> 2533274794648158;13339:
> I agree - the gameplay of older Halos was way more accessible to a casual audience. You see a guy. You charge at him and shoot him. Maybe throw a nade. It was simple.
>
> Halo 5 is more convoluted to newer players. People are flying past you, charging & sliding, thrusting away, etc. Also, matchmaking doesn’t favor solo players at all. It’s a jarring experience.
One of the main reasons why a sprintless and simple Halo is the best way forward.
> 2533274988427419;13341:
> Halo is no longer a Tactical shooter 
It’s no longer about positioning and team work, it has now become a twitch based shooter.
If you think that the average 1.2 seconds in kill time for most precision weapons makes for a twitch shooter, you’re being hyperbolic. Play CoD and then tell me that H5 is a twitch shooter, as team shooting and positioning is still just as prevalent in pro game play of H5 as it was in other games.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the topic at hand.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Captains Log: February 4th, 2017
Sprint is still in Halo, and is still garbage for it
> 2535414876585185;1:
> **MODERATOR EDIT:****As this thread has reached 10,000 posts, there is no better time to make it clear that this is the official sprint thread where all sprint related discussion shall be directed, and give the title an accompanying face lift.**Original OP:
>
> > Halo 6 could be the game EVERYONE wants by removing sprint in campaign (yes because who the -Yoink- needs TWO movement speeds in campaign???) and
> > arena multiplayer at first I thought a no sprint playlist might be optimal but hear me out. I pretty sure the new spartan abilities (save -Yoinking!- spartan charge) would be GENERALLY accepted in a halo game if they werent accompanied by sprint it would feel more competitive more strategic and would also still be recognizable to the fine tuned experience we got in halo 5. Warzone and customs would be a whole other beast entirely retaining ALL the features that made halo 5 successful would keep warzone great and would also allow more options for custom games, for those people that actually wanted to play in a sprint arena type setting they could actually fire up the in game custom game lobby adjust the filter and be good to go! lets face it, sprint has NO place in competitve halo and to argue that it does would just be absurd. this would allow arena maps to continue to be designed the PROPER way and please the vets and basically everyone whos willing to give it a chance and you wouldnt lose much of your sprint loving audience at all because there would still be sprint in the game it would just take a backseat!
> > Thoughts? :3
halo was never meant to be fast paced. things like armor abilities kind of ruined it for me…
> 2533274850734574;13347:
> > 2535414876585185;1:
> > **MODERATOR EDIT:****As this thread has reached 10,000 posts, there is no better time to make it clear that this is the official sprint thread where all sprint related discussion shall be directed, and give the title an accompanying face lift.**Original OP:
> >
> > > Halo 6 could be the game EVERYONE wants by removing sprint in campaign (yes because who the -Yoink- needs TWO movement speeds in campaign???) and
> > > arena multiplayer at first I thought a no sprint playlist might be optimal but hear me out. I pretty sure the new spartan abilities (save -Yoinking!- spartan charge) would be GENERALLY accepted in a halo game if they werent accompanied by sprint it would feel more competitive more strategic and would also still be recognizable to the fine tuned experience we got in halo 5. Warzone and customs would be a whole other beast entirely retaining ALL the features that made halo 5 successful would keep warzone great and would also allow more options for custom games, for those people that actually wanted to play in a sprint arena type setting they could actually fire up the in game custom game lobby adjust the filter and be good to go! lets face it, sprint has NO place in competitve halo and to argue that it does would just be absurd. this would allow arena maps to continue to be designed the PROPER way and please the vets and basically everyone whos willing to give it a chance and you wouldnt lose much of your sprint loving audience at all because there would still be sprint in the game it would just take a backseat!
> > > Thoughts? :3
>
> halo was never meant to be fast paced. things like armor abilities kind of ruined it for me…
I don’t think it being fast paced is an issue, I think how it obtains being fast pace can be the problem tho I.E. sprint or clambering maps in a matter of seconds. I’d much rather they do what Doom or overwatch do and up BMS.
Ultimately people want it faster paced from what I see, and I don’t find an issue with that as long as it can be done in an efficient way without harming core gameplay like I find sprint doing. Faster BMS still retains everything the originals did but at the faster pace that people today want. People like to feel like they’re getting back into the action, the faster pace meets that want.
The two different movement speeds are the issue. Just make one base movement speed that is faster than the current walk speed but slower than sprint. Sprint distorts map design and flow and creates issue with bullet magnetism and sandbox issues. I don’t understand why everyone wants everything so fast paced these days.
Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
> 2533274794648158;13350:
> Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
>
> Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
Large maps without bungie style teleporters and mancannons along the ability to run away from fights doesn’t make games faster. Some people can’t get that because they only look at the surface level of sprint makes you move faster.
> 2533274794648158;13350:
> Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
>
> Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
How has halo been slowing down?
> 2533274866652866;13352:
> > 2533274794648158;13350:
> > Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
> >
> > Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
>
> How has halo been slowing down?
It’s a combination of a lot of things. The main one is the kill times. They doubled from CE → H2 and have been gradually getting higher. This effectively weakens the power of an individual player to become a threat. That is why today’s Halo meta is super focused on team shooting and can’t really evolve into anything more. To be fair, it’s been that way for a long time.
Another issue is the lack of power items and power ups on static spawns. H2 & H3 suffered from this and it slowed games to a crawl because there was no incentive to cycle through the map. They’ve recently tried to fix this in H5 and are on the right track, but there are still issues such as weapon choice, placement, and ammo count.
What’s funny is they decreased the kill times in H5 compared to H3/H4, so you’d think it would pick up the pace, but it doesn’t. H5 has a lot of defensive mechanics in place such as thrust/sprint and they’re commonly used to extrapolate engagements that would have otherwise ended sooner.
> 2533274794648158;13350:
> Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
>
> Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
I was curious to see if this claim has any truth to it, so I took the stats from 50 4v4 Slayer matches in Halo 2, 3, Reach, and 5 from three separate players and computed the average number of kills per second happening in each match (i.e. match length divided by the sum of red and blue teams’ scores). The results are as follows:
Halo 2: 0.1904 ± 0.0036 k/s
Halo 3: 0.1937 ± 0.0041 k/s
Halo Reach: 0.1735 ± 0.0034 k/s
Halo 5: 0.1807 ± 0.0021 k/s
Based on this small analysis, it does appear that games before Reach might have been faster than games after, though Halo 5 again appears to be slightly faster than Reach. The differences are somewhat marginal though. For example, the average number of kills per second in Halo 3 is only 10% higher than in Reach. With all that said, this is just from three different players, and there might be some bias from any one player’s habits in the results. Not to mention that one might question whether kills per second truly even captures the nature of the speed of gameplay. Still, it might be useful to have something more concrete than someone’s anecdotal experience.
EDIT: After some discussion in the following pages, I realized that the representation of these numbers might misleadingly make the errors appear smaller than they are. The results above are the average of 150 matches from three different players, and the errors have therefore been determined under the assumption that they are entirely random (or more technically, that the match outcomes are drawn from the same underlying probability distribution), but they are not, because these are three different players. This results in a systematic error as the playing habits of different players may affect the average rate of kills in their matches, e.g., due to what maps and playlists they have a preference for. This systematic error is underrepresented in the above results, and therefore to represent it more honestly, I’ve decided to include the averages of individual players below.
Player A:
Halo 2: 0.1788 ± 0.0059 k/s
Halo 3: 0.2085 ± 0.0089 k/s
Halo Reach: 0.1643 ± 0.0060 k/s
Halo 5: 0.1748 ± 0.0026 k/s
Player B:
Halo 2: 0.2014 ± 0.0064 k/s
Halo 3: 0.1898 ± 0.0056 k/s
Halo Reach: 0.1705 ± 0.0054 k/s
Halo 5: 0.1856 ± 0.0038 k/s
Player C:
Halo 2: 0.1909 ± 0.0057 k/s
Halo 3: 0.1827 ± 0.0058 k/s
Halo Reach: 0.1858 ± 0.0056 k/s
Halo 5: 0.1815 ± 0.0039 k/s
> 2533274825830455;13354:
> > 2533274794648158;13350:
> > Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
> >
> > Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
>
> I was curious to see if this claim has any truth to it, so I took the stats from 50 4v4 Slayer matches in Halo 2, 3, Reach, and 5 from three separate players and computed the average number of kills per second happening in each match (i.e. match length divided by the sum of red and blue teams’ scores). The results are as follows:
>
> Halo 2: 0.1904 ± 0.0036 k/s
> Halo 3: 0.1937 ± 0.0041 k/s
> Halo Reach: 0.1735 ± 0.0034 k/s
> Halo 5: 0.1807 ± 0.0021 k/s
>
> Based on this small analysis, it does appear that games before Reach might have been faster than games after, though Halo 5 again appears to be slightly faster than Reach. The differences are somewhat marginal though. For example, the average number of kills per second in Halo 3 is only 10% higher than in Reach. With all that said, this is just from three different players, and there might be some bias from any one player’s habits in the results. Not to mention that one might question whether kills per second truly even captures the nature of the speed of gameplay. Still, it might be useful to have something more concrete than someone’s anecdotal experience.
That’s a neat experiment. I thought about doing something similar but figured there’s too much at play. Another huge factor it doesn’t take into account are the maps, since each can play at wildly different paces (i.e H2 Lockout vs Warlock). I’m not surprised about Reach, I believe it has the slowest pace in the series due to bloom and other mechanics.
I’d say the rate at which you slay opponents is a great measurement for determining the overall pace of a shooter. I’m really not sure what else we’d base it on. Netting kills is the main goal - it moves the match along. With that said, I don’t hold it against people when they say H5 feels more fast-paced compared to other Halos. As a player you’re more agile than ever and you’re inputting more button presses per second because of all the abilities at your disposal. But in the end, you’re not really killing people any quicker.
> 2533274794648158;13355:
> > 2533274825830455;13354:
> > > 2533274794648158;13350:
> > > Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
> > >
> > > Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
> >
> > I was curious to see if this claim has any truth to it, so I took the stats from 50 4v4 Slayer matches in Halo 2, 3, Reach, and 5 from three separate players and computed the average number of kills per second happening in each match (i.e. match length divided by the sum of red and blue teams’ scores). The results are as follows:
> >
> > Halo 2: 0.1904 ± 0.0036 k/s
> > Halo 3: 0.1937 ± 0.0041 k/s
> > Halo Reach: 0.1735 ± 0.0034 k/s
> > Halo 5: 0.1807 ± 0.0021 k/s
> >
> > Based on this small analysis, it does appear that games before Reach might have been faster than games after, though Halo 5 again appears to be slightly faster than Reach. The differences are somewhat marginal though. For example, the average number of kills per second in Halo 3 is only 10% higher than in Reach. With all that said, this is just from three different players, and there might be some bias from any one player’s habits in the results. Not to mention that one might question whether kills per second truly even captures the nature of the speed of gameplay. Still, it might be useful to have something more concrete than someone’s anecdotal experience.
>
> That’s a neat experiment. I thought about doing something similar but figured there’s too much at play. Another huge factor it doesn’t take into account are the maps, since each can play at wildly different paces (i.e H2 Lockout vs Warlock). I’m not surprised about Reach, I believe it has the slowest pace in the series due to bloom and other mechanics.
>
> I’d say the rate at which you slay opponents is a great measurement for determining the overall pace of a shooter. I’m really not sure what else we’d base it on. Netting kills is the main goal - it moves the match along. With that said, I don’t hold it against people when they say H5 feels more fast-paced compared to other Halos. As a player you’re more agile than ever and you’re inputting more button presses per second because of all the abilities at your disposal. But in the end, you’re not really killing people any quicker.
To be honest, I took it that the maps are part of what determines the pace of gameplay because map design and gameplay are just so fundamentally connected. I don’t think it even makes sense to speak of the pace of gameplay without assuming some particular map. Strictly speaking, when we discuss “pace” in general, we really mean the average pace on some particular set of maps (e.g. the maps that appear in 4v4 playlists).
It’s funny that you mention Warlock, because Warlock, Desolation, Heretic, and the like are what seemed to make Halo 2 and 3 so fast. Since Reach there has really been few, if any, truly small maps. When it comes to Reach, I could definitely believe that bloom making the DMR so slow is a significant reason in why Reach is so slow compared to the other three games. But when it comes to Halo 5, I’m not sure whether I buy that the mechanics play a significant part in making Halo 5 slower than Halo 2 and 3. It seems to me to have more to do with the maps, but that’s just a hunch that’s not backed by anything concrete.
Anyway, you’re right that the bottom line seems to be that you’re not killing players any faster in Halo 5 than in previous games and might, in fact, be doing it marginally slower than in the original trilogy. Which I guess could be taken as more evidence for the argument that sprint doesn’t actually allow you to get anywhere faster because the maps have been upsized in such a way as to negate that effect.
Played for agood 3 hours tonight sprints gotta go man, its not even defendable at this point.
> 2533274825830455;13356:
> > 2533274794648158;13355:
> > > 2533274825830455;13354:
> > > > 2533274794648158;13350:
> > > > Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
> > > >
> > > > Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
> > >
> > > I was curious to see if this claim has any truth to it, so I took the stats from 50 4v4 Slayer matches in Halo 2, 3, Reach, and 5 from three separate players and computed the average number of kills per second happening in each match (i.e. match length divided by the sum of red and blue teams’ scores). The results are as follows:
> > >
> > > Halo 2: 0.1904 ± 0.0036 k/s
> > > Halo 3: 0.1937 ± 0.0041 k/s
> > > Halo Reach: 0.1735 ± 0.0034 k/s
> > > Halo 5: 0.1807 ± 0.0021 k/s
> > >
> > > Based on this small analysis, it does appear that games before Reach might have been faster than games after, though Halo 5 again appears to be slightly faster than Reach. The differences are somewhat marginal though. For example, the average number of kills per second in Halo 3 is only 10% higher than in Reach. With all that said, this is just from three different players, and there might be some bias from any one player’s habits in the results. Not to mention that one might question whether kills per second truly even captures the nature of the speed of gameplay. Still, it might be useful to have something more concrete than someone’s anecdotal experience.
> >
> > That’s a neat experiment. I thought about doing something similar but figured there’s too much at play. Another huge factor it doesn’t take into account are the maps, since each can play at wildly different paces (i.e H2 Lockout vs Warlock). I’m not surprised about Reach, I believe it has the slowest pace in the series due to bloom and other mechanics.
> >
> > I’d say the rate at which you slay opponents is a great measurement for determining the overall pace of a shooter. I’m really not sure what else we’d base it on. Netting kills is the main goal - it moves the match along. With that said, I don’t hold it against people when they say H5 feels more fast-paced compared to other Halos. As a player you’re more agile than ever and you’re inputting more button presses per second because of all the abilities at your disposal. But in the end, you’re not really killing people any quicker.
>
> To be honest, I took it that the maps are part of what determines the pace of gameplay because map design and gameplay are just so fundamentally connected. I don’t think it even makes sense to speak of the pace of gameplay without assuming some particular map. Strictly speaking, when we discuss “pace” in general, we really mean the average pace on some particular set of maps (e.g. the maps that appear in 4v4 playlists).
>
> It’s funny that you mention Warlock, because Warlock, Desolation, Heretic, and the like are what seemed to make Halo 2 and 3 so fast. Since Reach there has really been few, if any, truly small maps. When it comes to Reach, I could definitely believe that bloom making the DMR so slow is a significant reason in why Reach is so slow compared to the other three games. But when it comes to Halo 5, I’m not sure whether I buy that the mechanics play a significant part in making Halo 5 slower than Halo 2 and 3. It seems to me to have more to do with the maps, but that’s just a hunch that’s not backed by anything concrete.
>
> Anyway, you’re right that the bottom line seems to be that you’re not killing players any faster in Halo 5 than in previous games and might, in fact, be doing it marginally slower than in the original trilogy. Which I guess could be taken as more evidence for the argument that sprint doesn’t actually allow you to get anywhere faster because the maps have been upsized in such a way as to negate that effect.
And why are the maps so much larger than in previous games? Because the player has a movement speed that is faster (even if it’s not the base speed). Players need more areas to be able use ground pound and thruster effectively too. New movement mechanics make running away easier, so bullet magnetism and ttk is increased to balance this. At this point you now need large areas of flatness and wide open areas with sudden high cover to accommodate the movement and a faster ttk to accommodate movement. Players starts staying back more as a result, and games last a little longer as a result (this was a really big issue in the Beta). Map stretching is an effect of sprint and other movement mechanics, which then throws a host of problems of its own (such as a combat in an environment designed for sprint speed when the player goes much slower to actually fight).
> 2533274944267503;13358:
> And why are the maps so much larger than in previous games? Because the player has a movement speed that is faster (even if it’s not the base speed). Players need more areas to be able use ground pound and thruster effectively too. New movement mechanics make running away easier, so bullet magnetism and ttk is increased to balance this. At this point you now need large areas of flatness and wide open areas with sudden high cover to accommodate the movement and a faster ttk to accommodate movement. Players starts staying back more as a result, and games last a little longer as a result (this was a really big issue in the Beta). Map stretching is an effect of sprint and other movement mechanics, which then throws a host of problems of its own (such as a combat in an environment designed for sprint speed when the player goes much slower to actually fight).
I should clarify that I was thinking of direct effects while I wrote that. You’re correct that the maps are likely as large as they are because 343i seems to be very concerned with maintaining the pace roughly similar to what it has always been as said here.
The fact they’ve tried so hard to balance sprint and it still has massive flaws should tell you all you need to know about the mechanic.
> 2533274846634693;13360:
> The fact they’ve tried so hard to balance sprint and it still has massive flaws should tell you all you need to know about the mechanic.
Well that’s the point! 343 has talked extensively, as have we here about how well balanced Halo 5, and the challenge it took to get there. But if you remove the sprint (ad subsequently the spartan abilities), you end up not having to do all the extra work of balancing. Now you can focus on good map design and weapons balance like Halo 2 and 3.
> 2533274794648158;13353:
> > 2533274866652866;13352:
> > > 2533274794648158;13350:
> > > Halo started out as a fast-paced shooter and has been gradually slowing down its pace ever since Halo 2.
> > >
> > > Halo 5 is anything but fast imo.
> >
> > How has halo been slowing down?
>
> It’s a combination of a lot of things. The main one is the kill times. They doubled from CE → H2 and have been gradually getting higher. This effectively weakens the power of an individual player to become a threat. That is why today’s Halo meta is super focused on team shooting and can’t really evolve into anything more. To be fair, it’s been that way for a long time.
> So apart from Halo CE every other halo game has a variation of .2 millisecond kill time. Halo has hardly become slow in this regard have a look at this clip. And for a long time halo has always been about team shooting so i dont agree with this premise. If you have the kill time to quick this eliminates team shooting which for a long time made halo unique other wise it would be similar to COD. - YouTubeAnother issue is the lack of power items and power ups on static spawns. H2 & H3 suffered from this and it slowed games to a crawl because there was no incentive to cycle through the map. They’ve recently tried to fix this in H5 and are on the right track, but there are still issues such as weapon choice, placement, and ammo count.
> **Power items can increase the pace of the game but it is not an overriding factor a greater factor is map size and speed of movement.**What’s funny is they decreased the kill times in H5 compared to H3/H4, so you’d think it would pick up the pace, but it doesn’t. H5 has a lot of defensive mechanics in place such as thrust/sprint and they’re commonly used to extrapolate engagements that would have otherwise ended sooner.
> So you mean the engagments have increased not the pace of the gamplay to me the pace of gameplay is the overall time it takes to finish a game. If we look at the average game time of halo classics and compare them to halo 5 they are similar.
> So apart from Halo CE every other halo game has a variation of .2 millisecond kill time. Halo has hardly become slow in this regard have a look at this clip. And for a long time halo has always been about team shooting so i dont agree with this premise. If you have the kill time to quick this eliminates team shooting which for a long time made halo unique other wise it would be similar to COD. - YouTube
Yes, Halo’s pace decreased significantly after CE. That’s why I mentioned in my original post that it’s been that way since Halo 2 and it hasn’t really gotten any better 13 years later. TTK in Halo has never been “instant CoD style”, not even in CE. Sure, someone could potentially drop you in 0.6 seconds with the magnum, but it demanded a lot of skill to do so. This is why CE’s perfect TTK and average TTK were quite far apart – it provided a high shooting skill gap. This made it so that if you flanked two competent enemies, you could potentially drop them both given you don’t choke your shots. You’d be rewarded for a smart play. If you consider the same scenario for H2 (or any other Halo for that matter), you’d maybe drop one enemy before you die. You out-played them, but because two BR’s are always better than one, you have to settle for a 1-for-1 trade off. It didn’t matter how skillful your shot was in that scenario.
So let’s clear this up: teamwork existed in CE. There are no elements to H2 that are missing in CE, there is simply less of a gross reliance on team shooting and more opportunity for individual prowess.
> Power items can increase the pace of the game but it is not an overriding factor a greater factor is map size and speed of movement.
Everything plays a part. Lockout TS was known for being stagnant and “standoff-ish”, but if you put rockets top mid, OS top blue, and made them spawn every 2 minutes, you’d see a lot more map movement and slaying going on. On the flip side, take camo out of Warlock and it wouldn’t really make a difference.
> So you mean the engagments have increased not the pace of the gamplay to me the pace of gameplay is the overall time it takes to finish a game. If we look at the average game time of halo classics and compare them to halo 5 they are similar.
The average length of matches from H2-H5 probably are similar. I never said otherwise. As tsassi went over in his post, the differences seem to be marginal between those games, with CE being the obvious outlier.