The return of classic movement mechanics?

[BanoffeeBot]

> 2533274804813082;5675:
> > 2533274797849057;5661:
> > 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 yet, you directly tie a player getting away as detrimental to the experience, and not making for “good gameplay”. Why is that? If by “delaying the inevitable” you mean they’re going to die; maybe, maybe not. Neither does the chess example work; the given example of getting away would be a “check”, not a “checkmate”. 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 it’s “inevitable”. 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.

I do tie a player getting away in this situation with being detrimental to the experience, Yes. Primarily due to limited options. It isn’t engaging because there isn’t many counter-play options designed into the experience. Equally boosting away is quite one dimensional, hold LT until you reach a safe place. Options and counter-play opportunities I think make for positive gameplay experiences. This is what I want. If a player feels restricted or helpless to counter what an enemy player is doing, it can cause a negative gameplay experience.

If a player decides to run away and strong side in classic Halo, you can throw a grenade towards where they are fleeing, to counter that escape strategy. But add sprint to the equation, the enemy player is moving faster compared to the grenade, meaning they may escape round that corner long before the grenade arrives. Then add thrust and wider corridors to that equation and that grenade could become useless. One option on the designers side, could be to increase throw velocity, and maybe adjust the blast radius, but that would effect the balance of grenades in base movement gun fights… This is just one of many balancing conflicts created by the addition of Sprint.

If a tactic is in the game it is a valid tactic on the players side. I wouldn’t begrudge a player for using what tactics are available to them, for their advantage. That’s just playing the game. I will abuse the hell out of these tactics myself if they are there, just like anyone else. I think the idea of refusing to sprint away due to self imposed honor rule is pretty ridiculous (which I have heard far too many people suggest). But the question is should that option be available to the player? Is it overall beneficial to the experience?

If a player tries to flee but the chaser pulls himself closer with a grapple shot… that is counter-play. If you are trying to retreat to regroup with team mates, and bounce a grenade off a wall behind you to cut off someone chasing you… that is again counter-play. Moves and counter moves. When I talk about checkmate scenarios I’m referring to situations where there isn’t a counter move available. Also having a long, drawn out combat encounter, where there is nothing that can be done to speed up or to force the encounter, isn’t generally fun.

> 2533274804813082;5675:
> > 2533274797849057;5661:
> > 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 “shoot quickly after melee” exploit (BXR) and it was largely regarded by the playerbase as “breaking the game”.

I like the knock-back effect, I have already expressed this. But do I think having a stronger melee adds much value to the game?.. No, not really.

> 2533274804813082;5675:
> > 2533274797849057;5661:
> > 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.

Just because you haven’t heard anyone complain about the inability to shoot whilst boosting. Doesn’t mean no-one had problems with it. It is just as likely that you haven’t heard the complaints because people consider it a small, inconsequential part of the game, that they don’t feel strongly enough about, to complain. If we were talking about a game where you spawn in a ghost, or Banshee, or whatever, some sort of vehicle combat game… then it might be a different story.

[Nuss902928]

> > 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 doesn’t mean that it is useless, only more limited in applicable scope.

I say this because although combat is very common in multiplayer, the need for map traversal is also very common, especially when you spawn in, both at the beginning of a match and during it. And even in combat there are times when you are able to sprint with some level of safety.

> > 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. You’re 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.

Yes there is a disconnect, and you brought up some very good examples, but none of those examples involve movement which is what is being discussed here, and that distinction is important because a base movement mechanic is far more impactful than some minor changes to weapon balancing.

> > 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 “completely intermixed”. 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 wasn’t 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.

Yes, not every player will choose to explore, and those that do will not always find the same things, but that doesn’t change the fact that its easier to do so if you can look around at full speed, whether you took advantage of it of not, exploration, combat, and speed used to be intermixed.

> > …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, it’s high time you provide some examples for it. Preemptively, you can leave out ”The Maw” and ”Halo”, as I have addressed those.

Ok then, in Halo 2 the first mission is Cairo Station, this mission does not have any vehicles so the fastest that the player can get around is by running, very simple. The next mission in Halo 2 is Outskirts, which starts you off on foot but then presents you with a warthog when you reach the beach area, the player does not have to take the warthog, they could instead choose to hijack a different vehicle or continue to proceed on foot, but the fastest way to reach the end of the level is to simply take the warthog, the shear length and openness of the level from that point on clearly shows that it was designed for the increased speed of a vehicle.

> > 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, you’re still at a disadvantage. Especially considering another of the mechanics of Sprint that y’all haven’t taken into account; the stagger. It’s being treated as though a player can take a few shots, and just zip off like Sonic. If you’re under sustained and constant fire, you’re 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 you’re trying to use Sprint to get out of combat, that’s going to be a huge hamstring to that effort.

Sometimes it is marginal, but not always. You can offset stagger by not entering sprint until some cover is between you and your attacker, it may not work as well in some situations, but sprint most certainly can and does save you in times where BMS would not.

> > Having a full magazine isn’t a reward,
>
> Combat Readiness through reloading is. It doesn’t 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.

Stop trying to create a layer of separation between what was being talked about, we were talking about reloading, not combat readiness. Combat readiness is something that is achieved through many different things, it doesn’t change the fact that reloading is a consequence of shooting, just like overheating.

> > 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.

But those were all supplemental abilities, and were sometimes not even allowed depending on the game mode.

> > 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.

You can draw these similarities between certain equipment and armor abilities, but this doesn’t change how different these things were implemented and functioned, and there are more pieces of equipment which did not return in any form. Also Jet Packs functioned very differently from the grav lift, Jet Packs didn’t just give you a single upward boost, they allowed you to hover, slow your decent, and change direction more easily in mid air.
1/3

[Nuss902928]

> > 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?”
>
> You know, I’ve quite often suggested having a separation of playlists with and without Sprint. Not even single playlists, but whole sections. Because here’s 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 I’ve 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.

In a perfect world that might be possible, but as I mentioned earlier such a solution would require a lot of extra work from 343 that we can’t expect, and like I also said, it would lead to a split in the player base, and it is very likely that one set of playlists would end up getting abandoned as long as the other version was even a bit faster when it came to finding a match. The reason I used a single playlist as an example is because the mythic playlist was the only sprintless playlist in Halo 5 as far as I can remember, and to its credit, it seemed to be a pretty well liked playlist while it lasted.

I’ve already stated my opinions about campaign, it wouldn’t create as many issues but they would still be present.

> > It can be both in different situations, that’s the point, it causes more than one problem.
>
> 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.

As Tsassi said, everything may cause problems and create risks, but he, I, and many others have not been given a reason to want these problems to be included when they were not present before, especially when the benefits are pretty shallow and were solved by other methods of map traversal in the older games.

> > Spartan charge was widely hated so I wouldn’t use it as a solution
>
> Not only does this have no factual support (the “widely hated”) it’s an omission of bias. The fact remains that the option (as well as several others) remain to you.

I also said not to use it because it doesn’t appear to be returning in Halo Infinite. Anyways, the sentiment seems to be very common given the amount of complaints that the mechanic has been given on the forums as well as its removal from certain playlists, there aren’t any hard statistics on the matter, but neither are there for armor lock, but its not hard to see the amount of hate that there was and still is for armor lock.

> > 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 you’re skilled enough.

In some cases they may well be out of range, or at least far enough away to change a would be lethal grenade into a wounding one. However insignificant the boost seems doesn’t change that it is a boost.

> > As for teammates, I intended this to be a 1v1 scenario
>
> Then you’re not truly accounting for Matchmaking, are you? Teammates breaking off to assist is part of the game, it’s disingenuous to treat it as an additional and new burden.

Even in team based matches 1v1 scenarios are not uncommon, and this scenario presents a problem that would not previously have needed a teammate to assist most of the time because escaping players couldn’t move faster than attacking players before. Needing help to catch another player has always been present, but this particular reason for needing help never used to exist.

> > 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 you’d 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 “without equality”, 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 “equal starts” from the beginning.
>
> Which is largely irrelevant; as everyone starts with Sprint, everyone has access to it. It’s not like starting the match with a Power Weapon when the other team has none.

Spawning with an extra grenade is most certainly significant, not only does it allow you to deal more damage, but it means that your opponent never knows if you have an extra grenade or not after you throw two.

Equal starts is a term which refers to what the player is given in game, player skill is not a factor, and that’s the point, player skill is what makes equal starts interesting, because it is this skill that determines who will win rather than which team has the best loadouts.

> > 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.
>
> I’ll 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?

I don’t need it if nobody else has it, if everybody is always able to move at max speed then there is no issue, but if I’m in combat and my opponent is using it to get away then I do find the need for it because I’m being denied something that used to always be available. Its not a matter of needing to go faster, I never though that any of the older games were slow, its a matter of being forced to slow down to do certain things which used to be doable at max speed, its about the creation of a wedge between max speed and combat.

> > Alright, so I’ve 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[b/] range of players is another.

You literally asked me how others were using sprint

“Do they use it casually, or tactically” “How often do they get away scot-free from combat, and how often is it a futile effort?”

Don’t ask for my personal experience if you don’t want it.
2/3

[Nuss902928]

> > 2535441307847473;5656:
> > Unfortunately, thus far you haven’t accepted how distance is connected to speed,
>
> Because you haven’t proven it. All you’ve leaned on is the mistaken notion of “If The Devs mean for this area to take a certain span of time to traverse, nothing will make it faster”. 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.

I’ve now given you some examples from the campaign, and I attempted to ask you in my last response about vehicles and how their speed impacts map design but you didn’t answer that. I also brought up that you yourself have already admitted that “A map is designed considering many speeds” but you didn’t respond to that either

> > Don’t treat me like some deranged loner, there are many others throughout this thread who have advocated for sprint’s complete removal.
>
> One, I’m not treating you as a “deranged loner”. 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 I’ll include them in that ideological infringement of my experience.

I referenced the entire thread, not just those who have been here recently. In any event, I see no use whatsoever for this framing, whether or not others agree with me or anybody else doesn’t really effect much.
3/3

[Nuss902928]

Accidental repost

[Nuss902928]

Accidental repost

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> 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 it’s 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 I’m open to test more examples), and where then does that leave us? Certainly no compromise, “suggestions” from you to just not tilt the LS as far, and hyperbolic focus on one negative while completely ignoring others.

I’m yet again not responsible for what someone else might have said, but “Sprint has ruined map layout to where it’s nearly impossible to play without” is not the reason why two sets of playlists don’t work. It’s a gross hyperbole of one reason, but it really doesn’t even matter because that’s not the most significant reason. The real reason is that shoving more playlists into matchmaking is not a solution that works in practice, because of playlist populations. Halo has historically, even back when it was actually popular, had the issue that the population is distributed very unevenly between different playlists. Even in the best case scenario that these two sets of playlists are evenly popular, sure, maybe your standard Team Slayer has enough players to find a good match when you halve the population, but your BTB playlists might not.

In reality, you’re not going to have an even split. You’re going to have one type be more popular than the other. The less popular playlists will eventually get phased out as the game ages and population drops and needs to be consolidated. Whichever type that is, the players who prefer it will be left out in the cold, and we’re back to square one.

Separate playlists is a minimal effort suggestion that lets people feel like they’ve solved the problem without needing to think much or concede anything. It’s in reality no more useful than suggesting someone to use the full range of the left stick.

[Celestis]

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> 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.

Nobody besides you cares about the time delay it takes to switch from run mode to gun mode. The issue has always been that there are two disjunct modes.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> I’ll ask you what I’ve asked three others; why do you need to be moving at maximum speed (130%) while firing?

You’ve also already asked me before, and I have already answered: To have more gameplay options.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> “Full Speed” is not the fastest speed that a ship can go. When a ship’s Captain orders “Full speed ahead”, this indicates that time (and thus speed) is of the essence, and so the ship needs to make good time on their voyage.
> Additionally, “Flanking speed” 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 “Flanking speed”; moving faster than “full speed” dependant on situational need.

False.
“Full speed or flank speed, a nautical term referring to a ship’s true maximum speed”
“Flank speed is a nautical term referring to a ship’s true maximum speed but it is not equivalent to the term full speed ahead.”
“Full speed” is not the same as “Full speed ahead”. The term “flank speed” also only exists in the US Navy, other navies, such as the British, just use the regular “full speed” for referring to 100%.
But if it makes you happy, I can make sure to always use the phrase “max speed” instead. Doesn’t matter to me, my argument doesn’t rely on a specific nomenclature.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> That doesn’t quite answer it, and is why I brought up how a player is prevented from firing while driving.

Vehicles don’t factor into this discussion as they are not spawn abilities. They exist in a sandbox entirely of their own.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> Is Top BMS not sufficient? How so?

Because BMS is no longer maximum movement speed.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> Having that option would be one thing, but why is it needed?

To have more gameplay options.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> Secondly, I have already explained how tilt management is not a viable option, and is frankly asinine to suggest.

Actually you haven’t. You have made a claim how tilt management were not a viable option but didn’t substantiate with any evidence.
Apparently you can manage the tilt sufficiently enough to show off different first person movement animations in Halo 2 for extended periods of time. Seems pretty viable to me.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> You try going a whole match managing how far you tilt the joystick, and let me know how well that works out.

I’ve been doing this pretty much ever since Halo CE released. Combat-strafing is literally built on this skill.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> You’re being petty in response to a valid suggestion of not using one tool in favor of another.

That was me giving you a broad hint, as that is the exact same thing you’ve been doing: Don’t like how sprint gimps your combat capabilities? Easy. Stop sprinting.
This is the same fallacy in reverse: Don’t like how you can go any direction and still shoot at max speed? Easy. Only run forwards and don’t use your weapons while doing so.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> 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?

You have completely missed the entire point.
Grenades and reloading are combat abilities that interfere with combat.
Jumping is a movement ability that interferes with movement.
Sprint is a movement ability that interferes with combat.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> Except for “flanking speed”, a temporary increase of 130%.

Even if you terminology were correct, it’s merely a semantic rebuttal and doesn’t address the issue at all.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> I have stated many times that everything in Halo has a tradeoff. Removing Sprint does not “open up options’’ or deliver the whole sandbox on a silver platter. Limitations will still remain.

Of course limitations still remain. That isn’t the issue here. The issue is this specific limitation of gimping combat for the sake of movement and vice versa.
The question that I asked two weeks ago is still on the table: Running and gunning was one of the few things that didn’t have a tradeoff. Why did it need to get one shoved in retroactively?

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> And what makes it so major, to the point that literally an instantaneous reversal of the limitations become such a spear in the side?

Again, the time that it takes to switch between two disjointed gameplay modes isn’t the issue. The issue is that these two modes even exist in the first place.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> I’m 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.

None of these other elements in Halo are a base player movement mechanic. Vehicles aren’t spawn abilities. And out of the base player abilities, there was the clear distinction that only movement abilities affect movement and only combat abilities affect combat. No movement ability affected your combat and no combat ability affected your movement.
The inclusion of sprint completely breaks this mantra.

[Celestis]

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> And yet, compromise has been repeatedly refused.

No, it hasn’t. The exact opposite is true. The classic crowd were the ones to mostly suggest compromises, usually being shot down by the same “don’t like it, don’t use it” fallacy that you were guilty of yourself.
Examples were:

• Sprint being a map pick-up
• Gradually increasing movement speed while running forwards for an extended period of time
• Allowing to shoot while sprinting, if necessary at an increased spread
• Replacing sprint with a different speed boost that serves the same purpose (such as thruster or evade)
  And those are just the ones that I remember at the top of my head. I probably haven’t even read all of them over the last ten-ish years…

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> First it was suggested to have dedicated playlists (multiple) for Classic Movement.

That doesn’t work because developer maps are designed for the core mechanics the game is built around. Which would mean that such a classic playlist would either have to be set exclusively on shabby forge maps or it would reuse the vanilla maps and play like garbage. On top of that, everything else in the game is tuned for having sprint as well, like weapon spread, aim assist, grenade range and damage, etc.
It also completely ignores the entire PvE aspect of Halo, from campaign to cooperative modes like Firefight.
This is not a compromise. This is the same dismissive stance that was present for the last few Halo games: Throwing the classic crowd a bone you can point towards as an alibi in order to shut them up.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> You haven’t 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.

I don’t want to be able to move at 130% while firing, I want to be able to move at 100% while firing. If sprint exists in the game, it is 100% and BMS was delegated to 75% (in H5G) or less (in other Halo games).
As I have already said multiple times: Vehicles are not an off-spawn base player mechanic. “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.)”
The choices that using sprint “offers” are also completely artificial, as they already existed in Halo before sprint: Running forward at max speed while not shooting and not moving at max speed while shooting. The difference is that prior games additionally gave you the choice of shooting while running at max speed, running in different directions, etc. All of these were already active choices. What sprint does is remove most of them and force the remaining ones upon the player by mechanical restrictions instead of personal preference: I’m not moving at a reduced speed because I want to, I do so because the game literally requires me to if I want to participate in combat.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> And yet nowhere was that my point or argument. You can stop sprinting to move around and fire. Stuck on a gondola, you are… stuck on a gondola. Stripped of a wider area to fight and seek cover.

We weren’t talking about the reduced combat area, we were talking about reduced combat speed:

> 2533274804813082;5609:
> Contrary to what Celtic Dragon suggested, the central theme of Halo has never been going as fast as possible all the time. Subtle themes aside, this is plainly disproven with the various territory defense areas (e.g. cargo bay of the Truth and Reconciliation) and rail-segments (gondolas on Delta Halo and the Library of Delta Halo).

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> > 2533274801176260;5640:
> > 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.

Reducing the player area to a gondola does not prevent them from going at max speed. And if they were to reach the boundary (which, in the case of the Library’s gondola, is even bigger than most other “normal” areas in Halo 2), they could always just tilt the left stick in a different direction and keep going at max speed. All the while still being able to engage in combat. None of this is possible in a game with sprint.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> For these reasons I understand your grievance, yet I still disagree with it completely.

For what it’s worth, I appreciate you trying to understand the other side of the coin, but it’s pretty apparent that you don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t suggest that “You can just stop sprinting and immediately have your combat options back”, because that completely misses the entire point.

> 2533274804813082;5681:
> That’s an announcement, not indicative of hands-on development.

The announcement literally says: “Halo 2 is being developed right now in Redmond, WA.”

> 2533274804813082;5681:
> Then Jaime Griesemer weighs in with the following: ”The engine was torn completely apart—for the first year of Halo 2’s development, we couldn’t play it, which makes it impossible to make any real progress.”

The engine that was scrapped was the graphics engine, as confirmed by Halo 2’s engineering lead Chris Butcher: “The graphics engine that we showed at E3 2003, driving around the Earth city… That entire graphics engine had to be thrown away, because you could never ship a game on the Xbox with it”
A game has multiple engines, such as the physics engine (which was changed to Havok starting with Halo 2). Rewriting the graphics does not affect the gameplay, level design, not even the models and animations, because you can just convert stuff like this to be rendered in a different graphics engine. (This is how Halo content made its way into Garry’s mod.)

[StrykinStorm]

I just like H5 movement system.

[Fractal_Echo]

> 2533274801176260;5690:
> > 2533274804813082;5680:
> > And yet, compromise has been repeatedly refused.
>
> No, it hasn’t. The exact opposite is true. The classic crowd were the ones to mostly suggest compromises, usually being shot down by the same “don’t like it, don’t use it” fallacy that you were guilty of yourself.
> Examples were:
> - Sprint being a map pick-up
> - Gradually increasing movement speed while running forwards for an extended period of time
> - Allowing to shoot while sprinting, if necessary at an increased spread
> - Replacing sprint with a different speed boost that serves the same purpose (such as thruster or evade)
> And those are just the ones that I remember at the top of my head. I probably haven’t even read all of them over the last ten-ish years…
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5680:
> > First it was suggested to have dedicated playlists (multiple) for Classic Movement.
>
> That doesn’t work because developer maps are designed for the core mechanics the game is built around. Which would mean that such a classic playlist would either have to be set exclusively on shabby forge maps or it would reuse the vanilla maps and play like garbage. On top of that, everything else in the game is tuned for having sprint as well, like weapon spread, aim assist, grenade range and damage, etc.
> It also completely ignores the entire PvE aspect of Halo, from campaign to cooperative modes like Firefight.
> This is not a compromise. This is the same dismissive stance that was present for the last few Halo games: Throwing the classic crowd a bone you can point towards as an alibi in order to shut them up.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5680:
> > You haven’t 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.
>
> I don’t want to be able to move at 130% while firing, I want to be able to move at 100% while firing. If sprint exists in the game, it is 100% and BMS was delegated to 75% (in H5G) or less (in other Halo games).
> As I have already said multiple times: Vehicles are not an off-spawn base player mechanic. “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.)”
> The choices that using sprint “offers” are also completely artificial, as they already existed in Halo before sprint: Running forward at max speed while not shooting and not moving at max speed while shooting. The difference is that prior games additionally gave you the choice of shooting while running at max speed, running in different directions, etc. All of these were already active choices. What sprint does is remove most of them and force the remaining ones upon the player by mechanical restrictions instead of personal preference: I’m not moving at a reduced speed because I want to, I do so because the game literally requires me to if I want to participate in combat.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5680:
> > And yet nowhere was that my point or argument. You can stop sprinting to move around and fire. Stuck on a gondola, you are… stuck on a gondola. Stripped of a wider area to fight and seek cover.
>
> We weren’t talking about the reduced combat area, we were talking about reduced combat speed:
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5609:
> > Contrary to what Celtic Dragon suggested, the central theme of Halo has never been going as fast as possible all the time. Subtle themes aside, this is plainly disproven with the various territory defense areas (e.g. cargo bay of the Truth and Reconciliation) and rail-segments (gondolas on Delta Halo and the Library of Delta Halo).
>
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5651:
> > > 2533274801176260;5640:
> > > 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.
>
> Reducing the player area to a gondola does not prevent them from going at max speed. And if they were to reach the boundary (which, in the case of the Library’s gondola, is even bigger than most other “normal” areas in Halo 2), they could always just tilt the left stick in a different direction and keep going at max speed. All the while still being able to engage in combat. None of this is possible in a game with sprint.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5680:
> > For these reasons I understand your grievance, yet I still disagree with it completely.
>
> For what it’s worth, I appreciate you trying to understand the other side of the coin, but it’s pretty apparent that you don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t suggest that “You can just stop sprinting and immediately have your combat options back”, because that completely misses the entire point.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5681:
> > That’s an announcement, not indicative of hands-on development.
>
> The announcement literally says: “Halo 2 is being developed right now in Redmond, WA.”
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5681:
> > Then Jaime Griesemer weighs in with the following: ”The engine was torn completely apart—for the first year of Halo 2’s development, we couldn’t play it, which makes it impossible to make any real progress.”
>
> The engine that was scrapped was the graphics engine, as confirmed by Halo 2’s engineering lead Chris Butcher: “The graphics engine that we showed at E3 2003, driving around the Earth city… That entire graphics engine had to be thrown away, because you could never ship a game on the Xbox with it”
> A game has multiple engines, such as the physics engine (which was changed to Havok starting with Halo 2). Rewriting the graphics does not affect the gameplay, level design, not even the models and animations, because you can just convert stuff like this to be rendered in a different graphics engine. (This is how Halo content made its way into Garry’s mod.)

i’m in the classic movement camp. I also think that the speed buildup solution for long forward travel is a good solution and actualy benefitial to gameplay. this speedup should be single digit percent only. it should only apply when not firing to prevent rushing though. it only being single digit prevents the feeling of having to use it.
general movement speed should be increased by a few percents too. the map traversal buildup could have a slight weapons sway animation (without recovery frames and with a present crosshair), so it feels fast.
Thrusters can return in a toned down fashion, i liked their utility. they were far to necessary in halo 5 though. it should be more of a faster sidestep for cover play or dodging.
clamber should be by a better height advantage through crouch jumping, a slightly increased base jump height and a short (no recovery frame) weapon bob when landing a crouch jump (to simulate a climbing feeling and signal succesful jumps).
spartan charge and ground pound should go. thrusting downward (thrust+crouch in mid air) should be possible insted. melee from the running speed could increase knockback.
stabilize could return mostly unchanged (fixes to jump lenght increase techniques). its a not to intrusive ability. it should be linked to the thrust button when zoomed in, so zoomed in ghandi hopping is not prevented.
the quasi auto-sprint free’s the equipment button.

[Celestis]

> 2533274945422049;5692:
> i’m in the classic movement camp. I also think that the speed buildup solution for long forward travel is a good solution and actualy benefitial to gameplay. this speedup should be single digit percent only. it should only apply when not firing to prevent rushing though.

I strongly disagree. That implementation just brings back the same issues that sprint has: Movement getting in the way of combat (and vice versa).
If this were implemented, a player would still need to slow down just to be able to fight. And when a losing player in multiplayer turns tail and runs, his attacker once again cannot finish off the kill as they are stuck to a lower movement speed if they want to shoot or cannot shoot if they want to pursue.
In that case we might as well just have sprint, that way the speed increase is at least instantaneous and the implementation of the mechanic is more straight-forward.

[Fractal_Echo]

> 2533274801176260;5693:
> > 2533274945422049;5692:
> > i’m in the classic movement camp. I also think that the speed buildup solution for long forward travel is a good solution and actualy benefitial to gameplay. this speedup should be single digit percent only. it should only apply when not firing to prevent rushing though.
>
> I strongly disagree. That implementation just brings back the same issues that sprint has: Movement getting in the way of combat (and vice versa).
> If this were implemented, a player would still need to slow down just to be able to fight. And when a losing player in multiplayer turns tail and runs, his attacker once again cannot finish off the kill as they are stuck to a lower movement speed if they want to shoot or cannot shoot if they want to pursue.
> In that case we might as well just have sprint, that way the speed increase is at least instantaneous and the implementation of the mechanic is more straight-forward.

thats the reason to make the speed increase percentage single digit. its not widely noticable. it also takes multiple seconds to reach that speed and there is no “go fast button”. so turning and running is the usual death sentence. its only helpfull at shaving a few seconds of when crossing a map, maybe one kill time on a 4v4 and two kill times on an 8v8 map (1,4 seconds and 2,8 seconds). the animation starts as soon as the buildup begins and scales with speed increase.
it gives a nice animation when traversing uncontested map space and slightly shortens the time to get back into fights in remote map areas when no better traversal option is present. it simulates the feeling of sprint, while being minimal in moment to moment combat gameplay.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5677:
> [Sprint] is a limitation relative to an established gameplay style of classic Halo. It’s this idea that when sprint was added to Halo, it gave no new powers to the player, but rather, just took powers away.

And this is patently false. You yourself clarified my playtest with the game files, showing a 30% increase in speed. Which is the function and purpose of Sprint. What powers are you expecting? This acting like Sprint does nothing for the players is flatly a false outlook; the obvious drawbacks to Sprint have been acknowledged, and it needs to be acknowledged that there are obvious benefits, however the individual feels about them. It is more than just adding “woosh lines” on the screen (as has been said by someone, I forget who) and locking a player in an animation in some malicious stripping of weapon use (as has been inferred by many.)

> 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 isn’t immersed by the animation, I don’t see one in sprint.

The point in Sprint’s limitation is that it is meant to be brief. As I’ve mentioned frequently. It’s not meant to be a permanent or sustained boost in speed, which is why I don’t prefer Halo 5’s duration. Thus, temporarily removing the use of weapons supports this briefness, and I have also pointed out repeatedly how quick the recovery from Sprinting is. Far shorter than the durations of entering or exiting a vehicle, or mounting and unmounting a turret, for example. Because just as Sprint is intended to be brief in use, so too is it’s limitation brief and minimal in comparison to others.

> You say it isn’t a lot. I say it is a lot. Then you say it isn’t a lot. You know what I’m going to say next?

Well, I suppose my question could be actually answered by someone. Is that loss of 5 mph detrimental to gameplay, to the point where firing during a 30% increase is necessary or prudent? The complaint that you can’t fire your weapon while Sprinting is clear and obvious at this point, but what is not clear is why you need to. Not want to, need to. I might want to be able to fire while driving a warthog, and dual wield assault rifles, and backflip over rockets to look real cool, but it doesn’t mean I need to.

> But I want to get from A to B as fast as possible while aiming.

Why? What is the reason for that, and why is full BMS not optimally as fast as possible while remaining alert? While it may not be your intention, as it reads now is a want to move “flanking speed” while aiming simply because you can’t. Objection from denial.

> 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, there’s your answer: enough that it forces me to make this choice.

Probably, but no. I’m arguing with what- five people? Realistically I’m doing my best, while giving replies as I deem respectful of the time and effort taken for you all to reply. Yet what I asked (yes, I back-reference) was whether 2 m/s (5 mph, 30% increase) made a difference in combat. Especially considering that your opponent would - hypothetically - also be moving at a 30% increase.

As I first mentioned, for traversal that is a benefit. Is it so for combat? Strafing, for example, is not particularly beneficial to map traversal. You’re moving sideways, rather than forward. Yet in combat, strafing is quite often tactically useful in repositioning yourself away from an opponent’s aim and to where they are undefended. It is absolutely possible for a function of core movement to have positive application in one instance, and neutral or negative application in another.

> 2533274825830455;5688:
> …The real reason is that shoving more playlists into matchmaking is not a solution that works in practice, because of playlist populations.

I really don’t see how. For example, I mostly enjoy playing SWAT when it comes to matchmaking. Even though populations were around 4,000, that was still more than enough to find games and enjoy games. If there are enough people who want a “Classic Movement” playstyle, then reasonably there will be enough of a population to play it. It is not optimal or considerate to force all players to Classic Movement when many don’t want that backtrack.

And frankly, on the other hand, if proponents of a particular playstyle are left out in the cold and it’s not feasible to continue hosting an unpopular playstyle, then it is on the players at that point to move on. SWAT fluctuates significantly, and quite often is not in playlists. The way I like to play is not often represented. It is a better use of my time to find a method of playing that I do enjoy, rather than be a noisy minority lobbying to disrupt what is popular for my wants.

> Separate playlists is a minimal effort suggestion

And yet it’s a suggestion all the same. I don’t view it as that minimal, and it does try to satisfy both sides. Conversely, “Just remove Sprint” satisfies only one side and spits on the other. It’s no different than proponents of Sprint telling y’all to deal with sprint.

---

> 2533274797849057;5682:
> I do tie a player getting away in this situation as detrimental, Yes. Primarily due to limited options. It isn’t engaging because there isn’t many counter-play options designed into the experience.

Only there are many counter-play options. Firstly, if you have them under sustained (or even intermittent) fire, they aren’t able to sprint away. Sprint requires several seconds of zero damage to actually engage. So the entire notion (beyond just our isolated back-and-forth) that a player can just “nope” out of any combat situation is factually false. It’s a long-entertained hypothetical that just doesn’t happen because the mechanic doesn’t allow it to happen.

Secondly, even in the event the player begins to get away (say, you’re reloading), their shields do not recharge, making them a very soft target. Chances are good you’ll still get the kill. And if there is enough cover for them to break line-of-sight, chances are just as good that they would have gotten away while you were reloading even at full BMS. As for throwing a grenade, you still are able to stick them while they’re fleeing and even chuck a Frag grenade in their path; you only have to calculate differently. Combined with a stagnant and ever-decreasing shield, and even a proximity explosion can be fatal.

This is why I say that your objection that a player getting away is detrimental reads as you expecting the kill to be practically handed to you. Nothing is guaranteed, and Sprint offers many situational downsides to where even a combat escape isn’t guaranteed to them.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5695:
> And this is patently false. You yourself clarified my playtest with the game files, showing a 30% increase in speed. Which is the function and purpose of Sprint. What powers are you expecting? This acting like Sprint does nothing for the players is flatly a false outlook; the obvious drawbacks to Sprint have been acknowledged, and it needs to be acknowledged that there are obvious benefits, however the individual feels about them. It is more than just adding “woosh lines” on the screen (as has been said by someone, I forget who) and locking a player in an animation in some malicious stripping of weapon use (as has been inferred by many.)

I very carefully chose the very specific phrasing “no new powers”. Simply modifying a parameter that can be changed in custom game settings (maximum movement speed) I don’t qualify as a “new power”. I can make players run at 150% speed in Halo 3. That’s not the point.

The only unique properties sprint has are its restrictions. As such sprint is not an empowering mechanic. Increasing the player’s maximum movement speed is empowering, but that has nothing to do with sprint per se. “Sprint”, functionally, is just a set of restrictions on running fast. Increasing maximum movement speed has benefits, the set of restrictions on what the player can do at that speed—the qualities that make sprint sprint—don’t.

What I want to communicate here is the way in which maximum movement speed and sprint are two totally disjoint aspects of the game. Only one of these gives anything of use to the player. The other is just a set of restrictions. Any time I hear the words “sprint makes the game faster”, any time I hear somebody describe classic Halo as “slow”, I don’t hear an argument for sprint. I hear an argument for faster movement speed.

> 2533274804813082;5695:
> The point in Sprint’s limitation is that it is meant to be brief. As I’ve mentioned frequently. It’s not meant to be a permanent or sustained boost in speed, which is why I don’t prefer Halo 5’s duration.

In Halo Reach, we had this really neat ability called “Evade”. When you pressed a button, it briefly (~0.5s maybe) disabled the player’s ability to shoot. It gave an equally short burst of speed that could be conserved by jumping immediately after. It functioned in every direction. It was just neat. It was kinda like sprint and shared some of its problems. Boy do I wish 343i had gone for the eccentric instead of the predictable in Halo 4. If for nothing else, then because I wouldn’t need to try to convince people about how boring sprint is as a speed boost.

> 2533274804813082;5695:
> Well, I suppose my question could be actually answered by someone. Is that loss of 5 mph detrimental to gameplay, to the point where firing during a 30% increase is necessary or prudent? The complaint that you can’t fire your weapon while Sprinting is clear and obvious at this point, but what is not clear is why you need to. Not want to, need to. I might want to be able to fire while driving a warthog, and dual wield assault rifles, and backflip over rockets to look real cool, but it doesn’t mean I need to.

Well, if you don’t subscribe to the principle that movement in Halo should complement combat, I can’t tell you. The truth is that that’s all there is at the bottom of what people want in games: desires. If you do some introspection, you can condense those into foundational principles that are more cohesive, more universal, and easier communicated to other people. But if people don’t agree with your pretty princoples you’ve distilled for yourself, that’s too bad.

I’ve described you situations where I would find the ability to run and shoot at the same time very useful. In some of those situations, the ability to interact with every part of the environment without fear of gaps that are too long to jump backwards or other such nonsense truly gives encounters more depth. But perhaps more important is to see that the developer understands this principle, and is committed to it. After all, the thing about this principle is: it’s not just about sprint. There are a great deal of other things that can be accomplished in gameplay and level design once one is in the mindset that movement should complement combat, and not just be a way to get from A to B.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5696:
> I very carefully chose the very specific phrasing “no new powers”.

So let me slightly modify the question that still remains; what new powers were you expecting? Going into custom game settings it can also be modified so that a player jumps higher and the gravity’s lower. Guess jetpacks are redundant. Hell, you can even make it so that a player is invincible, so I guess the Invincibility equipment was redundant too.

And before it’s argued that players “aren’t supposed” to jump that high all the time, or be invincible all the time, or some variation of that sentiment, I refer back to the many, many, many times that I have pointed out Sprint’s function as a temporary boost. Not moving at 130% speed all the time.

> The only unique properties sprint has are its restrictions.

False. Your dismissal based on options found in Custom Games also has no bearing on Campaign.

> …any time I hear somebody describe classic Halo as “slow”, I don’t hear an argument for sprint. I hear an argument for faster movement speed.

I can’t speak for others’ complaints, but again, and to reiterate, some areas of the original trilogy are tedious, and would have benefited from Sprint. Some Areas. This doesn’t speak for the game as a whole, but - again, the whole point - circumstantial boosts to movement speeds.

> [Evade] was kinda like sprint and shared some of its problems. Boy do I wish 343i had gone for the eccentric instead of the predictable in Halo 4.

Yeah, Evade was in Halo 4 as well. As well as Halo 5. Neither function “kinda like sprint” in that they have nowhere near as long a duration, or the ability to cover as much ground. To match the full durational function of Sprint, Evade would become much more disruptive as there is a small window of recovery in every single use of the ability. I don’t know what point you were trying to make with this, but it’s not really a solution at all.

> The truth is that that’s all there is at the bottom of what people want in games: desires.

Which is a lot easier to say than to try and build an argument centering around how the flow is broken, or the various and numerous hypothetical situational pitfalls it presents, or hyperbole painting Sprint as some ball-and-chain that drags an unwilling player down into a mire of joyless frustration.

> I’ve described you situations where I would find the ability to run and shoot at the same time very useful.

To which has been endlessly countered that you are still able to run and shoot, just not sprint and shoot. But, as we’re approaching, you see the additional 5mph and want that. Not need, per se, but want. Question remains, why? Applied behind a click-up mechanic, it becomes a tool that can be used to gain the upper hand. Yes, everyone starts with it, but not everyone knows the best time to apply it. If everyone’s moving at 22mph, well then they might as well just be going 17mph. Because again, as seems to be consistently ignored, the point of Sprint isn’t to be going fast all the time.

> There are a great deal of other things that can be accomplished in gameplay and level design once one is in the mindset that movement should complement combat, and not just be a way to get from A to B.

Problem being that combat isn’t all there is to Halo. Matchmaking Slayer, sure. There’s little else but combat. Yet other games such as CTF, Territories/KotH, and Griffball focus far more on mobility than combat. As does Campaign. All these things need to be considered.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2535441307847473;5683:
> I say this because although combat is very common in multiplayer, the need for map traversal is also very common, especially when you spawn in, both at the beginning of a match and during it. And even in combat there are times when you are able to sprint with some level of safety.

And yet once that initial rush to the power weapons to secure map control is over, Sprint’s optimal application in Matchmaking decreases. It’s still there (maybe rushing to the flag), but not as common. Map traversal tends to focus on clearing corners and weaving through cover obstacles, utilizing strafing and forward motion (and backwards if covering your six) more than racing around the map. (*Note to self: footrace gametype)

> Yes there is a disconnect, and you brought up some very good examples, but none of those examples involve movement which is what is being discussed here, and that distinction is important because a base movement mechanic is far more impactful than some minor changes to weapon balancing.

I disagree, and it hasn’t been satisfactorily shown how impactful Sprint really is. On the other hand, expecting a vehicle to function a certain way, or a weapon to be at a certain level of effectiveness only to have that not be the case can be incredibly detrimental. Flying solo into a heavy group of enemies with a Falcon only to find out that you don’t have a chingun, and are essentially a massive flying target. Opting for one weapon over another, only to find that it’s been nerfed for Multiplayer and thus going into a combat scenario outgunned. Expecting grenades to do more damage than they do, only to find out that they’re no more effective than a baseball and you’ve just given away your location.

I already expect some of these issues when the Grappleshot becomes single-use in Multiplayer. However removing Sprint from Matchmaking alone would cause no greater disconnect than these. It would be no worse than the disconnect between human opponents and sliding-scale-difficulty AI opponents. In short, there is no valid reason - when arguing in favor of Matchmaking - to remove Sprint from the game entirely, Campaign and Custom Games included.

> that doesn’t change the fact that its easier to [explore] if you can look around at full speed

How?

> Ok then, in Halo 2 the first mission is Cairo Station, this mission does not have any vehicles so the fastest that the player can get around is by running, very simple.

This doesn’t give any example of a situation where ”The Devs intended this area to take five minutes to traverse, and So It Shall Be.”. In fact, when you’re waiting for the elevator to come up, it’s entirely possible to jump down before it even gets going, bypass the swarm of Drones, ambush the small Covenant lance before they even get on the elevator, and shave several minutes of waiting off your total time.

> The next mission in Halo 2 is Outskirts, which starts you off on foot but then presents you with a warthog when you reach the beach area, the player does not have to take the warthog, they could instead choose to hijack a different vehicle or continue to proceed on foot, but the fastest way to reach the end of the level is to simply take the warthog, the shear length and openness of the level from that point on clearly shows that it was designed for the increased speed of a vehicle.

And even before that point, you don’t have to meander through buildings and expose yourself to sniper fire. There’s no imposition that the journey must take a certain length of time. You can hop up on the rooftops and bypass it all. And even once you get to the crash site on the far side of Hotel Zanzibar, there’s nothing saying that you can’t continue on foot. “What The Devs Intended” can be completely ignored.

So still, you’re not supporting this notion that The Devs intended for a journey to take a certain length of time and there’s nothing the player can do to change it, ergo Sprint is a useless function that doesn’t actually do anything. Factually it is the difference of 2 m/s.

> Sometimes it is marginal, but not always. You can offset stagger by not entering sprint until some cover is between you and your attacker, it may not work as well in some situations, but sprint most certainly can and does save you in times where BMS would not.

That sounds like a marginal impact on combat to me. If a player is able to break line of sight to the point where they can Sprint away, then you didn’t really have a good shot at defeating them in the first place.

> Stop trying to create a layer of separation between what was being talked about, we were talking about reloading, not combat readiness.

When I first brought up reloading, it was to caricature your portrayal of Sprint as some deeply punishing, horrible thing, remarking that anything can be spun negatively without actually making a point. To which you argued that it’s an “expected result” of firing your weapon, and doesn’t reward players in anyway. I disagree, and pointed out that it does reward players with combat readiness. It is a function that could be removed entirely, for either bottomless clips or even being stuck with a single magazine until it’s empty. Hell, players could even be penalized for reloading early in that whatever rounds remain in a magazine are lost. But they’re not, and taking that conscious choice to preemptively reload has rewarding function in that they are more prepared for upcoming engagements.

> You can draw these similarities between certain equipment and armor abilities,

You can deny the correlations based on splitting hairs, but the fact remains that clear relationships between Equipment and the various Armor/Spartan Abilities exist. Improvements or alterations on implementation and exact function are what make them different. The core philosophy of the item remains.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2535441307847473;5684:
> …such a solution would require a lot of extra work from 343 that we can’t expect

Not really. Hell, the division could even be between that of the many and various “MLG” playlists and all else. It would not be an inordinate level of work for the Matchmaking team.

And as for “splits in the player base”, we’ve got so many of those that it’s ridiculous to suggest such an accommodation would cause more. There is division between “Casual and Competitive” players, MLG and everyone else, and even still Pro-Sprint versus Anti-Sprint. These concerns are “what if’s” that inexplicably avoid the posed solution without really explaining why it’s not viable or good enough. As is becoming evident elsewhere, it likely boils down to want.

> As Tsassi said, everything may cause problems and create risks, but he, I, and many others have not been given a reason to want these problems to be included when they were not present before, especially when the benefits are pretty shallow and were solved by other methods of map traversal in the older games.

Shifting the burden and ignoring various elements. It’s getting tiresome, it really is. If you don’t like a mechanic just because you don’t like it, then just stick to saying that. Preference bias seems to be the strongest argument against Sprint. But if you try to quantify it (like posing several hypothetical and hyperbolic problems) then you will be expected to support those claims. I have supported my arguments in favor of Sprint’s application, considering the limitations, I expect you and others to do the same for your arguments. Such would be far more productive than treating me like an obstinate individual that just “doesn’t get it”.

> …if I’m in combat and my opponent is using it to get away then I do find the need for it because I’m being denied something that used to always be available.

You’re denied something you want. A guaranteed kill has never been “always available”. And while I’ve mentioned it elsewhere I’ll repeat it here: this notion that a player can just Sprint away from an active firefight is a hyperbolic myth that needs to end. There is a buffer period to Sprint, as a functional drawback, and if they are taking fire even intermittently they cannot Sprint. If you have them in sights, and you have them under fire, they hold no greater chance of getting away.

> You literally asked me how others were using sprint

I also quite clearly said “these are rhetorical, and something I’d urge you to think on.” I.e. not asking for an answer.

> 2535441307847473;5685:
> I attempted to ask you in my last response about vehicles and how their speed impacts map design but you didn’t answer that.

Vehicle size more effects map design. Or rather, map design limits vehicles based on their size. Vehicle speeds matter very little to map design overall, as they have a range of speeds, as do Spartans.

> I referenced the entire thread, not just those who have been here recently.

I’m far less concerned with the 285 pages in total and the various arguments made therein over the span of Three Years and more concerned - in current discussion and reference - with the 4-5 people I’m arguing with - you included.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5697:
> So let me slightly modify the question that still remains; what new powers were you expecting? Going into custom game settings it can also be modified so that a player jumps higher and the gravity’s lower. Guess jetpacks are redundant. Hell, you can even make it so that a player is invincible, so I guess the Invincibility equipment was redundant too.
>
> And before it’s argued that players “aren’t supposed” to jump that high all the time, or be invincible all the time, or some variation of that sentiment, I refer back to the many, many, many times that I have pointed out Sprint’s function as a temporary boost. Not moving at 130% speed all the time.

You actually can’t reproduce the Jetpack’s ability to hover with custom game settings. Jetpack is to jumping what sprint is to Evade or Thruster Pack, i.e., continuous boost vs. a sudden increase in speed.

The other thing of course, relevant for invincibility, is that I’m not suggesting neither it, nor Jetpack, as base abilities that can be used at any time. Temporary equipment pick-ups don’t need to posses new functionality. They can act as power multipliers: in multiplayer as power items to encourage movement, in campaign to craft specific scenarios. If you want to suggest replacing base sprint with a speed boost power-up, go ahead. If not, I apply very different standards to base mechanics and pick-ups for a reason.

> 2533274804813082;5697:
> > The only unique properties sprint has are its restrictions.
>
> False. Your dismissal based on options found in Custom Games also has no bearing on Campaign.

You missed the point. It’s not about customization. It’s that, as a developer, if you want players to run faster, you can just make them faster. Fast movement is not a unique property of sprint.

> 2533274804813082;5697:
> I can’t speak for others’ complaints, but again, and to reiterate, some areas of the original trilogy are tedious, and would have benefited from Sprint. Some Areas. This doesn’t speak for the game as a whole, but - again, the whole point - circumstantial boosts to movement speeds.

That’s purely a level design issue, and not necessarily even a problem. Pacing is a very subjective issue. What you probably see as tedious, I often see as serene, a breather that gives time to process the events and take in the environment. I obviously can’t speak for the developers, but it’s entirely possible that it was intentional, and if they wanted you to go faster, they would have provided a vehicle. Of course, it can be a mistake: maybe they didn’t have the time to get the pacing for that section right, or maybe they just didn’t see it as players would. In any case, giving players a button they can use to change speed doesn’t actually prevent any of that happening.

Time is what determines pacing. If the gameplay designers give the player 30% more speed, nothing prevents the level designers from making environments 30% larger to offset that, or decreasing the density of enemies. Alternatively, if the level designers want to make faster sections, they can do that.

> 2533274804813082;5697:
> Yeah, Evade was in Halo 4 as well. As well as Halo 5. Neither function “kinda like sprint” in that they have nowhere near as long a duration, or the ability to cover as much ground. To match the full durational function of Sprint, Evade would become much more disruptive as there is a small window of recovery in every single use of the ability. I don’t know what point you were trying to make with this, but it’s not really a solution at all.

Halo 4 and 5 don’t have Evade. They have Thruster Pack, which, while being conceptually similar, is far from identical. And I very specifically mentioned Evade, and not Thruster Pack, because part of the modifications of Thruster Pack were to ensure that it’s completely ineffective for movement. Evade, unlike Thruster Pack, actually is very effective for movement, and can be used to cover ground as fast as the Halo Reach edition of Sprint.

> 2533274804813082;5697:
> To which has been endlessly countered that you are still able to run and shoot, just not sprint and shoot.

You know, this is the most frustrating part about discussing with you. You consistently find ways to interpret phrasing in a way that obviously wasn’t the intended interpretation. In a conversation with a normal person discussing in good faith, I could trust that I don’t always need write “run at maximum speed”, because they’d learn from context that when I say “run”, I’m referring to the same thing. They would realize that since I posses the same basic intellect and knowledge as them, I am indeed aware one can move and shoot at the same time in Halo 5, and that therefore I must be talking about maximum speed movement here.

Either you’re trying to find the least charitable interpretation, or you’re not taking enough time to process what other people are saying. In either case, please take the time to understand what people are trying to say. If you’re not sure what they mean, ask for clarification nicely. Don’t attack something they’re not even saying just because it seems beneficial to you.

> 2533274804813082;5697:
> Problem being that combat isn’t all there is to Halo. Matchmaking Slayer, sure. There’s little else but combat. Yet other games such as CTF, Territories/KotH, and Griffball focus far more on mobility than combat. As does Campaign. All these things need to be considered.

Are you serious? How on Earth do you interpret “movement should complement combat” as a claim that combat is all there is to Halo? Like, the irrelevance of these six sentences is just astonishing. It’s like if I said “brushing your teeth is good”, and you went “Oh, but what about exercise? What about a healthy diet? Good teeth aren’t the only thing there is to health. All these things need to be considered.” Well, duh.

There is no problem here.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5700:
> You actually can’t reproduce the Jetpack’s ability to hover with custom game settings.

Probably because the only way you can “hover” with a Jetpack is if you’ve got custom settings so that Armor Abilities are unlimited. By the time you reach maximum height, doing nothing but jumping straight up and engaging the jetpack, you’ve run out of it and you fall.

The Jetpack is to jumping what Sprint is to forward movement; a temporary boost in that movement. Jetpacks let you jump higher and farther, Sprint lets you run faster.

It remains that you criticized Sprint as bringing nothing but restrictions, despite factual information to the contrary of which you yourself provided. You were also the one who dismissed Sprint as bringing “nothing new” by justification of Custom Game settings. Enter the “equal invalidation” of several other functions of Armor and Spartan Abilities rendered redundant when you fiddle with Custom settings. To point; it’s not a sound argument to say a mechanic is useless because you can recreate it outside the default and common game experience.

> You missed the point. It’s not about customization. It’s that, as a developer, if you want players to run faster, you can just make them faster. Fast movement is not a unique property of sprint.

And this is what is exceptionally frustrating to me in this whole back-and-forth with too many people. How many times has it been said and reiterated that going fast all the time is not the purpose of Sprint? That the whole point is for temporary boosts to speed? High time that’s acknowledged if there is to be any progress. You’ve often harped on me to consider other’s point of view, and on my part I have acknowledged your all’s grievances and stated that it is not a matter of misunderstanding, but disagreement. Yet repeatedly I find myself re-clarifying that the whole point is not to be going fast ”all the time”. This is poorly addressed (more closely ignored flat-out) by suggestions to an increased BMS, and worse still by the dismissive suggestions to just “not tilt LS so far”.

> That’s purely a level design issue, and not necessarily even a problem.

You missed the point. And are also beginning to employ the fallacy of “As The Devs Intended” in a game that centrally values Player Agency.

> Halo 4 and 5 don’t have Evade. They have Thruster Pack, which, while being conceptually similar, is far from identical.

You’re splitting hairs. Functionally, they are the same. And as I told Nuss, simply because a function is not identical does not mean it is not a derivative of prior functions. Hell, Halo 5’s Sprint isn’t identical to Halo 4’s Sprint, which is neither identical to Halo Reach’s Sprint. Shall we split those hairs too?

> Evade, unlike Thruster Pack, actually is very effective for movement, and can be used to cover ground as fast as the Halo Reach edition of Sprint.

Evade - as Thruster Packs - has small windows of engagement and recovery. Due to these it will never actually catch up to Sprint, and covers less distance in the two uses that you have before a required cool-down than Sprint has in its entire duration. No, it is not as effective for movement as Sprint is.

> You consistently find ways to interpret phrasing in a way that obviously wasn’t the intended interpretation. In a conversation with a normal person discussing in good faith, I could trust that I don’t always need write “run at maximum speed”, because they’d learn from context that when I say “run”, I’m referring to the same thing.

This is another frustration of mine, tsassi. Consistent insinuation that I’m acting maliciously, semi-veiled slights on my character (e.g. “normal person” discussing in “good faith”) and just the general treatment as though I’m an idiot. I’m not a mind reader, I read what you and everyone else writes as it is written, and cannot perceive emotions or intent unless you clearly state them. This is a pitfall of text-based discourse; you can’t tell if I’m foaming at the mouth, raging over my stances or if I’m half-asleep, sipping my coffee and taking intermittent breaks to play-test certain functions, areas, and points.

> Are you serious? How on Earth do you interpret “movement should complement combat” as a claim that combat is all there is to Halo?

Yes, I am serious. How do I interpret it as that? Well for one, I didn’t. I reiterated that just as it’s not “all about Sprint”, it’s not “all about combat”. That there are several instances where mobility is the focus, not shooting your gun. More to the point because we’re arguing about Sprint, tsassi. A function in which the purpose is to get from Point A to Point B, as you dismissed in your post. Not to move as fast as possible in every conceivable situation, as is consistently ignored, and not a function which - in application - you need to be firing a weapon. As has been touched on at last, you only want to. And yes, desire is a fantastic foundation for suggestions and criticisms, but just as everyone has their own opinion, this doesn’t guarantee that those opinions are valid or stand up to objective scrutiny. Argument from desire does not make for fact, and this compounds arguments trying to claim that Sprint is factually a detriment to THE game. Not your game, but THE game itself.

You are also doing exactly here what you criticize me of above, interpreting my phrasing in a way that was not the intended interpretation, ignoring context and not taking enough time to process what I’m saying. Crow, meet raven.