The return of classic movement mechanics?

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2535441307847473;5635:
> This is actually what I originally meant, I simply used the wrong word, my bad. Combat is still a greater focus though.

I can agree that War is an equal (if not marginally larger) focus, but combat somewhat takes a side-seat. Which is not to say that it’s unimportant, only inconsequential in its inevitability, framed heavily by a story-driven game. Cutscenes rarely feature actual combat, and there are even many areas in the game where the conversations happening are important or interesting enough for the player to take a moment and immerse.

Which is where Sprint fits both thematically and functionally. Just as ground combat is not a constant, so too is rapid movement via sprint not a constant either. It has a time and a place.

> …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…

Again, contrary to the notion of “As the Devs Intended”, Sprint is a tool given to us in the sandbox. To play with how we choose. Is there an optimal time to use it? Yes, just like CQC isn’t the best place for a rocket. But it doesn’t mean we can’t. If a player wants to use Sprint for general map traversal they can, but there are drawbacks. Those drawbacks are mitigated by using Sprint wisely, just like using rockets with plenty of space to account for splash damage, or reloading from cover.

> 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.

Several enemies, but not all. And yes, while you encounter the last few enemies isolated and alone (of course), DOOM’s form of combat still pushes players toward fast combat action, ill-advised to slow down or go stationary. This is even seen in power weapons like the Railgun and Chainring, where they are exceptionally powerful, but at a significant risk of reduced movement, with eventual perks to allow for better movement. Using them, you have to really be careful as slow movement in DOOM gets you killed.

> 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

And thus I take great issue with this. You don’t want my preferred mode of play to pee in your pool, but you’re more than okay with dumping in mine.

There already is a disconnect, not to mention. Pretty significant, too. Multiplayer doesn’t have a story-driven experience, loose ties to Canon notwithstanding. The thematic exploration of Halo’s larger presence - through Campaign and story-driven media - takes a back seat to PvP interaction. Weapons are tuned different, some left out completely, and others limited to Power Weapon spawn points rather than freely handed out. Vehicles, as well, are either balanced differently, altered significantly (the chingun on the Falcon), or absent entirely.

You have players who have never even touched campaign because they just don’t care; the divide in the two communities is wide already, though several enjoy both. Campaign and Multiplayer are so seen as two different games that with Infinite it seems you can download the Multiplayer for free, and not even bother with the Campaign.

If you and others wanted Sprint out of PvP Matchmaking alone I wouldn’t have much to say, and fewer tears shed for it (metaphorically). But it’s Scorched Earth policy, and that’s not equitable.

> I just think its a shame that you cant keep moving at full speed as you take in the scenery

Mechanics and habits of Sprint aside, this is really contradictory. If you’re moving at full speed, you’re not really taking in the scenery, you’re paying more attention to where you’re moving to.

> As for my last statement, it is absolutely true, sprint only makes you faster if the devs fail to design maps around it,

No, it’s absolutely not. Time spent traversing the map and the factual addition of speed to your movement are not the same thing. I see you’ve repeated this sentiment further down, so this applies there as well. If a remade map (Truth) is bigger than it’s predecessor (Midship) and it takes you the “same time” to go from one end to the other (it doesn’t), that does not mean you are “not actually going faster.” You are factually* moving faster, the map is only a larger space than a smaller, different map.
The Devs cannot take players speed into account in some Forced Experience manner when Player Agency is the core experience. A map is designed considering many speeds, playstyles, routes, and approaches. Sprint does get you to places faster than top BMS, and this is a demonstrable fact.
> 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.
And how do you know that? What area of coding or AI programing specifically addresses player unpredictability, to where Sprint would absolutely baffle it? Especially in light of vehicle speed and that players are not on a rail, or otherwise limited in their movement path?
The fact remains that this has never been an issue in all three Halo games with Sprint (and assuming Infinite), nor any game with sprinting mechanics and hostile AI. Players still get hit and die. A lot.
> Reloading is a consequential act of firing, its a reaction to the actions of the player,
Not in DOOM. Or Halo: Spartan Assault/Strike for that matter.
And while Sprint is an action that the player takes, compare that to firing. Should they chose to apply that poorly and sprint right into a hostile situation, that is the consequence of that action.
> Reloading doesn’t sometimes reward the reloading player or screw an enemy out of a kill,
Of course it does. If you go into an engagement, or meet an ambush with a full magazine, you have a better chance of outgunning your opponent than if you simply let it go, and reload when your magazine is absolutely empty. It rewards the player for their combat readiness, and can potentially screw the enemy out of an unprepared and under-armed prey.
> 2535441307847473;5636:
> 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,
No, but arguing “that’s not what The Devs intended!” is. Sprint no more makes encounters easily skippable than knocking the Banshee from it’s platform and skipping the campaign so much so that enemies quite literally do not spawn, or memorizing patrol patterns and utilizing shields and cover (as well as perks like active camo) to minimize engagement and speed run.
And even still, facts aside, who cares? How someone plays the Campaign doesn’t affect you. For this reason I don’t buy that your arguing this point in particular from genuine concern of “The Experience”.
> 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,
And? Many things were cut from every Halo campaign. Halo 2’s disastrous development is not evidence that the excessive increase in difficulty for Legendary was an effect of lack of time.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2535441307847473;5636:
> 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,

Were they scrapped, or did they become Spartan Abilities? Progress of innovation and the application of both (as well as Equipment) indicates evolution. One-time-use Equipment became single-choice, multi-use equipment, dubbed “Armor Abilities”. What was popular stayed, and was internalized to multi-use Spartan Abilities, with various others returning to single-use powerups in Multiplayer. They were not scrapped.

Neither is 343i creating playlists that omit Sprint an expression of “concern amongst The Devs”. Rather that would more likely be indicative of an attempt at appealing to those that don’t like Sprint and are only concerned with their Matchmaking experience. One would think that good enough, but again with the Scorched Earth policy.

> 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.

The Dragonborn is a mute, only really “speaking” in same-voice grunts of Dovahzul. Doesn’t change the RPG elements. As well, the Doom Slayer’s upgrades are progressional, having several tiers that require multiple upgrades before it’s “top level”.

The problem with trying to limit one game down to a single genre is that there is no such thing. Even Call of Duty and Battlefield have elements of RPG games in the form of weapon upgrades, combat perks (equivalent to skills), and player customization. At what point is the line drawn?

Even Halo Infinite is pushing that boundary, with upgradable equipment, Open World play, Primary and Secondary Objectives, random adaptive encounters, and a “living world” playspace.

> …sprint gives players an extra level of safety by allowing for easier escapes which in turn doesn’t encourage as much caution.

This is the common complaint, but is a very unsatisfactory explanation. It more reads as being overdramatic in its vagueness. The sandwichboard sign reads “Sprint Coddles Players” with this padding of safety, yet on the one hand you say that it doesn’t encourage caution, and on the other you bemoan the danger it puts you in because you’re forced to be recklessly locked in forward motion. It’s a contradictory complaint. Which is it: an easy escape or a reckless deathtrap?

> …it puts attacking players at a disadvantage by slowing them down.

So you either Sprint after them and Spartan Charge, or chuck a grenade to take advantage of their downed and stalled shields, or you alert your teammates (assuming actual teamwork and map control) to cut them off. Several options remain to you, to where the target is not simply gone in the wind and you’re stuck in the mud.

> 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.

In a similar fashion to one player being able to carry three grenades, one having radar while scoped, and not a one having a Power Weapon, a team starting with a player who knows exactly where spawns are, how to regulate them, and the best tactical locations on the map (to say nothing of camping spots) is a match starting without equality.

One player starting with a Storm Rifle and the other with an Assault Rifle means nothing without the skill to wield it. If the player with an AR start is more skilled, they will come out on top every time. The loadouts weapons are of equal or near equal power. The only difference is function; a Storm Rifle doesn’t need to reload, but it does overheat.

> 2535441307847473;5637:
> 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.

Grasping it is not the issue. I understand the point you’re trying to make, but without specific examples it is nothing but hyperbole.

Take for instance the examples that were given to me for The Rig and Colosseum. Taken at word, they sure sound like problems. They can’t be done without Sprint? Well, that sounds like a problem! Only they could. I playtested each example and found all but one possible, and the one that couldn’t amounted to a rocket jump or super jump; an uncommon Trick Jump that is not general map traversal.

In like manner, you claim that all these problem areas exist that Sprint just ruins. Does it? Or does it only “ruin” not Sprinting when other players have that as an option, as you go on to argue here? See, in an effort to compromise, the notion was brought up that all the 4v4 maps can be played without Sprint, so if the Anti-Sprint players wanted that experience they could have it.

> 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.

And as rebutted, Sprinting into an area you’re unsure of is tactically unsound, and any consequence of that is on you. “Slowing down” is immediate, mitigating any unpreparedness, so perhaps try doing that before going in the doorway.

Firing your weapon is also immediate and the turn radius is very generous, so never fear on an enemy coming upon you. If your turning to look and you end up strafing to maintain direction, this is also an immediate termination of Sprint and your concerns are mitigated. This isn’t an issue of me being “unconcerned” but rather your examples being inconsequential.

> 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

Do they use it casually, or tactically as I’ve actually been advising? How often do they get away scot-free from combat, and how often is it a futile effort? These are largely rhetorical, more something I’d urge you to think on and analyze.

> situational awareness is very important.

Situational awareness as in knowing when to use Sprint and when not to?

> I’m not against classic playlists, but they won’t work properly if the maps aren’t redesigned for a different speed

Only, you are because you want them all to be “Classic” playlists. Complete removal of Sprint. You’ve also failed to show just how the maps are designed so that Sprint is a necessity - NOT with simple abstinence from Sprint while other players use it - so the objection of map design remains a thin mask over your preference against Sprint, and non-compromise detrimental to the enjoyment of other players.

Again, to be crystal clear, if you can show where and how a map - not a match - is broken without the presence of Sprint to where it cannot be played without it, I would consider Sprint’s negative effect on map design. But this has yet to be done.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2535441307847473;5636:
> 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.

I’m not going to get into a theological debate here, based off a metaphor, but this is the issue here. This mentality. Especially when the various developers give such a wide array of options to players, treating it with the mentality of “The Devs intended it to be played like this!” is fallacious and false.

It’s like criticizing the players who engage the final lakebed in The Storm on foot with nothing but a Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle, saying "No, you’re supposed *to get a Rocket Launcher and use the Mongooses! The Devs put them there because that’s how they intended it to be played!"*What the developer wants, or how long they “want” a trip to take, is completely inconsequential. They give the tools to the Player, so that the Player can make that trip as long or as short as they want. Because it is the Player’s experience that is important, not the developers intention.

---

> 2533274923428997;5638:
> Halo 4 was not designed with competitive in mind whatsoever.

Well that definitely needs a source. And how do you mean, “competitive”? Because the mere presence of points, and a winning and losing team, disproves that plainly.

Do you mean MLG, who doesn’t encapsulate and determine overall competitiveness? Again, sources needed.

> Additionally, Certain Affinity produced Pitfall post-launch. 343 did not make pitfall,

Doesn’t matter. It’s the same dimensions as The Pit from Halo 3, and Sprint didn’t break the map. Additionally, CA has worked on a lot of Halo maps (Blastacular Pack - Halo 2, Defiant and Anniversary Map Pack - Halo Reach, Forge, Majestic, Castle, and Bullseye Map Packs - Halo 4, Halo 2 Anniversary’s entire Multiplayer, and Halo Infinite’s Multiplayer), so it’s not like they’re unfamiliar with it.

> every weapon in Halo up until Reach was a projectile weapon.

In regards to Matchmaking, Halo 3 is the only Halo game to completely use projectile weapons. This is factual. (Snickerdoodle answers this here). Halo: CE uses projectile, but given it’s lack of online play, this is inconsequential. Hitscan was introduced to mitigate latency, as I said.

> What do you mean Halo 3 was a failure?

That is not* what I said. What I said was that Halo 3 did not use hitscan, and in terms of Matchmaking (the subject), that was a failure. The issues with a projectile weapon and online latency lead to shots missing entirely when they should have hit, or hitting when they should not have. When a player lags that’s one thing, when a bullet lags that’s quite another.
<em>> Why were hitscan weapons even introduced? Why do we still rely on them when game latency has improved drastically since 2007?</em>
Because latency hasn’t improved since 2007. Players still lag out and gameplay is still interrupted. The same problems would return with a reintroduction of projectile weapons.
And yes, you have to lead or maintain a target just as much with the Storm Rifle as you do the Plasma Rifle. It does not have significant magnetism or tracking like we see in the Suppressor or Needler.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5644:
> In regards to Matchmaking, Halo 3 is the only Halo game to completely use projectile weapons. This is factual. (Snickerdoodle answers this here). Halo: CE uses projectile, but given it’s lack of online play, this is inconsequential. Hitscan was introduced to mitigate latency, as I said.

It’s a bit of a technicality, but all Halo games at least up to Halo 4 have an underlying projectile system, and every weapon has a projectile speed value. See for example Generalkidd’s Halo 2’s Biggest Myth - Is The Battle Rifle Really A Hitscan Weapon?, and his “Which game has the best…” series that shows the speed values for the different weapons. But for example, the Halo 2 BR has a spee of 400, whereas the Halo 3 BR has 180. Or similarly, the Halo 2 and 3 sniper rifle share a speed of 1200, whereas the Halo Reach sniper rifle has a speed of 6000.

Tuning the projectile speeds to arbitrarily high values of course gives you effective hitscan in normal gameplay, because at any reasonable range, the Halo Reach sniper projectile would hit a player anywhere on the map in under one frame. But in Halo 2, the projectile speed isn’t even that high. You can easily observe the delay at range if you shoot something with a BR from far enough, and go through the footage frame by frame, because it’s up to 5 frames at 60 fps.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5645:
> It’s a bit of a technicality, but all Halo games at least up to Halo 4 have an underlying projectile system, and every weapon has a projectile speed value.

So, in a system where some weapons have set speed and even drop (Rocket Launcher, Fuel Rod Cannon) weapons like the Sniper Rifle and Battle Rifle are using that system to emulate hitscan through faster-than-range projectile velocity. I’d be interested to hear from snickerdoodle, if possible, on the developer’s side of Halo 2 compared to Halo 3.

Adding this here, while I work on a video.

> 2533274825830455;5641:
> 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.

Why does a walk need to look natural, if going slower at times isn’t suggested? As well, what about the First Person perspectives of walking animations? If a player is supposed to be going as fast as possible - which is the basis of this point - why even include those things?

> 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.

This was brought up in juxtaposition to DOOM’s playstyle, which does push the player to go as fast as possible, and illustration that Halo’s playstyle overall emphasizes player agency and preference. Giving them functional and immersive options to move as slow or fast as they want to, with Sprint as a judicially applied boost to that speed when the player so chooses.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5646:
> Why does a walk need to look natural, if going slower at times isn’t suggested? As well, what about the First Person perspectives of walking animations? If a player is supposed to be going as fast as possible - which is the basis of this point - why even include those things?

Because walking is possible, and if the walking is possible, it would look unpolished to have the character just run in place if a player decides to walk. It’s attention to detail, you know. that thing that isn’t strictly necessary but shows the developers cared and had adequate time? I’m running out of ways to explain this if the whole concept of putting details in a game that aren’t specifically to suggest the player to do something is completely foreign to you.

Your whole perspective here is a bit twisted. The player isn’t “supposed to be going as fast as possible”, the game doesn’t declare how you are “supposed to” play, it gives you the freedom to play as you want. It’s not explicitly telling you to go fast, neither is it explicitly telling you to slow down. It’s just giving you the tools to choose your pace. This is in contrast to games like CoD that explicitly force you to slow down when you want to shoot, for example.

> 2533274804813082;5646:
> This was brought up in juxtaposition to DOOM’s playstyle, which does push the player to go as fast as possible, and illustration that Halo’s playstyle overall emphasizes player agency and preference. Giving them functional and immersive options to move as slow or fast as they want to, with Sprint as a judicially applied boost to that speed when the player so chooses.

Yes, Halo usually emphasizes player agency, exactly. Obviously, sprint contradicts that, because it explicitly forces the player to slow down when they want to shoot. No, I didn’t say sprint removes all agency. It just limits the player’s choices somewhat, which is very much the opposite of emphasizing player agency. If you value giving the player the freedom to choose their pace, then it’s not logically consistent to be pro-sprint.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5647:
> Because walking is possible, and if the walking is possible, it would look unpolished to have the character just run in place if a player decides to walk. It’s attention to detail, you know.

Quite right, it is attention to detail. A detail of immersion that is completely left out of games like DOOM, where the atmospheric (not weather-related, before that gets lost in semantics) suggestion is one of speed, and slower paces are ill-advised.

> Your whole perspective here is a bit twisted. The player isn’t “supposed to be going as fast as possible”, the game doesn’t declare how you are “supposed to” play,

The game certainly doesn’t, but plenty here have. The various rebuttals of “you can run full speed there” to areas of Halo that suggest through atmosphere for a slower approach, insinuating that a slower movement is unnecessary. And while it technically is not necessary, it is both suggested and possible.

Which is where Sprint comes in as to why an increase to the BMS is unreasonable and unwieldy. It is easier to slightly push the LS to move slower than it is to regulate between walk, jog, run, and sprinting speeds. Clips are being gathered to accurately show that, but there are at least three separate animations (not counting Sprint animations) for varying speeds of movement. Rather, it is better to have full-tilt LS hit running speeds, with Sprint on LS2 as an extra push beyond running. Because, again, you’re not always going to be sprinting, just as you’re not always going to be moving slowly.

As you stated, it gives you the tools to choose your pace.

As well, looking at other mechanics of movement this was a long time coming. For example Boost as applied to Banshees, Ghosts, Specters, Wraith tanks, and Revenants. Since Halo 2 this has functioned exactly like Sprint. You have varying speeds dependant on the degree of tilt on the LS, and then you have an additional, temporary (though sometimes infinite, in the case of Banshees) boost to speed. It also removes your ability to fire while using it, and more or less “locks” the player in forward motion. But we don’t hear outcry about that.

> Yes, Halo usually emphasizes player agency, exactly. Obviously, sprint contradicts that, because it explicitly forces the player to slow down when they want to shoot.

That’s a weird twist of the Sprint mechanic. By “forces [them] to slow down,” you mean “[they] can’t move as fast as possible while shooting”, yes? You might have missed over it so I’ll ask here as well; why do you need to fire while engaged in a temporary boost? Surely there are times where your moving at top BMS and not firing, so why is there a need for firing during a mechanic that is explicitly designed solely for rapid forward movement, in the same way that reloading is designed solely for replenishing ammo and driving is solely designed for vehicle operation?

> If you value giving the player the freedom to choose their pace, then it’s not logically consistent to be pro-sprint.

As I’ve said before, everything in Halo limits player choices in some form or another. Everything. Yet this does not contradict or oppose the emphasis of Player Agency, because those options are still there. It is logically consistent to be pro-Sprint, as it is yet one more tool in a sandbox full of advantages and disadvantages for every weapon, vehicle, item, and Ability.

What does limit and contradict Player Agency is advocating for completely removing that tool because of personal dislike or bias for Classical play, or suggesting to proponents that positivity for it is illogical or contradictory, with no solid example given as to how the game - not personal experience - is damaged, broken, or otherwise ruined because of its presence. Though, at this point I’m sure it goes without saying, if one isn’t making these arguments (though some I’m debating clearly have), then it doesn’t really apply.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5648:
> The various rebuttals of “you can run full speed there” to areas of Halo that suggest through atmosphere for a slower approach, insinuating that a slower movement is unnecessary. And while it technically is not necessary, it is both suggested and possible.

It is possible, but it is never suggested. The game never, figuratively speaking, tells you “Hey, buddy, you’re going a bit fast. Ever thought about slowing down a bit?”. From a design standpoint, it’s actually very difficult to do that without being forceful. The existence of an animation for some action does not qualify as a suggestion.

> 2533274804813082;5648:
> As well, looking at other mechanics of movement this was a long time coming. For example Boost as applied to Banshees, Ghosts, Specters, Wraith tanks, and Revenants. Since Halo 2 this has functioned exactly like Sprint. You have varying speeds dependant on the degree of tilt on the LS, and then you have an additional, temporary (though sometimes infinite, in the case of Banshees) boost to speed. It also removes your ability to fire while using it, and more or less “locks” the player in forward motion. But we don’t hear outcry about that.

Vehicles are not part of base movement. I am not in a vehicle when I spawn at the start of a match. Not every player in a match has access to a vehicle at any time. There are maps that do not even have vehicles on them. If you want to remove sprint as a base mechanic and make it an equipment pick-up that exists on some maps and not others, that’s fine by me. I’m open to it without needing any modifications to the functionality of sprint whatsoever. How does that sound?

> 2533274804813082;5648:
> That’s a weird twist of the Sprint mechanic. By “forces [them] to slow down,” you mean “[they] can’t move as fast as possible while shooting”, yes? You might have missed over it so I’ll ask here as well; why do you need to fire while engaged in a temporary boost? Surely there are times where your moving at top BMS and not firing, so why is there a need for firing during a mechanic that is explicitly designed solely for rapid forward movement, in the same way that reloading is designed solely for replenishing ammo and driving is solely designed for vehicle operation?

This question you’re asking, “why do you need to fire while engaged in a temporary boost?”, is not about sprint. Sprint is not the only possible temporary boost mechanic, and there are temporary boost mechanics that don’t allow shooting while using, but that don’t have the same issues sprint has. For example, Evade from Reach, and Thruster Pack are such mechanics. The duration of the inability to shoot is an important factor.

I don’t need to shoot while engaging in a temporary boost, but do I need a temporary boost that doesn’t come too much in the way of my shooting. If I can boost, jump, and shoot within half a second, that’s fine. If the boost can be integrated into combat, it is a fine boost. Sprint is not that.

It is the ability to combine movement and combat that is important. I don’t want to sacrifice my combat abilities when I need to get around effectively, and I don’t want to sacrifice my movement abilities when I need to fight. I want movement mechanics that complement the combat mechanics instead of driving a wedge between the two. So, when you say “surely there are times where your moving at top BMS and not firing”, yes, there are. But there are also times when I’m moving at top speed, and would very much like to be firing. Likewise, there are times when I’m firing, and would very much like to be moving at top speed.

> 2533274804813082;5648:
> As I’ve said before, everything in Halo limits player choices in some form or another. Everything. Yet this does not contradict or oppose the emphasis of Player Agency, because those options are still there. It is logically consistent to be pro-Sprint, as it is yet one more tool in a sandbox full of advantages and disadvantages for every weapon, vehicle, item, and Ability.

Some design decisions limit player agency. Agency is sacrificed in favor of other important qualities or to tailor a specific type of experience. You don’t have to dislike decisions that limit player agency, but understanding when it happens is useful. Sprint takes away agency in a very concrete way by forcing the player to choose between combat effectiveness and transit effectiveness. if you don’t mind that, that’s okay, but denying it isn’t a position you want to take.

When it comes to the other thing, I’ll reiterate: if you value giving the player the freedom to choose their pace, then it’s not logically consistent to be pro-sprint. Notice, I’m not saying anything about player agency in general. You can say you don’t value this specific freedom, and still be a fan of agency. Maybe you decide that you find sprint more important than this. Maybe it’s worth a bit of loss of agency for you. I don’t think you should get too caught up in trying to play both sides.

> 2533274804813082;5648:
> What does limit and contradict Player Agency is advocating for completely removing that tool because of personal dislike or bias for Classical play, or suggesting to proponents that positivity for it is illogical or contradictory, with no solid example given as to how the game - not personal experience - is damaged, broken, or otherwise ruined because of its presence. Though, at this point I’m sure it goes without saying, if one isn’t making these arguments (though some I’m debating clearly have), then it doesn’t really apply.

One question: you do realize that “the game” and “personal experience” being ruined are the same thing? Like, how much value you derive from your personal experience with the game is its ultimate measure. The only objective reality here are the concrete effects sprint has on the game that people have described in this thread. How you choose to feel about those effects is up to you. If you’re in no way inclined to believe that sprint could be harmful to your personal experience, then nobody is going to convince you otherwise.

Actually, I’d be interested to know: what are your motivations (could be many) for being in this thread? What are your end goals? What are you seeking to accomplish with this debate?

[BanoffeeBot]

> 2533274804813082;5648:
> As well, looking at other mechanics of movement this was a long time coming. For example Boost as applied to Banshees, Ghosts, Specters, Wraith tanks, and Revenants. Since Halo 2 this has functioned exactly like Sprint. You have varying speeds dependant on the degree of tilt on the LS, and then you have an additional, temporary (though sometimes infinite, in the case of Banshees) boost to speed. It also removes your ability to fire while using it, and more or less “locks” the player in forward motion. But we don’t hear outcry about that.

I wouldn’t say they work the same. Boost in Halo has always had a turning speed sensitivity penalty assosiated with it. Combined with a risk of bumbing into things, flipping over and becoming a sitting duck/ easy target. In fact, I would say, for vehicle vs vehicle gameplay, the inability to shoot whilst boosting is actually often detrimental. I remember on far too many occasions completely out dueling another ghost user, leading my projectiles correctly, getting the upper hand only to have the other ghost user boost the hell outa there. Then I have to either go through the tidious process of chasing, boost, shoot, boost, shoot, boost, shoot…as they boost away at full speed, maybe ill finish them off, maybe I wont… Or I’ll just give up. It doesn’t make for good gameplay. I am however willing to put up with it for the most part because it has benefits for vehicle vs infantry combat. The inability to shoot whilst boosting helping create a risk of being boarded and making you a slow moving big target, if you choose to shoot. Another distinction is that boosting is, in of it’s self, a form of melee (so to speek), it has an offensive application in the form of Splattering.

Also the mechanic of boosting is contained within the experience of using that vehicle. It’s one of the benefits of sandbox design, Even if a mechanic has flaws, that flaw only shows up now and again when you are using a sandbox element that features that mechanic. Unlike a base mechanic, where they are very prevelent, and have a much larger chance of detracting from the overall experience.

I would actually be interested with playtesting a vesion of Sprint that worked like boosting. Some Req vehicle varients in Halo 5 don’t even have a shooting penelty, I’d be interrested in play testing that too. But ultimately movement can be represented in many a veriety of ways. The default standard version of sprint is not the only option just because loads of other shooters have it.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274801176260;5640:
> 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.

Yes, it does. Because there is still no longer a divide between movement and firing. Unlike Halo Reach and Halo 4, where there was a 1-1.5 second delay, now it is instant. Just like moving at top BMS and firing. The only difference is that you cannot fire while sprinting, yet this is no different than any other action that “takes away” firing a weapon such as driving a vehicle like a Warthog or Mongoose.

And no, this is not a semantic rebuttal. Sprinting is not “full speed” in that it is an additional, temporary boost to full speed. Consider it red-lining your Spartan. Is it the maximum speed possible? Yes. Yet it remains circumstantial and temporary. Neither does the game “arbitrarily” rob you of combat capabilities. This suggests that it is random and out of the player’s control. Which it is not, as it is a direct result and limitation of the player’s choice to utilize Sprint.

> Why would you want to not be able to shoot in a first person shooter?

None of this answers the question. We also can’t shoot while driving a Warthog or Mongoose. Again, why do you need to shoot while Sprinting? If you want omnidirectional movement and shooting while retreating, don’t Sprint. These are not robbed and obliterated to you just because Sprint restricts them while operational any more so than throwing a grenade, reloading, jumping, or driving restricts player options and ability.

This is also an ironic argument, as removing Sprint (if you’re among the Scorched Earth mentality) limits player options permanently.

> 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.

No, it’s not, and your video presents misinformation and inaccuracy. If you’ll notice attentively to the left video, the Spartan’s foot does not extend past the muzzle and sights of the SMG. On the right side it does. Sped up (an artificial altering of the animation), it looks awkward and stunted.

The walk animation is more than displaying the run animation, varied to what degree the LS is moved, and continued improvements upon that animation support this. In this video, I have marked the various differences in foot placement between walk, jog, and run speeds.

> 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.

Define “normal gameplay”. That there are dedicated animations designed for immersion, and relative to varying speeds while on foot (even holding a turret) is very indicative that “normal gameplay” is something left up to player agency.

Circling back, these clearly represent that Halo does not have a suggested pace of “go as fast as possible”, as DOOM does. Ergo, a higher BMS to “make up for Sprint” is a poor substitution, as constant rapid motion is not the desired effect.

> For a person so determined to give players options, you sure as hell don’t care that sprint does nothing but take them away.

I had thought to reply to this snarkily, but no. Do better than this.

Repeatedly I have outlined from factual examples just how brief and tenuous a restriction Sprint imposes, and the options that it does present. Reminding that everything in Halo’s sandbox has drawbacks and limitations, none lesser than those Sprint introduces.

Saying that Sprint “does nothing but take options away” is a gross caricature of the feature. Equally, I could say that driving does nothing but take options away, or that reloading does nothing but take options away, or that being able to only carry two weapons does nothing but take options away. All would be as short-sighted and biased.

The benefits of Sprint have been given example and evidence. The downsides - while acknowledged - have thus far proven not nearly as detrimental as y’all would have them be presented.

And for the record, my stance is less “determined to give players options”, as 343i have been generous in that regard. My stance is more “Do not take my options” when there are no valid reasons to, and compromise is flatly refused.

> As it turns out, finding magazine reviews (I wasn’t talking about random forum posts) from 17 years ago is quite challenging,

One would think that if it was an issue “highly criticized” (like criticisms that Halo 2 recycled elements of Halo: CE, even going so far as to have Cortana say “not a very original plan,” - Edge magazine review, or the criticisms that the campaign was too short and the infamous cliffhanger was jarring, or various unpolished segments of cutscenes - all of which Bungie openly accepted in subsequent interviews) that it would have some form of online presence and community memory. Like posts complaining about Halo 3’s campaign. Especially since online publications were a thing.

> Not that it matters much anyways, being stuck on a gondola does not impose any restrictions on player movement speed in the first place.

Only it does, and worse than the restrictions of Sprint. With Sprint, you can immediately cancel it. Stuck on a gondola for several minutes, you are limited to a very open space with minimal cover while aerial enemies swarm around you.

And even still, this is an area - albeit more forced than others - where you’re not pushed to go as fast as possible. Unlike DOOM, and unlike application of a higher BMS to achieve constant rapid movement.

> You claimed it was removed due to time restrictions, when the exact opposite was the case: Sprint was one of the first mechanics to go, because Bungie didn’t like how the game played with it.

And such is how I remembered it being discussed. On the similar hand, you have nothing beyond a YouTuber saying “I asked Marcus Lehto and he said,” and a reddit post stating that it was dropped “early” in development. Which, if you remember the horrendous development of Halo 2, was about a year before release. The E3 Demo that you reference is infamously known to be a heavily scripted experience, and that no solid, shippable game existed at the time.

> I don’t recall sprint ever being mentioned anywhere. Not in interviews, trailers, screenshots, articles, nothing.
> I don’t suppose you’ve got receipts?

As I said, as your Reddit link notes. In a couple places. If you can find the full E3 2003 panel, props. I’d assume it would be there, as that was the announcement, but maybe those two redditors have a better trail to where they saw it. As for me, I plainly referenced them.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5649:
> It is possible, but it is never suggested.

Yes, it is, as I indicated when I said “suggested through atmosphere”. While a player certainly can blow through any and all areas, there are many that atmospherically suggest a slower pace, similar to how a library suggests soft sounds without anything ever being said.

• The door controls on The Silent Cartographer (Active Camo is even provided to aid in stealth). - The room with sleeping Grunts and a patrolling Elite on Assault on the Control Room. - Outside the Hierarch’s Chamber on Gravemind. - Ambushing Brutes on Uprising. - The first Covenant camp on Sierra 117. - Too many areas to list in Halo 3: ODST. - Moments in the jungle in Infinity. - ”Downtime” moments in Halo 5And probably more that aren’t coming to mind.

> Vehicles are not part of base movement.

And I never said they were. Yet the current complaint seems to be that Sprint takes away player agency, and robs them of the full range of motion and fire. Well, so do Covenant vehicles, in the very same manner.

> If you want to remove sprint as a base mechanic and make it an equipment pick-up that exists on some maps and not others, that’s fine by me.

For Multiplayer? That would be a malignant compromise, yes. However the complaint on your side of the fence would still remain regarding map design, as the maps would still need to be designed around Sprint. Assuming, of course, that Sprint actually presents a design detriment to the maps. In that case, if there is to be a pick-up that can - assumedly - be removed from certain game types, what is the difference in simply having game types and playlists without Sprint as a core mechanic, and other playlists with?

> This question you’re asking, “why do you need to fire while engaged in a temporary boost?”, is not about sprint.

Yes, it is, because that’s the complaint being brought to bear. Evade exists in an “either-or” situation, and Thruster Packs quite literally take milliseconds from player control. The current complaint regarding inability to shoot is centered on base-mechanic Sprint.

> I don’t need to shoot while engaging in a temporary boost, but do I need a temporary boost that doesn’t come too much in the way of my shooting.

As demonstrated, the very millisecond you pull the trigger you begin firing. So how severe does Sprint really get in the way of shooting? How much are you truly sacrificing?

> Sprint takes away agency in a very concrete way by forcing the player to choose between combat effectiveness and transit effectiveness. if you don’t mind that, that’s okay, but denying it isn’t a position you want to take.

As I have mentioned and recognized many times, I acknowledge that Sprint is a choice between combat and rapid movement. What I oppose in this regard is the notion that by choosing Sprint a player is chained to that motion for an inordinate duration that is out of their control. To which I have demonstrated the exact opposite, and outlined the delay penalties from 1 second to immediate that a player can re-enter combat readiness and effectiveness.

The player is in control every step of the way. At some point, players take responsibility for their own skills, and combat readiness is a part of that, with or without Sprint. Perhaps a player begins to Sprint, sees a blip on their motion tracker, and immediately disengages Sprint to meet the enemy. This is entirely possible, and Sprint has not hampered that players combat effectiveness in any way.

Ergo being pro-sprint and valuing a wide range of freedom in movement pacing is not illogical. Especially considering the very mechanical issue of managing a wider range of speeds on LS tilt. Cramming four to five speed differences on the degree of tilt makes for very poor movement control.

> One question: you do realize that “the game” and “personal experience” being ruined are the same thing?

Not how I was clearly using it. By breaking the game, I mean rendering the actual functions of the game broken, such as reaching an area that renders a player invulnerable to incoming fire, clipping through set elements, taking advantage of the physics engine to spring-board off bits of geometry, etc. Not having a bad match and being put in a sour mood.

> The only objective reality here are the concrete effects sprint has on the game that people have described in this thread.

Which are rationally rendered minor complaints in light of contradicting and/or disproving evidence. Which, if I am to be expected to recognize issues that I already have recognized and addressed, these very simple and resolving evidences need to be considered as well.

> Actually, I’d be interested to know: what are your motivations (could be many) for being in this thread? What are your end goals? What are you seeking to accomplish with this debate?

I can’t simply discuss the issue and present arguments in favor of Sprint? (Generally, asking someone “why are you here?” in such a fashion conveys “go away.”) What are any of our end goals here? Nuss was fairly clear that their end-goal is Scorched Earth, remove-sprint-entirely-from-everything, which I absolutely oppose, but the rest of us just seem to be chewing in circles over preference. My goal, currently? Constructively disrupt the echo chamber, and perhaps urge some to at the very least consider why they don’t like Sprint. I’ve a right to be here, don’t I? I haven’t attacked or targeted any individuals (despite shade thrown my way) or resorted to insults and slander, have I?

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274797849057;5650:
> I wouldn’t say they work the same. Boost in Halo has always had a turning speed sensitivity penalty assosiated with it.

As does Sprint, at least up until Halo 5.

> In fact, I would say, for vehicle vs vehicle gameplay, the inability to shoot whilst boosting is actually often detrimental…

I would say, rather than doesn’t make for good gameplay, that it doesn’t make for easy gameplay. Consider the perspective of the player in the Ghost (or, for the comparison, the person Sprinting the hell out of there); they are constantly taking damage (to hull or shields), neither of which recover while boosting/sprinting away. If you and your teammates are able to take them down, then while it was a tougher kill, it was still a kill and good teamwork. If the player gets away, sometimes that happens and we just move on to the next engagement. The big question in regards to “the escape” complaint is why is a kill owed to you? Sometimes players get away from us; this has been the case since Halo: CE.

Does Sprint make it easier to escape? Yes and no. The aforementioned lack of shield recharge makes a sprinting Spartan a very soft target. Their escape is not guaranteed by Sprint, and if their pursuers are skilled enough it won’t matter in the end.

> Another distinction is that boosting is, in of it’s self, a form of melee (so to speek), it has an offensive application in the form of Splattering.

Sprint is, as well. At least currently, in the form of Spartan Charge, which also has a knock-back effect and can be used to knock enemies off fatal edges.

> Also the mechanic of boosting is contained within the experience of using that vehicle.

Likewise the mechanics - benefits and disadvantages - of sprinting are contained within the mechanic, and I have given examples as to how quickly one can end and recover from Sprint. In earlier games this is as much as one second, in Halo 5 it is immediate.

> The default standard version of sprint is not the only option just because loads of other shooters have it.

Technically the “standard version” of Sprint was utilized in Halo 4, which I honestly preferred. Halo 5 opted for the type Borderlands uses, where Sprint is unlimited so long as forward motion (with highly responsive turning) is maintained.

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> Again, contrary to the notion of “As the Devs Intended”, Sprint is a tool given to us in the sandbox. To play with how we choose. Is there an optimal time to use it? Yes, just like CQC isn’t the best place for a rocket. But it doesn’t mean we can’t. If a player wants to use Sprint for general map traversal they can, but there are drawbacks. Those drawbacks are mitigated by using Sprint wisely, just like using rockets with plenty of space to account for splash damage, or reloading from cover.

In the case of sprint the optimal time to use it is very often, as it is what allows you to simply move around at max speed unlike with reloading and with using a rocket which should only be used in specific scenarios. Sprint is essentially always a good option as long as it is available, and thanks to its short (or non-existent) cooldown it can almost always be used. Even when exercising caution sprint is not a rarely optimal option.

Whats your opinion on thrusters? It seems to me that your desire for a temporary speed boost is more in line with thrusters given that they make you move faster than sprint and are much more limited in their usage.

> And thus I take great issue with this. You don’t want my preferred mode of play to pee in your pool, but you’re more than okay with dumping in mine.
>
> There already is a disconnect, not to mention. Pretty significant, too. Multiplayer doesn’t have a story-driven experience, loose ties to Canon notwithstanding. The thematic exploration of Halo’s larger presence - through Campaign and story-driven media - takes a back seat to PvP interaction. Weapons are tuned different, some left out completely, and others limited to Power Weapon spawn points rather than freely handed out. Vehicles, as well, are either balanced differently, altered significantly (the chingun on the Falcon), or absent entirely.
>
> You have players who have never even touched campaign because they just don’t care; the divide in the two communities is wide already, though several enjoy both. Campaign and Multiplayer are so seen as two different games that with Infinite it seems you can download the Multiplayer for free, and not even bother with the Campaign.

I was primarily talking about a disconnect in terms of gameplay, and in that respect the differences are either minor or few and far between, in terms of base movement the addition of sprint would be a very big difference, and it would be ever-present.

> Mechanics and habits of Sprint aside, this is really contradictory. If you’re moving at full speed, you’re not really taking in the scenery, you’re paying more attention to where you’re moving to.

This mentality is the result of sprint, full speed has been turned into something inherently different from other parts of the game in your mind, in the older games, there was no such awkward disconnect between exploration, combat, and speed, they were completely intermixed, just because you’re moving to an area doesn’t mean that you need to be staring at it.

> > As for my last statement, it is absolutely true, sprint only makes you faster if the devs fail to design maps around it,
>
> No, it’s absolutely not. Time spent traversing the map and the factual addition of speed to your movement are not the same thing. I see you’ve repeated this sentiment further down, so this applies there as well. If a remade map (Truth) is bigger than it’s predecessor (Midship) and it takes you the “same time” to go from one end to the other (it doesn’t), that does not mean you are “not actually going faster.” You are factually moving faster, the map is only a larger space than a smaller, different map.
>
> The Devs cannot take players speed into account in some Forced Experience manner when Player Agency is the core experience. A map is designed considering many speeds, playstyles, routes, and approaches. Sprint does get you to places faster than top BMS, and this is a demonstrable fact.

Obviously a player may choose to take alternative routes or simply explore and take longer to travel as a result, but there will always be a minimum time required to reach a point or travel a certain distance and that is set directly by the developers. If the developers want a certain point to take at least a certain amount of time to reach, then it will by virtue of longer distances. You’re absolutely right in saying that a map is designed with many speeds being considered, which is why the inclusion of a sprint will not get you to a point any quicker if the devs do not want it to, if they want the trip to take at least a certain amount of time, then it will.

> > Reloading is a consequential act of firing, its a reaction to the actions of the player,
>
> Not in DOOM. Or Halo: Spartan Assault/Strike for that matter.
>
> And while Sprint is an action that the player takes, compare that to firing. Should they chose to apply that poorly and sprint right into a hostile situation, that is the consequence of that action.

DOOM has far too many enemies per encounter for a reload mechanic to be included, especially since cover is extremely rare, and because your armor doesn’t recharge like shields do.

Moving into a hostile situation without proper planning and positioning is always a bad idea, with or without sprint, but sprint lets you get away from it easier.

> > Reloading doesn’t sometimes reward the reloading player or screw an enemy out of a kill,
>
> Of course it does. If you go into an engagement, or meet an ambush with a full magazine, you have a better chance of outgunning your opponent than if you simply let it go, and reload when your magazine is absolutely empty. It rewards the player for their combat readiness, and can potentially screw the enemy out of an unprepared and under-armed prey.

Having a full magazine isn’t a reward, the guns you spawn with, as well as all guns on the map always spawn with full magazines, its essentially their default setting, the fact that they need to be reloaded is a drawback, and its why plasma weapons overheat, because they needed something to balance the fact that they don’t need to reload.

> And even still, facts aside, who cares? How someone plays the Campaign doesn’t affect you. For this reason I don’t buy that your arguing this point in particular from genuine concern of “The Experience”.

You’re right, even given the opportunity I would never chose to skip encounters, but if I had the opportunity to run past an encounter and approach it from the direction that would lead to the next area I would likely have an unfair advantage because enemies, their cover, and emplacements are often placed facing the direction that the player will come from.

> And? Many things were cut from every Halo campaign. Halo 2’s disastrous development is not evidence that the excessive increase in difficulty for Legendary was an effect of lack of time.

I would have to make sure, but I’m almost certain that Halo 2 had the most cut content (at least in terms of stuff that went as far as to be programmed into the game) and that its development was particularly chaotic. I mean, just consider what was at the E3 demo.
1/3

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> Were they scrapped, or did they become Spartan Abilities? Progress of innovation and the application of both (as well as Equipment) indicates evolution. One-time-use Equipment became single-choice, multi-use equipment, dubbed “Armor Abilities”. What was popular stayed, and was internalized to multi-use Spartan Abilities, with various others returning to single-use powerups in Multiplayer. They were not scrapped.Neither is 343i creating playlists that omit Sprint an expression of “concern amongst The Devs”. Rather that would more likely be indicative of an attempt at appealing to those that don’t like Sprint and are only concerned with their Matchmaking experience. One would think that good enough, but again with the Scorched Earth policy.

Spartan abilities were fully integrated and functioned as new base mechanics, armor abilities by contrast were supplemental, you could only ever have one and you usually only got to pick when you spawned. Also with the exception of drop shield, armor abilities do not share such a clear relationship to Halo 3 equipment, perhaps jetpack as well if I’m being generous. Lastly, would you be alright with one temporary playlist with sprint if the rest of multiplayer didn’t have sprint? Would that be “good enough?”

> The Dragonborn is a mute, only really “speaking” in same-voice grunts of Dovahzul.

No he talks all the time, just because he doesn’t have a voice actor for lines with NPCs doesn’t mean that he is mute, its not as if Fallout 4 had the first non-mute main character in the Fallout franchise.

> This is the common complaint, but is a very unsatisfactory explanation. It more reads as being overdramatic in its vagueness. The sandwichboard sign reads “Sprint Coddles Players” with this padding of safety, yet on the one hand you say that it doesn’t encourage caution, and on the other you bemoan the danger it puts you in because you’re forced to be recklessly locked in forward motion. It’s a contradictory complaint. Which is it: an easy escape or a reckless deathtrap?

It can be both in different situations, that’s the point, it causes more than one problem. It can cause you to get attacked by an opponent who you can’t see who appears shortly after you check a room and sprint into it, and also save you by allowing you to move faster than your pursuer. In the older games you could continue to check your surroundings as you ran through a room at full speed, and attacking players used to be able to follow at equal speed.

> So you either Sprint after them and Spartan Charge, or chuck a grenade to take advantage of their downed and stalled shields, or you alert your teammates (assuming actual teamwork and map control) to cut them off. Several options remain to you, to where the target is not simply gone in the wind and you’re stuck in the mud.

Spartan charge was widely hated so I wouldn’t use it as a solution, especially since it doesn’t seem to be coming back in Halo Infinite, and sprinting after your opponent doesn’t really solve the issue since you can’t shoot while doing so. Chucking a grenade will also be less effective than it was in the older games because your opponent will have put a greater distance between you and him. As for teammates, I intended this to be a 1v1 scenario, but even so your allies would then have to stop engaging or at least watching for other enemies to help you.

> In a similar fashion to one player being able to carry three grenades, one having radar while scoped, and not a one having a Power Weapon, a team starting with a player who knows exactly where spawns are, how to regulate them, and the best tactical locations on the map (to say nothing of camping spots) is a match starting without equality.

No it is not, those abilities that you listed are distinctly different from each other, how can you consider them equal? Especially when you have no idea which perks your opponent has and they have no idea what you have?

> One player starting with a Storm Rifle and the other with an Assault Rifle means nothing without the skill to wield it. If the player with an AR start is more skilled, they will come out on top every time. The loadouts weapons are of equal or near equal power. The only difference is function; a Storm Rifle doesn’t need to reload, but it does overheat.

I already explained this in my last comment but this creates redundancy with weapons, the Storm Rifle and Assault Rifle don’t need to deal equal amounts of damage, and in fact they shouldn’t, different weapons should have unique stats and traits that make players consider whether or not they wish to pick them up, a player wielding an Assault Rifle should never walk over a Storm Rifle and simply shrug and move on because its basically the same thing, they should be presented with a distinctly different weapon that has advantages and disadvantages to consider. You’re essentially advocating for a blue/purple Assault Rifle that doesn’t need to reload.

> And as rebutted, Sprinting into an area you’re unsure of is tactically unsound, and any consequence of that is on you. “Slowing down” is immediate, mitigating any unpreparedness, so perhaps try doing that before going in the doorway.

And as stated before, slowing down may be immediate but it is still just that, slowing down, there never was any reason that you needed to slow down just to do something as simple as look around in the older games, you could keep moving at full speed into a new area, look around, and quickly backtrack your first few steps the moment you saw something concerning, otherwise you would just keep moving and looking.

> Do they use it casually, or tactically as I’ve actually been advising? How often do they get away scot-free from combat, and how often is it a futile effort? These are largely rhetorical, more something I’d urge you to think on and analyze.

Alright, so I’ve thought about it, and no, sprinting is rarely a tactical choice, its almost always simply a player wanting to move at top speed, and most players only stop sprinting when they see an enemy in range, want to hide/look, or get in a vehicle. Doing something as simple as move as fast as possible does not require any contemplation. People want to fight in a match, and when they’re not fighting they want to get to the next fight, except with sprint they have to choose between fighting and moving as fast as they can.

> Situational awareness as in knowing when to use Sprint and when not to?

Situational awareness as in knowing where you are, what’s directly around you, or what’s far away and can still affect you, and all that is easier to determine if you can constantly look around instead of only forward.
2/3

[Nuss902928]

TheKiltdHeathen

> Again, to be crystal clear, if you can show where and how a map - not a match - is broken without the presence of Sprint to where it cannot be played without it, I would consider Sprint’s negative effect on map design. But this has yet to be done.

Unfortunately, thus far you haven’t accepted how distance is connected to speed, so I can somewhat understand why you can’t accept this, although I find it strange that you know that “A map is designed considering many speeds” and yet still hold your position.

I guess I’ll put it this way: Why do you think maps with vehicles are so much bigger than maps without vehicles? Why don’t vehicles appear on small maps? Don’t you think its because they don’t have enough room to move because they would reach the other end of the map in seconds? Conversely, why don’t the largest maps ever lack vehicles? Is it because it would take too long to cross the map and combat encounters would be too uncommon?

> They give the tools to the Player, so that the Player can make that trip as long or as short as they want. Because it is the Player’s experience that is important, not the developers intention.

I already went into this earlier, a player may make something take longer through their choices, but they can’t make it any shorter than the tools they were provided with by the devs allow it to be done.

> Nuss was fairly clear that their end-goal is Scorched Earth, remove-sprint-entirely-from-everything, which I absolutely oppose, but the rest of us just seem to be chewing in circles over preference. My goal, currently? Constructively disrupt the echo chamber

Don’t treat me like some deranged loner, there are many others throughout this thread who have advocated for sprint’s complete removal. And you are nowhere near the first person in this thread to defend sprint, not even recently.
3/3

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> Yes, it is, as I indicated when I said “suggested through atmosphere”. While a player certainly can blow through any and all areas, there are many that atmospherically suggest a slower pace, similar to how a library suggests soft sounds without anything ever being said.

I need to backtrack a bit here because we passed from point A to point B while I looked elsewhere, and because of that I said something dumb. Yes, I retract my statement: atmosphere is a valid way to suggest a player to slow down. You’re completely right about that. Halo uses atmosphere to suggest sneaky encounters in campaign when, e.g., the Grunts are sleeping.

My disagreement was purely about the purpose of the walking animation. Sneaky encounters can of course be approached with crouch walk, which is the natural way I would assume most players approach them.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> For Multiplayer? That would be a malignant compromise, yes. However the complaint on your side of the fence would still remain regarding map design, as the maps would still need to be designed around Sprint. Assuming, of course, that Sprint actually presents a design detriment to the maps. In that case, if there is to be a pick-up that can - assumedly - be removed from certain game types, what is the difference in simply having game types and playlists without Sprint as a core mechanic, and other playlists with?

A pick-up there is only one of in a match, and that is lost on death, can act as a power item, and as such has very different requirements from a base ability. Map design changes with sprint arise to mitigate its power, but a pick-up is fine to be powerful. You can design maps around specific pick-ups, but it’s actually fine if you don’t. This should also answer your last question.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> > This question you’re asking, “why do you need to fire while engaged in a temporary boost?”, is not about sprint.
>
> Yes, it is, because that’s the complaint being brought to bear. Evade exists in an “either-or” situation, and Thruster Packs quite literally take milliseconds from player control. The current complaint regarding inability to shoot is centered on base-mechanic Sprint.

Then why didn’t you ask “why do you need to fire while engaged in sprint?”. To that, I could simply have answered that I don’t want to be engaged in sprint to begin with. I couldn’t possibly answer the question you actually asked without bringing up non-sprint temporary boost abilities, because my answer for them isn’t the same as it is for sprint.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> As demonstrated, the very millisecond you pull the trigger you begin firing. So how severe does Sprint really get in the way of shooting? How much are you truly sacrificing?

My speed also drops the moment I pull the trigger. See, this is the problem (or more correctly, on of the problems) with sprint. It’s not that I can’t shoot coming out of sprint, but that I can’t shoot while running at maximum speed. Speed, speed is what I sacrifice. How much? Depends on the speed boost applied by sprint.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> Ergo being pro-sprint and valuing a wide range of freedom in movement pacing is not illogical. Especially considering the very mechanical issue of managing a wider range of speeds on LS tilt. Cramming four to five speed differences on the degree of tilt makes for very poor movement control.

If you value granularity of movement, you have the option of suggesting a simple speed boost in the style of classic Doom, a toggle that simply ups your movement speed in all directions with no other side effects. Or alternatively, a walk button that’d make it easier to walk slowly. That you choose to endorse a mechanic that restricts the player when alternatives that offer greater freedom exist is what’s in conflict with supporting freedom of pace.

I do have to say that four or five different speeds seems really superfluous anyway. I can understand two different speeds, even three, but I frankly don’t see why one would desire any more. Because the thing about freedom is that the appearance of freedom with no application is kind of useless.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> Not how I was clearly using it. By breaking the game, I mean rendering the actual functions of the game broken, such as reaching an area that renders a player invulnerable to incoming fire, clipping through set elements, taking advantage of the physics engine to spring-board off bits of geometry, etc. Not having a bad match and being put in a sour mood.

Nobody has claimed that sprint creates any game breaking bugs, literally nobody. So I’m not quite sure why does this matter to you?

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> I can’t simply discuss the issue and present arguments in favor of Sprint? (Generally, asking someone “why are you here?” in such a fashion conveys “go away.”) What are any of our end goals here? Nuss was fairly clear that their end-goal is Scorched Earth, remove-sprint-entirely-from-everything, which I absolutely oppose, but the rest of us just seem to be chewing in circles over preference. My goal, currently? Constructively disrupt the echo chamber, and perhaps urge some to at the very least consider why they don’t like Sprint. I’ve a right to be here, don’t I? I haven’t attacked or targeted any individuals (despite shade thrown my way) or resorted to insults and slander, have I?

Hey, chill. I actually was genuinely curious to hear your personal reasons for being in this thread. The reason I was asking is that it tells me what sort of motivation you have for working with others instead of against others.

I asked three different questions to give room for different motivations. For example, my end goal here, of course, is to see a day when we don’t need to talk about sprint, because there is no sprint. But that actually has little to do with why I come to this thread every day. My primary motivation from day to day is that I just find the whole topic incredibly fascinating, every aspect of it. What I seek is a better understanding of why I dislike sprint, and how people who like sprint differ from me.

The reason I was curious about your motivation is that I’ve had this feeling that you think people people have no valid reasons for disliking sprint. That “disrupt the echo chamber” is how you choose to phrase your motivation is mildly concerning, but that you say you want “some to at the very least consider why they don’t like Sprint” is a reassuring thing to hear. It at least suggests openness. But how you constantly belittle the role and importance of personal subjective opinions is again concerning. Whether or not you recognize that this is primarily a debate over preferences shapes how you approach explaining your position, and in turn how people respond to you, and how much they get out of your posts.

[Celestis]

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Yes, it does. Because there is still no longer a divide between movement and firing.

Can I move at full speed while firing?
No?
I can only do one or the other?
Then there is a divide.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> The only difference is that you cannot fire while sprinting, yet this is no different than any other action that “takes away” firing a weapon such as driving a vehicle like a Warthog or Mongoose.

As has been mentioned multiple times, vehicles don’t affect this discussions. You don’t have access to them off spawn, you need to actively seek them out on the map, interact with them in order to be able to use them, they are not present in every map/mission, and they can even be destroyed by an enemy, preventing you from using them. And not just momentarily, permanently. (Well, in Multiplayer at least until it respawns.)

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> And no, this is not a semantic rebuttal. Sprinting is not “full speed” in that it is an additional, temporary boost to full speed.

This makes no sense. You’re either moving at full speed or you’re not. You cannot move “faster than full speed”. If sprint is in the game, then sprint speed is full speed. If it isn’t, then (max) BMS is full speed.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Neither does the game “arbitrarily” rob you of combat capabilities. This suggests that it is random and out of the player’s control. Which it is not, as it is a direct result and limitation of the player’s choice to utilize Sprint.

It is out of the player’s control. There’s nothing you as the player can do in order to not have your combat capabilities taken away at full speed. You can choose to accept this and forego combat or choose not to go at full speed in order to still be able to fight, but you can’t do anything to prevent this.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Again, why do you need to shoot while Sprinting?

As I’ve already said: To have more gameplay options.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> If you want omnidirectional movement and shooting while retreating, don’t Sprint.

“Don’t like it, don’t use it” fallacy.
Hey, here’s an idea: If you want sprint in Halo, just don’t extend the stick all the way while in combat. Also, don’t go any direction other than forward and don’t shoot while moving at full speed.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> any more so than throwing a grenade, reloading, jumping, or driving restricts player options and ability.

• Grenade is a combat ability that does not interfere with movement
• Reloading is a combat ability that does not interfere with movement
• Jumping is a movement ability that does not interfere with combat
• Vehicles are not base player abilities and don’t factor into this discussion
• Sprint, however, is an off-spawn base player movement ability that does interfere with combat. That is the issue here.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> This is also an ironic argument, as removing Sprint (if you’re among the Scorched Earth mentality) limits player options permanently.

It doesn’t, it extends the players’ options. They can now move at any speed they desire in any direction they desire while also doing any combat action they desire. Things that you were not able to do with sprint present.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> The walk animation is more than displaying the run animation, varied to what degree the LS is moved, and continued improvements upon that animation support this. In this video, I have marked the various differences in foot placement between walk, jog, and run speeds.

While your video has pretty bad compression artifacts, it does actually show the animation changing. I stand corrected.
That being said, I don’t think it’s three distinct animations, at least not in Halo 2, as you can see the maximum amplitude of the right foot changing gradually over time (after the third frame, around the time you place your orange marker). It looks more like two animations, where the slower one skips some frames depending on the player speed.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Define “normal gameplay”.

Gameplay using inherent base player traits not artificially enhanced or modified by items placed on the map, i.e. active camo, overshield, vehicles, environmental modifiers such as low-gravity-sections, etc.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Circling back, these clearly represent that Halo does not have a suggested pace of “go as fast as possible”, as DOOM does. Ergo, a higher BMS to “make up for Sprint” is a poor substitution, as constant rapid motion is not the desired effect.

I actually agree with you that the player isn’t inherently incentivised to always go as fast as possible. I think(!) Nuss(?) made this claim and I don’t necessarily subscribe to this notion.
But the point is that it was possible to do so. The suggestion of increasing BMS is not to force the player of going at full speed all the time, but to give him the option to do so by disentangling combat mechanics from movement mechanics once again.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Repeatedly I have outlined from factual examples just how brief and tenuous a restriction Sprint imposes, and the options that it does present.

It might be “brief and tenuous” to you, but it is a major drawback to other people.
Also, it doesn’t add any options.
As I’ve pointed out, you already had the option to go forward at full speed while not shooting and to shoot while not going at full speed in prior games.
But additionally, you also had the option to shoot while moving at max speed or go sideways at max speed or do both at the same time, etc.
Sprint removes these options.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Saying that Sprint “does nothing but take options away” is a gross caricature of the feature.

You might not like it, but it is factually correct. That is exactly what sprint does: It removes options the player previously had in order to force him to pick one of the two that are left: To either move at full speed in limited directions while hampering their offensive capabilities or to keep their combat readiness and omnidirectionality at the cost of their speed. Both choices punish the player, they just get to decide how they want to be punished.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> My stance is more “Do not take my options” when there are no valid reasons to, and compromise is flatly refused.

Ironically, that is exactly the stance of people who are against sprint.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Only it does, and worse than the restrictions of Sprint.

Really? Because I was able to move around at max speed on those gondolas without any problems. And I was also able to fight while doing so.
We must have played different games, then.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> a reddit post stating that it was dropped “early” in development. Which, if you remember the horrendous development of Halo 2, was about a year before release.

Eh… no? Besides the fact that the E3 Mombasa demo already was 1.5 years before release, development started at the very latest in July 2002, as this was when the game was officially announced.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> The E3 Demo that you reference is infamously known to be a heavily scripted experience, and that no solid, shippable game existed at the time.

Yes, I am aware. Except this has nothing to do with anything. That demo is still live gameplay and has all of the base mechanics implemented. If sprint had still been a thing at that time, it would have been included.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> As I said, as your Reddit link notes. In a couple places.

Yes, some random dudes on the internet reminiscing about something from over a decade ago. Y’know, just how people distinctly remembered Halo 2 having hitscan weapons.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> If you can find the full E3 2003 panel, props. I’d assume it would be there, as that was the announcement

You mean the Mombasa Demo? It’s here on YouTube, but no mention of sprint. Same thing for the pre-show. Neither in the Microsoft press conference, as far as I saw.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5657:
> The reason I was curious about your motivation is that I’ve had this feeling that you think people people have no valid reasons for disliking sprint. That “disrupt the echo chamber” is how you choose to phrase your motivation is mildly concerning,

Addressing this first, because it is imperative. Constructively disrupt the echo-chamber. For those that may not know the term, an echo-chamber is a term used for when there is no voice - great or small - of dissent. Where an idea (Negativity surrounding Sprint) is the only idea heard (or “echoed”) and no progress is made. This is where, as you are reassured by, my goal is to get people to reassess why they want Sprint removed.

I am of the opinion that it stems from nothing significantly greater than personal opinion and preference, which, to be clear, is not a view that it is invalid. I have never and will never say that, as it is unconstructive. What I disagree most with are the attempts to mechanically invalidate Sprint, and where I ask questions for specific areas of maps that Sprint “ruins”, and point out ways to reasonably avoid the downsides of Sprint, or suggest compromise for Matchmaking playlists and the like. Because that deconstruction of biases and concerns is more productive than just saying *“Well, that’s like, your opinion man.”*If it is people’s opinion that they don’t like Sprint, that’s absolutely fine. Me personally, I don’t like Mongooses, Grenade Launchers, or the Power Ups in Warzone. So I just don’t use them. (I realize they are not the same thing as Sprint). But what I don’t do, and where I encourage others not to do, is fight for their removal because I don’t like them. I won’t and don’t belittle one’s personal opinion - nowhere have I suggested that one has to like or even use Sprint - but I do think many need to take their opinion as just that. Just as I won’t tell whoever "No, you’re supposed to crouch-sneak there. You have to move slow." simply because that’s how I play.

> A pick-up there is only one of in a match, and that is lost on death, can act as a power item, and as such has very different requirements from a base ability. Map design changes with sprint arise to mitigate its power, but a pick-up is fine to be powerful. You can design maps around specific pick-ups, but it’s actually fine if you don’t. This should also answer your last question.

To correct myself, I meant “benign”. I always get those two mixed up.

Sprint being limited to a pick-up in Multiplayer wouldn’t bother me, really, so long as it remained free-use and core in Campaign. Similar to how the Grappleshot is handled. I think that Sprint is able to be worked on any and all map, supported by direct copies like Pitfall, but that’s small potatoes; most of my interest is Campaign.

> Then why didn’t you ask “why do you need to fire while engaged in sprint?”

I worded it as “temporary boost”, but that is what I asked, as that is what Sprint is. I believe it to be a mistake to view Sprint as Top Speed; while it technically is, the separation serves a similar function to how assassinations (animated or not) are the maximum melee damage we can deal, but are limited to circumstance and prerequisited by choice.

Nothing truly forces the player’s hand to use Sprint, not even the map layout and other players using it. I’ve often gone entire online matches without using Sprint once, and did just fine; I recognize that no one is me, but this stands as evidence that it can be done. Considering, of course, that Sprint remains a core mechanic beyond Infinite.

> Speed, speed is what I sacrifice. How much? Depends on the speed boost applied by sprint.

Give-or-take 2 meters per second. About the length of a Spartan. Is that sacrifice of two meters/sec significantly damaging? For traversal, that boost does end up being a benefit, as you do cover ground quicker. But for combat it’s not much of a benefit, and not much lost. We’re Halo primarily a melee game it would be, however most of the guns inately (not tuned around) fire beyond that 2 m/sec boost.

> If you value granularity of movement, you have the option of suggesting a simple speed boost in the style of classic Doom, a toggle that simply ups your movement speed in all directions with no other side effects. Or alternatively, a walk button that’d make it easier to walk slowly. That you choose to endorse a mechanic that restricts the player when alternatives that offer greater freedom exist is what’s in conflict with supporting freedom of pace.

Uncertain of what all options exist in Infinite, we had that boost to speed in the form of Thruster evasions. Which was optimal compared to Sprint speeds while moving backwards or strafing; as Halo has many more pitfalls than Classic DOOM, seeing where you are going while moving at an accelerated rate is far more user-friendly.

A walk button would not work, mechanically. Sprint works as a toggle in that you can end it by releasing the LS, even for a microsecond, or strafing side-to-side, or by firing your weapon. All drop you to top BMS seamlessly. To toggle walk and then drop the LS to move faster would be incredibly unwieldy. That, and this function is rendered obsolete by what we currently have, in two opposing toggle functions.

(Toggle Down: B) Crouch-walking, significantly slower than walk speed.
(Base Movement Speed: LS tilt) Range of normal movement; Walk - Jog - Run.
(Toggle Up: LS2) Sprinting speed, marked boost to running speed.

Both of the Toggle options, up or down, present disadvantages. We’ve hashed over the many present for Sprint, but to bring up the downsides of Toggle Down, the player (while crouched) can have the LS tilted full, and will still be moving far slower than top BMS, putting them at a positional disadvantage. They must either Toggle Up to BMS, jump, or perform some other action to prevent being a sitting duck; while you are able to fire while crouched, the lack of quick movement still hampers combat effectiveness.

BMS is the optimal range for general combat. It is what will most be encountered during combat, with the Toggle options present as outliers.

And while there is the constant insistence that Sprinting has influenced map design to where it is necessary, I do not believe this has been factually shown to be the case as of yet. This is where enters the notion of “breaking the game”, rather than an experience. Because there seems to persist the notion that you cannot play the game without sprinting. However I am still of the opinion, through lack of evidence to the contrary, that if a match were to be played on common Halo 5 maps, absent of Sprint, the game would still function as normal.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5659:
> Me personally, I don’t like Mongooses, Grenade Launchers, or the Power Ups in Warzone. So I just don’t use them. (I realize they are not the same thing as Sprint). But what I don’t do, and where I encourage others not to do, is fight for their removal because I don’t like them.

I fully endorse suggesting things to be removed, if it’s harming your experience, if you think that’s the right thing to do. That’s the feedback cycle of games, and it shapes their development. It’s fine, as long as you are realistic and understand that you may not get what you want.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> I worded it as “temporary boost”, but that is what I asked, as that is what Sprint is. I believe it to be a mistake to view Sprint as Top Speed; while it technically is, the separation serves a similar function to how assassinations (animated or not) are the maximum melee damage we can deal, but are limited to circumstance and prerequisited by choice.

See, this is an example of the problem I see with your approach. It is not a mistake to view sprint as top speed, not just because that’s what it concretely is, but also because it’s just a perspective. You describe sprint as a boost. That description is consistent with reality, and it is indicative of your views on the mechanic as a whole. I describe sprint as a limitation on the maximum speed. That description is also consistent with reality, and it is indicative of my views on the mechanics as a whole. Calling your description of the function of sprint a mistake would be no more useful for accomplishing anything than calling you liking sprint a mistake, because how we describe reality is just a reflection of our views.

I made the conscious decision at some point to always frame sprint as a restriction on what the player can do when running at top speed. It is as accurate description of the reality as any, but it communicates the primary thing I would ultimately like to convince everyone about: that sprint is not an extension of the player’s abilities, but a limitation. If I get someone to even understand that this perspective, just because it differs from theirs, is not any more false than theirs is, I have a much better chance of convincing them that sprint is not necessary for their enjoyment.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> Give-or-take 2 meters per second. About the length of a Spartan. Is that sacrifice of two meters/sec significantly damaging? For traversal, that boost does end up being a benefit, as you do cover ground quicker. But for combat it’s not much of a benefit, and not much lost. We’re Halo primarily a melee game it would be, however most of the guns inately (not tuned around) fire beyond that 2 m/sec boost.

In Halo 5, it’s about 30% faster. That’s a lot for moving around and maneuvering in an encounter. That 30% is the difference between me being able to comfortably side hop or jump backwards over a gap to get a better position vs. turning away from the opponent. It’s the difference between moving behind cover in 1 second vs. 1.3 seconds. Consider that the minimum kill time on some weapons is around 1.5 seconds, that 0.3 seconds might be a difference between life and death.

Not to mention, you’re not accounting for the act of shooting or at least somewhere aiming while traversing the map. That’s something that happens often where, say you want to travel north past an open area to the east. What you’d want to do is strafe your way there facing east so as to look in the most likely direction for opponents to come from. Maybe there are opponents there already, and you want to take shots at them while making your way. Or maybe you’re on a big map where it would be beneficial to zoom in occasionally to observe what’s happening where you’re going. There are lots of situations in Halo where you’re actually traversing the map while you also would like to perform actions prevented by sprint.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> Uncertain of what all options exist in Infinite, we had that boost to speed in the form of Thruster evasions. Which was optimal compared to Sprint speeds while moving backwards or strafing; as Halo has many more pitfalls than Classic DOOM, seeing where you are going while moving at an accelerated rate is far more user-friendly.

I’m an expert on pitfalls. Literally, when I play customs with friends I’m the most likely person to jump off a map in a given match because I like using and testing unusual and risky paths. But I view it as my own deficiency. I can’t comment on how other players in general view it, but I find the possibility of falling to my death very attractive, and I don’t perceive it as a problem in user friendliness.

[BanoffeeBot]

> 2533274804813082;5653:
> > 2533274797849057;5650:
> > I wouldn’t say they work the same. Boost in Halo has always had a turning speed sensitivity penalty associated with it.
>
> As does Sprint, at least up until Halo 5.

I was aware of a turning penalty in Halo Reach. It was very minimal when compared to the turning penalty of boosting a vehicle but yes it was there. I wasn’t aware for Halo 4. Maybe it was was, but it was at least dramatically reduced. In fact I remember zigzag sprinting being a tactic that emerged in Halo 4, to essentially strafe whilst sprinting.

But the point I was trying to make was, the the turning penalty plus bumping into things, created a counter-play meta.

> 2533274804813082;5653:
> > In fact, I would say, for vehicle vs vehicle gameplay, the inability to shoot whilst boosting is actually often detrimental…
>
> I would say, rather than doesn’t make for good gameplay, that it doesn’t make for easy gameplay. Consider the perspective of the player in the Ghost (or, for the comparison, the person Sprinting the hell out of there); they are constantly taking damage (to hull or shields), neither of which recover while boosting/sprinting away. If you and your teammates are able to take them down, then while it was a tougher kill, it was still a kill and good teamwork. If the player gets away, sometimes that happens and we just move on to the next engagement. The big question in regards to “the escape” complaint is why is a kill owed to you? Sometimes players get away from us; this has been the case since Halo: CE.
>
> Does Sprint make it easier to escape? Yes and no. The aforementioned lack of shield recharge makes a sprinting Spartan a very soft target. Their escape is not guaranteed by Sprint, and if their pursuers are skilled enough it won’t matter in the end.

You’ve made 2 assumptions. One: that my reasoning for thinking this is an example of a negative gameplay experience is because I felt a ‘kill was owed to me’, and two: that I wasn’t considering it from both sides. Both of which aren’t true. I would say the most common outcome of this scenario is that boosting away just delays the inevitable… something I very much dislike in gaming, I prefer a ‘fail faster’ policy. If you checkmate someone in chess, you don’t keep playing till the king is taken. In fact many more advanced players concede well before checkmate if they know the game is lost. Equally it’s a bit tiresome to have to wait for someone to come out of armour lock in Halo Reach just to finish of that last headshot. I think it is a negative experience on sides of the equation. The doomed player would be better off just respawning.

I equate this to Sprint delaying shield recharging in Halo 5, It’s a risk associated to sprinting to counter-balance ease of escape yes, but it can lead to delayed checkmate scenarios. In fact it encourages it. It certainly isn’t my preferred fix to the ‘escaping problem’. Honestly I would just prefer them to just remove sprint. Also I find it quite emersion breaking to have physical exertion effect the technological workings of your shield.

> 2533274804813082;5653:
> > Another distinction is that boosting is, in of it’s self, a form of melee (so to speek), it has an offensive application in the form of Splattering.
>
> Sprint is, as well. At least currently, in the form of Spartan Charge, which also has a knock-back effect and can be used to knock enemies off fatal edges.

This was more of a throw away additional point, but I will address it. The spartan already had a form of melee, called melee. Spartan charge wasn’t strictly needed. Sprint already benefited the strategy of engaging in melee combat. In away, it could be said to strengthen a pillar of the golden triangle. #I’m not completely biased against sprint. The problem was double melee, particularly in Halo Reach. But the problem wasn’t that double melee was possible, but rather that combining shooting and melee wasn’t better. The lack of ‘blead through’ exacerbated this in Halo Reach. Having a knock back effect associated with a sprint + melee combo is good. It encourages finishing with a headshot instead of with another melee. And I like the ability to ‘boop’ people off edges. I would take things further though, and make shooting after a melee faster than doing another melee. All that 3rd person, extra damage stuff with Spartan charge I would personally scrap.

> 2533274804813082;5653:
> > Also the mechanic of boosting is contained within the experience of using that vehicle.
>
> Likewise the mechanics - benefits and disadvantages - of sprinting are contained within the mechanic, and I have given examples as to how quickly one can end and recover from Sprint. In earlier games this is as much as one second, in Halo 5 it is immediate.

The point was, when something is a base mechanic, it can typically be used a lot. As such it can have a big effect on the game. Not so much a mechanic associated with using a specific vehicle.

> 2533274804813082;5653:
> > The default standard version of sprint is not the only option just because loads of other shooters have it.
>
> Technically the “standard version” of Sprint was utilized in Halo 4, which I honestly preferred. Halo 5 opted for the type Borderlands uses, where Sprint is unlimited so long as forward motion (with highly responsive turning) is maintained.

True. I will say unlimited sprint does actually fit the canonical benefits of power armour. I’m not sure where I stand on the recourse management aspects of sprint though.