Been a while since I’ve been in this thread, but I saw some gameplay of DOOM: Eternal. In addition to clambering, it’s also got dodge functions like Spartan thrusters.
> 2533274804813082;1222:
> Been a while since I’ve been in this thread, but I saw some gameplay of DOOM: Eternal. In addition to clambering, it’s also got dodge functions like Spartan thrusters.
Which isn’t really a bad thing. Doom was always supposed to be a fast-paced game.
> 2533274795123910;1180:
> > 2533274798011936;1179:
> > > 2533274825830455;1178:
> > > > 2533274798957786;1174:
> > > > This is what I have been saying all along, and if you interpreted anything I wrote differently, that was a misconception on your part.
> > >
> > > Okay, so you can agree that the classic mechanics are gone from Halo 5, have been gone since Reach? That is, that they went away with Reach?
> >
> > I would agree with that. That’s what he’s been saying, that the only thing any one ever seems to want in Halo is a clone of the trilogy games, specifically Halo 3.
> >
> > The issue I personally take with this is that it is naive to the utmost to think this will somehow save Halo, as most people within the community seem to think.
>
> In my 10+ years on Halo forums, I’ve seen 2 or 3 people who said they want Halo CE, 2 or 3 copies.
>
> Want to hear a recurring scenario?
> If not I suggest you stop reading.
>
> Usually there’s someone who advlcates the removal of something(s), upon another person assumes that the first person only want a carbon copy of Halo X. Why? Because there’s no talk about other abilities, or changes to put in, as if starting a thread about a specific mechanic had to include other mechanics wanted by the OP.
>
> “I want sprint removed”
> yeah you just want a copy of Halo X
>
> Quite a large assumption based on the opinion of one out of several new mechanics.
>
> Of course the person wanting thing removed has to not look bad and says “no, I do not want a copy of Halo X”.
> Three things can happen, the first person pulls out their GDD, game design document, the first person is asked what kind of Halo he/she wants, and a GDD is pulled out or things are just left at that.
>
> When a GDD is pulled out and the person defending themselves spend time on elaborating what kind of Halo they want, it’s either not enough or it just gets ignored.
> Usually when it’s not enough it’s refered to as Halo X.5, no matter what kind of things are suggested because it’s not what the reciever want to hear. Though I have yet to see anyone elaborate on what kind of changes are needed to make the full increment of 1, instead of just 0.5 from a game moving forward to a sequel. Just as no one has been able to supply me with a list of these “standard / staple” mechanics for FPS games despite confidentely proclaiming that mechanic Y is a thing every fps needs as it’s a standard / staple.
>
> If it gets ignored, it is because no one cares, the one asking doesn’t care, and those participating in the thread doesn’t care for one person’s off-topic GDD as they are interested in the topic they clicked on.
>
> “You just want a Carbon Copy of Halo X” is just a method of making the opposition look bad and thus undermine their arguments / preferences.
> I mean, I could easily claim anyone who wants sprint to stay just want a carbon copy of Halo 4 / 5, and that any addition on top of that is just Halo 4.5, or Halo 5.5.
This was complete gold and thoroughly sums up the issue with this debate on these forums.
I overwhelmingly prefer classic, it’s what I grew up on and enjoy however, the only 2 things I’d remove for Infinite would be SC and Sprint, there hasn’t been a good map made since sprint infected Halo because you can’t balance maps for it. Get rid of it and up base movement and fov.
Edit: I’d also remove clamber while I think about it, instead add a complicated mechanic like the spring jump for more vertical and map movement and a skill gap.
> 2533274825001785;1225:
> there hasn’t been a good map made since sprint infected Halo because you can’t balance maps for it.
I disagree. Reach’s maps were pretty good.
> 2533274977253120;1226:
> > 2533274825001785;1225:
> > there hasn’t been a good map made since sprint infected Halo because you can’t balance maps for it.
>
> I disagree. Reach’s maps were pretty good.
But they werent.
> 2533274804813082;1222:
> Been a while since I’ve been in this thread, but I saw some gameplay of DOOM: Eternal. In addition to clambering, it’s also got dodge functions like Spartan thrusters.
as far as I know, this dodge feature allows you to keep your weapon up, as I’ve said a few pages back, that makes a huge difference. Having thrust that does not force you to lower your weapon and is not significantly faster then your BMS, is not inherently a problem (though it does not mean it will be inherently fun either…)
Clamber is a more difficult question. While not beeing my favourite feature, when playing doom, clamber didn’t feel nowhere as restrictive and intrusive as in H5. Part of this might be due to beeing faster but I feel like the map design doesn’t depend on it as much as H5. It feels more like a failsafe for screwed up jumps rather then a mechanic that is required for effective movement.
But maybe it’s just my willingness to look past smaller flaws if most of the rest is good!?
> 2533274977253120;1226:
> > 2533274825001785;1225:
> > there hasn’t been a good map made since sprint infected Halo because you can’t balance maps for it.
>
> I disagree. Reach’s maps were pretty good.
I can’t think of a single Reach map, I’d like to see remade (not counting Reaches remakes of CE’s maps for CEA…)
> 2535430289047128;1221:
> > 2533274977253120;1220:
> > > 2533274841139340;1204:
> > > I think people need to except that Halo and gaming as a whole as moved past this style of gameplay. If Halo Infinite came out and it played like Halo 2 or 3 it wouldn’t survive in the modern gaming climate. Every time I go back and play Halo 2 and 3, although I still enjoy them I definitely feel how archaic their gameplay has become.
> >
> > Doom (2016) says hi.
> >
> > Anyway, about the topic. I wouldn’t mind sprint at all. Just make it have a stamina limit and remove spartan abilities/jet boosters and I’m all good. I would also really like it if they added back Armor abilities and powerups from the previous games.
>
> Clearly people like moobleshmib haven’t played any shooters other than Halo, CoD, Titanfall, Destiny, or Fortnite. That’d explain their lack of knowing of DOOM’s success. 343i could takes notes, tho… classic gameplay comebacks DO sell. A lot.
To be honest, I would not classify DOOM 2016 as a “classic gameplay comeback” since its gameplay is manifestly not classic DOOM, including the ability to jump and climb up ledges. It’s a comeback of a classic game franchise, but its gameplay has undoubtedly been updated with mechanics that are modern by DOOM standards.
> 2533274801973487;1228:
> > 2533274804813082;1222:
> > Been a while since I’ve been in this thread, but I saw some gameplay of DOOM: Eternal. In addition to clambering, it’s also got dodge functions like Spartan thrusters.
>
> as far as I know, this dodge feature allows you to keep your weapon up, as I’ve said a few pages back, that makes a huge difference. Having thrust that does not force you to lower your weapon and is not significantly faster then your BMS, is not inherently a problem (though it does not mean it will be inherently fun either…)
>
> Clamber is a more difficult question. While not beeing my favourite feature, when playing doom, clamber didn’t feel nowhere as restrictive and intrusive as in H5. Part of this might be due to beeing faster but I feel like the map design doesn’t depend on it as much as H5. It feels more like a failsafe for screwed up jumps rather then a mechanic that is required for effective movement.
> But maybe it’s just my willingness to look past smaller flaws if most of the rest is good!?
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274977253120;1226:
> > > 2533274825001785;1225:
> > > there hasn’t been a good map made since sprint infected Halo because you can’t balance maps for it.
> >
> > I disagree. Reach’s maps were pretty good.
>
> I can’t think of a single Reach map, I’d like to see remade (not counting Reaches remakes of CE’s maps for CEA…)
Fair enough. I don’t really remember a lot of Reach’s maps either except for the CE remakes. Though they were still fun and sprint didn’t ruin it for me.
Still, I think that sprint can work in Halo if it’s designed properly. Hell, even Bungie had the idea of adding sprint back in Halo 2.
> 2533274817390757;1219:
> > 2533274857227878;1217:
> > - No Sprint - Higher Base movement Speed - Keep movement based spartan abilities (thrust/clamber) - remove offensive spartan abilities (spartan charge)
>
> I agree. Sprint and clamber affect gameplay, but I feel like they are less spamable and more balanced. The spartan charge and ground pound can be really annoying.
I don’t feel high base movement speed with sprint would mix. I favor the removal of sprint but if sprint was to stay, I think sprint needs to be heavily changed to a long start up and have limited re-directional mobility, so sprint is more of a map traversal tool rather than an engage disengage tool.
> 2533274825001785;1227:
> > 2533274977253120;1226:
> > > 2533274825001785;1225:
> > > there hasn’t been a good map made since sprint infected Halo because you can’t balance maps for it.
> >
> > I disagree. Reach’s maps were pretty good.
>
> But they werent.
I disagree too. Your opinion bothers me.
> 2535447940912902;1232:
> > 2533274825001785;1227:
> > > 2533274977253120;1226:
> > > > 2533274825001785;1225:
> > > > there hasn’t been a good map made since sprint infected Halo because you can’t balance maps for it.
> > >
> > > I disagree. Reach’s maps were pretty good.
> >
> > But they werent.
>
> I disagree too. Your opinion bothers me.
It’s ok friend, you can be wrong too there’s no reason to be upset.
I have been reading these forums and would like now to propose an idea: what if none of this discussion will amount to anything? For all we know, 343 decided in Halo 5’s development that they want to make a Halo 6 that plays like Halo 5. And while I and half of the Halo community would love to see the return of a more classic moveset, I think the majority of us know this isn’t going to happen. The reason I say this is because we had this exact same discussion before Halo 5. And Halo 4. We have routinely had these giant cumulative arguments prior to the launches of those games and it didn’t make a damn difference. At no point did 343 go “Due to the community backlash, we will be retooling some of the components of our game.” So why are we expecting any different this time?
Obviously, some of you will respond saying “You don’t know that for certain” or “It will work this time because Halo 5 was bad”. But given 343’s track record, why get our hopes up? Personally, I think that the game is what it is now. We will find out exactly what that is when the gameplay is revealed, but it is out of the hands of community influence at this point. I wish we had a more receptive dev team at the hands of Halo but that isn’t the case and hasn’t been since Bungie. I am sick of having my hopes rise and shatter. I’m gonna sit back and wait for the gameplay.
> 2533274801973487;1228:
> > 2533274804813082;1222:
> >
>
> I can’t think of a single Reach map, I’d like to see remade (not counting Reaches remakes of CE’s maps for CEA…)
I agree, but Countdown was one of the best Halo maps for MLG and I would love to see it make a comeback.
Every other map was doodoo in that game though
<p></p>
> 2533274977253120;1230:
> Still, I think that sprint can work in Halo if it’s designed properly. Hell, even Bungie had the idea of adding sprint back in Halo 2.
They had the idea, noticed it didn’t worked out and dropped it! 
Reach is another beast entirely, because the sandbox and core level-design weren’t build around it. Sprint in Reach is an equipment, a permanent power up if you want, but not a base ability. That’s why it kinda worked there - the modular nature of the game made the balancing act a lot easier on many fronts!
Why it still failed, at least in 4v4, is because loadouts imho. Equipments should have been scattered on the map!
> we had this exact same discussion before Halo 5. And Halo 4. We have routinely had these giant cumulative arguments prior to the launches of those games and it didn’t make a damn difference. At no point did 343 go “Due to the community backlash, we will be retooling some of the components of our game.” So why are we expecting any different this time?
I would add Halo 2 and 3 to that list, as fans pleaded for a return to Halo CE playstyle, and yet every individual had something in the new game that they wanted kept. Bungie continued to put what they wanted into the game and each game became more popular than the last. None of their games was perfect at launch (thanks, MS) but once released they made sure that their MP was as glitch-free as possible, and that there were no spots on their maps that made it easy to cheat. Bungie’s changes were less dramatic, though. Another thing about Bungie’s games was that teamwork was always emphasized (especially with Reach) but the community rarely took the hint. You were more likely to hear people bragging about “carrying a team” than being part of a team. 343i picked up on that vibe, and their Spartans are so badass that they don’t need teamwork.
With Bungie’s games, getting around the map better than the other guy was an important skill. Knowing where to be, and when, was the other important part. Some say this went away with Reach, and I will argue that. In Halo 4, though, the most important thing became mastering your Abilities. This is why I keep saying classic movement never went away. It just became irrelevant. I’m not happy with the way 343i made the change, but I understand why it happened. They are trying to appeal to the 18-34 year old demographic that every video game developer wants, and that is a moving target. With respect to Halo specifically, 343i would like to simply acknowledge that all of the previous games existed, but that was then and this is now. The current target group wants something new and different, 343i wants to give it to them, and Microsoft agrees.
The “Old Guard” would like Halo to stay the same, and they keep re-creating all the old maps from the original trilogy where classic movement mattered. Unfortunately, the only way classic movement works well is in the old games on the old maps. On the new maps, even the remakes, classic movement is irrelevant. 343i should never have remade a map. All that does is emphasize the difference. 343i should make maps that make Abilities relevant. They haven’t done that. This is why classic movement doesn’t work, and Abilities come off as useless fluff. Reach used the game engine and campaign maps for multiplayer and, like it or not, Armor Abilities made more sense in Reach multiplayer. They did it because it was expedient, but it makes the most sense for a game like Halo, especially if you want multiplayer to be an extension of campaign, which was a Bungie thing. I don’t know where 343i stands in that regard. I get the impression that they regard MP as completely separate from campaign, and MP is simply the esports version of Halo. In fact, I’m thinking they’re looking at all those successful FPS games out there that have little or no campaign and wonder why they spend so much effort on the campaign when clearly they can have success without one.
It’s clear, though, that the folks at 343i like Abilities and are willing to risk losing old fans if it means they can keep current fans and make new ones. Neither Bungie nor 343i ever felt that “staying the course” was a good idea in the video game market. 343i clearly thought that "listening to the fans (the loudest ones, anyway) was the way to go. They tried that with Reach, and then Halo 4. What they have learned is that the multiplayer infrastructure is more important than the multiplayer games. The most awesome games ever will fail if you can’t get a match, or if you get matched with players way below or above your level, and choosing a map means picking the lesser of three evils. There are many other things that need to happen to improve the multiplayer experience. “Returning” to classic movement really means removing all or enough Abilities so that basic movement becomes the most relevant. It also means shrinking maps back to CE size. Current and new fans might have a problem with that. 343i and Microsoft have to wonder if the old fans are enough to keep the franchise going. If Abilities return in Infinite, then the answer is no.
> 2533274798957786;1237:
> The “Old Guard” would like Halo to stay the same, and they keep re-creating all the old maps from the original trilogy where classic movement mattered.
Okay, you’re going to have to point out where that consistently happens.
Despite people in this thread telling you that they are okay with certain changes and not okay with certain other changes, you continue to say that “these older players only want exactly this game that already exists with no other variation and no other changes in the maps.”
It’s pretty funny how Naqser already pointed out that whenever someone tries to make a change that isn’t identical to [current game], someone will without a doubt appear and claim that the person only wants “Halo [previous game].5”
> 2533274798957786;1237:
> “Returning” to classic movement really means removing all or enough Abilities so that basic movement becomes the most relevant. It also means shrinking maps back to CE size. Current and new fans might have a problem with that.
You mean like how we removed a lot of other abilities and mechanics within the franchise’s lifespan? Why is this only a problem right now instead of the past 14 years?
A fun game is a fun game. If the game remains enjoyable, most “new” fans, especially the “casual” ones, won’t care about which abilities are removed or what has more emphasis than another.
> 2533274833081329;1238:
> > 2533274798957786;1237:
> > The “Old Guard” would like Halo to stay the same, and they keep re-creating all the old maps from the original trilogy where classic movement mattered.
>
> Okay, you’re going to have to point out where that consistently happens.
>
> Despite people in this thread telling you that they are okay with certain changes and not okay with certain other changes, you continue to say that “these older players only want exactly this game that already exists with no other variation and no other changes in the maps.”
The “consistency” come from having been active in Halo forums since Halo 2 and reading and responding to the same things the same way over and over. There exists a subgroup that wants the exact old game. There exists a slightly larger group that sucks up the the other group. These are the ones that come in to a thread like this one, pound their chests and say “All Abilities Must Go for Halo to Return to Glory.” When I question that logic I am told I need to provide evidence. Well, this thread is evidence. What’s really annoying is people reading what I wrote and saying I said something else, specifically because they want to argue against what they would have liked me to have said rather than what I actually said. The point is not that there is an Old Guard that wants the game to return to Halo CE level play. The point is that anyone that believes such a return will make Halo as popular as it once was is not being realistic, and I don’t care if you are the first person that bought a copy Halo CE or if you just bought Halo 5 and never heard of CE. If you believe Halo will be popular again if they just get rid of Abilities, any or all of them, you don’t understand what’s happening.
> > 2533274798957786;1237:
> > “Returning” to classic movement really means removing all or enough Abilities so that basic movement becomes the most relevant. It also means shrinking maps back to CE size. Current and new fans might have a problem with that.
>
> You mean like how we removed a lot of other abilities and mechanics within the franchise’s lifespan?
No, I don’t mean that.
> Why is this only a problem right now instead of the past 14 years?
It’s always been a problem.
> A fun gane is a fun game. If the game remains enjoyable, most “new” fans, especially the “casual” ones, won’t care about which abilities are removed or what has more emphasis than another.
I suppose I should ask you to provide empirical evidence to support this claim? By that I don’t mean “so-and-so game” added and removed abilities every fifteen minutes and it didn’t matter. What about the casual fans that do care? Don’t they count? Why do you insist that there are fans that are casual and fans that are not? That’s certainly not a distinction that I am comfortable with. There is definitely a group of fans that wish Halo had not changed any at all. You might be surprised at how many of them characterize themselves as “casual.”
A fun game is, indeed, a fun game. For me, there is not a single Halo game that is not fun. I enjoy all of them. I hear complaints about this one or that one and I just ask myself why can’t these people just enjoy the game they’re playing. Why do they insist on comparing it to every other game, Halo or not, as if that’s a valid comparison? Is Halo a better game than Call of Duty? NO. Is Call of Duty better? NO. They’re different games, and they have things you like and things you don’t like. The only thing that matters is if a given game has enough stuff that you like to the point where you will play it again. Yet these two games are continuously compared as if they are the same.
For over a decade people have come to Halo forums to denounce the current game and declare that they are going to stop playing, and we should, too. That actually worked for the first time with Reach. With Bungie out of the picture it worked even better with Halo 4. If you read the previous 61 pages you will find people saying they will not buy or play Infinite if it has Abilities. Any Abilities. Some have said that some Abilities would be acceptable, but argue over which ones. We had this dance with Reach. The vast majority does not care if Abilities stay or go, let alone which ones. Movement mechanics are not Halo’s problem. That is my point. I don’t think 343i is willing to remove what they have put in. That’s my other point. My speculation is that most, if not all, Abilities will remain, but the game won’t revolve around them like it does now.
> 2533274977253120;1223:
> Which isn’t really a bad thing. Doom was always supposed to be a fast-paced game.
Oh, of course not. My point was that everyone tends to look to DOOM as example for how a game can survive without augmented movement, and yet DOOM is evolving right alongside modern shooters, implementing some of the same mechanics that most other AAA shooters and FPS games have.
> 2533274801973487;1228:
> as far as I know, this dodge feature allows you to keep your weapon up, as I’ve said a few pages back, that makes a huge difference. Having thrust that does not force you to lower your weapon and is not significantly faster then your BMS, is not inherently a problem (though it does not mean it will be inherently fun either…)
I’m not sure either, been a while since I’ve played DOOM (or any game, for that matter), but isn’t the time spent dodging in Halo less than a second? As you say, that’s not inherently a problem, and dodging doesn’t save that much to where it truly breaks the game. For me, I’ve found it most useful to quick-dodge grenades or save myself from falls off ledges.
> Clamber is a more difficult question. While not beeing my favourite feature, when playing doom, clamber didn’t feel nowhere as restrictive and intrusive as in H5. Part of this might be due to beeing faster but I feel like the map design doesn’t depend on it as much as H5. It feels more like a failsafe for screwed up jumps rather then a mechanic that is required for effective movement.
From what I can remember of DOOM, there were a few areas that did require clambering. I think it felt faster because (if I remember correctly) it was automatic. A while back I was pointing out that - as far as Multiplayer goes - there aren’t many areas in Halo 5 at all that require clambering. It’s more of a shortcut to get to areas that can be reached just as quickly by standard jumps.
> 2533274798957786;1239:
> The “consistency” come from having been active in Halo forums since Halo 2 and reading and responding to the same things the same way over and over. There exists a subgroup that wants the exact old game. There exists a slightly larger group that sucks up the the other group. These are the ones that come in to a thread like this one, pound their chests and say “All Abilities Must Go for Halo to Return to Glory.” When I question that logic I am told I need to provide evidence. Well, this thread is evidence. What’s really annoying is people reading what I wrote and saying I said something else, specifically because they want to argue against what they would have liked me to have said rather than what I actually said. The point is not that there is an Old Guard that wants the game to return to Halo CE level play. The point is that anyone that believes such a return will make Halo as popular as it once was is not being realistic, and I don’t care if you are the first person that bought a copy Halo CE or if you just bought Halo 5 and never heard of CE. If you believe Halo will be popular again if they just get rid of Abilities, any or all of them, you don’t understand what’s happening.
The first subgroup you are talking about, “wants the exact old game,” would be the group of people that would be satisfied by Halo X Anniversary/MCC. There’s already no point in directly catering to them because they already have the (on paper) perfect game they want.
I’m sure you’re going to bring up “they want to play a game like Halo 2 and 3, but they don’t want to play Halo 2 and 3” like you did in a different comment, but that describes an entirely different subgroup than the one previously mentioned. That describes the subgroup that wants X number of changes in Y areas.
And honestly, the most numerous in this thread that actually takes the time to explain their reasoning is that very same subgroup. The subgroup that is perfectly okay with a game not exactly like Halo 2/Halo 3, but doesn’t have the exact abilities Halo 5 does. Me personally, all I have to do is remove literally two abilities from Halo 5, and that solves the majority of problems for me. Is that result exactly the same game as Halo 2/3? There are still clearly mechanics from those games that are not in this hypothetical game and mechanics from Halo 5 that are still in this hypothetical game. Not saying that my result works for everyone, but many people in this thread has done something like what I just did and came to a conclusion that is not Halo 3 or Halo 5.
I don’t care about “return to form.” The only thing I want to “return” to is no X mechanic, but that reason isn’t driven by mere population issues. I don’t care about the population. An enjoyable game handles the population so I don’t have to. I believe that removing X mechanic will create a more enjoyable game for Y reason, but that doesn’t mean the population will increase directly because of it. Maybe it will, but I won’t claim that.
> 2533274798957786;1239:
> No, I don’t mean that.
Okay, then what do you mean by that?
> 2533274798957786;1239:
> I suppose I should ask you to provide empirical evidence to support this claim? By that I don’t mean “so-and-so game” added and removed abilities every fifteen minutes and it didn’t matter. What about the casual fans that do care? Don’t they count? Why do you insist that there are fans that are casual and fans that are not? That’s certainly not a distinction that I am comfortable with. There is definitely a group of fans that wish Halo had not changed any at all. You might be surprised at how many of them characterize themselves as “casual.”
I put “casual” in quotes because I could not think of a better word to describe them. “Uninformed”? “Surface-caring”? “hobbyists?” None of those sound all that accurate…or positive. Either way, I’m talking about the majority of players who play the game for the sake of playing the game, and don’t care to go in-depth on player mechanics, or the extensive history of the game, or pretty much any element of game/sandbox design. Playing the game feels good, they feel good. Playing the game feels bad, they don’t like it and quit. They don’t have to verify a reason.
Anyone who goes even remotely in depth about an ability and claims to be “casual” by the aforementioned definition are wrong. Even having a Waypoint account and making regular posts here is more than I can ask for most players of the game.
If you’re looking for statistical evidence, I guess I can’t provide any because, good luck making a reasonable survey going “How much do you care about X?” when the population you’re trying to get an answer from probably doesn’t care about surveys either.
I guess there’s the Xbox Achievement statistics? I don’t know how accurate they are. According to that, only ~30% of players ever opened a Gold REQ pack. Only 26% of players played 3 games of Warzone. Only 30% of players played 5 games of Slayer.
> 2533274798957786;1239:
> I hear complaints about this one or that one and I just ask myself why can’t these people just enjoy the game they’re playing.
Because X thing bothers them for Y reason, and they feel it would be better if X was changed or removed. That’s pretty much how any criticism works. It doesn’t even mean they don’t enjoy the game, only that they would enjoy it more with that change.
Even Bungie/343i knows because they change/remove things based on that very feedback.
> 2533274798957786;1239:
> I don’t think 343i is willing to remove what they have put in. That’s my other point.
There’s already precedent for that not being true. 343i removed things from vanilla Halo 4 into late game/MCC Halo 4 (random example: Instant Respawn), they’ve changed/removed things from Halo 4 when making Halo 5 (Loadouts), and they’ve changed/removed things from vanilla Halo 5 to current Halo 5 (Spartan Charge/Ground Pound in HCS).