99% of players will never see it because they will always push the stick as far as it goes. The thing about walking speed in games is that even if you’re just sight-seeing and staring at vistas, there is still no advantage for that purpose from walking slowly. Special animations for slow walk are arguably there purely for completeness; that if a player decides to walk slowly, they’re not going to see an unnatural animation. It doesn’t suggest the player to do anything, because pushing not running at full speed is actually a very unlikely action for a player to perform on their own if there is no gameplay incentive to do so.

> 2533274804813082;5630:
> It’s interesting that you’re still saying “supposed standard” when I can provide you a laundry list of games that have Sprint. It is a common. It is a standard.

“Standard” as a noun to me suggests something much stronger than “common”. “A standard” is something that is imposed, and everybody should follow. And you should not deviate from the standard because deviating from the standard is bad. I can accept that sprint is a standard (adjective; as in normal, not special or exceptional) mechanic, but it is not a standard (noun; as in a required feature). So, excuse me, but I too will continue to use scare quotes around “standard” when I see fit to express my doubt.

[Rancheroni]

> 2535431432353013;5619:
> Sprint has had 3 games in this franchise and each game has been extremely controversial. I say give classic Halo movement a chance. I know I’m not adding anything to this topic, but I’m putting my own two cents out here. We should get maps built around classic mechanics with a playlist to boot.

Were it so easy

Sadly, classic maps don’t work in a game designed around sprint/advanced mobility. Weapons are tuned to those move speeds, through projectile speed, RRR, magnetism, aim assist. All of those factors play into the gameplay. Look no further than Halo 5’s Halo 3 throwback gamemode. Maps are very well made, but the weapons ruin the gamemode. Even when adjusting player speed to accomodate for the weapons, they dominate because theyre tuned against extremely maneuverable targets who can dramatically change velocity and direction at a moments notice. Even with a thruster pack in the mix, the Mythic gametypes in Halo 5 also suffer from the aggressive hitscan/high magnetism weapons.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5631:
> I’m sure all animators know that when they are giving the character a walking animation, in any game, 99% of players will never see it because they will always push the stick as far as it goes.

Then why animate it? Double that; why let us look down and see it? Triple that; why let us see a walking animation in a pair of legs spawned only in First Person that are not visible in third person, and mirror the walking animation visible in third person? Certainly not to please 1% of fans.

My points on walking speed are not presented with an advantage in mind. Rather, as counterpoint and evidence that Halo does not push players to go as fast as possible every second of the game.

> I can accept that sprint is a standard (adjective; as in normal, not special or exceptional) mechanic, but it is not a standard (noun; as in a required feature). So, excuse me, but I too will continue to use scare quotes around “standard” when I see fit to express my doubt.

Given the contextual message of what you’ve quoted, it should be clear that “standard” as an adjective is being used. Neither was the “scare quotes” around standard my criticism, but rather the use of “supposed”.

> 2533274923428997;5632:
> Sadly, classic maps don’t work in a game designed around sprint/advanced mobility. Weapons are tuned to those move speeds, through projectile speed, RRR, magnetism, aim assist. All of those factors play into the gameplay.

Pitfall worked just fine. Neither are weapons tuned to the speed of Sprint. Projectile “speed” is either unchanged when there is a projectile (rockets, fuel rods, etc) or is hitscan. Only Halo 3 did not use hitscan and it was a failure. Hitscan and bullet magnetism are present because of latency. Aim assist because of controllers.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274801176260;5628:
> Gameplay always trumps lore.

Not relevant to the issue. I am also positive on adding Prone, but that’s also irrelevant to the issue. Again, Lore is brought in to the notion that Sprinting doesn’t belong in Halo. Not what works with gameplay and what doesn’t, but what belongs.

> I absolutely disagree that it’s a minor one. The lack of synergy between movement and shooting is one of the biggest complaints against the sprint mechanic.

And given that all you have to do is pull the trigger makes that biggest complaint a mountain made of a mole hill. You are also still able to shoot while running, just not while sprinting. A better question is why do you need to shoot while sprinting?

I’m cutting sales and numbers because I don’t think it’s productive to the main issue of Sprint, and as tsassi expressed earlier isn’t a good metric of success or failure with the data we have. There’s a lot of assumption on both sides.

> Not in campaign, it doesn’t. As already said, movement speed does not affect how enemies react to you, the only criteria is line of sight.

And at times, if you’re moving slower you can manage that line of sight better. Rarely does Halo ever force you to do anything, and I would urge you not to take my argument of the environment suggesting players to slow down as saying that it is forcing you to slow down. Players are always free to ignore the vista and speed right through, but the suggestion is still there.

> This cannot be the case because the player himself doesn’t see this new walking animation. You’d have a point if Halo had been a third person shooter but as Halo is played from first person perspective, this is plain false.

As mentioned above to tsassi, you do see it. In fact the developers designed a whole pair of legs visible only in first person that mirror the animation of your third-person model. Add to this that if you are carrying a turret, you can also view differing animations for varying speed.

> Moving at max speed is not the same thing as speedrunning.

Nor was that exclusive parallel made, and is irrelevant to the thematic pacing of Halo’s campaign.

> Evading enemy fire with fast movement is just as crucial in those defense segments as it is in the “get from A to B” sections.

And is also an option to players, as is staying in one location to dodge incoming fire.

> Furthermore, those very gondola segments were highly criticised in Halo 2 for being nothing but boring padding of game time, which is likely why they are completely absent from Halo 3.

I can find forum posts claiming that Halo 3 is non-canonical, yet no such criticisms of the gondolas. I don’t suppose you’ve got receipts?

> very early stages of Halo 2’s development and was cut quickly from the game due to pacing issues to the point that not even all weapons got animations for the mechanic. This was confirmed by an artist who did exactly those animations as well as by Creative Director Marcus Lehto.

Blatantly? No. More marginally inaccurate due to scant and vague information. As your Reddit link notes (in the full thread), Sprint was something that was advertised early in Halo 2’s development. We have no information on how quickly or far in Halo 2’s development it was cut, though it would have had to have been after various build releases. “Pacing” can mean a dozen things - including mechanical pacing which is what I had heard back around 2006 - and is not clarified or confirmed by that artist, nor the Art Director, Marcus Lehto, if he actually said that. See, the video supplied by Gamecheat13 provides no evidence to that contact, and is really as insubstantial as me relegating the “talk of the town” back in ‘06.

> However, not only is sprint not in the game, there isn’t even a trace of it in the data files, like in Halo 2.

Have you seen and explored the game files? If not, you really can’t say. I don’t even see the Guardian on “Cutting Room Floor”, but we know that’s still in the game coding.

[Nuss902928]

> No, not metaphorically. Thematically. Finding this huge, mysterious ringworld in space. Exploring it’s secrets. Learning of the Hierarchs plot, finding yet another Halo Ring. Discovering there are more all over the Galaxy, and a larger structure called the Ark. Going to the Ark. Exploring a living Forerunner world. Breaching into the Domain and the center of Builder culture.And while Halo doesn’t have upgrades, there have been secrets and hidden items (powerups were never hidden in either game) since Halo 2. Skulls and Terminals and Easter Eggs only attainable through skill jumps. Hell, counting that actually there were a few in Halo: CE, like the MEG room and the Thirsty Grunt.

This is actually what I originally meant, I simply used the wrong word, my bad. Combat is still a greater focus though.

> This looks like a claim that can’t be backed up. Preemptively, mine can in that if the “new general traversal speed” was intended to be the speed that Sprint put you at, they would have simply increased the BMS. But they didn’t; rather it is something you have to manually engage, like jumping. To be fair, I think Halo 4 did it best where it’s limited to a burst and a cooldown, but even in Halo 5 this doesn’t change that it is a temporary boost to movement speed, not general traversal.

I would have preferred a higher BMS but I digress, if sprint was truly only meant to be an ability that is held much more in reserve rather than being used for general map traversal then you would think that it would have been given a longer cooldown and its duration should have been shorter. Even the limited sprint in Halo 4 is quite generous, more than enough for a simple escape.

> I’ve gotten all the secrets and Doom Guy dolls, and can’t think of one where I needed to move slow. At most, stopping to plan where I was going to jump next.As for avoiding damage, stunning an enemy stops you from being damaged by that enemy. What about the three Imps hopping around the fringes hurling fireballs at you, or the Cacodemon flying up above doing the same? Unless it’s a boss fight, DOOM doesn’t present you with only one enemy to worry about.

I slowed down for some puzzles because they involved small platforms but perhaps that was simply additional caution on my part. As for stuns the Plasma Rifle stun bomb from Doom 2016 is capable of stunning several enemies at once and although lone enemies are rare, you can encounter enemies by themselves as you run around a large room or are almost finished clearing it.

> >
>
> In Matchmaking. I’m talking about Campaign, which would be affected if Sprint is completely removed as has been suggested before.

Sprint isn’t as bad in campaign as it is in multiplayer, but I still advocate for its complete removal since I think it would be bad for there to be a major disconnect between the gameplay in campaign and multiplayer

> >
>
> Firstly, you seem to be still applying the assumption that players are going to be sprinting all the time. That’s not necessarily the case, yet even if they do (as you mention scenery we’ll assume Campaign), so what? It’s their game to play, and if they’ve seen it before and don’t feel the need to slow down and appreciate the view every time, who are we to tell them how to play? Secondly if they’re in a vehicle, they’re likely not paying attention to the scenery regardless.Lastly, your last quoted statement is demonstrably, factually false. Sprint does factually add speed to your movement for periods of time (I would support a return to a limited duration), and does shave time off your traversal. Neither is this a matter of “cheating” the map.I said before - I don’t remember if it was to you or not - especially in Halo, player agency is a huge factor of map traversal. Several options are presented for a variety of playstyles and preferences. There are very rare instances where a given stretch is intended to take a certain length of time (The Maw and Halo are the only two that come to mind.) This ideology was greatly spoken on in the latest Ask343 video.

I was talking about campaign as most multiplayer maps are not as beautiful, even so, the general habit of moving forward with sprint makes looking around more difficult, it is still possible, I just think its a shame that you cant keep moving at full speed as you take in the scenery

As for my last statement, it is absolutely true, sprint only makes you faster if the devs fail to design maps around it, but no good dev is ever going to fail to consider the top speed of the player. If the devs want a certain area to take a certain amount of time to cross, then they will build it accordingly, the faster the player, the bigger the area. The difference between a run which is meant to take 20 seconds with and without sprint is distance, and nothing more. When I said “cheating” I was referring to this very idea that some people have that sprint somehow gets you places faster even though game developers will always take the players speed into account

> >
>
> Which remains still a complete non-issue. Less so, in fact, as Halo uses a majority of hitscan weapons and magnetic projectiles, and AI targeting relies on codes, not human judgement and reflexes. Having an AI target a sprinting Spartan is no more difficult than having them target a faster moving vehicle. Or accounting for variables in sporadic player movement.And, if you’re not suggesting that a player will be sprinting all the time, screwing up the AI targeting, then the moments where a player slows down is when the AI catches up. Even still I won’t be shedding tears for the AI if a player manages to get away. We’re supposed to prevail against the AI.Your argument, as well, that their accuracy and reaction time will be “too high” is also preposterous. Were this the case, then the AI would be set even higher to compensate for vehicle speeds. But I’m willing to bet that’s not actually how it works

As I believe I mentioned earlier, I’m not a programmer, but I do know that introducing more variables to the player in terms of speed affects how the AI must target the player. Even though defeating the AI is the goal, I want it to remain challenging, especially at higher difficulties

> >
>
> The fact that reloading is forced on players often at inopportune times means that players must needlessly manage their ammo while in combat, thanks to a mechanic that punishes them for missed shots and wasted rounds, rather than simply allowing them to continually fire from a massive pool of ammo.See, anything can be spun negatively without actually making a rebuttal. That it isn’t a sound tactic to Sprint across a battlefield of enemies because you’re going to still take damage does not mean Sprint is bad. It’s in the same league as knowing not to fire a rocket in a very close tunnel to take out a patch of Flood Infection Pods.

Reloading is a consequential act of firing, its a reaction to the actions of the player, sprint on the other hand is an action that the player takes which is not the consequence of another action done by them, it is instead a risky action that they have to take unnecessarily (higher BMS), furthermore it sometimes provides benefits in addition to those risks, such as escaping more easily, and it indirectly punishes players who choose to attack sprinting players by not allowing them to keep up with the target that they are chasing. Reloading doesn’t sometimes reward the reloading player or screw an enemy out of a kill, its a predictable consequence of an action
1/3

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> You’re keen to take a very “One Way To Play” Approach. How do I not see a problem with it? Well, for one how they play the Campaign isn’t my business. For two, that’s been common since Halo: CE. Anyone who’s blown down the Banshee in Assault on the Control room and skipped everything to the point that enemies just didn’t spawn will tell you this. Anyone who speed runs maps will tell you this.

Not wanting the player to regularly skip large portions of the campaign on foot in a non-stealth game is not a “one way to play” approach, I simply don’t want enemies and encounters to be so easily skipped by one base mechanic. Even in a Banshee you can be shot down both by enemies on the ground and by other Banshees, its hardly a full on skip. And as for speed runners, they typically make use of bugs, glitches, wall hacks, and all sorts of other things that the devs likely couldn’t have avoided, and many speed runs actually require certain enemies to complete.

> >
>
> Y’know, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it shown anywhere that Halo 2 was so nightmarish on Legendary because of a “lack of time for balancing”. And that’s really the only time Halo 2’s Jackals become ungodly insane; Legendary, and Heroic if you’re inattentive.

Many things were cut from Halo 2 because of how rushed it was, the problems with the campaign came about largely in the same way, also being attentive isn’t always enough for Halo 2 Jackal snipers lol.

> >
>
> Dual wielding (and so far as we know Spartan Charge and Ground Pound) is the only mechanic to have been scrapped entirely. So far as Reach, it was apparently removed because the Sandbox “wouldn’t support it”. There’s no source given on that bit of information, and it’s odd in that some AI dual wield. I can hunt for it, but I remember it being said once that it was removed because Frankie didn’t like it, and it wasn’t something that saw widespread use.
>
> Regardless, it has yet to be shown how Sprint is unbalanced. Just a lot of opinions on it, and what Halo “should be”.

There have actually been more mechanics that have been scrapped besides those three examples, armor abilities from Reach and Halo 4 were removed and replaced with spartan abilities, and until just recently equipment had also been removed from the game, and it seems that the new version of equipment will be different from the equipment from Halo 3. As for sprint, it has already gone through some pretty big changes from game to game and at the very least 343 have gone as far as to create playlists that do not include it, so there have clearly been some major concerns amongst the devs about its influence on the game.

> > 2535441307847473;5624:
> >
>
> Then DOOM is closer to an Open World RPG than Halo is. DOOM has weapon upgrades, armor and stat upgrades, and equipable perks.
>
> Skill points and skills also do exist in FPS games like Cyberpunk 2077, Fallout 3 & 4, and Borderlands 1-3. Hell, Cyberpunk even does reward skill progression by using the skills; your example of “50 kills with an assault rifle to increase your automatic weapon skill”.

Doom guy is a mute (or at least he chooses not to speak these days) and he never has any detailed conversations with different NPCs, and the upgrades that he gets are all immediate improvements rather than skills that he slowly increases over time.

I never meant to imply that genre mixing was not a thing at all, Cyberpunk, Borderlands, and Fallout are all examples of that, but not all games belong to multiple genres, and those that do tend to lean harder on one than the other.

> >
>
> How. You argue it, but you haven’t quite supported it. How is it a detriment to the flow and balance of the game?

I feel like I’ve explained this but I suppose the short version is that sprint gives players an extra level of safety by allowing for easier escapes which in turn doesn’t encourage as much caution. This additional level of safety means that some engagements will lead to more escapes rather than kills meaning that matches will be made longer, and it puts attacking players at a disadvantage by slowing them down.

> >
>
> Really depends on what those tactical perks are, doesn’t it? None of the ones that have been introduced offered any great advantage to players, and neither would a “Hipfire perk”. So long as shields don’t recharge while Sprinting, incentivising measured movement whilst in combat, being able to fire while Sprinting becomes no great advantage at all.
>
> Loadouts also do not tread on Halo’s “equal starts” ideology when every weapon given to you in those loadouts are not Power Weapons, and offer no great advantage over other loadouts weapons.
>
> I don’t know how many times I’ve said the point of Sprint isn’t to be going fast all the time so I’m just going to stop repeating myself there. Raising the BMS is not a viable option. It does not address our concerns with removal of Sprint.

No it really doesn’t depend on what those perks are, as long as players do not all spawn with the exact same abilities and equipment, then they aren’t starting equally. The problem with loadouts in regard to weapons is that they must all be of equal or near equal power levels which means that they lose any unique traits or stats. Redundant weapons have been a problem in some Halo games, and loadouts encourage the creation of redundant weapons because of the necessity of balance. Of course you could for example balance the DMR, Battle Rifle, Covenant Carbine, and the Lightrifle to all be of very similar power levels, but that means that you essentially have four “different” weapons which all fill the same role and don’t outshine each other in any way. In a game with equal starts where everybody starts with the same weapon, all weapons can have unique traits and differing levels of damage and whatnot. If we all start with the Battle Rifle for example, that means that the DMR can be changed into a longer ranged weapon with greater accuracy, magnification and damage per bullet but also a lower DPS and reload speed, and the Covenant Carbine can be better against shields and have a higher DPS than the battle rifle while also being less accurate and doing less damage to vehicles. I’m not claiming those those balance ideas are perfect, in fact I know they’re not, but they show how weapons are given room to change and be unique with equal starts in a way that they can’t be in a loadout system.

> >
>
> Hear-say isn’t evidence or a solid argument. It’s interesting that you’re still saying “supposed standard” when I can provide you a laundry list of games that have Sprint. It is a common. It is a standard. That you heard from a guy who heard a girl talking about her brother being exited for Halo 4 because it’s the second Halo game to have Sprint and he’s never going back doesn’t change that it’s not a gimmick, by definition.

Tsassi provided a really good counter to this already, common and standard are not the same.
2/3

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> And where are some of these areas?

Why is this idea so hard to grasp without an example, I don’t know how to use modding tools to make precise measurements but that shouldn’t be necessary.

> >
>
> And if memory serves, this vein is deriving from the suggestion of making “MLG/Classic Playstyle” playlists that remove Sprint to provide a Classic experience. Where no one would have Sprint in that playlist.
>
> So again, can you provide examples where Sprint is an absolute necessity to traversing the map?

It’s a necessity when everybody else has it, you’ll be late to almost every fight, you won’t escape as often, and you’ll have a really hard time getting to power weapons and vehicles before they’re taken. In my previous response I said “against others who use it” for a reason.

> >
>
> Then don’t sprint into rooms you’re unsure of. It’s as simple as that.
>
> You’re picking - intentionally or not - tactically unsound examples to try and support how Sprint is bad and detrimental. It would be like me trying to argue that splash damage is bad and punishes players because you can’t fire a rocket indoors without consequences.

This was touched on earlier, having to slow down in the first place is an issue because you didn’t always need to, you could keep moving and keep looking at the same time.

> >
>
> The current iteration of Sprint let’s you turn and spin a full 360 degrees, in a very tight turn. Strafing also immediately ends Sprint. So your “forced forward direction” is far less draconic than you make it to be.

Turning with sprint isn’t the same as looking, it forces you to change the direction that you’re moving. In any event it is a downside, even if it doesn’t bother you very much.

> >
>
> Of course it is. Problem being is that you’re posing bad uses of it as though they’re the only use for it. Hypothetical “they sprint, then you have to Sprint, everyone sprints and not a shot is fired” scenarios that just don’t happen with detrimental frequency. If everyone’s too busy sprinting around the map, matches would never be won. Only they are, and kill counts are consistently frequent.

I never said that people literally never stop sprinting, just that people don’t hold it in reserve and save it for emergencies like you seem to imply, people casually use it even over short distances

> >
>
> How. Provide examples. By removing your ability to fire? Instant firing that ends Sprint. By removing your ability to turn? 360° turning while sprinting. What minimizing abilities remain?

We’ve been over this, turning and looking are not the same, situational awareness is very important. It’s also a problems because of its benefits (easy escapes) and its indirect influences that we’ve spoken about.

> >
>
> No, it’s not a Strawman. And those same solutions of “know when to reload” and “be more attentive” can, as I said, be just as easily applied to Sprint. Know when to use it. Don’t sprint into an uncleared room. Don’t sprint into a kill box.
>
> It is absolutely a choice of when to press that button, nothing forces you to use it, and hyperbole about “remaining competitive” doesn’t make it so. Especially when there are viable solutions of compromise suggested, such as Classic ranked playlists, and it’s met with “nah, just get rid of it” and everything boils down to opinion.

I’ve explained the difference here, sprint is not reactive in the same way as reloading, and remaining competitive is not hyperbolic. I’m not against classic playlists, but they won’t work properly if the maps aren’t redesigned for a different speed and it will likely split the player base.

> >
>
> There is no illusion, Sprint factually adds speed to your movement. And again, you’re treating the Developers as a god, with a list of Thou Shalt Nots, when the map is made, and Player Agency is given the free reign by design. They call it a sandbox for a reason, and “Play How The Devs So Intended” is not it.

The devs can’t tell the player how to play but the player can only work with what the devs have given them in the environments that they have built, so in a way they are gods. Like I mentioned earlier, if a dev wants a trip to take a certain amount of time then it will, the sizes of maps need to be build around the players speed.
3/3

[Rancheroni]

> 2533274804813082;5633:
> > 2533274825830455;5631:
> > I’m sure all animators know that when they are giving the character a walking animation, in any game, 99% of players will never see it because they will always push the stick as far as it goes.
>
> Then why animate it? Double that; why let us look down and see it? Triple that; why let us see a walking animation in a pair of legs spawned only in First Person that are not visible in third person, and mirror the walking animation visible in third person? Certainly not to please 1% of fans.
>
> My points on walking speed are not presented with an advantage in mind. Rather, as counterpoint and evidence that Halo does not push players to go as fast as possible every second of the game.
>
>
>
>
> > I can accept that sprint is a standard (adjective; as in normal, not special or exceptional) mechanic, but it is not a standard (noun; as in a required feature). So, excuse me, but I too will continue to use scare quotes around “standard” when I see fit to express my doubt.
>
> Given the contextual message of what you’ve quoted, it should be clear that “standard” as an adjective is being used. Neither was the “scare quotes” around standard my criticism, but rather the use of “supposed”.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274923428997;5632:
> > Sadly, classic maps don’t work in a game designed around sprint/advanced mobility. Weapons are tuned to those move speeds, through projectile speed, RRR, magnetism, aim assist. All of those factors play into the gameplay.
>
> Pitfall worked just fine. Neither are weapons tuned to the speed of Sprint. Projectile “speed” is either unchanged when there is a projectile (rockets, fuel rods, etc) or is hitscan. Only Halo 3 did not use hitscan and it was a failure. Hitscan and bullet magnetism are present because of latency. Aim assist because of controllers.

Halo 4 was not designed with competitive in mind whatsoever. Additionally, Certain Affinity produced Pitfall post-launch. 343 did not make pitfall, so there’s certainly an argument to be made about the discrepancy between pitfalls rather faithful proportions against Truth’s severe differences from Midship.

Weapons are absolutely tied to movement and I suggest you inspect the Classic Trilogy with a sharper eye, because every weapon in Halo up until Reach was a projectile weapon. Even the infamous Halo 2 BR was a projectile weapon (Although it had strong magnetism and incredibly fast projectiles). What do you mean Halo 3 was a failure? One of the most popular videogames of all time with a playerbase that has never been surpassad by subsequent games. Halo 3 was criticized for the weaker BR, but that was mostly due to knee-jerk reaction when compared to the previous iteration of the gun; the one very real criticism (IMO) of the BR was it’s random spread. Leading shots had always been a pillar of Halo shooting. You can’t hit people across Hang 'Em High in CE without leading your shots.

IMO leading shots was one of the best parts of Halo duels. It kept players within certain ranges of engagement because it became significantly harder to hit players from a distance with leading shots. You ever played TU No Bloom Reach on Hemorrhage? You wanna know how it plays? Terribly. Hitscan weapons in Reach ushered in Bloom as a mechanic because suddenly, you can consistently cross map people with the precision weapons. Bloom is still regarded as the worst mechanic added to Halo as it introduced randomness into 100% of the shooting matches. Why were hitscan weapons even introduced? __Why do we still rely on them when game latency has improved drastically since 2007?__The answer is mobility. It’s significantly harder to moving targets at large ranges when their speed is not consistent, sprint/evade/jetpack made hitting shots harder. Maps have to stretch (Truth) to accommodate for engagement times when players can now move drastically faster. People have talked endlessly on this thread about the relationship between Maps and Movement Speed, about how the timing of the encounters doesn’t really change, but the distance does. I’m saying that all of these systems are connected and to disregard that fact is to ignore how much thought and effort goes into these games.

As for aim assist and magnetism. Of course they’re present on controllers. But, their relative strength depends on the nature of the weapons as well. If you had two hypothetical Halo games where the aim assist and magnetism is exactly the same, is it going to be harder to hit a target at the exact same distance while strafing if one game uses projectile bullets while the other uses hitscan? Yes. However, the velocity of these projectiles is dependent on a lot of factors, many of them arbitrary. Has projectile speed of non-hitscan weapons increased since sprint and advanced mobility have entered the game? Do you need to lead as hard with the Storm Rifle of Halo 5 as you have to with the Plasma Rifle in any of the Halo games which feature it?

And to build further on the Plasma Rifle conversation, what about enemies in campaign? Are the plasma bolts in Halo 5 faster than the Original Trilogy? Why did the number of tracking weapons increase from two, the needler and plasma pistol(overcharged) to six ? (Boltshot, Suppressor, Hydra, Needler, Plasma Pistol, Scattershot(Ricochet) , and the Hunter Cannon though I didn’t count it for this example as it’s limited to warzone/custom games) Why are the majority of these weapons used by enemy AI (even the hydra)?

A huge part of Halo’s loop was ‘the dance’ of dodging projectiles. It becomes too easy to dodge these projectiles when you can use a thruster pack, and the AI is going to have to change if the player can move at two different speeds. Solution? Tracking. Tracking weapons kill the feeling of the dance, because they overcorrect for missed shots. Suddenly you’re spending a lot more time hiding behind cover and less time dodge shots and kicking -Yoink-.

All of this is connected.

[Canadianatlas]

Fisking is usually nitpicking in the attempt to avoid the central argument. And when it’s not, it’s still bad for conversational flow because reading it overcomplicates a discussion by focusing on irrelevant information. Whether you’re earnest or not, it comes across as a dishonest tactic by overloading someone’s mind with filler. It’s juddery and detracts from the main message.

Which reminds me of Sprint, because the only way to ballance it while still making the game feel like Halo, is to make maps bigger and more open, which means you will find yourself far slower and more exposed when you’re actually doing the shooting part in a first person shooter. It’s juddery movement. Sprint is a bad idea in an established arena shooter where all gameplay was smooth and based in rhythm and commitment relating to map controll. Reach was the beginning of the end, because the player no longer had to be very committed to their positioning.

[Celestis]

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> And given that all you have to do is pull the trigger makes that biggest complaint a mountain made of a mole hill.

No, it doesn’t. Adjusting the time it takes to switch from movement mode to combat mode doesn’t change the fact that the game is inherently broken into these two separate parts. At best this is a strawman.

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> You are also still able to shoot while running, just not while sprinting.

That’s a pure semantic rebuttal and doesn’t actually address the issue: The fact that the game arbitrarily takes away your combat capabilities at full speed.

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> A better question is why do you need to shoot while sprinting?

Not restricting the players abilities gives more gameplay options. Omnidirectional running, shooting while retreating, none of this is possible with sprint.
Why would you want to not be able to shoot in a first person shooter?

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> And at times, if you’re moving slower you can manage that line of sight better.

That’s a player limitation, not a gameplay issue. Personally, I’ve never had any problems managing the enemies’ line of sight while moving at full speed.

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> As mentioned above to tsassi, you do see it. In fact the developers designed a whole pair of legs visible only in first person that mirror the animation of your third-person model.

I just went back into the game to verify, there is no distinct walking animation when viewed from first person. It’s the same animation as while running, just played at slower speed. Your argument is based on a false premise.
In fact, I just made this video here. One side shows the animation while moving at max speed, the other while moving at minimal stick deflection, sped up to be at the same speed. Can you guess which is which?

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> Add to this that if you are carrying a turret, you can also view differing animations for varying speed.

Halo 2 didn’t have the option to carry turrets and doing so in later games already restricts your movement, so it isn’t indicative of normal gameplay. From a mechanic perspective, turrets act as a type of vehicle, you interact with an object placed on the map which you then “mount”. They are not default player abilities, they don’t exist in every map/mission and as such don’t factor into this discussion anyways.

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> And is also an option to players, as is staying in one location to dodge incoming fire.

For a person so determined to give players options, you sure as hell don’t seem to care that sprint does nothing but take them away.
In prior games you already had the options of not moving at max speed while shooting and not shooting while moving at max speed, if you so chose. But in addition to that, you also had the option of doing both at the same time. And you could do all of that going in any direction you wanted.
Sprint not only removes the third choice, it basically removes an infinite amount of choices, one for each possible direction you could have gone at max speed - even disregarding the shooting aspect - because sprint in and of itself isn’t omnidirectional.

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> I can find forum posts claiming that Halo 3 is non-canonical, yet no such criticisms of the gondolas. I don’t suppose you’ve got receipts?

As it turns out, finding review articles (I wasn’t talking about random forum posts) from 17 years ago is quite challenging, especially given that back then, these were mostly released in print media like magazines, not online.
Even with the help of Metacritic, out of the 91 Halo-2-reviews, all but six are now offline, two of which aren’t actual reviews but just an overview article of all games that released in November 2004 and one of which only reviewed the multiplayer part of the game.
So yeah, due to lack of hard evidence, feel free to ignore this particular statement. Not that it matters much anyways, being stuck on a gondola does not impose any restrictions on player movement speed in the first place.

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> Blatantly? No. More marginally inaccurate due to scant and vague information.

No, “blatantly” was correct. You claimed it was removed due to time restrictions, when the exact opposite is the case: Sprint was one of the first mechanics to go, because Bungie didn’t like how the game played with it.

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> As your Reddit link notes (in the full thread), Sprint was something that was advertised early in Halo 2’s development.

I was a freelance journalist during Halo 2’s development (still am, technically, although by now I only do commissioned work, and very few of it) and wrote news articles on every single Halo 2 update I could find, including all(!) of the Bungie Weekly Updates. I don’t recall sprint ever being mentioned anywhere. Not in interviews, trailers, screenshots, articles, nothing.
I don’t suppose you’ve got receipts?

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> We have no information on how quickly or far in Halo 2’s development it was cut

Yes, we actually do. While the animator’s statement “fairly quickly” is pretty ambiguous, it definitely rules out your initial claim of being removed due to time constraints. At the same time it is known that none of the new weapons and none of the Elite HUD have sprint animations, so it was cut before either of those got implemented into the game. At the very latest we can give a cutoff date of May 2003, which was the midway point during development, as the mechanic is completely absent from the E3 New Mombasa trailer.

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> Have you seen and explored the game files? If not, you really can’t say. I don’t even see the Guardian on “Cutting Room Floor”, but we know that’s still in the game coding.

Fair enough. I haven’t looked at it personally, so I cannot vouch for that being true. However, we already have a source confirming that it was never even being discussed during Halo 3’s development.

Not that any of this has any relevancy to the topic at hand, anyways. I’m not here to point out Bungie as the end-all-be-all master of Halo mechanics, especially since they changed their mind quite a couple of times about what is and isn’t good for Halo (Dual Wielding, anyone?). My opinion on the sprint mechanic doesn’t depend on Bungie’s (or anybody else’s for that matter) and neither should yours. (“You” as in, anybody reading this, not you specifically, Heathen.)

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5633:
> Then why animate it? Double that; why let us look down and see it? Triple that; why let us see a walking animation in a pair of legs spawned only in First Person that are not visible in third person, and mirror the walking animation visible in third person? Certainly not to please 1% of fans.

Because as an animator you want your chracter’s motion to look natural? To breathe more life into the chracter? I mean, why make a character in a third person game blink? Why give them different facial expressions at all? Not all animations suggest the player to do something, they’re just there to make the characters more expressive to make the game more immersive.

> 2533274804813082;5633:
> My points on walking speed are not presented with an advantage in mind. Rather, as counterpoint and evidence that Halo does not push players to go as fast as possible every second of the game.

Has somebody specifically claimed that Halo pushes players to go as fast as possible every second of the game? Because it’s obviously not true, but that has nothing to do with the game having a walking animation.