<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> 2533274816299345;2:
> Id rather keep sprint.
same
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Whats up keep sprint but balence it like in halo reach how you could only use it for 8 secounds
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Lets not be divided amoung halo fan lets work to gether and vigure this out.
Sprint was not added in previous Halo’s (Except for Reach and Halo 4) but the feature is very innovating and challenging because as it can be useful it contains its disadvantages (Not being able to recharge shields).
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
i ment fans
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
yeah guys we would not be able to spartan charge if we take away sprint.
> 2535433076071510;13367:
> Sprint was not added in previous Halo’s (Except for Reach and Halo 4) but the feature is very innovating and challenging because as it can be useful it contains its disadvantages (Not being able to recharge shields).
Whats innovative about a mechanic that has been around for 15 years?
> 2535433076071510;13367:
> Sprint was not added in previous Halo’s (Except for Reach and Halo 4) but the feature is very innovating and challenging because as it can be useful it contains its disadvantages (Not being able to recharge shields).
It also rewards bad plays especially when mixed with spartan charge, I dont think I’ve known a game reward someone as much for blindly running into danger. It offers significantly increased chances of easier escapes, especially when pursuers who have you 1 shot and then have to give chase with their guns down. Brings in a element of who see’s who first instead of gunfights solely being determined on ones skill in strafing and shot accuracy. Gunfights deteriorate into games of cat and mouse and ring around the rosey which is simply annoying and not fun. Then theres the effects on weapon balances and map design.
Sprint simply doesn’t work on a games with significantly higher kill times and risk rewards mechanics were never part of Halos core gameplay.
> 2535406403538430;13366:
> Lets not be divided amoung halo fan lets work to gether and vigure this out.
Most people dislike spartan charge anyway, it rewards making bad plays and getting caught off guard.
> 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.
Seriously, if it’s that difficult to balance then maybe it doesn’t belong in halo. If they put there time into balancing and developing other things we’d probably have a great game. But for some reason they insist on trying to shove in a mechanic that has consistently caused problems since its implementation, even though movement in the original trilogy was perfectly fine. Minor changes like thrust would have been fine, but it didn’t need what almost amounts to a full revamp.
> 2533274825830455;13354:
> 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
I’m sorry, but I find this data rather suspicious.
As a direct consquence it would mean that on average, the time between two kills for any one given player is 1/r*8, implying 42.02s, 41.30s, 46.11s and 44.27s are passing before one player makes another frag in Halo 2, 3, Reach and 5, respectively. Extrapolating from that, on average matches would end after 8.75min, 8.6min, 9.6min and 9.22min.
While the values do seem to check out for Halo 2 and 3, from my personal experience, the time is too low for Reach (by about a minute or so) and severely too low for H5G, given how often people claim that matches end in timeouts more so than in the score goal being reached.
Granted, the latter might be personal bias from the affected players, and I have played H5G so little that I don’t have any data to back it up. I do, however, for Reach.
On the other hand, from my own measurements, I know that the average encounter downtime has doubled from Halo 2 and 3 to Reach and 4 (again, no data from H5G) from 5-10 seconds to 15-20 seconds. If both of those results were to be true at the same time, it would imply that at least twice as many encounters in the later games had to be team-engagements instead of 1v1 duels (or have twice as many teammates participate in them) than in the earlier games. Which, while possible, seems kinda extreme…
At the very least, you treat every gunfight equally, regardless of participating players, which is not a good representation of “fast-paced”. You need to factor in multikills and distractions (and other medals) into your analysis. For example: Getting a triple with a SPNKr is only marginally faster than individually headshotting three players, but will increase the downtime significantly, since all those players need to respawn and get back into the action before you can battle them again. Games can have a high “kill frequency” yet still be slow-paced or, vice versa. Your results do not represent this and are misleading as a consequence.
> 2533274801176260;13374:
> I’m sorry, but I find this data rather suspicious.
>
> As a direct consquence it would mean that on average, the time between two kills for any one given player is 1/r*8, implying 42.02s, 41.30s, 46.11s and 44.27s are passing before one player makes another frag in Halo 2, 3, Reach and 5, respectively. Extrapolating from that, on average matches would end after 8.75min, 8.6min, 9.6min and 9.22min.
> While the values do seem to check out for Halo 2 and 3, from my personal experience, the time is too low for Reach (by about a minute or so) and severely too low for H5G, given how often people claim that matches end in timeouts more so than in the score goal being reached.
> Granted, the latter might be personal bias from the affected players, and I have played H5G so little that I don’t have any data to back it up. I do, however, for Reach.
>
> On the other hand, from my own measurements, I know that the average encounter downtime has doubled from Halo 2 and 3 to Reach and 4 (again, no data from H5G) from 5-10 seconds to 15-20 seconds. If both of those results were to be true at the same time, it would imply that at least twice as many encounters in the later games had to be team-engagements instead of 1v1 duels (or have twice as many teammates participate in them) than in the earlier games. Which, while possible, seems kinda extreme…
While the errors given are reasonably small, it’s absolutely true that there might be more significant systematic error simply from the set of players I picked. I did notice that there were significant differences between individual players that didn’t seem to account for random variations. This wasn’t by any means intended as a defininitive study, because I’m well aware that I don’t have the capacity to execute it, but more to give me feel whether significant differences exist in pace of gameplay between different games.
However, I don’t doubt the same systematic errors wouldn’t creep into your results also, unless you’ve thought about this significantly more and found a way to gather results from a significantly larger pool of players. I don’t know how you’ve done your measurements, but if you’ve only sat there with a stopwatch, looking at your own gameplay, your methodology doesn’t seem any more reliable than mine.
> 2533274801176260;13374:
> At the very least, you treat every gunfight equally, regardless of participating players, which is not a good representation of “fast-paced”. You need to factor in multikills and distractions (and other medals) into your analysis. For example: Getting a triple with a SPNKr is only marginally faster than individually headshotting three players, but will increase the downtime significantly, since all those players need to respawn and get back into the action before you can battle them again. Games can have a high “kill frequency” yet still be slow-paced or, vice versa. Your results do not represent this and are misleading as a consequence.
I guess this is the subjective part of the discussion, and I’d gladly consider a more varied set of different metrics if I could. However, as far as looking at average kill rates goes, it offers one perspective on the pace of gameplay, one that tells how fast players are slaying each other. To me this certainly is related to the pace of gameplay, and it’s definitely too harsh to call it “misleading”, because one should understand that this is merely one way of looking at it. Looking at times between encounters offers an alternative perspective, which I would certainly also consider at, did there exist a means of doing it to any meaningful degree of accuracy without wading through days worth of gameplay footage.
Personally, the only issue I have with Sprinting is when you take damage while sprinting and the game forces you to stop for a second. You mean to tell me that this Super Solder Spartan all of the sudden forgets how to sprint or somehow loses all adrenaline and just decides to walk instead of rushing out of the line of fire? lmao that’s ridiculous and a mockery of true combatants. Only leg shots or when your shield bursts, should force you to stop sprinting momentarily…
> 2533274825830455;13375:
> However, I don’t doubt the same systematic errors wouldn’t creep into your results also, unless you’ve thought about this significantly more and found a way to gather results from a significantly larger pool of players. I don’t know how you’ve done your measurements, but if you’ve only sat there with a stopwatch, looking at your own gameplay, your methodology doesn’t seem any more reliable than mine.
Absolutely. There’s a high chance of bias either way. I’m not compltely disregarding your results, hence why I said “suspicious” instead of “false”. Am I wrong? Are you wrong? Are we both wrong? (Are we both right?) All is possible. I just wanted to raise an objection and draw attention to some inconsitencies before everybody in here just blindly accepts and sucks up any numbers, just because they have a decimal point in them. (Which also applies to everything I’m saying.)
> 2533274825830455;13375:
> I guess this is the subjective part of the discussion, and I’d gladly consider a more varied set of different metrics if I could. However, as far as looking at average kill rates goes, it offers one perspective on the pace of gameplay, one that tells how fast players are slaying each other. To me this certainly is related to the pace of gameplay, and it’s definitely too harsh to call it “misleading”, because one should understand that this is merely one way of looking at it. Looking at times between encounters offers an alternative perspective, which I would certainly also consider at, did there exist a means of doing it to any meaningful degree of accuracy without wading through days worth of gameplay footage.
But the kill frequency has basically nothing to do with the pacing of the game. They’re not even correlated, much less in a causal relation.
Take any game mode - Slayer, CTF, Oddball, doesn’t matter - put it on a tiny map (Wizard comes to mind, or Foundation), put enough players on it, remove respawn timers and you will have a fast-paced game, because you’re constantly in combat.
If you then increase weapon damage and reduce shield strength (or outright remove it like in SWAT), you will have a high kill frequency, but still have the same pace because the players can still come back into action just as fast.
On the other hand, reduce weapon damage, buff shields to overshield and increase the recharge timer, and you will have a low kill frequency, but once again, the pacing of the game doesn’t change as you’re not less in combat than before.
Of course those are two extremes, but the logic is the same for “normal” gameplay. The game pace is not defined by the number of kills in a game, because you could still frag multiple people at a time with a rocket or tank, yet have a boring, slow–Yoink- game while dragging yourself from encounter to encounter for extended periods of time. It is mostly (perhaps solely) defined by the downtime, the periods where a player has no meaningful engagement with either another player or at least the environment. (Camping, cat-and-mouse-chases, etc.) Taking out what I call “pileup”, namely double-counting kills that were actually made in the same gunfight somewhat alleviates this issue, but it’s still nothing more than a value that’s “nice to have”. That’s why this result is misleading, because adducing it in a discussion about game pacing implies a connection where there is none.
> 2533274792854607;13376:
> Personally, the only issue I have with Sprinting is when you take damage while sprinting and the game forces you to stop for a second. You mean to tell me that this Super Solder Spartan all of the sudden forgets how to sprint or somehow loses all adrenaline and just decides to walk instead of rushing out of the line of fire? lmao that’s ridiculous and a mockery of true combatants. Only leg shots or when your shield bursts, should force you to stop sprinting momentarily…
lol
That was actually one of the fixes they tried to implement because sprint was horribly broken in previous iterations.
Of course it didn’t fix squat, it’s still just as broken and additionally, (part of) the pro-sprinters are annoyed by the band-aid solution, so now less people are happy then before.
By the way, lore should never dictate gameplay mechanics. By that argument sprint itself already doesn’t make sense because it completely contradicts how Spartans could run and shoot at the same time for about 40 years until they just somehow… forgot. Talk about ridiculous and mockery.
> 2533274801176260;13378:
> By the way, lore should never dictate gameplay mechanics. By that argument sprint itself already doesn’t make sense because it completely contradicts how Spartans could run and shoot at the same time for about 40 years until they just somehow… forgot. Talk about ridiculous and mockery.
They could have kept sprinting and shooting, just made it much less accurate than even hip fire, something like suppression fire. But then again, they needed reasons to make Armor Upgrades important…
And personally, I believe that gameplay mechanics not being dictated by lore is not the choice of the creators, it’s a necessary flaw in the game itself. Like dead spartans floating, spartans appearing weightless, or pulling a grenade out of your “Hammer Space”.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
keep sprint and let halo be halo
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
keep srint
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
i mean sprint
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
why halo fans