Hypothetical new gameplay direction: Everywhere infantry goes, must also be accessible by Mongoose as a viable, competitive transportation method, and everyone gets a Mongoose on every map. You can now get on and off of a mongoose in half a second. What happens to map design? How does this change the way we play the game?
I would love nothing more than for classic gameplay to finally return.
And to all those who say we walk around slowly and the gameplay is slow. Its already been proven that 343 alter the maps for sprint and in a side by side you reach each points roughly around the same time. And in classic gameplay you arenāt in recovery frames so you can shoot, melee, and throw gernades at any given time. And with gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters and so on, there were many ways to traverse the map.
One of the biggest arguments is that 343i has to evolve halo with modern mechanics to survive, but 343i havenāt even given us as little as a spin-off with these older mechanics to test the waters. With the community split so hard over movement in Halo, it would be safe to say that at least one modern Halo should adopt older mechanics.
> 2533274902469708;5663:
> I would love nothing more than for classic gameplay to finally return.
>
> And to all those who say we walk around slowly and the gameplay is slow. Its already been proven that 343 alter the maps for sprint and in a side by side you reach each points roughly around the same time. And in classic gameplay you arenāt in recovery frames so you can shoot, melee, and throw gernades at any given time. And with gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters and so on, there were many ways to traverse the map.
>
> One of the biggest arguments is that 343i has to evolve halo with modern mechanics to survive, but 343i havenāt even given us as little as a spin-off with these older mechanics to test the waters. With the community split so hard over movement in Halo, it would be safe to say that at least one modern Halo should adopt older mechanics.
Iām neither particularly for or against, but I just want to reply to your final sentence.
Regarding how often its referred to the community being split 50/50 over this topic; I donāt exactly see that as the case.
Sure, the forums give the impression that the split is maybe around 50/50, but what about the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of consumers who donāt touch the forums?
As you said, 343i has to evolve the mechanics to stay relevant, which suggests the overall consumer base strongly prefers the newer style of mechanics.
343i is a company with a CEO (Iām assuming thatās Bonnieās official title) and various department heads/directors to oversee their individual teams. By and large, the overall process I imagine is democratised to find optimal results, but many decisions, Iām sure, would be dictated ultimately by what they believe will generate the most profit.
The strongly suggests that the bulk of consumers prefer the faster-paced (seemingly-illusionary) modern mechanics games.
Does my addition to this discussion help either side? Probably not.
But thatās kind of how I like to think about any of these issues to be non-partisan about it all.
I love Halo for the story, the mystery, the scenes, and the characters, so the mechanics arenāt a huge factor for me.
If I could pick a preference, it would be something between Halo 4ās style of movement feel and Halo 5ās. Something about the motions in 4 made the character feel heavy and powerful.
5ās was smooth and sleek feeling, but somehow not quite truly as present as any previous iteration.
Which of course sounds like Iām for the modern style, but if they reverted, I wouldnāt be fussed.
> 2533274851997977;5664:
> > 2533274902469708;5663:
> > I would love nothing more than for classic gameplay to finally return.
> >
> > And to all those who say we walk around slowly and the gameplay is slow. Its already been proven that 343 alter the maps for sprint and in a side by side you reach each points roughly around the same time. And in classic gameplay you arenāt in recovery frames so you can shoot, melee, and throw gernades at any given time. And with gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters and so on, there were many ways to traverse the map.
> >
> > One of the biggest arguments is that 343i has to evolve halo with modern mechanics to survive, but 343i havenāt even given us as little as a spin-off with these older mechanics to test the waters. With the community split so hard over movement in Halo, it would be safe to say that at least one modern Halo should adopt older mechanics.
>
> Iām neither particularly for or against, but I just want to reply to your final sentence.
> Regarding how often its referred to the community being split 50/50 over this topic; I donāt exactly see that as the case.
> Sure, the forums give the impression that the split is maybe around 50/50, but what about the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of consumers who donāt touch the forums?
> As you said, 343i has to evolve the mechanics to stay relevant, which suggests the overall consumer base strongly prefers the newer style of mechanics.
> 343i is a company with a CEO (Iām assuming thatās Bonnieās official title) and various department heads/directors to oversee their individual teams. By and large, the overall process I imagine is democratised to find optimal results, but many decisions, Iām sure, would be dictated ultimately by what they believe will generate the most profit.
> The strongly suggests that the bulk of consumers prefer the faster-paced (seemingly-illusionary) modern mechanics games.
>
> Does my addition to this discussion help either side? Probably not.
> But thatās kind of how I like to think about any of these issues to be non-partisan about it all.
> I love Halo for the story, the mystery, the scenes, and the characters, so the mechanics arenāt a huge factor for me.
> If I could pick a preference, it would be something between Halo 4ās style of movement feel and Halo 5ās. Something about the motions in 4 made the character feel heavy and powerful.
> 5ās was smooth and sleek feeling, but somehow not quite truly as present as any previous iteration.
> Which of course sounds like Iām for the modern style, but if they reverted, I wouldnāt be fussed.
I might sound a little rough with how I type but I do enjoy hearing otherās opinions on things. Like for me I prefer the older style because thats what I was introduced to back in the early 2000s. I disagree with those who attack fans who enjoy 343i style of games because their is nothing wrong with enjoying Halo 4 or 5. My problem has always been 343i and their approach with ignoring the fact that Halo is a pre-established franchise and have changed so much for the sake of change. If the targeted audience enjoys their content it is never their fault.
> 2533274902469708;5665:
> > 2533274851997977;5664:
> > > 2533274902469708;5663:
> > >
> >
> > Iām neither particularly for or against, but I just want to reply to your final sentence.
> > Regarding how often its referred to the community being split 50/50 over this topic; I donāt exactly see that as the case.
> > Sure, the forums give the impression that the split is maybe around 50/50, but what about the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of consumers who donāt touch the forums?
> > As you said, 343i has to evolve the mechanics to stay relevant, which suggests the overall consumer base strongly prefers the newer style of mechanics.
> > 343i is a company with a CEO (Iām assuming thatās Bonnieās official title) and various department heads/directors to oversee their individual teams. By and large, the overall process I imagine is democratised to find optimal results, but many decisions, Iām sure, would be dictated ultimately by what they believe will generate the most profit.
> > The strongly suggests that the bulk of consumers prefer the faster-paced (seemingly-illusionary) modern mechanics games.
> >
> > Does my addition to this discussion help either side? Probably not.
> > But thatās kind of how I like to think about any of these issues to be non-partisan about it all.
> > I love Halo for the story, the mystery, the scenes, and the characters, so the mechanics arenāt a huge factor for me.
> > If I could pick a preference, it would be something between Halo 4ās style of movement feel and Halo 5ās. Something about the motions in 4 made the character feel heavy and powerful.
> > 5ās was smooth and sleek feeling, but somehow not quite truly as present as any previous iteration.
> > Which of course sounds like Iām for the modern style, but if they reverted, I wouldnāt be fussed.
>
> I might sound a little rough with how I type but I do enjoy hearing otherās opinions on things. Like for me I prefer the older style because thats what I was introduced to back in the early 2000s. I disagree with those who attack fans who enjoy 343i style of games because their is nothing wrong with enjoying Halo 4 or 5. My problem has always been 343i and their approach with ignoring the fact that Halo is a pre-established franchise and have changed so much for the sake of change. If the targeted audience enjoys their content it is never their fault.
Funny how different people react and pick preferences!
Iāve been playing since then as well, and until I first entered the forums, the movement mechanics as a prospective issue never really entered my mind.
I enjoyed Halo:CE, 2,3, ODST, and Reach, and the only time during playing them as they released that I ever had any kind of issue, it was with the equipment abilities in Reach. They just never felt right to meā¦ I canāt put my finger on it.
But the lack of Sprint as a base mechanism didnāt ever bother me, and the addition of it didnāt bother me either.
Something about the combination of subtle camera shake, sound effects, and slight blurring, just made me feel more immersed with the addition of it in 4.
If it stays and gets better, then Iām happy. (although this is my preference)
If it goes, but there are some kinds of enhancements for motion shake or whatever, then Iām also happy.
> 2533274851997977;5664:
> Iām neither particularly for or against, but I just want to reply to your final sentence.
> Regarding how often its referred to the community being split 50/50 over this topic; I donāt exactly see that as the case.
> Sure, the forums give the impression that the split is maybe around 50/50, but what about the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of consumers who donāt touch the forums?
> As you said, 343i has to evolve the mechanics to stay relevant, which suggests the overall consumer base strongly prefers the newer style of mechanics.
> 343i is a company with a CEO (Iām assuming thatās Bonnieās official title) and various department heads/directors to oversee their individual teams. By and large, the overall process I imagine is democratised to find optimal results, but many decisions, Iām sure, would be dictated ultimately by what they believe will generate the most profit.
> The strongly suggests that the bulk of consumers prefer the faster-paced (seemingly-illusionary) modern mechanics games.
This hinges on the assumption that a company wishing to maximize profits always knows how to, and is able to, achieve that. But there are many examples in the real world of companies spectacularly failing at that and driving their brand to the ground, and even more that just do fine, but definitely donāt reach the widest possible audience.
The ability of companies to make informed decisions about the users of their products is an extremely nuanced topic. Companies obviously spend a lot of effort on trying to understand their users, but that doesnāt necessarily lead to success, because itās a difficult problem with all kinds of potential complications. If it was a straightforward problem for any company, we wouldnāt see big companies fall, or games and movies that flop. If it was a straightforward problem for 343i, Halo 4 and 5 would have been more successful.
Itās probably notable in this context that 343i did not move forward with Spartan Abilities after Halo 5, and the movement mechanics of Halo Infinite appear significantly toned down. However, the last point I want to make is that you probably shouldnāt read too much into any of that, because there is a possibility you didnāt consider: most people might not have any strong preference for the movement mechanics in Halo. The tendency of people in this thread to assume that most people even care is no more well founded than the tendency to assume that most people share their views.
> 2533274825830455;5667:
> > 2533274851997977;5664:
> > Iām neither particularly for or against, but I just want to reply to your final sentence.
> > **Regarding how often its referred to the community being split 50/50 over this topic; I donāt exactly see that as the case.****Sure, the forums give the impression that the split is maybe around 50/50, but what about the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of consumers who donāt touch the forums?**As you said, 343i has to evolve the mechanics to stay relevant, which suggests the overall consumer base strongly prefers the newer style of mechanics.
> > 343i is a company with a CEO (Iām assuming thatās Bonnieās official title) and various department heads/directors to oversee their individual teams. By and large, the overall process I imagine is democratised to find optimal results, but many decisions, Iām sure, would be dictated ultimately by **what they believe will generate the most profit.**The strongly suggests that the bulk of consumers prefer the faster-paced (seemingly-illusionary) modern mechanics games.
>
> This hinges on the assumption that a company wishing to maximize profits always knows how to, and is able to, achieve that. But there are many examples in the real world of companies spectacularly failing at that and driving their brand to the ground, and even more that just do fine, but definitely donāt reach the widest possible audience.
>
> The ability of companies to make informed decisions about the users of their products is an extremely nuanced topic. Companies obviously spend a lot of effort on trying to understand their users, but that doesnāt necessarily lead to success, because itās a difficult problem with all kinds of potential complications. If it was a straightforward problem for any company, we wouldnāt see big companies fall, or games and movies that flop. If it was a straightforward problem for 343i, Halo 4 and 5 would have been more successful.
>
> Itās probably notable in this context that 343i did not move forward with Spartan Abilities after Halo 5, and the movement mechanics of Halo Infinite appear significantly toned down. However, the last point I want to make is that you probably shouldnāt read too much into any of that, because there is a possibility you didnāt consider: most people might not have any strong preference for the movement mechanics in Halo. The tendency of people in this thread to assume that most people even care is no more well founded than the tendency to assume that most people share their views.
I do believe you reiterated the points I made?
Not to sound contentious, Iām just saying that in case I misinterpreted something there?
I bolded the points/words from my original which I think youāre replying to, but I think you are reiterating.
> 2533274851997977;5664:
> > 2533274902469708;5663:
> > I would love nothing more than for classic gameplay to finally return.
> >
> > And to all those who say we walk around slowly and the gameplay is slow. Its already been proven that 343 alter the maps for sprint and in a side by side you reach each points roughly around the same time. And in classic gameplay you arenāt in recovery frames so you can shoot, melee, and throw gernades at any given time. And with gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters and so on, there were many ways to traverse the map.
> >
> > One of the biggest arguments is that 343i has to evolve halo with modern mechanics to survive, but 343i havenāt even given us as little as a spin-off with these older mechanics to test the waters. With the community split so hard over movement in Halo, it would be safe to say that at least one modern Halo should adopt older mechanics.
>
> Iām neither particularly for or against, but I just want to reply to your final sentence.
> Regarding how often its referred to the community being split 50/50 over this topic; I donāt exactly see that as the case.
> Sure, the forums give the impression that the split is maybe around 50/50, but what about the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of consumers who donāt touch the forums?
> As you said, 343i has to evolve the mechanics to stay relevant, which suggests the overall consumer base strongly prefers the newer style of mechanics.
> 343i is a company with a CEO (Iām assuming thatās Bonnieās official title) and various department heads/directors to oversee their individual teams. By and large, the overall process I imagine is democratised to find optimal results, but many decisions, Iām sure, would be dictated ultimately by what they believe will generate the most profit.
> The strongly suggests that the bulk of consumers prefer the faster-paced (seemingly-illusionary) modern mechanics games.
>
> Does my addition to this discussion help either side? Probably not.
> But thatās kind of how I like to think about any of these issues to be non-partisan about it all.
> I love Halo for the story, the mystery, the scenes, and the characters, so the mechanics arenāt a huge factor for me.
> If I could pick a preference, it would be something between Halo 4ās style of movement feel and Halo 5ās. Something about the motions in 4 made the character feel heavy and powerful.
> 5ās was smooth and sleek feeling, but somehow not quite truly as present as any previous iteration.
> Which of course sounds like Iām for the modern style, but if they reverted, I wouldnāt be fussed.
Maybe because the bulk of the classic supporters left years ago because they knew halo was ruined
Old school style for me
> 2533274851997977;5668:
> I do believe you reiterated the points I made?
> Not to sound contentious, Iām just saying that in case I misinterpreted something there?
> I bolded the points/words from my original which I think youāre replying to, but I think you are reiterating.
No, Iām saying that just because 343i wishes to make Halo more profitable doesnāt mean they are making the right decisions to achieve that. Namely, 343iās actions canāt be be held as indicative of what players in general actually want.
> 2533274825830455;5671:
> > 2533274851997977;5668:
> > I do believe you reiterated the points I made?
> > Not to sound contentious, Iām just saying that in case I misinterpreted something there?
> > I bolded the points/words from my original which I think youāre replying to, but I think you are reiterating.
>
> No, Iām saying that just because 343i wishes to make Halo more profitable doesnāt mean they are making the right decisions to achieve that. Namely, 343iās actions canāt be be held as indicative of what players in general actually want.
But wasnāt that what I said?
In saying that they are making decisions they believe will be more profitable.
Iām not assuming that their decisions there are the correct ones, just that they obviously think they are. And I also suggested that they make that decision based on some kind of data that points to it being the right one.
However, that still falls under it being their belief in that choice given whatever data sets they have that itās the correct choice.
And the other point being that I personally donāt believe that the forums do a good job of speaking for the entire community, however, I said that in less obvious phrasing.
Because as I said there, how many millions of Halo fans, casual or more invested, donāt ever comment or even visit this forum?
And like myself, not really being invested in either result in terms of movement mechanics, I fully expect that (based on no evidence beyond gut feeling) that the average consumer doesnāt care about the movement mechanics beyond the basic enjoyability of the game.
If the overall game is fun and has a good story, then I think most casual gamers wouldnāt even think much about the in-game movement mechanics unless there was a clear fault with it in some way that ruined something.
> 2535407747275549;5669:
> > 2533274851997977;5664:
> > > 2533274902469708;5663:
> > >
>
> Maybe because the bulk of the classic supporters left years ago because they knew halo was ruined
As someone who is clearly invested in it being one way -I say because of your tone- I can understand that sentiment.
However, I donāt think it serves anyone, you included (but obviously I donāt know you personally so my opinion isnāt worth much there), to express such a pessimistic tonality.
I would think that the forums have grown increasingly quiet over time from all kinds of fans and users.
With just a brief scroll through the more recent pages on this thread, and then even the earlier ones, Iām given the impression that the general evenāish split that was at the start is also at the end, just with reduced frequency or volume.
To me, that just suggests the thought, āHey, the new Halo hasnāt come out yetā¦ Itās deep in development, Iāve shared my opinion, made my case, shown support for it and others who share it, now all I can do is wait and see, so Iāma get about my life and maybe come back to the forums once in a blue moon to check it, or maybe not until the next title comes out.ā
Clearly, Iām assuming a lot there, but I think youāll get my line of thought and at least agree to it to some extent.
As I said in my opening line in my first reply; Iām neither for nor against having or not having modern movement. So Iām fence-sitting on this particular argument, beyond simply trying to understand the corporate decision-making process for personal insight and interest.
> 2533274851997977;5672:
> But wasnāt that what I said?
> In saying that they are making decisions they believe will be more profitable.
> Iām not assuming that their decisions there are the correct ones, just that they obviously think they are. And I also suggested that they make that decision based on some kind of data that points to it being the right one.
> However, that still falls under it being their belief in that choice given whatever data sets they have that itās the correct choice.
>
> And the other point being that I personally donāt believe that the forums do a good job of speaking for the entire community, however, I said that in less obvious phrasing.
> Because as I said there, how many millions of Halo fans, casual or more invested, donāt ever comment or even visit this forum?
> And like myself, not really being invested in either result in terms of movement mechanics, I fully expect that (based on no evidence beyond gut feeling) that the average consumer doesnāt care about the movement mechanics beyond the basic enjoyability of the game.
> If the overall game is fun and has a good story, then I think most casual gamers wouldnāt even think much about the in-game movement mechanics unless there was a clear fault with it in some way that ruined something.
You said two things that sum up what I was responding to:
> 2533274851997977;5664:
> 343i has to evolve the mechanics to stay relevant, which suggests the overall consumer base strongly prefers the newer style of mechanics.
> 2533274851997977;5664:
> many decisions, Iām sure, would be dictated ultimately by what they believe will generate the most profit. The strongly suggests that the bulk of consumers prefer the faster-paced (seemingly-illusionary) modern mechanics games.
I understood these statements as you claiming that 343iās decisions suggest that most people prefer Halo 5 style movement mechanics. I was making an argument against this idea. To put it simply, you said that thereās some strong evidence that people prefer Halo 5 style movement mechanics, I said there isnāt.
> 2533274825830455;5673:
> > 2533274851997977;5672:
> > But wasnāt that what I said?
> > In saying that they are making decisions they believe will be more profitable.
> > Iām not assuming that their decisions there are the correct ones, just that they obviously think they are. And I also suggested that they make that decision based on some kind of data that points to it being the right one.
> > However, that still falls under it being their belief in that choice given whatever data sets they have that itās the correct choice.
> >
> > And the other point being that I personally donāt believe that the forums do a good job of speaking for the entire community, however, I said that in less obvious phrasing.
> > Because as I said there, how many millions of Halo fans, casual or more invested, donāt ever comment or even visit this forum?
> > And like myself, not really being invested in either result in terms of movement mechanics, I fully expect that (based on no evidence beyond gut feeling) that the average consumer doesnāt care about the movement mechanics beyond the basic enjoyability of the game.
> > If the overall game is fun and has a good story, then I think most casual gamers wouldnāt even think much about the in-game movement mechanics unless there was a clear fault with it in some way that ruined something.
>
> You said two things that sum up what I was responding to:
>
>
> > 2533274851997977;5664:
> > 343i has to evolve the mechanics to stay relevant, which suggests the overall consumer base strongly prefers the newer style of mechanics.
>
>
>
> > 2533274851997977;5664:
> > many decisions, Iām sure, would be dictated ultimately by what they believe will generate the most profit. The strongly suggests that the bulk of consumers prefer the faster-paced (seemingly-illusionary) modern mechanics games.
>
> I understood these statements as you claiming that 343iās decisions suggest that most people prefer Halo 5 style movement mechanics. I was making an argument against this idea. To put it simply, you said that thereās some strong evidence that people prefer Halo 5 style movement mechanics, I said there isnāt.
But simply, that isnāt what I said. Saying, āTo put it simply,ā followed by a less nuanced version of what I said is very reductive to what I actually said. In other words, itās like putting words in my mouth; cutting out the implication and conjecture that was present in my original comment.
Utilising words like āsuggestā and ābelieveā demonstrate that Iām extrapolating a subset of thoughts (based on speculative evidence that would exist in some form within reasonable assumption) within 343i leading to their final decision.
That does not equal me directly saying that there is some form of empirical evidence stating that conjecture to be true.
The contexts in which I used the word āsuggestā makes it clear that I was talking speculatively about what kind of data they likely have available to them.
I am not argumentative by nature - I see this as civil discourse. Your response, however, appears to be a disservice to what I initially said. And I do myself no service by just accepting the reductive version of how you interpreted what I said.
Since I disagree with your interpretation that I was directly stating that there is evidence saying that a majority of the fans think a particular way.
My third sentence in my first reply made my thoughts clear on that I didnāt think a vast majority directly think one way or another, with the sentence about 343iās decision making implying that they have information supporting their decision, and then my closing sentences were to serve as a bridge to that in saying what I may prefer in the game but wouldnāt have any issue with either way.
My initial quoted reply was a contextually linked passage, and I did not make any statement one way or another about what the fans as a collective, or delineated into like-minded groups, think one way or another.
> 2533274797849057;5661:
> Youāve made 2 assumptions. One: that my reasoning for thinking this is an example of a negative gameplay experience is because I felt a ākill was owed to meā
And yet, you directly tie a player getting away as detrimental to the experience, and not making for āgood gameplayā. Why is that? If by ādelaying the inevitableā you mean theyāre going to die; maybe, maybe not. Neither does the chess example work; the given example of getting away would be a ācheckā, not a ācheckmateā. Checkmate in Halo is when the game is over and the winning team has the prerequisite points for victory. And as Halo is a point-based game, every death is one more mark towards defeat, not something that should be conceded because itās āinevitableā. If a player can sprint, boost, or skill jump their way out of a death, or if they Armor Lock until a teammate can come and assist them, these are valid tactics to avoid losing the game.
> This was more of a throw away additional point, but I will address it. The spartan already had a form of melee, called melee.
Not only does Spartan Charge do more damage than a standard melee, but it also applies a knock-back effect, which can be used with the environment to score kills, as you note. There also was a āshoot quickly after meleeā exploit (BXR) and it was largely regarded by the playerbase as ābreaking the gameā.
> 2533274804813082;5653:
> 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.
Yes, it potentially can. Yet my comparison of the two was to specifically address the removal of shooting while boosting, as that seems to be a large concern with the Sprint mechanic. Not so much the availability of it.
> 2533274902469708;5663:
> Its already been proven that 343 alter the maps for sprint and in a side by side you reach each points roughly around the same time.
If youāre comparing two different maps, one of which just happens to be based off the other. Which is a disingenuous argument. Truth is not Midship, though they share similar (not exact) layouts.
> And in classic gameplay you arenāt in recovery frames so you can shoot, melee, and throw gernades at any given time. And with gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters and so on, there were many ways to traverse the map.
You cannot shoot while you are meleeing or throwing grenades, or reloading, so saying there are no ārecovery framesā is false. Iāve also pointed out how the ārecoveryā from Sprint is - at most - one second, and in Halo 5 it is immediate. Grav Lifts and Man Cannons also make you incredibly vulnerable, far more so than sprinting, and teleporters are notoriously easy to camp. Not really a better option.
> 2533274825830455;5660:
> 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 playerās abilities, but a limitation.
And I do understand - and have acknowledged - the limitations that Sprint imposes while utilizing it. Where we differ, it would seem, is the matter of whether those limitations are reasonable weighed against the benefits; supported as I have pointed out that quite literally everything in the Halo Sandbox imposes some form of limitation.
> In Halo 5, itās about 30% faster. Thatās a lot for moving around and maneuvering in an encounter.
It certainly sounds like a lot. However in Halo 5 itās a difference of only 2.38 meters/second, or 5 miles per hour, evenly reflected with the differences of other instances of Sprint. So while those 5 mph are* a difference, is it enough of a loss to where Sprint becomes a detriment?
As well, I have accounted for aiming while traversing. Many times, when Iāve gone over what I see as the optimal use of Sprint. If your concern while moving is remaining alert, rather than going from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, then Sprint is not your best option. In a similar fashion (used as comparative example) to knowing that a close-quarters area is a poor location to use rockets.
> 2533274851997977;5674:
> But simply, that isnāt what I said. Saying, āTo put it simply,ā followed by a less nuanced version of what I said is very reductive to what I actually said. In other words, itās like putting words in my mouth; cutting out the implication and conjecture that was present in my original comment.
> Utilising words like āsuggestā and ābelieveā demonstrate that Iām extrapolating a subset of thoughts (based on speculative evidence that would exist in some form within reasonable assumption) within 343i leading to their final decision.
> That does not equal me directly saying that there is some form of empirical evidence stating that conjecture to be true.
> The contexts in which I used the word āsuggestā makes it clear that I was talking speculatively about what kind of data they likely have available to them.
>
> I am not argumentative by nature - I see this as civil discourse. Your response, however, appears to be a disservice to what I initially said. And I do myself no service by just accepting the reductive version of how you interpreted what I said.
> Since I disagree with your interpretation that I was directly stating that there is evidence saying that a majority of the fans think a particular way.
> My third sentence in my first reply made my thoughts clear on that I didnāt think a vast majority directly think one way or another, with the sentence about 343iās decision making implying that they have information supporting their decision, and then my closing sentences were to serve as a bridge to that in saying what I may prefer in the game but wouldnāt have any issue with either way.
> My initial quoted reply was a contextually linked passage, and I did not make any statement one way or another about what the fans as a collective, or delineated into like-minded groups, think one way or another.
I had to express what about your post I disagreed as simply as I could, because my previous attempt to clear the confusion failed. Iām sorry if you think Iām misrepresenting your position, but that really is how I understood it. I really try hard not to mispreresent peopleās views. This is why I went back to directly quote your post instead of paraphrasing. This is why I started with āI understoodā. You know, to tell that this is my interpretation of your words. If it doesnāt match your actual views, Iām sorry. If you see some subtle difference between ā[this] strongly suggests thatā and āthis is strong evidence thatā, Iām sorry, but I donāt see that difference, so I felt comfortable making that replacement. To me, what I quoted, and how I rephrased it, had the same meaning.
It happens. People interpret language differently. I donāt mean to misrepresent your views.
> 2533274804813082;5675:
> And I do understand - and have acknowledged - the limitations that Sprint imposes while utilizing it. Where we differ, it would seem, is the matter of whether those limitations are reasonable weighed against the benefits; supported as I have pointed out that quite literally everything in the Halo Sandbox imposes some form of limitation.
But the framing of sprint as a limitation goes a bit deeper than the basic observation that āeverything is a limitationā. Because itās not just that sprint is a limitation relative to some hypothetical gameplay, but that it is a limitation relative to an established gameplay style of classic Halo. Itās this idea that when sprint was added to Halo, it gave no new powers to the player, but rather, just took powers away. But if this idea doesnāt shock you, maybe youāre not part of the group that benefitrs from being aware of it.
Truthfully, I donāt know your reasons for liking sprint. Understanding this perspective is most useful for those whose main justification for sprint is āit makes the game fasterā. If itās never been yours, then itās of little consequence.
Regarding everything being a limitation. yes, that can be a useful view to be aware of. However, limitations need to have a point. As someone who isnāt immersed by the animation, I donāt see one in sprint.
> 2533274804813082;5675:
> It certainly sounds like a lot. However in Halo 5 itās a difference of only 2.38 meters/second, or 5 miles per hour, evenly reflected with the differences of other instances of Sprint. So while those 5 mph are a difference, is it enough of a loss to where Sprint becomes a detriment?
You say it isnāt a lot. I say it is a lot. Then you say it isnāt a lot. You know what Iām going to say next?
> 2533274804813082;5675:
> As well, I have accounted for aiming while traversing. Many times, when Iāve gone over what I see as the optimal use of Sprint. If your concern while moving is remaining alert, rather than going from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, then Sprint is not your best option. In a similar fashion (used as comparative example) to knowing that a close-quarters area is a poor location to use rockets.
But I want to get from A to B as fast as possible while aiming. Thatās the whole point. Iām demonstrating how the speed difference between sprint and no sprint is a significant impairment to my ability to shoot. Did you forget why we were talking about this? Because you asked me how severe does sprint really get in the way of shooting? How much am I sacrificing? Well, thereās your answer: enough that it forces me to make this choice.
You canāt both have sprint not be a severe impairment to shooting ability, and have it be a meaningful decision. You need to pick one, and stick to it.
> 2535441307847473;5654:
> Sprint is essentially always a good option as long as it is available
What makes you say that? Considering the downsides that it presents, use of weapon and shield recharge included, there are definitely times where Sprint is not the best option available to you. You mention three big ones, even, (when visuality is needed over mobility, when stealth is needed, and when in combat) and combat happens quite often in Halo. Particularly Multiplayer, where the optimal use of Sprint decreases against human opponents, rather than AI. Which doesnāt mean that it is useless, only more limited in applicable scope.
> 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.
In terms of gameplay, again, that disconnect is already there. Youāre fighting against human opponents, not AI. Weapons are more readily available on an arena map, and - as mentioned - the weapons and vehicles are balanced differently. Rate of fire, damage, all things that have been tweaked and adjusted specifically for a Multiplayer experience.
> 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,
No, this mentality is not. Nor are those three things ācompletely intermixedā. Your mileage may vary with how you explore things, or define it as such, yet for my gaming groups (and myself) we still find ourselves noticing small details in areas of the Original Trilogy that were entirely missed the first time, because our focus was getting from Point A to Point B as quick as possible. It wasnāt until 2006 that I noticed the Sentinel Factory in Halo 2, because prior to that I had always moved through that area as quickly as possible, not slowing down to truly take in the map around me.
> ā¦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.
As you continue to repeat this sentiment, itās high time you provide some examples for it. Preemptively, you can leave out āThe Mawā and āHaloā, as I have addressed those.
> 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.
Marginally. With the freeze placed on shields recharging, youāre still at a disadvantage. Especially* considering another of the mechanics of Sprint that yāall havenāt taken into account; the stagger. Itās being treated as though a player can take a few shots, and just zip off like Sonic. If youāre under sustained and constant fire, youāre unable to get up to speed. There is a window before reaching max sprinting speed that you can be knocked out of it by receiving damage, and if youāre trying to use Sprint to get out of combat, thatās going to be a huge hamstring to that effort.
> Having a full magazine isnāt a reward,
Combat Readiness through reloading is. It doesnāt matter if guns always spawn with a full magazine, this is a situation that is constantly depleted through player action, and puts you at a disadvantage.
> 2535441307847473;5655:
> Spartan abilities were fully integrated and functioned as new base mechanics,
Yes, I said that. And, again, they improved upon Evade, Sprint, and Jumpjets.
> Also with the exception of drop shield, armor abilities do not share such a clear relationship to Halo 3 equipment,
- Active Camo combined the Cloaking equipment with the motion tracker jamming of the Radar Jammer.
- Dropshield combined both the Bubble Shield and the Regenerator.
- Jet Packs integrated the function of the Portable Gravity Lift.
- Armor Lock combines the Invincibility equipment with the EMP effect of the Power Drain, as well as the potential to act as a stand-in for the Tripmine.
> Lastly, would you be alright with one temporary playlist with sprint if the rest of multiplayer didnāt have sprint? Would that be āgood enough?ā
You know, Iāve quite often suggested having a separation of playlists with and without Sprint. Not even single playlists, but whole sections. Because hereās the problem, Nuss; I like playing with Sprint. SWAT, Slayer, CTF, all the gametypes. I find use in the mechanic, and I know that I am not alone. So for either of our situations, why should we settle for just one playlist? It is entirely possible to do, and that would reach a satisfactory compromise.
However as Iāve also stated, what happens in Matchmaking is small potatoes to me. Again the issue I take with your stance, however, is that you want a complete removal of the mechanic - Campaign included.
> It can be both in different situations, thatās the point, it causes more than one problem.
<em>As well I have said many times, everything* causes more than one problem. If you want to display how a mechanic is entirely detrimental to gameplay, it needs to have either far more negatives or no positives whatsoever. Removing preference and bias, this cannot be done for Sprint, as there are areas where it is useful (several have been given) and beneficial, objectively so.</em>
> Spartan charge was widely hated so I wouldnāt use it as a solution
Not only does this have no factual support (the āwidely hatedā) itās an omission of bias. The fact remains that the option (as well as several others) remain to you.
> 2535441307847473;5655:
> 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.
Not so much that they are completely out of range. The boost is only 2.3 meters per second, giving you more than enough time to throw a grenade in their path, or even stick them if youāre skilled enough.
> As for teammates, I intended this to be a 1v1 scenario
Then youāre not truly accounting for Matchmaking, are you? Teammates breaking off to assist is part of the game, itās disingenuous to treat it as an additional and new burden.
> 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?
Not only do those perks offer no significant change to where youād need to be aware of it, I clearly did not consider them a measure in equality. What I said was that just as those are starting āwithout equalityā, so too is a team starting with a player who knows exactly where spawns are, how to regulate them, and the best tactical locations on the map. Even starting with the same weapons has never been enough, as differing player skills and knowledge has spoiled āequal startsā from the beginning.
Which is largely irrelevant; as everyone starts with Sprint, everyone has access to it. Itās not like starting the match with a Power Weapon when the other team has none.
> 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.
Iāll pose to you the same question that I did elsewhere: Why do you need an increase of 2.38 m/s while in combat or clearing a room?
> Alright, so Iāve thought about it, and no, sprinting is rarely a tactical choice,
The results of your thoughts look to be a lot of speaking for the experiences and reasons of far too many people. How you play the game is one thing, you speaking for an overly broad range of players is another.
> 2535441307847473;5656:
> Unfortunately, thus far you havenāt accepted how distance is connected to speed,
Because you havenāt proven it. All youāve leaned on is the mistaken notion of āIf The Devs mean for this area to take a certain span of time to traverse, nothing will make it fasterā. Until you provide support for that claim, as well as a map being broken by Sprint, then these are things that I will not accept at your word alone. They are claims that require evidence.
> Donāt treat me like some deranged loner, there are many others throughout this thread who have advocated for sprintās complete removal.
One, Iām not treating you as a āderanged lonerā. You are the singular participant in this current discussion that is openly advocating for complete removal of Sprint to where it would affect Campaign as well. When others step in, then Iāll include them in that ideological infringement of my experience.
> 2533274801176260;5658:
> Can I move at full speed while firing?
Not any part of where you pulled that snippet. I was specifically addressing the 1.5 and 1 second delay between movement and firing present in Halo Reach and Halo 4. Something that is absent in Halo 5, as the transition is instantaneous.
But, given your concern bringing about the shift in focus of that quote, Iāll ask you what Iāve asked three others; why do you need to be moving at maximum speed (130%) while firing?
> This makes no sense. Youāre either moving at full speed or youāre not.
Are you familiar with nautical terms? Iāll assume not, so Iāll frame this as itās very apt. āFull Speedā is not the fastest speed that a ship can go. When a shipās Captain orders āFull speed aheadā, this indicates that time (and thus speed) is of the essence, and so the ship needs to make good time on their voyage. Consider āFull speedā equivalent to āTop BMSā.
Additionally, āFlanking speedā is utilized in times of emergency and situational need, such as escaping enemy fire. The ship moves at a speed much faster than Full speed, though at a higher strain on fuel consumption and engine wear. Ergo, Sprint can be compared to āFlanking speedā; moving faster than āfull speedā dependant on situational need.
> It is out of the playerās control.
Stop sprinting. There is your control. The problem youāre facing is that you want your cake and to eat it too, and in doing so youāre treating it as though you have no choice. As though you must, at all times, be traveling at Flanking speed (to use the term).
> As Iāve already said: To have more gameplay options.
That doesnāt quite answer it, and is why I brought up how a player is prevented from firing while driving. All youāre really doing here is expressing the desire for additional features, without explaining why you need to fire while Sprinting. Is Top BMS not sufficient? How so? Having that option would be one thing, but why is it needed?
> āDonāt like it, donāt use itā fallacy.
First, thatās not a fallacy. As Sprint is a circumstantial tool, not using it is a matter of application or abstinence. Secondly, I have already explained how tilt management is not* a viable option, and is frankly asinine to suggest. You try going a whole match managing how far you tilt the joystick, and let me know how well that works out. Youāre being petty in response to a valid suggestion of not using one tool in favor of another.
> - 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 donāt factor into this discussion
- Neither did I say they do. However, they restrict your options in that for several seconds you are unable to fire your weapon while the grenade is thrown.
- Again, movement wasnāt mentioned specifically; reloading significantly interrupts your ability to fire your weapon, sometimes for several seconds depending on what weapon youāre using.
- Jumping affects your movement in that for the duration, you are locked in whichever direction you choose to jump. This can affect combat.
- Vehicles greatly affect player options and ability, which seems to be a major factor in the arguments against Sprint. Shying from this because a player doesnāt spawn with them very much seems avoiding the issue, but have it as you will.
> Sprint, however, is an off-spawn base player movement ability that does interfere with combat. That is the issue here.
How does Sprint interfere with combat any more so than using grenades or reloading? Or going to jump forward across a gap, unable to alter your trajectory in midair?
> It doesnāt, it extends the playersā options. They can now move at any speed they desire
<em>Except for āflanking speedā, a temporary increase of 130%. I have stated many times that everything* in Halo has a tradeoff. Removing Sprint does not āopen up optionsāā or deliver the whole sandbox on a silver platter. Limitations will still remain.</em>
<em>> I donāt think itās 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).</em>
Markers were placed going frame-by-frame, at points when the foot passed the preceding markers, while slowly increasing forward pressure on the LS. The red marks did not appear until the stick was at full-tilt.
> Gameplay using inherent base player traitsā¦
I think you missed my point. Considering this segment was in relations to viewing various walking animations and Player Immersion, ānormal gameplayā is a subjective experience. What is normal for me might not be normal for you; I might walk where you run through.
<em>> It might be ābrief and tenuousā to you, but it is a major drawback to other people.</em>
<em>And what makes it so major, to the point that literally an instantaneous reversal of the limitations become such a spear in the side? Iām really trying for understanding here; that Sprinting removes the ability to fire while it is being used does not add up to a major drawback when there are a number of other elements in Halo that do the exact same thing. That Sprint is hammered on, and these other elements are not, indicates an underlying issue with Sprint - increasingly evident as preference, rather than a negative function overall.</em>
> Ironically, that is exactly the stance of people who are against sprint.
And yet, compromise has been repeatedly refused. First it was suggested to have dedicated playlists (multiple) for Classic Movement. This was refused, citing that Sprint has ruined map layout to where itās nearly impossible to play without. I asked for examples, and disproved them summarily. So the maps seem to be able to accomodate a lack of Sprint (though Iām open to test more examples), and where then does that leave us? Certainly no compromise, āsuggestionsā from you to just not tilt the LS as far, and hyperbolic focus on one negative while completely ignoring others.
<em>I understand that you want to move and fire at the same time. I understand you view that limitation of Sprint to be a huge detriment to your gameplay. You havenāt clearly answered why you need to be moving at 130% speed while firing, and your dismissal of other limitations (e.g. driving) completely ignores that using Sprint is an active choice. For these reasons I understand your grievance, yet I still disagree with it completely.</em>
> 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.
And yet nowhere was that my point or argument. You can stop sprinting to move around and fire. Stuck on a gondola, you areā¦ stuck on a gondola. Stripped of a wider area to fight and seek cover.
> 2533274801176260;5658:
> 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.
Thatās an announcement, not indicative of hands-on development. The development process from itās announcement in 2002 to 2003 was a slew of people writing several different versions of the campaign, Jason Jones spreading himself thin all over the place, and no feasible direction of anything. According to Marcus Lehto, in early 2003 āThe solo campaign was chaotic. There were too many cooks trying to drive the project in different directions.ā Then Jaime Griesemer weighs in with the following: āThe engine was torn completely apartāfor the first year of Halo 2ās development, we couldnāt play it, which makes it impossible to make any real progress.ā 2003 saw Bungie with a skeleton crew working on Halo 2, while Jason Jones left to work on his āPhoenixā project. After the E3 demo, they realized they had no shippable product at all, and all hands were brought back to work on Halo 2 in time for itās new release of Q4 2004.
> Yes, some random dudes on the internet reminiscing about something from over a decade ago.
Random dudes or no, they are who I cited as nothing more than the possibility depending on their account.