> 2533274913913392;10225:
> Oh please. You don’t need to pull the ‘not confident in your argument’ bull crap with me. If I wanted to I could turn it around on you and say that youre not confident in your argument for pointing that out.
> Those maps I pointed out have no more openness than maps in Halo 4 or 5. I concede the fact that Truth is in fact, significantly bigger than Midship. But that is one map. One map is not representative of all of them. I could go through every single map if youd like and point out equivilants in size. And no, the maps in Halo 4 or 5 are legitimately around the same size as many 4 v 4 maps in the original trilogy, It isnt due to their ‘clutter’. Heck, Damnation had quite a bit of ‘clutter’ (man with how many times Ive said original trilogy in this thread youd think I was talking about star wars).
> That is garbage about risk-reward benefiting one type of player. It benefits multiple types of players, plenty of whom do fine without it as well. and having higher predictability doesnt necessarily mean having more/better strategy. It could just mean that you play the game more and can guess better what the other person is doing. What are you forced to do without sprint to accomplish what you want? Half of what doing good in Halo, whether it has sprint or not, is capitalizing on someone else’s bad play! Someone can make a bad decision in Halo 3 and get cut for it just like they can in Halo 5, those bad decisions just may take different forms.
> Sprint can add strategy, and benefit for all players. No matter how skilled they are or how many halos they have played.
> I say again, I like sprint, I like no sprint. I think they can both be fun, fair, and competitive. But treating this like there is only one correct side, like only the anti-sprinters are right, or only the pro-sprinters are right is stupid. There are good arguments on both sides, and if you cant see that you are blinded from the bias you have on one side.
You could say whatever you want, but when you go to “you haven’t played” it doesn’t bode well for what you’re about to say. If I wanted, I could say you’re bad at the game and you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Do I say that? No, because it’s unnecessary and I’m able to make an argument. So let’s just drop that.
You’re really gonna tell me that Hang em High and Rat Race are not more open than any arena map in Halo 5? Are you serious? There’s no arguing there, that’s just false. It you can get actual measurements to the maps, then by all means, do so. If would be nice to have some actual data to put the issue to rest (though honestly, it’s hardly an issue since both sides of the sprint argument generally accept that maps are now bigger). Can I get your opinion on why you think they would increase the size of Truth if it was unnecessary? And do you think if sprint were dropped into Halo 2, that maps like Midship and Lockout would play fine with no negative effect on spawns, re-engagements and where people choose to traverse?
I should’ve been more clear, risk-reward benefits worse players more. They stand to gain more than good players would because the good players are more likely to succeed in a situation without risk-reward than bad players are. Why are you acting like “playing the game more and can guess better what the other person is doing” isn’t strategy or skill? Without knowledge of the game, maps and player behavior, you’re nothing. Knowledge is half the battle in this game. When there’s less you can know, you’re forced to rely more on circumstance rather than your own ability to figure out exactly where to go (and when), what to do (and how) and know what the other player is going to do. Sprint, and the unpredictability and chance that it adds, allows you to capitalizing more on the enemy’s bad play than relying on your own good play. That is something that you could always do, but why increase the frequency of those situations? Good players don’t need that, they’re already playing smart. Bad players on the other hand have less to lose with more chance.