> 2533274820536448;7823:
> I have proved it many times over, sprint encourges running away which increases time to kill for all weapons, which decreases the need for strafing and gun battles and detears away from teamwork and map control. Not only that but because of sprint there maps were made more open and bland to compensate for the running away factor and not always having your gun at the ready throws off a core balance halo has had in the original trillagy… And not only that there were other abalitys that were put into the game that were suppose to make up for the negative effects of sprint, for instance spartin charge was put into H5 to prevent the popular sprint double melee in H4.
>
> Basically the whole sandbox of this game was altered in a large amount of negative ways to compensate for sprint and it has cost halo the integrety of its game since Halo Reach.
>
> But it if that isn’t proof enough maybe you should go and take a look at the history of the halo franchise and see how highly compettive H2/H3 were when it came to MLG and other tournaments and compare it to how much of a joke compettive halo has become since the introduction of sprint.
>
> I know everyone is entitled to there own opinion but when the facts are in front of you and it’s almost been ten years since the introduction of sprint and it’s still an issue than mabye people should really double think there opinions.
This does not constitute a proof. Generally, for a proof you’d start with some set of basic definitions that we can all reasonably take as true (either by definition or because they form a logically consistent system, and so on), and then you’d present a train of thought which logically leads to the conclusion you’re looking for. But this here is nothing of that sort.
First of all, “sprint encourges running away” isn’t obviously true. I assume with “encourages” you mean that in a combat situation a player with sprint has a higher probability of choosing to run away than if they didn’t have sprint, correct? I don’t know about you, but personally I can hardly take this as something that’s obviously true. After all, how does sprint encourage running away? Why isn’t the player as likely to run away as before? This is the statement you start your “proof” from, but I can’t really take it as a proper premise at all. So, even if your logic was flawless, you would not have proven anything to me.
That said, I also fail to see the logical step from “sprint encourges running away” to “which increases time to kill for all weapons”. As far as I can tell, the traits of weapons are entirely unaffected by whether players can sprint, so it makes sense to me that the kill times would remain the same. This is, of course, assuming that by “time to kill” you mean the minimum kill time, which is a trait that only depends on the weapon, and not the average kill time, which is a difficult to compute trait that depends the traits of the weapon, movement mechanics, and skill distribution of players, among other things. Anyway, this logical step is something you’d definitely have to make clearer in your proof.
Moving on, the immediately following logical step from “which increases time to kill for all weapons” to “which decreases the need for strafing and gun battles and detears away from teamwork and map control” is equally mysterious. How do slower killing weapons exactly decrease the need for strafing or, for that matter, what do we really mean by “need” in this situation? It’s equally unclear how slower kill times decrease the need for gun battles, or deter teamwork and map control. At any rate, you probably need to define these terms clearly in your final proof.
There are more statements in your post, but you get the point: you have not proven anything. What you said is not a proof. It’s just a rhetoric argument that you find convincing, but others might not (to be honest, even though I’m against sprint, after breaking it down like that, it’s really not that convincing), and it does not prove the statement “sprint destroyed halos compettive multiplayer”. Not that I ever expected you to actually prove the statement, not the least because the statement is too vague to be taken as something that can be proven or disproven. It was all just setup to hopefully make you realize the fact that these are not things you can prove.
There are facts in this discussion, though many of the statements you consider as facts are really not facts (e.g., “sprint encourages running away”, believe it or not, is not a fact). There are statements which could be falsified by experiment, such as the aforementioned “sprint encourages running away” (if we are careful about the definition of “encourages”), but which are not facts because no one has actually went out there and tested them. Then there are completely opinionated statements such as “sprint destroyed halos compettive multiplayer” because the word “destroyed” is far too vague and emotionally charged.
I’ve said it before, but I often feel like the people most eager to say things like “it’s a fact”, “there’s proof”, or “people have made logical arguments” are the least likely to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, piggybacking on the arguments of others, taking them as gospel.
It really helps no one that you think you have the ultimate truth in your hands. Few sentences of rambly and scattered arguments followed by “I know everyone is entitled to there own opinion but when the facts are in front of you” doesn’t help anyone to understand how sprint is detrimental to Halo. If you truly care about educating people on your views, you really need to take time to be critical towards your own arguments. Because what you find convincing will not convince others. Of course, if you’re just interested in in going around laughing at people and telling they’re wrong because they disagree with you, it’s up to you. But you’re doing a huge disservice to the anti-sprint crowd.