The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
5782

> 2533274795123910;5772:
> > 2533274883893694;5771:
> > Ok, I’ve ghosted this thread long enough and I’ve grown a bit tired of posts like this.
>
> While I agree that it isn’t a good post, the one you quoted, here’s where the difference in point of views start.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274883893694;5771:
> > Sprint and Advanced movements didn’t “kill” Halo. Competition did. What games in 2007 were actually around that could compete with Halo? What online multiplayer shooter games on console were there aside from Halo and a very few select others?
>
> 2007 is regarded by many as a “golden year” in gaming, seeing the start of many different franchises we see active today.
> Not only that, but there are those who see 2007 as one of the last years of actual variation in what was released.
>
> How big of a percentage of the gaming community actively limit their gaming library to “online multiplayer shooter game on console”?
> Is this percentage large enough to warrant limiting the competition of Halo, to what’s even only a part of what Halo is as a game?
> Halo gamers didn’t play Skyrim, Mass Effect, Assassin’s Creed, GoW, DotA, LoL, Starcraft, Sports games, racing games, sims games and so forth?
> Exclusively on Xbox? Or could you own whatever Nintendo had back then, a Playstation, and/or possibly a PC as well?
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274883893694;5771:
> > Lets look at what happened between Halo 3 and Halo reach. The online community itself split as PC gaming took off,
>
> What exactly happened here that made PC “take off”?
> As far as I recall, PC gaming had already “took off” long before that, and had always been a major precense in gaming.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274883893694;5771:
> > and PlayStation finally started having an online playerbase, people left for both with neither of those platforms having Halo, and PC JUST got Halo within these past few years.
>
> I don’t recall what titles PS had at the time, but it did have some which made people interested in it, outside of brand loyalty of course.
> People being Halo fans doesn’t mean abandoning all other games, genres and platforms.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274883893694;5771:
> > CoD went through 4 games by the time reach came out, Gears went through 2, Medal of Honor, A host of Battlefield games that finally moved to console, a few ghost recons. Not only did Halo have to fight these AAA games that released either yearly or every 2 years on its own console, it had to deal with these also releasing on PlayStation and PC, all taking away from its overall population.
>
> Yet Halo did perfectly fine during that time.
> Also, I was under the impression the competition was “console”, PC isn’t regarded as a console.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274883893694;5771:
> > the entire market went from a niche selection of FPS games to an over saturated market with CoD taking the top spot by 2012. Halo’s population took a hit due to its long development cycle, and a mix of competition coming from other platforms and a host of new competitors that finally gave the market variety.
>
> Niche selection of FPS games? There has always been plenty of different FPS games.
> And how does “over saturated market” get to go along with “market variety”?

I’m not saying that gamers limited themselves solely to shooter games. outside of that genre however, there wasn’t really an online multiplayer in games outside of MMO’s and Moba’s. Gaming was generally a local only, single player only, or party game market. PC gaming had begun yes, but porting and the world of PC gaming as a whole took off between 2008-2012, prior, it was still rather niche. My point about that however, was that if you wanted to play an online shooter on console, your truly and really only one to play at the time was Halo.

Post 2007- 2010 when Reach launched the games I listed (outside of GoW obviously) were multi plat. Some installer base jumped to Playstation, some to PC, the point being that Halo’s lowered popularity is not because of Sprint, but of many different factors, posts like the one I quoted I see parroted on these forums all too much. There hasn’t always been plenty of different FPS games, off the top of my head, outside of Medal of Honor and CoD 1-3, I honestly cannot recall any prior to 2006. (I’m speaking about on console.) On console you had Historical shooters like MoH and CoD and Halo, until 2006 when Gears dropped…then MW in 07, WaW in 08, Bad Company in 08, GoW2 in 08, MW2 in 09, Bad company 2 in 10, Black ops in 10 with all of these franchises leading into another major release in the 2011. Halo went from being the juggernaut of it’s genre to having to battle the titans that came after it, that’s all it is, while also having it’s platform population decrease and some moved to other platforms.

P.S: sorry if my post is a bit confusing to read, I have no idea how to specifically quote, so I apologize.

5783

TheKiltdHeathen

> > 2535441307847473;5751:
> > The buffs that melee weapons often receive through sprint are indeed concerning,
>
> Melee weapons receive no buff to themselves. Sprint allows a player to cover ground quicker than BMS, allowing them to get close enough to hit quicker, but the weapons themselves remain as-is. Energy Swords boosted BMS, as did Tartarus’ Gavel, yet as I demonstrated to celestis a higher BMS still benefits from Sprint, as the mechanic is a percentage-increase boost. Even going 200% BMS, Sprint will still make you move faster.

A forward only speed increase is essentially a buff but I already said “but I never took much issue with them because even without sprint melee weapons can already give you a higher BMS, plus lunge distance plays a big role.” why you ignored this is beyond me.

My bigger issue was “When it comes to melee my bigger problem is with regular melee attacks which are at times more encouraged with sprint if you get found whilst reloading or are simply close enough that you can sprint forward and get two melee hits in before your opponent can shoot you to death”

> > you’ve simply given an example of how choosing when to reload can be beneficial in the sense that you are avoiding the inherent downside of reloading.
>
> Manual reload versus automatic reload. Yes, that is what I was driving at, that choosing to reload prior to an engagement rewards with a beneficial situation.

Well if that’s the case then we agree, the act is inherently consequential but its downsides can be mitigated.

> > Except Jetpack doesn’t just provide upward mobility, it also extends your horizontal “jump” distance significantly,
>
> As did the Gravity Lift. You’re still splitting hairs, and for as much as I’m criticized for always “needing to be right”, you’re trying real hard with said hair-splitting. The function of the two remains connected and similar. That they do not perform exactly the same is irrelevant; the relationship between them is clear.

I have no interest in the insults that others have slung at you, don’t try to drag me into the drama that you have with them. I’m sorry if you’ve felt insulted by me at any point but I would much rather not muddy the waters with even more animosity than this thread has already provided.

Getting to the point however, that two things have some similarities does not inherently mean that there is a relationship between the two, much less a causal one. (i.e. grav lift definitely became jetpack) And I’m not splitting hairs, Jetpack and Grav lift don’t just have similarities, they also have completely different functions that the others don’t have, to simplify some, a player can’t use a grav lift to maintain an altitude for a time (jetpack pseudo hovering), the grav lift doesn’t allow a player to save themselves and navigate when no ground is beneath them, the grav lift can’t be used more than once, meanwhile the jetpack only lifts the player wearing it rather than launching anything that touches it, the jetpack can’t be destroyed, and the jetpack is reusable.

The horizontal distance which can be given by the grav lift is very small and is achieved differently compared to what the jetpack provides. (especially when you pause for midair recharging)

> > 2535441307847473;5752:
> > As for locking away max speed, this has nothing to do with perception, in a game with sprint, sprint represents the fastest speed (max speed) that the player can move at on foot, the fact that so many actions are not doable while sprinting shows how sprint locks max speed away from combat actions.
>
> Given that Sprint is an increase relative to whatever the BMS is, yes it is absolutely a perception. You could be going even 300% BMS, and Sprint would still be faster. Because, as is its function and form of mechanic, it is a boost to Speed, not 100% speed.

Whether you choose to view sprint as a boost or not doesn’t change the fact that it represents the max speed that the player can move at on foot, BMS doesn’t somehow maintain its status with the presence of sprint, and the definition of max speed doesn’t just change out of convenience, regardless of irrelevant naval terminology, if the player can move faster, then they aren’t moving at max speed.

> > For the most part yes, this is what I would rather see in Halo … I’m hoping that this can finally clear up some of our disagreements.
>
> Well, that depends. Your preferred method of boosted movement is there, readily available for Matchmaking and Multiplayer.

No it isn’t, my version has never been implemented as I described it, like I said my version would not come with as many benefits (weapon swap and reload speed) and more importantly, it would be a base mechanic rather than a power up, and it would replace sprint rather than being there with sprint.

> If you’re still hell-bent on Scorched Earth and removing Sprint from Campaign, then we’re not going to agree on much at all.

I advocate for its complete removal because I’ve provided alternatives that provide very similar benefits with drastically reduced limitations, I have no interest in needless limitations whose benefits can be achieved in better ways, especially when those benefits aren’t even necessary for a successful Halo game.

> > As for why it doesn’t spawn I’m not an ex Bungie developer but I’m pretty sure it has to do with balancing.
>
> I’m pretty sure that it has to do with while you can physically drive a Warthog on High Ground, you cannot effectively do so in a packed Multiplayer match, and it would become an absolute death trap to where it’s rendered non-functional.

First of all High Ground is only meant for up to 12 players so it can’t be packed but in any case why would it be non-functional? Do you think that the Warthog is simply destined to be highjacked? And you can’t say that it being too easy to destroy is an issue because the ghost is easier to destroy.

> > What exactly do you mean by “take advantage of the playspace” if not allowing vehicles to take advantage of their speeds? Vehicles wouldn’t need much space at all if they were slow
>
> You are absolutely not taking into consideration the presence of other players and their ability to more easily destroy a large vehicle that both cannot move around effectively or utilize greater range for tank shells and mortars.

Other players also means other vehicles for the enemy team, meaning that neither side would be unevenly treated, and even so, “more easily” isn’t the same as easy, especially if the map doesn’t have good (against vehicles) power weapons. And you are not taking into consideration the fact that a very big part of “moving around effectively” is reaching and maintaining max speed. I don’t like repeating myself this often but I have to in this case, BTB maps would be awful without vehicles because players would spend way too much time simply traversing the map, vehicles provide the necessary speed for those maps to work.

> If the maps were designed around their speed, Scorpions would not be on BTB maps as they are slow.

No they really aren’t, they’re only slow compared to other vehicles. Also their high durability and heavy armament means that they can take more direct paths across the map than anything else.

5784

> 2535471015334583;5780:
> > 2535407747275549;5777:
> > > 2535471015334583;5744:
> > > > 2535415744086631;5740:
> > > > > 2535471015334583;5739:
> > > > > > 2535449076192416;5734:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously, why are we all still talking about sprint and if it should be in the game or not. Sprint has already been confirmed almost a year ago now. That’s it
> > > >
> > > > Because a good portion of the population don’t want it in. Why are we still talking about playable elites?
> > > >
> > > > Generally speaking, most people who like sprint are casual players, and that’s fine. However they are more likely to jump to whatever the new flavor of the month is and drop Halo. That leaves the competitive/diehard fans having to deal with sprint even they’re not even the ones who wanted it in the first place.
> > >
> > > The majority of the players who play Halo will not care. To say the “casual” halo players don’t care about sprint is completely false. I’ve been playing halo since Halo 2 and I personally love sprint. If Infinite doesn’t have sprint (which it already does and won’t be changing) I would never play it. Only the diehard fans like you said care about sprint. It’s a done deal, if you don’t like sprint don’t play the game because 343 will never remove sprint from Infinite.
> >
> > We would gladly play without you if it didn’t have sprint. God I miss the days when people like you didn’t exist.
>
> Thank you this proves my point. You’re one of those people who only wants to walk in halo games and no sprint. And anyone who prefers sprint over walking you “wish they didn’t exist”. It’s pathetic, even 343 said in December’s Inside infinite how they were avoiding only pleasing the die hard fans because they how ridiculous you guys are. For gods sake stop talking about bringing sprint back in Infinite, because if you haven’t noticed by now, it has been confirmed and won’t be changing.

I never said we had to walk are you this dense ? It’s a video game the devs can simply increase the movement speed doom is a perfect example but people like you can’t stand it if every game on the market feels the same.

5785

How fast do people actually think you need to moving in an open world or even semi-open world game? A cursory glance at Skyrim, GTA5, PUBG puts the top on foot speed in those about on par or below with CE-H3’s base movement speed of ~15 MPH and even Halo 5’s moderate boost to base movement speed of around ~17MPH would put above everything but a sprinting horse(which itself is more akin to a vehicle to being with).

Of course there are many other open world style games that may have a faster top speed, but that clearly hasn’t stopped those slower games from being successful. And in those open world games its rare that they leave you to cross large chunks of the map without offering some form of transport and/or fast travel to make long distance trips easier. So I don’t really understand this fear of having to “walk”(15 MPH is not “walking” by any reasonable definition) any significant distance. Even with sprint you should not be traveling such large distances that a 15MPH+ BMS wouldn’t be satisfactory for many trips. You should be running into some combination of vehicles, man cannons, teleporters well before travel at 15MPH+ would become frustrating.

And in the mean time the open world should not be so dull and lifeless that you don’t want to engage with it on your way between major objectives. If you don’t want to spend any noticeable amount of time traveling I have to wonder why you would want a game like this open world to begin with.

5786

The distinction should be made between campaign and multiplayer. Most of us who prefer classic mechanics don’t care at ALL about what happens in campaign. Give master chief a jet pack, teleportation abilities, and a 3rd leg for all I care! We are arguing for classic mechanics in all multiplayer games.

5787

> 2533274819446242;5785:
> Of course there are many other open world style games that may have a faster top speed, but that clearly hasn’t stopped those slower games from being successful. And in those open world games its rare that they leave you to cross large chunks of the map without offering some form of transport and/or fast travel to make long distance trips easier. So I don’t really understand this fear of having to “walk”(15 MPH is not “walking” by any reasonable definition) any significant distance. Even with sprint you should not be traveling such large distances that a 15MPH+ BMS wouldn’t be satisfactory for many trips. You should be running into some combination of vehicles, man cannons, teleporters well before travel at 15MPH+ would become frustrating.

The fast travel part hits especially hard here. Pretty much any game that’s as “vast” as people are wanting this game to be has an element of fast travel. But no one has once brought up the idea that Halo Infinite would have fast travel if the map was really that big. They expect to “walk” from one place to another.

Exactly how often is a player in a position where walking to a location on the map is entirely unacceptable and not worth playing the game over, but sprinting (a ~15% increase in speed) is perfectly fine?

> 2535471015334583;5758:
> > 2533274794648158;5745:
> > > 2535471015334583;5744:
> > > If Infinite doesn’t have sprint (which it already does and won’t be changing) I would never play it.
> >
> > This is such an odd thing to read. It seems extremely silly to me, to pin your entire enjoyment of Halo on a single mechanic. It just doesn’t feel sincere.
>
> Sorry but I don’t feel like walking throughout Infinites huge open world. In games like Halo 2 and 3 it’s okay but with this new vast open world I’m not putting up with it

That’s why this comment is weird to me. How does sprint turn this situation from “I would never play it” to “I would play it”?

5788

> 2535471015334583;5780:
> > 2535407747275549;5777:
> > > 2535471015334583;5744:
> > > > 2535415744086631;5740:
> > > > > 2535471015334583;5739:
> > > > > > 2535449076192416;5734:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously, why are we all still talking about sprint and if it should be in the game or not. Sprint has already been confirmed almost a year ago now. That’s it
> > > >
> > > > Because a good portion of the population don’t want it in. Why are we still talking about playable elites?
> > > >
> > > > Generally speaking, most people who like sprint are casual players, and that’s fine. However they are more likely to jump to whatever the new flavor of the month is and drop Halo. That leaves the competitive/diehard fans having to deal with sprint even they’re not even the ones who wanted it in the first place.
> > >
> > > The majority of the players who play Halo will not care. To say the “casual” halo players don’t care about sprint is completely false. I’ve been playing halo since Halo 2 and I personally love sprint. If Infinite doesn’t have sprint (which it already does and won’t be changing) I would never play it. Only the diehard fans like you said care about sprint. It’s a done deal, if you don’t like sprint don’t play the game because 343 will never remove sprint from Infinite.
> >
> > We would gladly play without you if it didn’t have sprint. God I miss the days when people like you didn’t exist.
>
> Thank you this proves my point. You’re one of those people who only wants to walk in halo games and no sprint. And anyone who prefers sprint over walking you “wish they didn’t exist”. It’s pathetic, even 343 said in December’s Inside infinite how they were avoiding only pleasing the die hard fans because they how ridiculous you guys are. For gods sake stop talking about bringing sprint back in Infinite, because if you haven’t noticed by now, it has been confirmed and won’t be changing.

You missed the point. No one complained about sprint until it was added and then the divide happened and btw 343 themselves said they wanted to emulate other successful game’s mechanics and we all know what that game is. To me it seems they wanted to imitate more than innovate and that’s exactly what happened. Also I don’t hate 343 because I know that’s probably what you think I actually really like what they are doing with mcc and so far infinites art style but the thing is I’m not a 343 or bungie bootlicker I simply know what made halo great and what made it stand out as a shooter much like the recent doom installments.

5789

> 2533274883893694;5782:
> I’m not saying that gamers limited themselves solely to shooter games. outside of that genre however, there wasn’t really an online multiplayer in games outside of MMO’s and Moba’s. Gaming was generally a local only, single player only, or party game market. PC gaming had begun yes, but porting and the world of PC gaming as a whole took off between 2008-2012, prior, it was still rather niche. My point about that however, was that if you wanted to play an online shooter on console, your truly and really only one to play at the time was Halo.
>
> Post 2007- 2010 when Reach launched the games I listed (outside of GoW obviously) were multi plat. Some installer base jumped to Playstation, some to PC, the point being that Halo’s lowered popularity is not because of Sprint, but of many different factors, posts like the one I quoted I see parroted on these forums all too much. There hasn’t always been plenty of different FPS games, off the top of my head, outside of Medal of Honor and CoD 1-3, I honestly cannot recall any prior to 2006. (I’m speaking about on console.) On console you had Historical shooters like MoH and CoD and Halo, until 2006 when Gears dropped…then MW in 07, WaW in 08, Bad Company in 08, GoW2 in 08, MW2 in 09, Bad company 2 in 10, Black ops in 10 with all of these franchises leading into another major release in the 2011.

Looking at the List of first-person shooters on Wikipedia, we easily find that there were 6 released on Xbox 360 in 2006, 17 in 2007 (one being Halo 3), and 12 in 2008. Would be a bit more work to find out how many of these offer online multiplayer, but there are some clear ones like multiple Tom Clancy games, Shadowrun, Quake Wars, Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 3, Turok, and Left 4 Dead apart from the franchises you mentioned. This is only first person shooters, if we want to consider all shooters, GoW and others are on the List of third-person shooters.

It’s quite clear that there were plenty of online shooters on the Xbox 360 to play if one so desired. In fact, for comparison, in 2014 we saw 7 first person shooters release on Xbox One (including MCC), 9 in 2015 (including Halo 5), and 12 in 2016. So, actually, quantitatively speaking Halo 5 had no more FPS games competing with it than Halo 3 did. The literal number of competing shootes did not go up over the decade since Halo 3.

> 2533274883893694;5782:
> Halo went from being the juggernaut of it’s genre to having to battle the titans that came after it, that’s all it is,

But this doesn’t explain anything. Like, you’re not saying more than “Halo went from being the most popular to being against other popular games”. This is not an explanation of why Halo suddenly was not “the juggernaut”, and why these other games became “the titans” when other games before them had not. It doesn’t explain why franchises like CoD, Battlefield, and Rainbow Six were less popular than Halo in 2007, but are more popular than Halo now.

These are just the facts. There are many theories that are compatible with these facts. Some of them ascribe more cause to changes in Halo, and some of them ascribe more to changes outside of Halo. But none of them is more plausible than all the others.

5790

> 2533274804813082;5749:
> My point with the “time delay” (actually the complete lack thereof, but small potatoes), is and was to address the complaint that Sprinting affects combat through this separation of movement modes.

Removing the buffer time between movement mode and combat mode does not remove the existence of these two modes.
You can scream “no time delay” all you want, but it still has nothing to do with sprint affecting combat.

> 2533274804813082;5749:
> My pointing out the absence of a time delay is refutation to the claim that Sprint affects combat by dividing the two movement modes. Your dismissal via the desire to move max speed at all times ignores this.

My “desire” has nothing to do with anything. These two modes still exist. It doesn’t matter how long it takes you to switch from one to the other, you still have to switch from one to the other.

> 2533274804813082;5749:
> Your dismissal via the desire to move max speed at all times ignores this.If this back-and-forth is to continue, you need to focus on my arguments (however much you disagree with them), not imagined and false assumptions about my motivation to p*** people off.

I am. I just wanted to point out you should probably do the same.

> 2533274804813082;5749:
> That is a change. What I object to - and what still has yet to be proven - is that Sprint directly affects combat in a purely negative way.

Sprint disables your combat capabilities while moving at max speed.
In games without sprint you have access to all your combat capabilities while moving at max speed.
Therefore sprint interferes with combat in a negative way.
There’s your proof.

> 2533274804813082;5749:
> Firing your gun in and of itself is not combat. If you just fire wildly into open air or at a wall, that’s not combat. Combat is an interaction between two-or-more players (or player-versus-AI).

That’s (once again) a semantic rebuttal and still completely irrelevant. Yes, you can use your gun and not be in a fight at that very moment. Just like how you can perpetually run around in circles and not actually move anywhere. That doesn’t change the fact that shooting is still inherently a combat mechanic and sprint prevents you from using it. Just like it does with grenades. Just like it does with melee. And just like it does with reloading (which, btw, still is a combat mechanic, even though it doesn’t require an interaction of two players).
Using a combat mechanic != being in combat

> 2533274804813082;5749:
> And a plain Strawman argument. Nowhere have I made that claim, much less persistently.

Yes you have. Repeatedly:

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

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> > 2533274801176260;5640:
> > Adjusting the time it takes to switch from movement mode to combat mode doesn’t change the fact that the game is inherently broken into these two separate parts.
>
> Yes, it does. Because there is still no longer a divide between movement and firing.

> 2533274804813082;5722:
> If you are sprinting and you see an enemy, the very millisecond you pull the trigger, you begin firing. It is no different than moving at top BMS, coming upon an enemy, and firing.

Moving on:

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> I have, however, repeatedly asked for this. Don’t try and pin the inability to “discuss” these on me, celestis.

I’m not “unable” to discuss advantages and disadvantages of gameplay mechanics, it would just be a waste of time as long as you are using a completely false definition of this mechanic.
You cannot build a house without a fundament.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> I have. Repeatedly. I’ve also outlined and given specific examples as to how having a temporary boost to movement is useful.

I am not talking about situational utility. I am talking about clear and direct mechanical implementation.
Armor lock disables all your movement and all your combat capabilities but it makes you momentarily invincible. That is an inherent advantage of the mechanic built into the code.
Sprint has no such thing. It disables all your combat capabilities and limits your directionality to do something you have always been able to before: Move at top speed.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> I have also explained how and why saying that Sprint is a restriction in the manner that you are doing in this segment is inaccurate, and at worst knowingly misinformation.

It is neither. It is an precise and accurate description of what sprint as a mechanic does.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> What’s more, I increased my BMS to 200% in Halo Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5, and in all three games Sprint was still an increase of that speed. Indicating that it is a boost to whatever the BMS is set to. Sprinting speed is not 100% speed locked away from you.

This isn’t even a rebuttal. It’s just the same scenario multiplied by a factor of two. If you double all speeds (custom game settings don’t specify BMS, they just say “player speed”), then obviously sprint speed will be set to 200%, not 100%.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> What’s more, you are still able to move omnidirectionally, only not at Sprinting speed - which again, is an incremental boost to BMS, and should be treated as separate.

“Sprint doesn’t keep you from omnidirectional movement as long as you’re not using sprint”.
Yeah, and dual wielding doesn’t stop you from throwing grenades as long as you don’t dual wield a second weapon.
Whether or not it’s incremental depends on each game individually, not the mechanic as a whole.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> As such, saying that you are “locked” out of anything is a misrepresentation.

No it isn’t. You are not able to access any speeds between 100% and whatever percentage of that BMS has been set to. In the case of H5G, you have no possibility of moving at, say, 9m/s, regardless of whether or not you are or aren’t using sprint. The game just blocks all speeds between top speed and an arbitrary cutoff.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> - Incorrect and covered above; 100% BMS is 100% speed.

No it isn’t. 100% is the top speed a player is capable of moving. I don’t care about the completely unrelated scenario of naval combat where one single navy uses a different terminology (while the rest still don’t). Specifically in human locomotion, top speed is universally identified as 100%:

> Maximal velocity is your top speed – the absolute fastest that you can run. If you try to sprint at 100% effort and reach your “top-end” speed, then you’re at maximal velocity.

https://strengthrunning.com/2017/12/speed-training-fast-running-speed/

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Say you’re driving a warthog. But then you want to use your weapon, or even switch to the gunner seat. Do you sit there and complain that the warthog has locked you out of omnidirectional movement and the use of your weapons, or do you get out of the warthog?

If I had been previously able to do so in earlier games, then yes, I would complain how the game arbitrarily forced restrictions on the player for something they were previously able to do at all times and in all directions. And yes, that includes the Ghost boost from Halo 2 onwards.
Luckily, vehicles still aren’t spawn abilities and not present in all missions, maps and modes, so they still have nothing to do with the discussion.

> 2533274804813082;5651:
> Countering this with a suggestion to “just manage the LS tilt” is ridiculing a viable and sensible solution that is readily applied elsewhere with an asinine and unreasonable parody.

“Stop using sprint” is not a “viable and sensible solution”, it is “asinine and unreasonable”.
And for the record: I never actually suggested to “just manage the LS tilt”. I am merely refuting the notion that it wouldn’t be possible to manage stick tilt to choose your own speed. And I know this for a fact, because I’ve been doing it for pretty much two decades by now…
In terms of actual alternatives to sprint, I have given several, which you conveniently ignored.

5791

> 2533274794648158;5745:
> > 2535471015334583;5744:
> > If Infinite doesn’t have sprint (which it already does and won’t be changing) I would never play it.
>
> This is such an odd thing to read. It seems extremely silly to me, to pin your entire enjoyment of Halo on a single mechanic. It just doesn’t feel sincere.

I disagree, even if only because I am on the exact other side. I’m not going to play a single “Halo” game that has sprint anymore. I’ve been burnt one too many times.
Bungie asked me to trust them, and I did, and the game played horrible.
343 asked me to trust them, and I did, and the game played horrible.
Even when I expected a train wreck in H5G, I was still shocked how the game was able to completely undercut all my expectations in terms of gameplay.

Yes, one single mechanic can make or break a game for somebody.

5792

> 2533274804813082;5612:
> Now, what - functionally - is the difference between a crouch jump and clamber?

The fact that you have to face the obstacle and lose all you combat capabilities while doing so.
Crouch jumping is omnidirectional and doesn’t interfere with combat.
Clamber isn’t and does.
Where have I heard that before?

> 2533274804813082;5630:
> How is it a detriment to the flow and balance of the game?

Because it drives a wedge between top movement speed and BMS. Moving in sprintless Halo is smooth, you start from a standstill and gradually increase to top speed. With sprint, you have an abrupt cut whenever you switch from combat mode to movement mode, which is jarring.
As for balance, the disability to shoot while sprinting gives an inherent advantage (disadvantage) to players who don’t (do) want to fight. They may all spawn with the same abilities, but sprint inherently empowers (disempowers) losing (winning) players more.

> 2533274804813082;5630:
> > …sprint takes away your ability to minimize many of those risks,
>
> How. Provide examples. By removing your ability to fire? Instant firing that ends Sprint. By removing your ability to turn? 360° turning while sprinting. What minimizing abilities remain?

By forcing you to choose between maximum movement and combat. You can leave a dangerous situation fast or you can provide covering fire, but you cannot do both at the same time, reducing your ability to “minimize risks”.

> 2533274804813082;5765:
> A better question is why do you need to shoot while sprinting?

> 2533274804813082;5642:
> Again, why do you need to shoot while Sprinting?

> 2533274804813082;5679:
> 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?

To have more gameplay options.

> 2533274804813082;5642:
> > As I believe I mentioned earlier, I’m not a programmer, but I do know that introducing more variables to the player in terms of speed affects how the AI must target the player.
>
> And how do you know that? What area of coding or AI programing specifically addresses player unpredictability, to where Sprint would absolutely baffle it? Especially in light of vehicle speed and that players are not on a rail, or otherwise limited in their movement path?

Halo 4’s Forerunner Knights are a prime example of an enemy affected by sprint (and probably the other movement mechanics as well).
343 wanted them to be the most dangerous enemy in the Forerunner arsenal (possibly even the entire game), and as such they needed to be able to present a challenge to the player regardless of his playstyle. That’s the reason why they have that high of a shield strength and a fast recharge time, to be able to stand their ground against attacking players, yet at the same time teleport all over the battlefield, to quickly follow a player that doesn’t want to engage.
The result is an excruciatingly painful enemy to fight due to their high durability yet simultaneously high mobility.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> what is the difference in simply having game types and playlists without Sprint as a core mechanic, and other playlists with?

The entire game only being balanced for one half, including weapon RoF, RRR, spread, ammunition, level design, etc.
It also ignores the entire PvE aspect of Halo, including Firefight and most importantly campaign.
It’s still nothing more than a cop out solution to shut up part of the fanbase.

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> So how severe does Sprint really get in the way of shooting? How much are you truly sacrificing?

What answer are you expecting?
You are sacrificing the entire gameplay style of classic Halo (run’n’gun) in favor of something else (stop’n’pop).
You want a number how much is this? 100%.

> 2533274804813082;5675:
> And yet, you directly tie a player getting away as detrimental to the experience, and not making for “good gameplay”. Why is that?

Getting away is an inherent advantage to that player, regardless of game mode. In slayer, it could result in the loss of a kill (which is the point of the mode). In territories, CTF, oddball, etc., it can allow that player to quickly proceed towards the objective. The other player cannot do anything to prevent this, as they are robbed of all combat capabilities if they want to pursue. That’s an inherent imbalance that can be created just by the push of a button. If that doesn’t go against “good gameplay”, I don’t know what does.

> 2533274804813082;5653:
> So while those 5 mph are a difference, is it enough of a loss to where Sprint becomes a detriment?

Yes. Because this has never been about how big the difference in speed is or how fast you can switch between movement mode and combat mode. It’s about the two being separated in the first place, thus robbing player of choice and agency, which completely changes the gameplay style in the process.

> 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?

It’s 100%, not 130.
And the answer is still: To have more gameplay options.

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> Is Top BMS not sufficient? How so? Having that option would be one thing, but why is it needed?

No. Because BMS is no longer 100% movement speed.
To have more gameplay options.

> 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?

Throwing grenades is a combat mechanic. It restricts restricts other parts of combat to give the player a combat advantage (damage to an enemy). It does not restrict movement.
Reloading is a combat mechanic. It momentarily restricts other parts of combat to give the player a combat advantage (increased combat readiness/damage due to a full magazine). It does not restrict movement.
Jumping is a movement mechanic. It momentarily restricts other parts of movement to give the player a movement advantage (positioning/height). It does not restrict combat.
Sprint is a movement mechanic that disables gunplay, thereby restricting combat. It adds restrictions outside of its own field. That is the core difference between these mechanics.

> 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?

> 2533274804813082;5698:
> Where exactly is the impact on the game, outside of intermittent forward mobility?

Disabling a player’s omidirectionality, combat capabilities, etc. But most importantly removing player choice.
Instantaneously switching between movement mode and combat mode is still not the same as being able to access both concurrently.

> 2533274804813082;5695:
> Is that loss of 5 mph detrimental to gameplay, to the point where firing during a 30% increase is necessary or prudent?

Yes.

> 2533274804813082;5695:
> Why? What is the reason for that, and why is full BMS not optimally as fast as possible while remaining alert?

Because BMS is no longer top movement speed.

> 2533274804813082;5698:
> > that doesn’t change the fact that its easier to [explore] if you can look around at full speed
>
> How?

By giving you the ability to always be aware of all your surroundings in all directions while still moving at top speed. You can cover more ground in less time while at the same time not being restricted to the forwards direction or requiring the player to repeatedly slow down to look around or running in loops to be able to occasionally look in directions that aren’t forward.

> 2533274804813082;5765:
> Yep. I’ve never asked for clarification on views and stances. I’m totally not interested in understanding why someone’s view is what it is, or coming to a compromise so that everyone is happy.

Yes, you have and no, you aren’t. Because almost all of these questions have already been answered in the past and compromises have already been given, yet you still pretend they haven’t so you can keep parroting your perpetual “don’t like it, don’t use it” reply.

5793

> 2533274883893694;5782:
> My point about that however, was that if you wanted to play an online shooter on console, your truly and really only one to play at the time was Halo.

That’s verifiably false.
Halo 3 released mostly against the same franchises that H5G also released against:
Gears, Battlefield, Battlefront, Rainbow Six, Grand Theft Auto, etc. And for every franchise that is new, there is another one that left the gaming space (or at least Xbox). Overwatch is this decade’s Team Fortress (and remember that Halo 3 released within two weeks of the Orange Box). PUBG came, Unreal Tournament/Championship left. Coop-games were still a major thing back in the day, the biggest of all Left4Dead. And then there’s not one but two Call-of-Duty games that Halo 3 went against, yet came out on top (the weekly #1 spot went back-and-forth, but Halo 3 was first place in annual statistics both times). It took Modern Warfare 2, released two years(!) later, to completely push Halo 3 off its throne.

5794

> 2533274801176260;5791:
> I disagree, even if only because I am on the exact other side. I’m not going to play a single “Halo” game that has sprint anymore. I’ve been burnt one too many times.
> Bungie asked me to trust them, and I did, and the game played horrible.
> 343 asked me to trust them, and I did, and the game played horrible.
> Even when I expected a train wreck in H5G, I was still shocked how the game was able to completely undercut all my expectations in terms of gameplay.
>
> Yes, one single mechanic can make or break a game for somebody.

I’d say your situation is a bit different though, as you’ve already been burned thrice by the devs. You were willing to give the games a chance despite your dislike of a sprint mechanic in Halo. What confuses me about Henry’s stance is that he claimed he would never play Infinite if it didn’t have sprint, even though Halo games in the past have been shown to work fine without it (ODST’s hub world in particular comes to mind). So unless he absolutely loathes classic movement and has little interest in any other facet of Halo, I don’t see why he wouldn’t at least give a sprintless Infinite a try.

5795

> 2535407747275549;5776:
> If sprint was sooo good it wouldn’t have done this much damage to the community and the franchise as a whole.

Pretty much sums it up.

5796

Traditional Sprint isn’t an outright bad mechanic, it presents a risk versus reward dynamic in trading combat readiness for a burst of forward velocity, it gives the player a viable survivability option when presented with the decision to fight or flee, it can be used to speed run encounters, when it is not infinite it is a resource to manage and use strategically, it is an additional option that can be said to increase player agency, the animation helps sell a feeling of speed, -Yoink!- immersion and can support the power fantasy. Additionally it is a familiar mechanic to many gamers, so it’s inclusion could actually help make the game accessible for those kind of consumers. When we say Sprint should be removed from Halo, please do not think we have not considered it’s positives, in the right game it can work very well, and often does, But it does NOT fit well in Halo.

But why doesn’t it fit? Particularly when it fits perfectly well in many other FPS games? One big reason is because Halo has longer kill times than average, and another is because Halo has rechargeable shields/health, and it’s the combination of these integral Halo aspects that create a design conflict with Sprint. Or one of the design conflicts.

In high lethality FPS games, with for example .3 second kill times, the player is vulnerable, and a sprint mechanic that -Yoink!- survivability is welcome, to help balance the game and to help alleviate some frustrations of dying. In a game with longer kill times a player can move from cover to cover, tanking the damage before breaking line of sight. It takes ammo resources to inflict that damage, many games with longer kill times also have health pick up resources to balance that. Inflicting damage, in games like these, puts you at an advantage, the enemy player must take the time to collect health resources to mitigate their disadvantage, meaning they will often avoid you till they do, rewarding you with map control, a superior ability to contest high value objectives like a power weapon, and a limited ability to predict where they might go to find these health pick ups. But with an infinite rechargeable health system, all that damage can be erased, there is no consequence for taking that damage. Provided you can avoid taking damage for 6 seconds (or however long the recharge delay is). Normally in Halo this is fine, bad positioning is punished, a fleeing player often wont get those 6 seconds because they can be aggressively perused by a player moving at the same speed as them, firing there weapon without interruption. Only by killing your pursuer or with good positioning can your shields recharge. This created a skill gap and meta centred on positioning. Mechanics like sprint shift this balance, as do mechanics like evade or thrust.

Rechargeable shields/ health of course has it’s benefits. It means that after taking damage whilst winning a gun fight, you are not necessarily disadvantaged in the next fight. This is why I think rechargeable health is so popular across the fps genre. But I actually think a high durability fps game that also gives players a high degree of evasiveness, could benefit from health pick ups and non-rechargable health, However this is NOT HALO. Rechargeable health is part of it’s identity. Meaning Halo does not synergise with sprint.

A lot of my opinions on Sprint derive from my background in Forging and experimenting with custom games. And designing maps around sprint. And trust me when I say Sprint was a big consideration in map design. When designing the spacing between cover, player speed in relation to the lethality of weapons, must be considered. If you can move between cover in less than 1.5 seconds this is considered pretty safe, if it takes 3-5 seconds to reach cover this is a dangerous gap to traverse, all this is designed. But having two movement speed messes with the balancing of map flow. You can design an area perfect for combat, with pieces of cover and things to jump over/ on top of, spaced in such a way to give combat options and make combat more dynamic and interesting. But that area isn’t optimised to sprint through, it may provide too much cover for a sprinter. Equally you may space cover optimally for sprint, but now that creates featureless no man lands if you slow down to shoot. So you either design map cover in accordance to some sort of middle ground not optimised for either speed, or just concede and design some areas for Combat and some areas for Sprint.

Then you have the problem of combat convergence, Since Halo has longer kill times, players can hear/ see combat and join in before the fight is over, or finish off a player weakened from winning a gun fight before their shield had a chance to recharge. The frequency of this happening is increased with sprint. Dying in this way goes against one of Halo mantra’s of 2 Spartans enter the better Spartan leaves and can cause some very frustrating gameplay. So to help balance this you can make the map bigger, or segment the map. Additionally because Sprint delays shooting and forces you to look in the direction you are moving this encourages more corridor based map designs as to not overly punish players trying to run into the action. Restricting the angles in which you can be attacked from to just in front and behind. Increased evasiveness also encourages the inclusion of more ‘intercept routes’ in a map design, so that players can press an advantage, but this can create maps with swish cheese flow, that are overly connected and chaotic… I could go on and on… I remember designing Invasion and BTB maps in Halo reach and spacing structures and cover based on sprint duration… Movement mechanics heavily influence map design. I found I personally could make better maps when I removed sprint from the equation. When designing maps with sprint in mind I felt like I was fighting against the mechanics of the game.

Maybe Sprint can be rebalance to work with Halo? This I think is the mindset 343 have held when implementing Sprint into their games. But I always find the ‘changes’ that are made to ‘balance’ Sprint always seem to deviate away from what makes Sprint appealing in the first place. Reduce how long it takes to shoot after sprinting, well that removes the combat readiness risk versus reward dynamic. Add stopping power, well the nullifies the choice between fleeing and fighting. Make it infinite sprint to reduce chaos, well that removes any strategy in managing a stamina resource. Make it a smaller speed boost so that cover can be designed better, well speed is one of sprint’s main appeals… I don’t understand why Sprint is being forced into Halo when it doesn’t belong. Why emulate other shooters, but do it worse, instead of just creating a unique gameplay identity?

tldr: Sprint does not synergise with Halo. It works better in other games.

5797

There needs to be a healthy blend of both advanced and classic movement. It would be nice if they implemented a selection of game modes that suit your gameplay preference. But that would be too good to be true.

5798

This really divides the fans. You can’t give a correct answer because one says I like the classic; another says OMG the sprint is something innovative in the FPS that at least must exist.
My answer is that I have no problem with sprinting, you know why not, at least in Halo 4 / Halo 5 my way of playing is classic I avoid running, I have fun giving perfect shots to the head, because when running forward of the enemy you do not get an advantage, more than just at the beginning of a game to grab the strategic weapons or cover those points.
Many will say yes but you can escape but at least in Halo 5; running does not increase our life, that was a great advantage.

5799

What if sprinting mean that you had no shields until yous topped sprinting, kinda like you route all your suits power to movement.

5800

> 2535436014907905;5799:
> What if sprinting mean that you had no shields until yous topped sprinting, kinda like you route all your suits power to movement.

I’m sure plenty would argue your suggested system would be so extremely punishing that no one would ever use sprint if that were implemented. Now instead of being merely disadvantaged if ambushed while sprinting, you’d just…die. In an arena map you’d never feel safe sprinting around with no shields, so you’d stop using it altogether. You can’t sprint in BTB for any of the reasons people like to (reaching cover from vehicles, crossing large open spaces) because doing so would just make you even more vulnerable to those hazards than if you just didn’t sprint at all.

The only time you’d feel safe to sprint is when you’re absolutely, positively sure there’s no one around who can shoot you for a long enough time to risk sacrificing your shields for more speed, which at that point is just bad level design since such large, empty spaces that make people wish they could go faster shouldn’t even exist. So sprint would end up being completely unusable in average gameplay and act only as a quality of life update for bad design choices, without which it would be truly useless. The game might as well not even have sprint at that point.

In summary, I don’t think that would work.

5801

> 2535436014907905;5799:
> What if sprinting mean that you had no shields until yous topped sprinting, kinda like you route all your suits power to movement.

Most of the people that don’t like sprint simply want the mechanic out of the game, and I don’t think any amount of nerfs will change that. All this really does is make sprint less fun to use for the people who like it, so nobody really gets what they want in the end.