The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
5702

> 2533274801176260;5689:
> Nobody besides you cares about the time delay it takes to switch from run mode to gun mode.

And yet people sure complain about that time delay. The point, as it seems to either be missed or ignored completely, is that the division between run and sprint (yes, this is recognized) is so minimal it’s frankly ridiculous to consider it an impediment on player function, especially when considered against other impediments that hinder the player in greater ways.

Ah, but those are “irrelevant” because you don’t spawn with them, right? Well you don’t spawn sprinting either, it’s an active choice that you have to make.

> To have more gameplay options.

A rhetorical question for you to reflect on; what gameplay options would that open up? I’d love to be able to dual wield rocket launchers, but that doesn’t mean I should.

> 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.

Only a division between Sprint and Run, right? Regardless, and dismissing your splitting of hairs even while pointing out that “flanking speed” is a United States Navy term, (and thus my division is accurate in that application) that demonstrates how “full speed” can not be the fastest speed possible, which was your criticism in regards to top BMS being regarded as “full speed” and Sprint as “beyond full speed”.

> Because BMS is no longer maximum movement speed.

So as elsewhere an argument against Sprint, derived from want. Fantastic.

> Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have, and supported it as far as can be supported with evidence:

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> Especially considering the very mechanical issue of managing a wider range of speeds on LS tilt. Cramming four to five speed differences on the degree of tilt makes for very poor movement control.

I have also stated many times that the point of Sprint is not to be going 130% all the time, which makes managing the tilt of the LS an arduous and unnecessary task in favor of a “click-up” mechanic as Sprint has. Full-tilt BMS, full speed, top optimal combat movement, whatever you want to call it is what is generally best for top speed, moments where an additional boost is either suggested, desired, or required.

But please, do try playing through an entire game (not 10 second displays of an animation) at Half-Tilt LS (which would be the optimal speed were Sprint to be crammed into LS tilt), and let us know how that goes for you. Or don’t, as it’s all-too easy to say “I’ve been doing this since the beginning” with zero evidence, stated just to be right. Brief situations of strafing and not moving at Full BMS is not the same as majority moving Half-Tilt and only sometimes going full tilt. More reflect on this, and what you expect others to settle for.

> That was me giving you a broad hint, as that is the exact same thing you’ve been doing

No, you’re being petty. If your complaint is a mechanic and it’s restrictions placed, then stop using that mechanic when it becomes a detriment to what you’re trying to accomplish. I can’t believe I have to lay this out, but it’s like turning when you need to turn, stopping before you hit the edge of a cliff, or jumping when a gap is presented to you. It is a rational and valid solution to regain abilities that you bemoan as being “robbed from you”, just as every single trade off and choice across the entire bloody sandbox.

On the other hand what you suggested is an unreasonable, ridiculous, and flatly petty suggestion mimicking the restrictions of Sprint as though that’s what we’re going for with it. Which not only entirely ignores the point that has been made several times, but needlessly trivializes the function of Sprint to nothing more than what you don’t like about it. Misrepresenting proponent arguments for Sprint while you’re at it.

> You have completely missed the entire point.

Yeah, I’m told that a lot with little to no substance. Crow, meet raven. You still have not answered how Sprint interferes with combat when Sprint is not a mechanic for combat. You have not considered how under sustained and intermittent fire you physically cannot Sprint, and if this is a factor to the limitations of Sprint that you aren’t aware of, then all the more testament that you do not understand Sprint’s function and application. Many fear and hate what they don’t understand. (And before you’re tempted to another petty interjection, I do understand not having Sprint. As with all others I went 9 years without it. As well, I understand the division between BMS and Sprint; I have elaborated on this at length. So, before you’re tempted to it, you can spare me the “No U”.)

The facts remain that Sprint does not interfere with combat, you only think that it does. Sprint cannot be engaged during combat, and combat is actively detrimental to Sprint in both stagger and shield degradation. The lack of actual evidence that Sprint interferes with combat, and evidence presented to the contrary, makes this criticism more of a complaint based on faulty perception. To which it falls on you to fix, not the developers to pander to at the detriment of other player’s experience.

> 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?

And this was answered:

> 2533274804813082;5634:
> And given that all you have to do is pull the trigger makes that biggest complaint a mountain made of a mole hill. You are also still able to shoot while running, just not while sprinting.

The problem that you and others are facing - and one I cannot fix, that falls to you - is that you are treating Sprinting as running. All the while complaining about the division between the two. Are they separate or not? You need to pick a side on that. Hint: They are separate. This is clearly the case as you have to “click up” to engage Sprinting. Treating them as though they are one and the same is the root misconception to every complaint that Sprint “robs” you of running and gunning, when factually you can still do that just as you were in the original trilogy.

Nothing was taken, a function was added and this is absolutely evident in that top BMS has not decreased. If the speed of 6.86 m/s fell from 100% to 70%, only reaching 100% with Sprint, then you would have an argument there. But it did not, and you do not. Not even when you try to address this further down by claiming that BMS was reduced to 75%; it was not, and the speeds of BMS have remained relatively the same with a truly insignificant decrease of 0.05 WU/s. Sprint has always functioned as an addition to BMS, which is as named BASE Movement Speed. Equivalent to base vehicle movement and boost, and I don’t care about your objections that they’re separate; they are absolutely comparable in function and in relation to this argument that you’re trying to make.

> 2533274801176260;5690:
> That doesn’t work because developer maps are designed for the core mechanics the game is built around.

And yet it has not been proven that Sprint is necessary for general map traversal. Remember when I asked for specific examples of this, and summarily disproved them by playtesting it?

If you’ve more areas to suggest by all means. I might just even test them out, as I leave it open that I could be wrong. But thus far, this has not been proven.

5703

> 2533274804813082;5701:
> 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.

I don’t hate you. I don’t think you’re being malicious. I don’t think you’re stupid. It frustrates me, and when you respond as if I wasn’t aware of something completely obvious, I find it difficult to keep a neutral tone. I’m always sorry if I’m rude. However, I don’t like the way you interpret what you read. I think you should take more time to understand what people are trying to say. I wish somebody had told me that, but I probably wouldn’t have listened either, especially if it had come from someone like myself.

> 2533274804813082;5701:
> It remains that you criticized Sprint as bringing nothing but restrictions, despite factual information to the contrary of which you yourself provided.

“Sprint”, for me, is an abstract mechanic not tied to any particular implementation. The precise speed at which the player travels is not part of the mechanic (Halo Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5 all have different sprint speeds). Indeed, it’s entirely conceivable that a Halo game could have sprint speed lower than the base movement speed of some other Halo game. “Sprint”, for me, is defined by properties that remain unchanged between implementations. The only such properties are restrictions.

I can say that “sprint”, the abstract mechanic, is a set of restrictions, while acknowledging the fact that the maximum movement speed in Halo games with sprint is faster than in those without sprint.

> 2533274804813082;5701:
> 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.

Okay, acknowledged. I just don’t really know what I’m supposed to do with that information. I mean, it doesn’t really change anything from my point of view. Halo Reach had limited sprint. It’s just one more restriction on sprint as far as I’m concerned.

> 2533274804813082;5701:
> 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”.

Have you tried to explain why you like sprint? There are two reasons people like sprint that are generally known about and acknowledged in the anti-sprint crowd: speed, and immersion. You’ve spent a lot of effort on defending sprint as not a downgrade, so people are treating you as if you were in the speed camp. If I were you, I’d spend less time on trying to argue, and more time on talking about what makes sprint interesting for me.

> 2533274804813082;5701:
> 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.

If that’s what you got out of it, you missed the point.

As far as I can tell, I didn’t miss your point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point was that there are sections in campaign that take too long to run through, and that sprint would have made them less time, and made them less tedious? Then my point was twofold: 1) tediousness is in the eye of the beholder, 2) the time it takes to run through a section is determined by level design, and therefore the solutions to tedium issues lie in level design.

> 2533274804813082;5701:
> 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?

No, I’m really not splitting hairs. There are significant gameplay impacting differences in how Evade and Thruster Pack function, the most relevant here being that Evade is very effective in traversal while Thruster Pack is not.

When it comes to sprint, I’d imagine you as a sprint fan would be eager to acknowledge the importance of Halo Reach, 4, and 5 versions of sprint being different. Speaking as someone who has made arguments against each iteration, some of the arguments against Halo Reach and 4 sprint don’t even make that much sense for Halo 5 sprint. If you think that’s splitting hairs, you better split those hairs.

> 2533274804813082;5701:
> 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.

This is demonstrably false. I might have to demonstrate it if you don’t take my word for it, but in Halo Reach a player using (default, finite) sprint completes a 100 unit track in about 34 seconds, while a player using (default, finite) Evade can complete it in about 31 seconds.

EDIT: here’s a video of a 300 unit run: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV_Aip1Wkco

> 2533274804813082;5701:
> 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”.

If you didn’t think I was claiming that combat is all there is to Halo, why did you feel necessary to say it isn’t all there is to Halo? If you understood I wasn’t making that claim, why did you feel the need to even address it? I can’t find a charitable interpretation here. Help me find it.

5704

TheKiltdHeathen

> > 2535441307847473;5683:
> >
>
> 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)

Saying that sprint’s usefulness is not as common as the match goes on still shows that it is common, meaning that it has a steady impact on the game overall, even if it starts off a bit higher at the beginning.

> >
>
> 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.

Those vehicle and weapon changes are just that, changes, they are things that a player can adjust to rather quickly due to their presence in both campaign and multiplayer. Sprint on the other hand isn’t just a change to something that is always there, its an additional mechanic which a player either would or wouldn’t have access to, and as a base movement mechanic it is almost always available to the player meaning that the player always has to account for it when it is present.

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

Because you won’t find much if you’re only moving forward, and you’ll have to go below full speed in order to fully look around.

> >
>
> 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.

If the devs wanted they could have made that elevator jump lethal, or disabled the button until it reached the top floor, but they didn’t. Also on legendary the drones will often kill you if you try to jump down. At the end of the day you’re still using the base movement and fall speed which the devs built into the game to accomplish this.

> >
>
> 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.

I never said that the player needed to meander, why did you add that? I only said that they could only travel as fast as their running speed would move them because there are no vehicles until the beach area.

“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”

Which is exactly why I said “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” I’m not sure why you chose to ignore that but this clearly shows my point, the player can proceed forward at a slower pace, but the warthog represents the tool provided by the devs which will take the player to the end of the map in the smallest amount of time if they choose to use it.

> > 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.

Breaking line of sight doesn’t always take much time at all, a simple corner or even a medium piece of cover is all it takes.

> > 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.

I still hold that reloading does not reward the player in any way. Choosing when to reload can be beneficial in the sense that you’re avoiding the vulnerability that it brings, but the fact that you have to do it in the first place is not, its a downside. Your use of the downside may lead to less negative results, but the fact that you have to make yourself vulnerable and take a few seconds to not shoot is not rewarding.

> > 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.

Not every relationship you brought up was clear, and even then as I said not all equipment was brought over, and I think the differences between these three implementations (if we can call them that) are big enough to consider them different mechanics.
1/2

5705

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.

I don’t see how the existence of current competition between different players would not make this an issue, this isn’t as simple as adding a few extra game modes, this would be the creation of two separate options for each game mode, and things like MLG and competitive attitudes would make this particularly difficult because typically competitive playlists are only supposed to have one base set of mechanics.

> > 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”.

Never once have I said that you are just a stubborn guy who refuses to agree with me because you “don’t get it.” Do you seriously think that I would bother writing such long and detailed responses if I didn’t think there was any serious convincing to be done? Believe me, I wish that we could have shorter responses, things get confusing after so many pages.

As for ignoring things, you have acknowledged several times now that sprint does have limitations and tradeoffs, and yet despite that I am somehow meant to believe that I and others who do not like sprint simply “have preferences,” and that there are no issues being considered, even though you already know that there are limitations and tradeoffs to consider that would not exist without sprint. I also don’t think you’ve done a very good job at all of supporting your arguments in favor of sprint (why it should be included), and you don’t seem to even consider certain issues that we have with sprint, most notably, the fact that max speed has been locked behind a mechanic instead of always being available to the player, in this regard you’ve simply tried asking us why we need to be going faster when that was never the issue, as I’ve stated before, going faster was never an issue for me in the older games, what matters is that max speed has now been sectioned off from shooting and other actions.

> > …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 completely missed what I was saying, I wasn’t saying that the kill was always available, I was saying that max speed was always available. Max speed used to always be available, but with sprint it isn’t, with sprint you have to pick between max speed and attacking. You can call sprinting away hyperbolic all you want but it does happen, even with the downsides of sprinting it is still a valuable tool of escape.

> > 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.

Then don’t bother with a response.

> > 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.

How would vehicle size be an issue? Most smaller maps could easily fit at least a few mongooses or ghosts, and some 4v4 maps could even fit some warthogs.

> Vehicle speeds matter very little to map design overall, as they have a range of speeds, as do Spartans.

Why does a range of speeds matter in this case? Would it matter if vehicles went from 0 to max in an instant?

Getting across the largest maps in Halo takes a very long time on foot, I cannot fathom how the increased speed of vehicles does not play a big role in the size of these maps, BTB maps are almost all far too large for foot travel alone, Sandtrap in particular would be a total slog without the presence of vehicles.

> > 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.

If this group of people alone is all that matters right now then I don’t see the point in quantifying things. In the grand scheme of things neither of our opinions are all that unique.
2/2

5706

> 2533274945422049;5694:
> 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.

Turning around and running. Except nobody is stupid enough to run straight away from their attacker at 180°, while still staying in line of sight. If that were the case, sprint wouldn’t be a “get out of jail free” card in the first place. More than likely a player will run perpendicular to the direction they are shot from, and once they get behind cover, the attacker needs to drop everything and pursue. In the meantime the fleeing player has already reached max velocity and managed to build up both a speed and a range advantage that cannot be overcome anymore by the pursuer, especially since they need to slow down again in order to return to shooting.

> 2533274945422049;5694:
> 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.

Once again, I disagree. If the issue had been the speed difference between BMS and top speed, it would have sufficed to reduce the delta between the two modes without the need to modify anything else from the sprint mechanic, including how it is triggered. The problem is, that was never the case. Just like I tried to explain to Heathen, the issue is not how big the separation between movement mode and combat mode is - neither in terms of speed difference nor how fast you can switch between them - but the fact that these two modes exist. As long as movement gimps combat and vice versa, the player is robbed of choice and agency by the game forcing arbitrary limitations upon them. Your suggestion still does that. Just remove the shooting restriction and the problem goes away.

5707

> 2533274801176260;5706:
> > 2533274945422049;5694:
> >
>
> Turning around and running. Except nobody is stupid enough to run straight away from their attacker at 180°, while still staying in line of sight. If that were the case, sprint wouldn’t be a “get out of jail free” card in the first place. More than likely a player will run perpendicular to the direction they are shot from, and once they get behind cover, the attacker needs to drop everything and pursue. In the meantime the fleeing player has already reached max velocity and managed to build up both a speed and a range advantage that cannot be overcome anymore by the pursuer, especially since they need to slow down again in order to return to shooting.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274945422049;5694:
> >
>
> Once again, I disagree. If the issue had been the speed difference between BMS and top speed, it would have sufficed to reduce the delta between the two modes without the need to modify anything else from the sprint mechanic, including how it is triggered. The problem is, that was never the case. Just like I tried to explain to Heathen, the issue is not how big the separation between movement mode and combat mode is - neither in terms of speed difference nor how fast you can switch between them - but the fact that these two modes exist. As long as movement gimps combat and vice versa, the player is robbed of choice and agency by the game forcing arbitrary limitations upon them. Your suggestion still does that. Just remove the shooting restriction and the problem goes away.

turning around to start running will not make you start sprinting. the speedup only starts after a few seconds, which is below the average kill time. so giving chase is no issue.
if a thrust is used to reach the max speed quickly, the persuing player still has the same ability. the small difference in speed makes the gained range advantage very miniscule in the timeframe of a single engagement. without thrusters this would be even less impactfull (i like them as an option though)

by this methode, using sprint is very unrewarding in any situation besides empty unconmtested space crossing for e few seconds less big map travel time. this is also the reason why binding it to a button is unnecessary, as its trigger mechanism is part of the situationality.

the difference and mode of switching completely make up the negatives of sprint. normal sprint messes up the risk-rewrad, map traversal and agency balance. this running proposal does not affect affect map design noticably, as basicly everything besides dead travel time is unaffected. by not having to press a button and there being no recovery frames, there is no divide between the modes. by the difference being negligable outside of crossing the whole map, there is no feeling of being robbed.
a 5% speed boost after a few seconds of forwards travel + a slight animation for that for rule of cool would result in 2.5 seconds shorter traversal of the whole map valhalla. thats not much, but enough for two kill times (significant in gameplay), but so little it is useless in a 1v1.
the swaying animation starts after 2 seconds, speeding up starts after 1.5 seconds (one kill time on average) and takes 1.5 seconds to complete. (a thrust reduce the time to how long a thrust takes)

5708

having running not bound to a button and without recovery frames means it can be tiny in effect. a button press sets expectations for significant impact once the button is pressed, or it feels off.
the no shooting limitation could be dropped, but this could result in bumrushing being slightly more effective than without.

5709

> 2533274945422049;5708:
> having running not bound to a button and without recovery frames means it can be tiny in effect.

Not really. As it exists now, if I (or anyone) don’t want to Sprint, I simply don’t “click-up” to Sprint. In this regard it is non-intrusive in that I have to choose to use it.

Removing this “click-up” barrier would impose micromanaging movement when Sprint is not desired. Rather than “Press [LS] to Sprint”, it would become “Move at Top BMS for [two] seconds, stop/slow down, move at Top BMS for [two] seconds, stop/slow down,” repeat ad infinium.

5710

> 2533274804813082;5709:
> > 2533274945422049;5708:
> > having running not bound to a button and without recovery frames means it can be tiny in effect.
>
> Not really. As it exists now, if I (or anyone) don’t want to Sprint, I simply don’t “click-up” to Sprint. In this regard it is non-intrusive in that I have to choose to use it.
>
> Removing this “click-up” barrier would impose micromanaging movement when Sprint is not desired. Rather than “Press [LS] to Sprint”, it would become “Move at Top BMS for [two] seconds, stop/slow down, move at Top BMS for [two] seconds, stop/slow down,” repeat ad infinium.

there is no micro managing. its just top bms with a zero recovery frame animation glued to it. no delay in shooting. its a fancy animation and faster forward bms, nothing else.
the 5% faster top forward speed takes a bit to speed up and goes down to noirmal 100% when firing, so you can’t more easily bumrush people. the starting delay prevents running away. its only use, where it is even present, is when you are doing nothing but crossing empty map space. there it gives you a nice animation and a few (two or so) seconds less hangtime.

5711

> 2533274945422049;5707:
> turning around to start running will not make you start sprinting. the speedup only starts after a few seconds, which is below the average kill time. so giving chase is no issue.
> […]the swaying animation starts after 2 seconds, speeding up starts after 1.5 seconds (one kill time on average) and takes 1.5 seconds to complete. (a thrust reduce the time to how long a thrust takes)

So, first of all, 1.5 seconds is not the average kill time. It’s the optimal kill time (Halo 3’s BR was 1.4 seconds, H5G’s BR was 1.5 seconds), with gunfights usually lasting twice, if not thrice as long. Having a speedup take that same ordner of magnitude makes escaping absolutely possible.
Secondly, even assuming that you raise that time by a factor of two, that still leaves ample opportunity:
Let’s say two players fight each other from opposite ends of the rocket hallway on the Pit (or the one with active camo, doesn’t matter, the point is that is a typical distance of combat engagements). The losing player disengages behind the corner, the winning player has to follow, which takes four seconds to get him back into line of sight. Up until this point, both players were accelerating to sprint speed, but the pursuer now needs to make a left turn, which resets his speed back to BMS (unless reloading also disables sprint buildup, in which case the escapist has even more of an advantage).
So now the pursuer once again has to make the same choice he had in any other Halo with sprint: Lower his gun and pursue or keep shooting and let the other player escape with a speed advantage.
That doesn’t fix the problem with escapability in the slightest, it just delays when that choice has to be made to some time after one player starts running away.

> 2533274945422049;5707:
> the difference and mode of switching completely make up the negatives of sprint. […] by not having to press a button and there being no recovery frames, there is no divide between the modes. by the difference being negligable outside of crossing the whole map, there is no feeling of being robbed.

This is just plain false.
This iteration of sprint still breaks the gameplay into two modes, combat mode and movement mode, thus robbing the players of choice and options. The reduced difference in speed and it not being activated by pushing a button doesn’t change that fact.
You focused on one issue of sprint - namely the “get out of jail free” aspect (which you didn’t even fix in the first place) - and completely ignored the rest, then called it a day.

5712

> 2533274801176260;5711:
> > 2533274945422049;5707:
> > turning around to start running will not make you start sprinting. the speedup only starts after a few seconds, which is below the average kill time. so giving chase is no issue.
> > […]the swaying animation starts after 2 seconds, speeding up starts after 1.5 seconds (one kill time on average) and takes 1.5 seconds to complete. (a thrust reduce the time to how long a thrust takes)
>
> So, first of all, 1.5 seconds is not the average kill time. It’s the optimal kill time (Halo 3’s BR was 1.4 seconds, H5G’s BR was 1.5 seconds), with gunfights usually lasting twice, if not thrice as long. Having a speedup take that same ordner of magnitude makes escaping absolutely possible.
> Secondly, even assuming that you raise that time by a factor of two, that still leaves ample opportunity:
> Let’s say two players fight each other from opposite ends of the rocket hallway on the Pit (or the one with active camo, doesn’t matter, the point is that is a typical distance of combat engagements). The losing player disengages behind the corner, the winning player has to follow, which takes four seconds to get him back into line of sight. Up until this point, both players were accelerating to sprint speed, but the pursuer now needs to make a left turn, which resets his speed back to BMS (unless reloading also disables sprint buildup, in which case the escapist has even more of an advantage).
> So now the pursuer once again has to make the same choice he had in any other Halo with sprint: Lower his gun and pursue or keep shooting and let the other player escape with a speed advantage.
> That doesn’t fix the problem with escapability in the slightest, it just delays when that choice has to be made to some time after one player starts running away.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274945422049;5707:
> > the difference and mode of switching completely make up the negatives of sprint. […] by not having to press a button and there being no recovery frames, there is no divide between the modes. by the difference being negligable outside of crossing the whole map, there is no feeling of being robbed.
>
> This is just plain false.
> This iteration of sprint still breaks the gameplay into two modes, combat mode and movement mode, thus robbing the players of choice and options. The reduced difference in speed and it not being activated by pushing a button doesn’t change that fact.
> You focused on one issue of sprint - namely the “get out of jail free” aspect (which you didn’t even fix in the first place) - and completely ignored the rest, then called it a day.

if a 5% speed difference after a 4 second of buildup is a negligable escape advantage on the pit. thats within reaction time errors ath that fight scenario scale. 100 vs. 105 across all of valhalla amount to two perfect killtimes in difference.
5% top speed difference also is negligable for jumps. halo 3 maps worked fine with 110% speed mlg settings, so omidirectionality is not hurt.
its effect is so minimal, it only has noteworthy impact when traveling distances beyond 30 seconds.

the firing limit could be removed, just upping to speed by 5% after a short time and giving it an animation while not firing. this would introduce a small chance for more bum-rushing, but reduce the escape chance slightly.

(i give you the point on perfect killtimes, messed up the naming there.).

5713

I’m sorry, I didn’t even see the reply. Waypoint didn’t give me a notification I was being quoted. I wrongly assumed all your quotes were directed at tsassi and didn’t want to intrude in your discussion.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> And yet people sure complain about that time delay.

Sure they do, because it makes the separation between movement mode and combat mode even worse. You are already not able to play the way you want, but with a time delay, the game even introduces an artificial buffer time between the two modes that belongs to neither. If this separation didn’t exist in the first place, there would also be no buffer time.
EDIT: Oh, were you arguing because I said “nobody cares beside you”? Well, I was referring to the people here in this thread, not on the entire planet, before this turns into yet another semantic discourse…

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> Ah, but those are “irrelevant” because you don’t spawn with them, right?

Correct.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> Well you don’t spawn sprinting either, it’s an active choice that you have to make.

You also don’t spawn shooting or jumping or meleeing or throwing grenades… all of those are active choices you have to make, yet they are all spawn abilities, because you have immediate access to them when you spawn.

Either you actually don’t understand the point being made, in which case have a dozen people here wasted their time for the last three(?) weeks, or - which I consider more likely - you once again make a polemic rebuttal because you run out of arguments and instead want to provoke an emotional reaction that is easier to dismiss.
Sprint is a spawn ability. That’s a fact. You spawn in the game and have immediately access to the mechanic. You can start sprinting the instant the game starts. It is present in all gametypes, maps and at all times. It doesn’t need to be picked up or activated, it cannot be lost, destroyed or run out of ammo.
(And don’t start with Reach and sprint being a loadout, that doesn’t solve the issue, on the contrary, it just makes things even worse by having classes being completely locked out of top movement speed.)

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> A rhetorical question for you to reflect on; what gameplay options would that open up?

360° movement at any speed available in the game with all combat mechanics at the player’s disposal.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> I’d love to be able to dual wield rocket launchers, but that doesn’t mean I should.

Correct, just like you’d love for sprinting to reduce player choice, but that doesn’t mean that it should.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> Only a division between Sprint and Run, right?

No, that semantic distinction is something you introduced into the discussion. I was always referring to max speed of top speed or 100% movement speed, or I could even give you the exact speeds if you want to discuss a specific Halo game in particular.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> So as elsewhere an argument against Sprint, derived from want. Fantastic.

No, an objective observation based on facts.
Even if it were (which it isn’t), why would this be an issue? By your own admission, your preference for sprint stems from the desire to make a very select few sections in the game you personally deem tedious to be less so. I hope you’re not operating on a double standard here…

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> > Actually you haven’t.
>
> Yes, I have, and supported it as far as can be supported with evidence:
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5652:
> > Especially considering the very mechanical issue of managing a wider range of speeds on LS tilt. Cramming four to five speed differences on the degree of tilt makes for very poor movement control.

No, you haven’t. This isn’t evidence, this is your claim.
An Xbox Controller joystick outputs values between -32768 to +32767 on the cardinal axes, meaning it can potentially distinguish between exactly as many movement speeds.
You now have to demonstrate how this is somehow not sufficient to control “four to five speed differences on the degree of tilt”.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> I have also stated many times that the point of Sprint is not to be going 130% all the time, which makes managing the tilt of the LS an arduous and unnecessary task in favor of a “click-up” mechanic as Sprint has.

It’s 100%, not 130, and neither does removing sprint intend to make 100% the only speed available. Nobody is arguing for any and all stick deflection to immediately equate to top BMS.
If anything, removing sprint give you more control about your movement, because the sprint mechanic locks the player out of all velocities between top speed and the arbitrary cutoff that can be reached without the use of said mechanic.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> But please, do try playing through an entire game (not 10 second displays of an animation) at Half-Tilt LS (which would be the optimal speed were Sprint to be crammed into LS tilt), and let us know how that goes for you.

Again, I have been micro-managing my joystick tilt for at least 18 years by now, and that’s if we’re only counting the time since I’ve been playing Halo. Joysticks existed far longer than that and have always required this ability.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> Brief situations of strafing and not moving at Full BMS is not the same as majority moving Half-Tilt and only sometimes going full tilt.

I’m a huge fan of the Splinter Cell series, and moving at half speed is constantly necessary because your movement speed is tied to how fast you are being detected. I am also a huge fan of the Turok series on N64, which ties your aim to the current stick tilt (not pushing up on the stick and the view stays that way), which requires even more precise stick control than just 50/100, as you need to extend the stick by exactly as much as you want to aim up or down and hold it there.
This “brief situations” nonsense is nothing but a pitiful attempt at a strawman…

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> If your complaint is a mechanic and it’s restrictions placed, then stop using that mechanic when it becomes a detriment to what you’re trying to accomplish.

Unfortunately, that’s not possible, because what I’m trying to accomplish is shooting while running at 100% speed. This isn’t possible in a game with sprint, its mere existence forces you to pick one over the other. Using sprint gives you the speed you want but denies you the combat. Not using sprint hands you back your combat capabilities but stunts your movement speed. Both of them are “a detriment to what you’re trying to accomplish” and unfortunately there isn’t a third option.
Trust me, if I could just opt out of the game arbitrarily forcing my weapon down for specific velocities, I would have done so years ago…

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> On the other hand what you suggested is an unreasonable, ridiculous, and flatly petty suggestion mimicking the restrictions of Sprint as though that’s what we’re going for with it.

Yes, and that’s what this clearly ironical proposal was intended to do, to show you the flipside of your ludicrous suggestion of “just stop using that mechanic”.

5714

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> You still have not answered how Sprint interferes with combat when Sprint is not a mechanic for combat.

By disabling combat while moving at 100% speed.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> You have not considered how under sustained and intermittent fire you physically cannot Sprint, and if this is a factor to the limitations of Sprint that you aren’t aware of, then all the more testament that you do not understand Sprint’s function and application.

This is only the case in H5G, not an inherent trait of the mechanic itself. It also isn’t actually relevant to the problem being discussed, namely that sprinting drives a wedge between movement and combat. On the contrary, you just proved the point, by admitting that sprinting isn’t a combat mechanic, so why does it disable shooting in the first place?

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> The facts remain that Sprint does not interfere with combat, you only think that it does.

So show me a clip of shooting while sprinting. I’ll wait.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> Sprint cannot be engaged during combat

Therefore it does interfere with combat, because you need to stop combat in order to be able to use sprint.
You should really introduce this sentence to your previous one.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> The lack of actual evidence that Sprint interferes with combat, and evidence presented to the contrary, makes this criticism more of a complaint based on faulty perception.

Lack of evidence? Do you want me to record a clip of sprint disabling shooting or what?

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> > 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?
>
> And this was answered:
>
>
> > 2533274804813082;5634:
> > And given that all you have to do is pull the trigger makes that biggest complaint a mountain made of a mole hill. You are also still able to shoot while running, just not while sprinting.

  1. This is still nothing but a semantic rebuttal, merely pointing out a linguistig difference between the words “running” and “sprinting”, not addressing the actual mechanical change itself. (Something [url=http://[I already told you](https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/29568daf8cd14083bd1b70a810bf3581/topics/the-return-of-classic-movement-mechanics/dbb9e311-d2f8-48b5-9826-259bffe75cac/posts?page=282#post5640) when you avoided the question the first time.)
  2. The term “run’n’gun” was used as an umbrella term for not having movement restrictions on shooting or vice versa. It stands opposite to games that do, for example by inclusion of a sprint mechanic, dubbed “stop’n’pop”. If you have an issue with the wording, let me rephrase the question: “Why did moving at max speed while shooting need a tradeoff?”

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> The problem that you and others are facing - and one I cannot fix, that falls to you - is that you are treating Sprinting as running. All the while complaining about the division between the two. Are they separate or not? You need to pick a side on that. Hint: They are separate.

I’m not treating sprinting as running because those two words are irrelevant to the argument I’m making. They are mereley a means to convey a point.
If you don’t like them, let’s make up new ones: “to gryxce” is now a synonym for “to move at top speed” and “harkald” is the sprint mechanic.
Harkalding disables the ability to shoot while gryxcing and restricts you to the forward direction, whereas in classic Halo you were able to do both at the same time and in any direction you wanted. Thus it gimps the player’s options.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> Treating them as though they are one and the same is the root misconception to every complaint that Sprint “robs” you of running and gunning, when factually you can still do that just as you were in the original trilogy.

It’s no misconception, and it isn’t based on treating both the same.
In classic Halo you were able to move at top speed by pushing the stick all the way forward. You were still able to fight while doing this.
In Nu Halo, you need to engage in an external mechanic in order to do the same, one which forces you to abandon your combat capabilities.
Both statements are absolutely correct and don’t even require mentioning running or sprinting.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> Nothing was taken, a function was added and this is absolutely evident in that top BMS has not decreased.

False, both Reach and Halo 4 have lower BMS than CE, 2 and 3. Only H5G has higher BMS than the original trilogy, and that was after the BMS was raised due to criticism in the beta. It is currently not known (at least to me) what the original intended BMS for the game was.

> 2533274804813082;5702:
> And yet it has not been proven that Sprint is necessary for general map traversal.

So?
It’s also not necessary to face forward in the direction you’re moving towards, but it sure would be more advantageous rather than looking at those cool first-person-movement animations of your feet.

5715

> 2533274945422049;5712:
> if a 5% speed difference after a 4 second of buildup is a negligable escape advantage on the pit. thats within reaction time errors ath that fight scenario scale. 100 vs. 105 across all of valhalla amount to two perfect killtimes in difference.

Maybe, but it would also be the same negligible escape advantage if you kept the sprint mechanic as it is and reduced the delta to 5%.
I actually like the suggestion of gradually increasing movement speed, but once again separating movement from combat still creates the exact same problems in your scenario that sprint does (if BMS and sprint speed were the same in both cases).
It would still be sprint in mechanical terms, only activated without requiring a button push.
Escapability doesn’t just come from one player being faster than the other (because technically he/she isn’t, both of them have the same access to sprint), it comes from the other not being able to shoot if they want to go just as fast. You’re trying to fix one half of the issue without addressing the other…

5716

> 2533274801176260;5715:
> > 2533274945422049;5712:
> > if a 5% speed difference after a 4 second of buildup is a negligable escape advantage on the pit. thats within reaction time errors ath that fight scenario scale. 100 vs. 105 across all of valhalla amount to two perfect killtimes in difference.
>
> Maybe, but it would also be the same negligible escape advantage if you kept the sprint mechanic as it is and reduced the delta to 5%.
> I actually like the suggestion of gradually increasing movement speed, but once again separating movement from combat still creates the exact same problems in your scenario that sprint does (if BMS and sprint speed were the same in both cases).
> It would still be sprint in mechanical terms, only activated without requiring a button push.
> Escapability doesn’t just come from one player being faster than the other (because technically he/she isn’t, both of them have the same access to sprint), it comes from the other not being able to shoot if they want to go just as fast. You’re trying to fix one half of the issue without addressing the other…

then the option of having the same increase with an animation, but without a deactivation by combat. this would adress your issue, but create a slightly increased risk of double melee and bum-rushing.
a generaly higher melee knockback could help with that, creating a space between the spartans so the other can react. more melee knockback could also be a fun mechanic overall.

5717

> 2533274825830455;5703:
> “Sprint”, for me, is an abstract mechanic not tied to any particular implementation. (continued)

While I understand this is your perception of it, there is demonstrably more to Sprint, consistently across titles, than restrictions. It’s mechanic is not abstracted, as even though the speeds have differed, they are uniformly treated as “Additional and temporary increases to general movement speed (Base Movement Speed) dependent on Player choice implementation.” Even in Halo 5 this definition applies, as Sprinting can be ended in several ways.

It could be hypothetically done that a future Halo game’s Sprint could be less than Halo 5’s top BMS. (7.92 m/s, ~18 mph) However to keep with the definition, the BMS of this game would need to be that of the original trilogy, at ~6.86 m/s (~15 mph), to keep functional application. Ideally, this would work well for an ODST game, I would imagine. But I digress.

While it is correct to say that “Sprint” is (or contains) a set of restrictions, and that Max Speed (assuming this means Sprinting speed) is faster than previous games, I feel it is inaccurate in that the restrictions are focused on as omni-present, in every conceivable situation.

For example (not comparison), imagine the same outlook were to be applied to reloading. That it is a set of restrictions, varying in severity, often detrimental to combat, while still acknowledging that it replenishes magazine size. There is definitely a time and place where the restrictions of reloading do not negatively impact the player, but combat is certainly not it.

So too with Sprint. For comparison, combat is not the best time to use Sprint, and in Halo 5 it’s practically impossible. However in these recent pages it reads as though Sprint is expected to function relative to combat. The cited “impact to combat” that many have attempted to bring in. If Sprint had easy combat application, yes it would be nothing but a set of limitations. However the only direct relation that Sprint has to combat is either entering into it (ideally with a Spartan Charge), or being set upon by it. I believe Halo 5 got rid of the “stumble” (being knocked out of active Sprint when shot), so it could potentially be argued that combat doesn’t engage if a player doesn’t stop. Which could be then argued that it “robs” a combat experience, but for the Shield Degradation that makes a Sprinting Spartan a very soft target. Spaced in Halo 5 maps are not so tight that line of sight is frequently broken where Sprint is best applied, and the increase is not so great to speed that they are “there one moment, gone the next”.

> Okay, acknowledged. I just don’t really know what I’m supposed to do with that information. I mean, it doesn’t really change anything from my point of view.

It is information relative to the function of Sprint, and in reaction to suggestions (not necessarily made by you individually) to simply raise the BMS. It is also why I compare the implementation of Sprint to knowing when to use the rocket launcher (e.g. not in an enclosed space,) or when the best time to reload is (e.g. not in the middle of combat). A time and place for everything.

It is also why I compare Sprint mechanically to the boost of Covenant vehicles. (Spawning with is irrelevant to this comparison, as it’s purely focused on the mechanics.) Initially, this was absent; Halo: CE does not have boost for Covenant vehicles. But then it was added in Halo 2 as an additional increase to speed. It was even unlimited until Halo Reach. However Boost was not treated as the “Top Speed” for those vehicles, even though technically it is. Because of limited duration (which I am for, recognizing that Halo 5 does not implement this, neither did Halo 2 and Halo 3 for Boost) it remains functionally a temporary thing. As it should be.

The problem, as I see it, is treating Sprinting speed as the Top BMS, and thus a restriction of BMS. BMS has remained more or less the same (comparable to movement speeds of Covenant vehicles) and has only received an addition in the form of a boost. This is also why raising the BMS is not a viable “solution” to Sprint, as it treats Sprint as “Movement behind a restriction-wall”, rather than a tool to temporarily amplify movement. Much in the same way the Jetpack functioned to temporarily amplify jumping; it wasn’t as effective by simply pressing the button to jet up.

> Have you tried to explain why you like sprint?

I’ve probably mentioned it here and there, and it somewhat ties in to my arguments; function. Consider it a sub-set of speed, though the function of the mechanic is most important.

As I’ve mentioned often, I don’t want to be going at 130% speed all the time. This is why having Sprint as an additional mechanic is beneficial, as it gives a greater level of control over when it is applied. In combat I don’t need to be going 130%, and that might be too much depending on the area. But every so often an opportunity is presented, be it cutting off a vehicle, rushing in-range to deploying enemies, or getting into position quickly for an ambush where having a boost is useful.

And even small things. There is an element to immersion that I enjoy with Sprint. Using it to quickly cover ground and assassinate a high ranking Sangehili before his lance can react. Taking a Sprinting jump off a cliff to get more distance (it was especially useful for the “If They Came To Hear Me Beg” achievement). Quickly getting to a vehicle before a tank gets in range to kill me. Or even quickly getting to a fleeing enemy (e.g. the BOB on “Winter Contingency” at the very beginning).

I can’t change what people enjoy, which is why I focus on the positive functions of Sprint. How it’s limitations make it useful, and inversely how simply increasing the BMS does not offer the same tactical benefits or introduce the same immersive functions.

> Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point was that there are sections in campaign that take too long to run through, and that sprint would have made them less time, and made them less tedious?

That wasn’t entirely my point, but it is a part of it. To your numbered points:

  • Tediousness is in the eye of the beholder, yes. Which is why having Sprint as an engaged mechanic, rather than the speed reached at full-tilt LS, is best left to player choice. Some people might want to run down a given corridor, others might prefer to sprint. - Level design only limits the fastest possible time, and Sprint would contribute to that possible time. But the level design does not dictate that time; there will always be the fastest, shortest route through any given area, but that isn’t the only path that a player must take.
    In regards to tediousness, I will say that Halo Reach onward, there are very few moments where I personally find traversal to be tedious. The only areas that even approach it both suffer from repetition and stagnation of play area; the gondola on “Shutdown” (Halo 4) and the Space Elevator on “Evacuation” (Halo 5).
5718

> 2533274825830455;5703:
> There are significant gameplay impacting differences in how Evade and Thruster Pack function, the most relevant here being that Evade is very effective in traversal while Thruster Pack is not.

Per your video, you are correct; Evade is better at covering ground. However, I do want to note a couple differences that are significant.

First and foremost, Evade locks you into that movement, forward being the greatest distance, with the inability to turn at all. With Sprint, you are able to cancel that movement at any point in time, as early or late in the duration as desired, as well as have some degree of direction control. While in the long-run it isn’t as effective, with Sprint players have a greater level of control over where they’re going and for how long.

Secondly, and additionally, the lack of direct control over Evade can lead to it being a fatal mistake. As it’s forward movement is dependent not only on player speed but the geometry itself, it is actually possible to “splatter” yourself against a flat surface, as well as launch off geometry in ways that are not anticipated or intended. Sprint suffers from no such dangers.

The function of both Evade and Thruster Packs remains evasion, and in Halo Reach it even disrupts lock-ons and weapons tracking. I concede that Evade can be used effectively for map traversal, however that it’s Multiplayer only also limits its scope to that arena.

> When it comes to sprint, I’d imagine you as a sprint fan would be eager to acknowledge the importance of Halo Reach, 4, and 5 versions of sprint being different.

While they all share the same function, I have acknowledged that they were implemented differently. The function still remains the same. This is what I meant by splitting hairs; though the range is shorter and they’ve got different names, the functions of Evade and Thruster Packs are the same. Neither are optimized for traversal.

I’ve also mentioned that of the three, I prefer 4 most.

  • In Halo Reach, I do not enjoy how Sprint is a modular pick-up, removing the option to use other abilities. To this effect, I also enjoy how Halo 5 internalized thruster packs, providing benefits of sprinting, evading, and hovering to the base experience.- In Halo 5, I do not enjoy how Sprint is unlimited once it gets going, though the ability to turn while Sprinting is a major benefit. However the “stagger” effect before Sprint gets up to speed helps to mitigate when and where players can Sprint from, and the freeze on shield recovery discourages blowing through combat situations.

> If you didn’t think I was claiming that combat is all there is to Halo, why did you feel necessary to say it isn’t all there is to Halo?

To reinforce my stance that Sprint in and of itself doesn’t have application to Combat. I don’t disagree that movement should compliment combat, and in this regard having Sprint behind a “click-up” mechanic is the best course of action. Because the purpose of Sprint is to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, and it doesn’t have a purpose in combat. Base Movement has the range of applicability suitable for combat encounters, and can be utilized as more than A-to-B. Sprint is separate from that Base Movement, and does serve that express purpose.

> 2533274945422049;5710:
> there is no micro managing. its just top bms with a zero recovery frame animation glued to it. no delay in shooting.

Unless I don’t want to be traveling at 105% movement speed. As it stands now, as well, there is already no delay in shooting. I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but as it stands in Halo 5, you can turn a full 360° while Sprinting (only strafing breaks you from it), and as soon as you pull the trigger to fire, you immediately fire. There is no delay, as there was in Halo Reach and Halo 4.

> the starting delay prevents running away.

This is already in place as well, as Halo 5 has a period of “stagger”. If you take fire while trying to Sprint in the first second and a half, you are knocked out of Sprint. Secondly, your shields do not recharge while Sprinting, so even if you do get up to speed, it’s not likely that you’re going to get away.

5719

So… We know there is already is sprint in game, which I appreciate.
There is a grappling hook, which I really don’t care for but, whatever. It’s there.
I would hope there’s still a clamber ability, as it was a nice addition to halo 5. It was natural and smooth and fast.
Beyond that, I just think that the old halo’s feel kind of slow. Not that I mind, I find myself playing either halo 3 or halo 4 on the MCC a lot, and I enjoy both.
I am sure you’re not going to appreciate my opinion, but I would also like to see boost and the ADS hangtime stay in the game from H5. We can drop ground pound and spartan charge as they didn’t really make a lot of sense, or keep them. It did not negatively affect my experience of the game.

5720

There is still clamber. I think ADS was gotten rid of (I’ll miss it too), and it’s uncertain about Thruster Packs at this time.

> 2535441307847473;5704:
> Saying that sprint’s usefulness is not as common as the match goes on still shows that it is common, meaning that it has a steady impact on the game overall,

Given that:

  • Being shot prevents you from engaging in Sprint, - Sprint freezes shield regeneration, making it inopportune to use in proximity to active combat, - Sprint restricts the use of weapons while active, also making it a poor choice to use in and around combat,Where exactly is the impact on the game, outside of intermittent forward mobility?

> Those vehicle and weapon changes are just that, changes, they are things that a player can adjust to rather quickly due to their presence in both campaign and multiplayer.

And just as equally, it could be a rapid adaptation if Sprint were altered for Matchmaking alone. We’re already going to have to do this exact thing with the Grappleshot, so I don’t know why you’re against such a compromise.

> Because you won’t find much if you’re only moving forward, and you’ll have to go below full speed in order to fully look around.

Firstly, as it stands now you can look around while sprinting. Secondly, this doesn’t quite answer how it’s easier to explore at “full speed”, rather than anything below full speed. You’re not going to find much, regarding exploration, if you’re going full speed through a play area.

> If the devs wanted they could have made that elevator jump lethal, or disabled the button until it reached the top floor, but they didn’t.

Exactly. They didn’t. So you can opt to wait for that elevator that they put so much effort into designing and scripting, or you can blow right through it. There is no “As The Devs Intended”.

> I never said that the player needed to meander, why did you add that?

Because that is the designed and scripted route. As close as it gets to “As The Devs Intended”, yet it’s still possible to completely ignore. Your focus here, and why I’m objecting, has not been “you’re limited to movement speed”. It has been, stated more than once, “If The Devs want a given area to take a certain timeframe, there’s nothing the player can do to change that.” (Paraphrased). Twice now this has been proven incorrect with examples.

> I still hold that reloading does not reward the player in any way. Choosing when to reload can be beneficial in the sense that you’re avoiding the vulnerability that it brings,

And the very same thing - the exact same thing - can and has been said for Sprint. Knowing when to utilize Sprint rewards them with an additional 2 m/s, and failing to know when to utilize it penalizes. In both cases, it is the player choice that is rewarding or punishing.

> Not every relationship you brought up was clear,

Which ones?

> 2535441307847473;5705:
> …this isn’t as simple as adding a few extra game modes,

Yeah, it actually really is. If radar and shields can be removed for a gametype, if player movement speed, jump height, and gravity can be altered for another, then there is absolutely no rational argument as to why a gametype with “No Sprint” cannot be implemented in as broad as is popular to sustain it.

> …you have acknowledged several times now that sprint does have limitations and tradeoffs, and yet despite that I am somehow meant to believe that I and others who do not like sprint simply “have preferences,”

The limitations that are recognized have largely - almost exclusively - gone towards illustrating with specific examples how little an impact Sprint has on combat, despite negative claims to the contrary. Utilized properly and tactfully, any and all drawbacks to Sprint become marginal and non-issues, only becoming evident in the instance of misuse.

Like firing a rocket close-quarters in a tight hallway.

I also have addressed “Max Speed” and argued how it is a misconception to treat Sprint as locking “Top BMS” away. More so in that it is always available; it’s been pointed out to me several times how a player spawns with this ability.

Sprint is an addition to a BMS that has remained relatively the same, ~1 m/s. That Base Movement Speed was not drastically dropped, we simply gained a boost to that movement.

> You can call sprinting away hyperbolic all you want but it does happen,

How? You physically cannot Sprint away if you are under fire. If you are not under fire, then the chances are good that you would get away regardless. I really only have your word here on this, and as the issue discussed was sprinting away from combat, the mechanics clearly prevent this.

> How would vehicle size be an issue? Most smaller maps could easily fit at least a few mongooses or ghosts, and some 4v4 maps could even fit some warthogs.

Ergo map design limits vehicle placements based on size. Vehicle speed matters very little, which is why maps like High Ground have a Mongoose and Ghost, not a Warthog, despite a Ghost being faster than a Warthog by 4 mph.

5721

> 2533274804813082;5717:
> For example (not comparison), imagine the same outlook were to be applied to reloading. That it is a set of restrictions, varying in severity, often detrimental to combat, while still acknowledging that it replenishes magazine size. There is definitely a time and place where the restrictions of reloading do not negatively impact the player, but combat is certainly not it.

Reloading is an interesting choice, because I absolutely do see it as a mechanic purely based on restriction, much like sprint. There are actually weapons in the Halo sandbox for which I think removal of reloading would improve combat flow in a way that has some parallels to removal of sprint. But reloading is also an example of how acknowledging a mechanic is purely a restriction doesn’t mean you have to think the mechanic is bad. Reloading adds a second cadence on top of firing rate that can be used to get a bit more variety out of the weapon sandbox.

It’s not that if it’s a restriction, it’s bad. But if thinking of the mechanic as a restriction makes you uncomfortable, maybe it suggests that there’s an alternative. I think you’ve demonstrated you can find good things to say about sprint (regardless of whether I agree with them), irrespective of its top speed. But if somebody doesn’t, maybe they don’t actually need sprint, maybe they just want the speed.

Really, though, you could (hypothetically) agree with me on this view without losing anything.

> 2533274804813082;5717:
> As I’ve mentioned often, I don’t want to be going at 130% speed all the time. This is why having Sprint as an additional mechanic is beneficial, as it gives a greater level of control over when it is applied. In combat I don’t need to be going 130%, and that might be too much depending on the area. But every so often an opportunity is presented, be it cutting off a vehicle, rushing in-range to deploying enemies, or getting into position quickly for an ambush where having a boost is useful.
>
> And even small things. There is an element to immersion that I enjoy with Sprint. Using it to quickly cover ground and assassinate a high ranking Sangehili before his lance can react. Taking a Sprinting jump off a cliff to get more distance (it was especially useful for the “If They Came To Hear Me Beg” achievement). Quickly getting to a vehicle before a tank gets in range to kill me. Or even quickly getting to a fleeing enemy (e.g. the BOB on “Winter Contingency” at the very beginning).
>
> I can’t change what people enjoy, which is why I focus on the positive functions of Sprint. How it’s limitations make it useful, and inversely how simply increasing the BMS does not offer the same tactical benefits or introduce the same immersive functions.

In all of this, I can’t help but see a lack of reference to the restrictions of sprint. If sprint was merely a speed toggle, would you take it? Or is there something about the restrictions specifically you view necessary for your enjoyment?

> 2533274804813082;5717:
> - Tediousness is in the eye of the beholder, yes. Which is why having Sprint as an engaged mechanic, rather than the speed reached at full-tilt LS, is best left to player choice. Some people might want to run down a given corridor, others might prefer to sprint. - Level design only limits the fastest possible time, and Sprint would contribute to that possible time. But the level design does not dictate that time; there will always be the fastest, shortest route through any given area, but that isn’t the only path that a player must take.

This is what I don’t really understand. If it’s just a corridor, a straight line from A to B, why would someone not want to run that straight line at top speed?

I mean, I’m very aware of the fact that a player might want to explore. If there is instead of a corridor, say, a wide canyon with all sorts of features, of course a player might not want to take the straight path through the canyon, but explore and take a longer winding path. Maybe the player wants to stop to look at something, maybe they try to jump up a rock face which naturally slows them down. These are all facilitated by the analog stick degrees of freedom, as far as I’m concerned. But the need for finer control than that is really hard for me to wrap my head around. Like, if somebody just wants to get from A to B, I don’t understand why they would they not want to do that at top speed.

> 2533274804813082;5718:
> First and foremost, Evade locks you into that movement, forward being the greatest distance, with the inability to turn at all. […]Secondly, and additionally, the lack of direct control over Evade can lead to it being a fatal mistake. […]

Okay, this makes sense. I mean, for me the way Evade conserves speed makes it interesting, but it’s undeniable it behaves completely differently to sprint in this way.

> 2533274804813082;5718:
> I don’t disagree that movement should compliment combat, and in this regard having Sprint behind a “click-up” mechanic is the best course of action. Because the purpose of Sprint is to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, and it doesn’t have a purpose in combat. Base Movement has the range of applicability suitable for combat encounters, and can be utilized as more than A-to-B. Sprint is separate from that Base Movement, and does serve that express purpose.

Complementarity is this idea that movement plays an active role in combat, possibly encourages combat, and doesn’t interfere with combat. This is what I mean when I say movement should complement combat. if a player has to leave combat to use a movement ability, or if they have to stop using the movement ability to engage in combat, the movement ability is fundamentally not complementing combat.

You don’t have to denounce the complementarity of movement and combat to like sprint, but being content with its present and past implementations make it at least not a very high priority for you.

———————————————

Also, because I criticized you previously, I’m now going to say thanks. This was a good post. More time explaining your perspective.