The sprint discussion thread

> 2533274808578327;13803:
> What would be better then? To say it’s definitively better?

If you want to be honest, the most you can say is that there are many arguments against sprint that you find compelling.

> 2533274808578327;13803:
> Hasn’t the anti sprint points not been logical on the premise that it’s bad for Halo series and it’s gameplay? To be shown it’s not as unique or ground breaking as people make it out to be?

That sprint is had for Halo is the conclusion you’d like to draw, not the premise of your argument. If you take it as your premise, you’re just begging the question. But as I’ve said, there are good arguments against sprint. They just aren’t rigorous enough to be called proofs.

> 2533274808578327;13803:
> What more can one want? Honestly, this debate is becoming akin to a religion vs science debate at this point.

Please, let’s not go there.

> 2533274825830455;13804:
> > 2533274808578327;13803:
> > What would be better then? To say it’s definitively better?
>
> If you want to be honest, the most you can say is that there are many arguments against sprint that you find compelling.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274808578327;13803:
> > Hasn’t the anti sprint points not been logical on the premise that it’s bad for Halo series and it’s gameplay? To be shown it’s not as unique or ground breaking as people make it out to be?
>
> That sprint is had for Halo is the conclusion you’d like to draw, not the premise of your argument. If you take it as your premise, you’re just begging the question. But as I’ve said, there are good arguments against sprint. They just aren’t rigorous enough to be called proofs.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274808578327;13803:
> > What more can one want? Honestly, this debate is becoming akin to a religion vs science debate at this point.
>
> Please, let’s not go there.

The problem with sprint in Halo isn’t just because of how it’s handled, but through an established formula that the first games created. If you know, Bungie wanted to add sprint, but due to tight schedules, and because of that it wasn’t featured, and some of the maps in Halo 2 were kinda built to for it. But I think it’s Halo 3’s formula that a majority of the fans want, a closed quarters, arena-style of gameplay, in a way Halo established the general Halo formula.

I want answer this question to you: Why most of Halo CE multiplayer maps were extremely big? It was due to to vehicle combat, but having sprint would made the basic movement a little better, but still having the necessity to enter a vehicle.

The fans established, in their heads, that Halo 3’s type of gameplay is what future Halo games should, even Reach broke the formula, by giving armour abilities which changed confrontations between the players. Personally, I love Halo Reach’s multiplayer, but I also love the Halo 3’s multiplayer, and it’s own formula does work, because Bungie built around that.

Halo 4 and 5 was where 343i wnated to make sprint an established mechanic, which led to many people complaining are criticizing 343i for even putting it in the first place, but there’s been a lot proofs that 343i does listen to the community, so why did they kept sprint in Halo 5? Well, not everybody disliked sprint, and they decided to compromise, by creating a “trap”, whenever a player uses sprint, their shields won’t recharge.

To me, removing sprint or keep it wouldn’t make a difference, every Halo game is difference in a way from each other, but the core gameplay is in everyone of them.

> 2535464451695009;13800:
> > 2533274808578327;13799:
> > > 2533274825830455;13792:
> > > Let’s not be too hasty without our claims. When you assert that something is “objectively provable”, you truly need to be able to prove it, or you just end up exaggerating and making your position appear more objective than it actually is.
> > > There are three claims contained in “[sprint’s] negative impact on Halo is objectively provable”. The first claim is that there exists specific, provable effects that sprint has on gameplay. The second claim is that there exists some objective measure of “negative impact”, and the third is that it can be proven that these specific effects have that property of “negative impact”.
> > > When it comes to the first claim, some effects generally attributed to sprint are: separation of movement and combat, increase of map sizes, and lowered difficulty of escaping encounters. If anyone wants to point out more, feel free to. At any rate, of these three effects, none are strictly speaking provable, mainly because we don’t have any strict enough definitions to speak about–
> >
> > But hasn’t it been proven on so many fronts (in word arguments, with video and such)? It’s not like the discussion of sprint was born recently, it’s been around since it was shown in Reach. It gets fiercer and fiercer as it stubbornly stays and anti sprinters have gotten so much more knowledgeable information they can bring to the table.
> > I’m just not sure what exactly you are trying to say, it just seems like you’re beating around the bush hard.
>
> tsassi’s not beating around the bush. Basically, they’re just saying that we have to think critically about why we believe our position to be true, and use evidence to support it rather than just stating out our opinion. They’ve done this occasionally for both sides of the sprint debate.
>
> Anyways, I was going to post later about how we have to stop circle-jerking this thread, but I guess I’ll address it now since I’m replying to you and don’t want to bump this thread if no one posts after me. I don’t really think we should just keep on talking about just flat out removing sprint anymore since we’re going to end up making this an echo-chamber, which it’s kinda been leaning towards for quite a while. Since there’s an incredibly low chance of 343 removing sprint, based on what Frankie said about Halo 5 being the “base of the games” going forward, how about we talk about “improving” or changing sprint for non-sprinters, and to separate future Halo games from the competition (mostly Call of Duty and Titanfall)?
>
>
> As much as I want sprint gone, we need to talk about some sort of middle ground, just so 343 doesn’t keep ignoring all the “Remove Sprint” and “Sprint Sucks” requests, rants, and stuff like that for the third game in a row and possibly think negatively about us classic-style fans. I feel like a transitional phase, much like Reach to Halo 5, would be much better, and less jarring, for the old and new community (mostly for the new community) than Halo 6 straight up removing sprint out the gate. I’m still finalizing my “free-time” thoughts on my proposition, however. It’s close, and some of its ideas are floating around on my posts, but I can’t think of a way to fix a big problem I thought about, which involves “universality.”

Respectfully, as ive stated many times. 343 have tested no sprint prototypes and received STRONGLY positive feedback about it. They are aware of it, and have been since Halo 4 since it was a no sprint halo 4 prototype that showed this. Secondly, it is completely and utterly foolsih of 343 to base their new sagas gameplay off a spinoff (Reach, 343 Halos are based on reach gameplay). Reach was a spinoff for that very reason, as bungie designed it so it WONT be built on in the future, they designed it with no intention of sequels being based on it. They literally say this in their vidocs, they put all previously cut ideas that wouldnt work in mainline halos, and put them in reach as a “last hurrah” of all their ideas. The logical, Halo solution would be cut sprint and other imitations of the generic fps genre, and make Halo for the fans who have been here from the start, rather than the new fans who “hate ‘slow’ halo” and were not around during Halo’s peak to understand the impacts of sprint.

[deleted]

Sprint is bad for a competitive (balanced) halo (specifically). It’s irrelevant for any game that isn’t intended to be balanced such that it can be considered ‘competitive’.
Halo got lucky with an original formula that lent itself well to competitive play, primarily that was because of the shields and (relative to other FPS) slow kill times. The drastically slower kill times meant you had a chance to ‘battle’ an opponent and ‘out play’ them. As apposed to just being the first on the trigger around the corner.
Position, team shooting, anticipation and even control of spawns, map control, map strategy etc etc are all born out of the slower kill times. Yes you can have all of this in COD but its much much less significant (and tends to just end up being camping).

Anyway without going into a 6 paragraph diatribe, sprint is bad for halo the way halo is. Halo would be much more fun to (most importantly for the games life) watch, and play without sprint. It makes position and map control much much more important. It results in epic ‘out plays’ and demonstrations of skill gap (don’t even get me started on why several of the other spartan abilities are bad as well lmao).

Like sprint or not, its not good for halo from a competitive (balance) standpoint, there can be no debate there.
Whether you perceive halo to be more ‘fun’ with or without sprint is a totally different subjective issue that has no business being debated if the argument is whether or not sprint is good for the games balance and competitiveness.

As much as 343 really wanted to avoid ‘competitive’ halo being a totally different off shoot from ‘regular’ halo, you can’t serve both teams the same dish and expect both to be happy. Honestly rather than giving both sides something they only kind of like, just give them both what they want. None competitive people aren’t just magically going to get into competitive halo because the team arena they play online is the same as the HCS tournament they’re watching on twitch, they’re not even on twitch, they could care less about any sort of competitive halo. Give the people that do care about competitive halo what they want, what they need. Give them what makes competitive halo amazingly fun to watch, and be apart of, thats what draws people into the scene. When I first got interested in competitive halo in halo CE, I didn’t say to myself “Gosh this competitive halo looks really neat but I could never get into it, its like a totally different game I could never learn!”. No, if its fun, entertaining to play and to watch, your going to do what you need to to get into it. That means learning how to BXR, double shot, grenade power ups and weapons to you etc. (skill gap!)

Unfortunately now that its been in the game, it likely will never go away. Sadly all the kiddos that play halo now come from playing other games (basically any other FPS) that all have sprint like functionality. And there’s nothing wrong with that, if its fun for you, for the masses, then great. But I promise from a competitive standpoint, it’d be a lot more fun without. But maybe halo doesn’t care about being competitive anymore, that’s fine too. But it begs the question, why bother with all this effort put into the whole competitive scene with the HCS and all that jazz?

> 2533274873066506;13805:
> > 2533274825830455;13804:
> > > 2533274808578327;13803:
> > > What would be better then? To say it’s definitively better?
> >
> > If you want to be honest, the most you can say is that there are many arguments against sprint that you find compelling.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274808578327;13803:
> > > Hasn’t the anti sprint points not been logical on the premise that it’s bad for Halo series and it’s gameplay? To be shown it’s not as unique or ground breaking as people make it out to be?
> >
> > That sprint is had for Halo is the conclusion you’d like to draw, not the premise of your argument. If you take it as your premise, you’re just begging the question. But as I’ve said, there are good arguments against sprint. They just aren’t rigorous enough to be called proofs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274808578327;13803:
> > > What more can one want? Honestly, this debate is becoming akin to a religion vs science debate at this point.
> >
> > Please, let’s not go there.
>
> The problem with sprint in Halo isn’t just because of how it’s handled, but through an established formula that the first games created. If you know, Bungie wanted to add sprint, but due to tight schedules, and because of that it wasn’t featured,It was not because of time, they played around with the idea very early in development but then it was scrapped because at least one developer can realize it doesn’t fit. and some of the maps in Halo 2 were kinda built to for it. Vehicles? Teleporters? Even on larger maps there are spaces built for not being in a vehicle. There are ways and I’ve never heard that Halo 2 maps needed sprint, it has good flow and speed. But I think it’s Halo 3’s formula that a majority of the fans want Which still features good vehicle play and the new man cannon, replacing teleporters to be a more engaging experience, a closed quarters, arena-style of gameplay, in a way Halo established the general Halo formula.
>
> I want answer this question to you: Why most of Halo CE multiplayer maps were extremely big? It was due to to vehicle combat and a default starting weapon that easily tackles such distances with sniper pick ups a plenty., but having sprint would made the basic movement a little better, but still having the necessity to enter a vehicle. **It is moot to say “what if” sprint was in the earlier games, and the concept of it being tested and scrapped so early in development should say to players that the notion of sprint does not fit in Halo gameplay.**The fans established, in their heads, that Halo 3’s type of gameplay is what future Halo games should You say that as if it’s a delusional thing, it was the pinnacle of the franchise but some still like 1 or 2 specifically., even Reach broke the formula, by giving armour abilities which changed confrontations between the players And you think that was a good thing? The game that literally started the rift and had lukewarm reception on average in the playerbase?. Personally, I love Halo Reach’s multiplayer At the very least, Bungie played around with it in a good way, sprint was an ability among other abilities in hopes of that balancing out it’s massive benefits., but I also love the Halo 3’s multiplayer, and it’s own formula does work, because Bungie built around that.
>
> Halo 4 and 5 was where 343i wnated to make sprint an established mechanic, which led to many people complaining are criticizing 343i for even putting it in the first place, but there’s been a lot proofs that 343i does listen to the community, so why did they kept sprint in Halo 5? Well, not everybody disliked sprint Which is a tune I’ve seen change as more evidence has been brought to light, and besides how “many” is not everybody?, and they decided to compromise, by creating a “trap”, whenever a player uses sprint, their shields won’t recharge. **Which is not enough, you cannot balance sprint when sprint itself is the issue.**To me, removing sprint or keep it wouldn’t make a difference, every Halo game is difference in a way from each other I agree, but the core gameplay is in everyone of them. I have to disagree, it’s Reach-5 and that is simple to see.

I can’t seem to add in my own text outside of the quote bubble but… I’ve wanted to point out that in the games with sprint, said games also have terrible vehicles and maps around them.

Can’t just be a coincidence.

> 2533274808578327;13810:
> I can’t seem to add in my own text outside of the quote bubble but… I’ve wanted to point out that in the games with sprint, said games also have terrible vehicles and maps around them.
>
> Can’t just be a coincidence.

I would disagree about that with Reach, but with 4 and 5, I could definitely see that. Halos 4 and 5 drastically nerfed vehicular play to the point where BTB is completely replaced by Warzone (at least in Reach, the vehicles were powerful on the offensive side even if they were weaker than Halo 3’s vehicles on the defensive side.)

> 2533274912467533;13811:
> > 2533274808578327;13810:
> > I can’t seem to add in my own text outside of the quote bubble but… I’ve wanted to point out that in the games with sprint, said games also have terrible vehicles and maps around them.
> >
> > Can’t just be a coincidence.
>
> I would disagree about that with Reach, but with 4 and 5, I could definitely see that. Halos 4 and 5 drastically nerfed vehicular play to the point where BTB is completely replaced by Warzone (at least in Reach, the vehicles were powerful on the offensive side even if they were weaker than Halo 3’s vehicles on the defensive side.)

It’s the defensive side that’s bad however, it’s far too easy to take out vehicles because they have a limited pool of health.

It was much much better when vehicles were linked to the driver or people inside, with damage on the vehicle being actual armor for damage reduction and determining if it blows up or not upon their deaths. It was an extension of the player, you still played as if you were on foot, being careful and letting your shields recharge and that’s a great thing.

> 2533274808578327;13812:
> > 2533274912467533;13811:
> > > 2533274808578327;13810:
> > > I can’t seem to add in my own text outside of the quote bubble but… I’ve wanted to point out that in the games with sprint, said games also have terrible vehicles and maps around them.
> > >
> > > Can’t just be a coincidence.
> >
> > I would disagree about that with Reach, but with 4 and 5, I could definitely see that. Halos 4 and 5 drastically nerfed vehicular play to the point where BTB is completely replaced by Warzone (at least in Reach, the vehicles were powerful on the offensive side even if they were weaker than Halo 3’s vehicles on the defensive side.)
>
> It’s the defensive side that’s bad however, it’s far too easy to take out vehicles because they have a limited pool of health.
>
> It was much much better when vehicles were linked to the driver or people inside, with damage on the vehicle being actual armor for damage reduction and determining if it blows up or not upon their deaths. It was an extension of the player, you still played as if you were on foot, being careful and letting your shields recharge and that’s a great thing.

I agree that vehicles were better in the trilogy, but to say that it they were bad in Reach is a bit of an exaggeration. They were still formidable in Reach, and were honestly much more durable in Reach than they were in 4 and 5. Banshees were even considered overpowered, mainly because of how versatile it was despite it being weaker on the defensive side. I also see this as being a “correlation doesn’t equal causation” situation. Vehicles didn’t get nerfed because of sprint, they got rebalanced in Reach, but were considered overpowered by some people, so 343 nerfed them to hell in Halo 4 and 5.

> 2533274912467533;13813:
> > 2533274808578327;13812:
> > > 2533274912467533;13811:
> > > > 2533274808578327;13810:
> > > > I can’t seem to add in my own text outside of the quote bubble but… I’ve wanted to point out that in the games with sprint, said games also have terrible vehicles and maps around them.
> > > >
> > > > Can’t just be a coincidence.
> > >
> > > I would disagree about that with Reach, but with 4 and 5, I could definitely see that. Halos 4 and 5 drastically nerfed vehicular play to the point where BTB is completely replaced by Warzone (at least in Reach, the vehicles were powerful on the offensive side even if they were weaker than Halo 3’s vehicles on the defensive side.)
> >
> > It’s the defensive side that’s bad however, it’s far too easy to take out vehicles because they have a limited pool of health.
> >
> > It was much much better when vehicles were linked to the driver or people inside, with damage on the vehicle being actual armor for damage reduction and determining if it blows up or not upon their deaths. It was an extension of the player, you still played as if you were on foot, being careful and letting your shields recharge and that’s a great thing.
>
> I agree that vehicles were better in the trilogy, but to say that it they were bad in Reach is a bit of an exaggeration. They were still formidable in Reach, and were honestly much more durable in Reach than they were in 4 and 5. Banshees were even considered overpowered, mainly because of how versatile it was despite it being weaker on the defensive side. I also see this as being a “correlation doesn’t equal causation” situation. Vehicles didn’t get nerfed because of sprint, they got rebalanced in Reach, but were considered overpowered by some people, so 343 nerfed them to hell in Halo 4 and 5.

They were bad in that you can’t really stay in one long, just as long as the opposing team shoots you with their DMRs. Banshees were overpowered because of their maneuvers, it was ridiculous but then it’s wings was clipped way too hard in 4 and the maneuvers were close to useless lol.

It’s a connection, whether or not it’s true remains to be seen but vehicle play has diminished as long as sprint has remained.

> 2533274808578327;13814:
> > 2533274912467533;13813:
> > > 2533274808578327;13812:
> > > > 2533274912467533;13811:
> > > > > 2533274808578327;13810:
> > > > > I can’t seem to add in my own text outside of the quote bubble but… I’ve wanted to point out that in the games with sprint, said games also have terrible vehicles and maps around them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can’t just be a coincidence.
> > > >
> > > > I would disagree about that with Reach, but with 4 and 5, I could definitely see that. Halos 4 and 5 drastically nerfed vehicular play to the point where BTB is completely replaced by Warzone (at least in Reach, the vehicles were powerful on the offensive side even if they were weaker than Halo 3’s vehicles on the defensive side.)
> > >
> > > It’s the defensive side that’s bad however, it’s far too easy to take out vehicles because they have a limited pool of health.
> > >
> > > It was much much better when vehicles were linked to the driver or people inside, with damage on the vehicle being actual armor for damage reduction and determining if it blows up or not upon their deaths. It was an extension of the player, you still played as if you were on foot, being careful and letting your shields recharge and that’s a great thing.
> >
> > I agree that vehicles were better in the trilogy, but to say that it they were bad in Reach is a bit of an exaggeration. They were still formidable in Reach, and were honestly much more durable in Reach than they were in 4 and 5. Banshees were even considered overpowered, mainly because of how versatile it was despite it being weaker on the defensive side. I also see this as being a “correlation doesn’t equal causation” situation. Vehicles didn’t get nerfed because of sprint, they got rebalanced in Reach, but were considered overpowered by some people, so 343 nerfed them to hell in Halo 4 and 5.
>
> They were bad in that you can’t really stay in one long, just as long as the opposing team shoots you with their DMRs. Banshees were overpowered because of their maneuvers, it was ridiculous but then it’s wings was clipped way too hard in 4 and the maneuvers were close to useless lol.
>
> It’s a connection, whether or not it’s true remains to be seen but vehicle play has diminished as long as sprint has remained.

I still agree on the last point, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree with Reach being the start of it. I only really see sprint being connected to the downfall of vehicular gameplay in Halos 4 and 5 since that’s when players were given much more power and versatility in the movement department. Couple that with the rebalancing of the weapon sandbox (weapons having faster kill times to compensate for the faster movement), maps being redesigned for the new movement abilities (vehicular play is less emphasized because maps are built more for players to sprint around in rather than use vehicles), and add in the fact that vehicles were nerfed in terms of versatility on top of already being nerfed in terms of defense, and you have vehicular gameplay in 343’s Halo games: practically useless to the point that players with advanced movement carrying small arms weapons are more efficient than getting in a Warthog and mowing down noobs.

> 2533274887665513;13807:
> I appreciate your point tsassi and I am not trying to force opinions on anyone. My point is that sprint has hugely changed Halo. This is a fact. Whether or not you like the change is opinion.

Thank you. This is a very reasonable statement.

> 2533274887665513;13807:
> My own assumption comes in when I assume that this change is responsible for the series decline.

To this all I’ll say is that to believe the changes are the only significant reason for decrease of Halo’s popularity would be as crazy as to believe they are not a significant reason at all.

> 2533274887665513;13807:
> - Sprint causes maps to be larger.

Correction: 343i has decided to make maps larger in an attempt to conserve things such as the average time between encounters.

This is a great example of something that is so easy to say with great confidence, but that isn’t absolutely true. It’s really up to the map designer to decide how large a map is. The importance of sprint only comes to play when the designer wants to set some pace of gameplay for the map. And at this point the increase in movement speed from classic Halo means that a designer who wants to conserve things like the average time between encounters will decide to make maps larger, on the average.

You might want to say that the distinction is not important, that I’m just nitpicking, but it is important. There’s no a priori reason why maps would have to be larger with sprint. Historically 343i just decided that larger maps are better, but they could’ve gone the other way, had they had a different vision, and we’d be having a somewhat different discussion.

> 2533274887665513;13807:
> I have to give up my ability to shoot to get around at the same pace as I would have in classic Halo.

What do you mean by “pace” here? I guess you don’t mean speed, but I’m not sure how I should interpret this.

> 2533274887665513;13807:
> Distance from cover to cover increases making it more difficult to push on an opponent. Punishing movement like this rewards defensive play and in turn slows the game down. With this reasoning it is a matter of fact that Truth plays slower than Midship. I can’t “prove” that a slower game is less fun, but I can assume that most players don’t find encouraged camping as exciting as being able to move and attack at all times.

Here I’ve just italicized all the statements that don’t logically follow from any of the prior statements. They’re all intuitively appealing conclusions, but they are not inevitable logical conclusions. Therefore, while you’ve given an intuitively appealing explanation of why one might expect Truth to play slower than Midship, you have not proven that Truth actually plays slower than Midship. In fact, I express some doubt towards the claim that Truth plays slower than Midship.

> 2533274887665513;13807:
> - Weapons are optimized for these larger maps. Weapons like the Assault Rifle or Shotgun are given more range and power to compensate. In close quarters situations these weapons have more power than they would have had in classic Halo. As a result, when someone charges you by surprise around a corner with the AR, unless you have a power weapon, there is nothing you can do as the nature of the AR makes good strafing ineffective in dodging its shots like you might against a precision weapon. Whether you think that this is fun or not is your opinion but it is a fact that there are more situations that you cannot skillfully react to and counter in Halo when weapons are optimized for larger maps.

I can’t bring myself to object to anything here, even though the last clause of the second to last sentence strictly speaking doesn’t logically follow from anything said.

> 2533274887665513;13807:
> - To move at max speed (Sprint, thrust, slide, jump) you have to press 4 buttons.

This is completely true as far as I know.

> 2533274887665513;13807:
> - Multiple movement speeds make the game less predictable. Predictability is crucial to making a game fair and competitive. There is a fine difference between mind games and guess work. Strategy has been huge in Halo and the presence of strategy in a match is weakened by the random element introduced when you can’t assume when and where people will be on a map. I’m not saying everyone should have waypoints on the heads but there should be a good level of predictability for a game to be strategic. It is a fact that spartan abilities make the game less predictable.

Again, I have bolded statements that are reasonably intuitive, but not proven to follow from anything.

The interdependence of strategy and predictability is actually a really difficult topic. It’s clear that neither a completely predictable (i.e., completely predetermined) game nor a completely random game has any semblance of strategy. (if we take strategy here to mean something along the lines of: the ability of players to affect the end result of the game with their choices.) Because we know that between these extremes there are games that have some strategy, it’s reasonable to conclude that there is some optimal level of predictability that maximizes the strategy.

In other words, up to some point decreasing predictability makes the game more strategic, but then it’s downhill from that point on. So, if we assume that Spartan Abilities make the game less predictable, which sounds pretty reasonable, we don’t know whether that decreased predictability makes the game more or less strategic, because we don’t know on which side of the optimum Halo is.

The bottom line is: proving things is really difficult. For example, what I said above about the existence of a maximum strategy isn’t a proof. It lacks some definitions, and ultimately a sufficient belief towards the definitions. There is almost nothing relating to this discussion that can be proven.

Then there are facts, which you claimed some statements to be. I think it’s fair to say that facts don’t need to be proven, but they do require evidence to be believed, and what amount of evidence is sufficient is something everyone decideds for themselves. For example, while I believe there is enough evidence for the claim that maps have incerased in size from Halo 3 to Halo 5, I don’t think there is enough evidence for the claim that Halo 5 plays slower than Halo 3 (for more, see this comment of mine and the criticism directed at it).

Keep in mind that I do agree with you on most of the points you made about gameplay, with the only exception being the relative pace of gameplay on Truth and Midship. I just don’t find your arguments (or my own, for that matter) regarding those point rigorous enough to prove anything.

in my opinion sprint is balanced because you cant shoot with your gun while sprinting (UNLESS YOU GOT A CHEAP ARMOR MOD)

> 2533274912467533;13815:
> > 2533274808578327;13814:
> > > 2533274912467533;13813:
> > > > 2533274808578327;13812:
> > > > > 2533274912467533;13811:
> > > > > > 2533274808578327;13810:
> > > > > > I can’t seem to add in my own text outside of the quote bubble but… I’ve wanted to point out that in the games with sprint, said games also have terrible vehicles and maps around them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can’t just be a coincidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would disagree about that with Reach, but with 4 and 5, I could definitely see that. Halos 4 and 5 drastically nerfed vehicular play to the point where BTB is completely replaced by Warzone (at least in Reach, the vehicles were powerful on the offensive side even if they were weaker than Halo 3’s vehicles on the defensive side.)
> > > >
> > > > It’s the defensive side that’s bad however, it’s far too easy to take out vehicles because they have a limited pool of health.
> > > >
> > > > It was much much better when vehicles were linked to the driver or people inside, with damage on the vehicle being actual armor for damage reduction and determining if it blows up or not upon their deaths. It was an extension of the player, you still played as if you were on foot, being careful and letting your shields recharge and that’s a great thing.
> > >
> > > I agree that vehicles were better in the trilogy, but to say that it they were bad in Reach is a bit of an exaggeration. They were still formidable in Reach, and were honestly much more durable in Reach than they were in 4 and 5. Banshees were even considered overpowered, mainly because of how versatile it was despite it being weaker on the defensive side. I also see this as being a “correlation doesn’t equal causation” situation. Vehicles didn’t get nerfed because of sprint, they got rebalanced in Reach, but were considered overpowered by some people, so 343 nerfed them to hell in Halo 4 and 5.
> >
> > They were bad in that you can’t really stay in one long, just as long as the opposing team shoots you with their DMRs. Banshees were overpowered because of their maneuvers, it was ridiculous but then it’s wings was clipped way too hard in 4 and the maneuvers were close to useless lol.
> >
> > It’s a connection, whether or not it’s true remains to be seen but vehicle play has diminished as long as sprint has remained.
>
> I still agree on the last point, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree with Reach being the start of it. I only really see sprint being connected to the downfall of vehicular gameplay in Halos 4 and 5 since that’s when players were given much more power and versatility in the movement department. Couple that with the rebalancing of the weapon sandbox (weapons having faster kill times to compensate for the faster movement), maps being redesigned for the new movement abilities (vehicular play is less emphasized because maps are built more for players to sprint around in rather than use vehicles), and add in the fact that vehicles were nerfed in terms of versatility on top of already being nerfed in terms of defense, and you have vehicular gameplay in 343’s Halo games: practically useless to the point that players with advanced movement carrying small arms weapons are more efficient than getting in a Warthog and mowing down noobs.

Either way, I hate vehicles not being linked to the player’s health so I still hated Reach. If it can be in that way again then vehicle play can still be good.

> 2533274808578327;13818:
> > 2533274912467533;13815:
> > > 2533274808578327;13814:
> > > > 2533274912467533;13813:
> > > > > 2533274808578327;13812:
> > > > > > 2533274912467533;13811:
> > > > > > > 2533274808578327;13810:
> > > > > > > I can’t seem to add in my own text outside of the quote bubble but… I’ve wanted to point out that in the games with sprint, said games also have terrible vehicles and maps around them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can’t just be a coincidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would disagree about that with Reach, but with 4 and 5, I could definitely see that. Halos 4 and 5 drastically nerfed vehicular play to the point where BTB is completely replaced by Warzone (at least in Reach, the vehicles were powerful on the offensive side even if they were weaker than Halo 3’s vehicles on the defensive side.)
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s the defensive side that’s bad however, it’s far too easy to take out vehicles because they have a limited pool of health.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was much much better when vehicles were linked to the driver or people inside, with damage on the vehicle being actual armor for damage reduction and determining if it blows up or not upon their deaths. It was an extension of the player, you still played as if you were on foot, being careful and letting your shields recharge and that’s a great thing.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that vehicles were better in the trilogy, but to say that it they were bad in Reach is a bit of an exaggeration. They were still formidable in Reach, and were honestly much more durable in Reach than they were in 4 and 5. Banshees were even considered overpowered, mainly because of how versatile it was despite it being weaker on the defensive side. I also see this as being a “correlation doesn’t equal causation” situation. Vehicles didn’t get nerfed because of sprint, they got rebalanced in Reach, but were considered overpowered by some people, so 343 nerfed them to hell in Halo 4 and 5.
> > >
> > > They were bad in that you can’t really stay in one long, just as long as the opposing team shoots you with their DMRs. Banshees were overpowered because of their maneuvers, it was ridiculous but then it’s wings was clipped way too hard in 4 and the maneuvers were close to useless lol.
> > >
> > > It’s a connection, whether or not it’s true remains to be seen but vehicle play has diminished as long as sprint has remained.
> >
> > I still agree on the last point, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree with Reach being the start of it. I only really see sprint being connected to the downfall of vehicular gameplay in Halos 4 and 5 since that’s when players were given much more power and versatility in the movement department. Couple that with the rebalancing of the weapon sandbox (weapons having faster kill times to compensate for the faster movement), maps being redesigned for the new movement abilities (vehicular play is less emphasized because maps are built more for players to sprint around in rather than use vehicles), and add in the fact that vehicles were nerfed in terms of versatility on top of already being nerfed in terms of defense, and you have vehicular gameplay in 343’s Halo games: practically useless to the point that players with advanced movement carrying small arms weapons are more efficient than getting in a Warthog and mowing down noobs.
>
> Either way, I hate vehicles not being linked to the player’s health so I still hated Reach. If it can be in that way again then vehicle play can still be good.

Although I still liked vehicular play in Reach because of how versatile they were despite being weaker in defense, I still totally agree that we should just revert to how Halos 2 and 3 did them. They were perfectly balanced then.

> 2533274825830455;13816:
> > 2533274887665513;13807:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274887665513;13807:
> > My own assumption comes in when I assume that this change is responsible for the series decline.
>
> To this all I’ll say is that to believe the changes are the only significant reason for decrease of Halo’s popularity would be as crazy as to believe they are not a significant reason at all. What reasons can you think of then tsassi? Sprint is not the only one but it’s quite a big one that has lingered for too long.
>
> > 2533274887665513;13807:
> > - Sprint causes maps to be larger.
>
> Correction: 343i has decided to make maps larger in an attempt to conserve things such as the average time between encounters.
>
> This is a great example of something that is so easy to say with great confidence, but that isn’t absolutely true. It’s really up to the map designer to decide how large a map is. The importance of sprint only comes to play when the designer wants to set some pace of gameplay for the map. And at this point the increase in movement speed from classic Halo means that a designer who wants to conserve things like the average time between encounters will decide to make maps larger, on the average. How is it not true though? The maps are made bigger to accommodate the speed of sprint to match pace of prior Halo games, but with 2 sets of speed instead that are “beneficial” to the player. I put that in quotes because an increase in speed is generally what one wants, but a player could always slow themselves down, which is a disadvantage but allow them to sneak past radar, which is a trade off. The trade off with sprint is forced in however, creating a separation that didn’t exist in Halo before, where combat and movement were one.
>
> > 2533274887665513;13807:
> > I have to give up my ability to shoot to get around at the same pace as I would have in classic Halo.
>
> What do you mean by “pace” here? I guess you don’t mean speed, but I’m not sure how I should interpret this. As I mentioned before, there’s now a distinction between when you can move at your fastest and when you can fight. There is no set pace that puts everyone in an even, fighting situation that allows one to really outplay or outsmart their opponents. You can either shoot, or you can move at your quickest, not both.
>
> > 2533274887665513;13807:
> > Distance from cover to cover increases making it more difficult to push on an opponent. Punishing movement like this rewards defensive play and in turn slows the game down. With this reasoning it is a matter of fact that Truth plays slower than Midship. I can’t “prove” that a slower game is less fun, but I can assume that most players don’t find encouraged camping as exciting as being able to move and attack at all times.
>
> Here I’ve just italicized all the statements that don’t logically follow from any of the prior statements. They’re all intuitively appealing conclusions, but they are not inevitable logical conclusions. Therefore, while you’ve given an intuitively appealing explanation of why one might expect Truth to play slower than Midship, you have not proven that Truth actually plays slower than Midship. In fact, I express some doubt towards the claim that Truth plays slower than Midship. It is slower because the map is bigger than before, again unless you are sprinting but then you are unable to engage. There’s a lot of open area that there wasn’t before making some spots really bad to be in for fighting compared to before.
>
> > 2533274887665513;13807:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274887665513;13807:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274887665513;13807:
> > - Multiple movement speeds make the game less predictable. Predictability is crucial to making a game fair and competitive. There is a fine difference between mind games and guess work. Strategy has been huge in Halo and the presence of strategy in a match is weakened by the random element introduced when you can’t assume when and where people will be on a map. I’m not saying everyone should have waypoints on the heads but there should be a good level of predictability for a game to be strategic. It is a fact that spartan abilities make the game less predictable.
>
> Again, I have bolded statements that are reasonably intuitive, but not proven to follow from anything.
>
> The interdependence of strategy and predictability is actually a really difficult topic. It’s clear that neither a completely predictable (i.e., completely predetermined) game nor a completely random game has any semblance of strategy. (if we take strategy here to mean something along the lines of: the ability of players to affect the end result of the game with their choices.) Because we know that between these extremes there are games that have some strategy, it’s reasonable to conclude that there is some optimal level of predictability that maximizes the strategy. The beauty of Halo before was the small things a knowledgeable player can do, since everyone was completely on an even playing field unless they stepped into a vehicle. It is like a game of chess, you know what the other player can do because everyone is the same piece on the board that is the map, so it’s the maneuvers, tactical positioning, and reactivity and how things play out that really stand out when showcasing a player’s skill at the game. In other words, up to some point decreasing predictability makes the game more strategic, but then it’s downhill from that point on. So, if we assume that Spartan Abilities make the game less predictable, which sounds pretty reasonable, we don’t know whether that decreased predictability makes the game more or less strategic, because we don’t know on which side of the optimum Halo is. **Of course we know which side, we have prior games to base it on.**The bottom line is: proving things is really difficult. For example, what I said above about the existence of a maximum strategy isn’t a proof. It lacks some definitions, and ultimately a sufficient belief towards the definitions. There is almost nothing relating to this discussion that can be proven. **They have proof though tsassi, people have shown context of said proof, we see what the players what and what they think about spartan abilities.**Then there are facts, which you claimed some statements to be. I think it’s fair to say that facts don’t need to be proven, but they do require evidence to be believed, and what amount of evidence is sufficient is something everyone decideds for themselves. For example, while I believe there is enough evidence for the claim that maps have incerased in size from Halo 3 to Halo 5, I don’t think there is enough evidence for the claim that Halo 5 plays slower than Halo 3 (for more, see this comment of mine and the criticism directed at it).
>
> Keep in mind that I do agree with you on most of the points you made about gameplay, with the only exception being the relative pace of gameplay on Truth and Midship. I just don’t find your arguments (or my own, for that matter) regarding those point rigorous enough to prove anything.

And above all besides my bolded responses because I can’t do a fancy quote in quote thing, I think you are looking for some kind of proof that is like a revelation. Almost godly and ethereal in nature but the pudding is more simple and grounded in reality.

[deleted]

[deleted]

> 2535464451695009;13800:
> tsassi’s not beating around the bush. Basically, they’re just saying that we have to think critically about why we believe our position to be true, and use evidence to support it rather than just stating out our opinion. They’ve done this occasionally for both sides of the sprint debate.
>
> Anyways, I was going to post later about how we have to stop circle-jerking this thread, but I guess I’ll address it now since I’m replying to you and don’t want to bump this thread if no one posts after me. I don’t really think we should just keep on talking about just flat out removing sprint anymore since we’re going to end up making this an echo-chamber, which it’s kinda been leaning towards for quite a while. Since there’s an incredibly low chance of 343 removing sprint, based on what Frankie said about Halo 5 being the “base of the games” going forward, how about we talk about “improving” or changing sprint for non-sprinters, and to separate future Halo games from the competition (mostly Call of Duty and Titanfall)?
>
>
> As much as I want sprint gone, we need to talk about some sort of middle ground, just so 343 doesn’t keep ignoring all the “Remove Sprint” and “Sprint Sucks” requests, rants, and stuff like that for the third game in a row and possibly think negatively about us classic-style fans. I feel like a transitional phase, much like Reach to Halo 5, would be much better, and less jarring, for the old and new community (mostly for the new community) than Halo 6 straight up removing sprint out the gate. I’m still finalizing my “free-time” thoughts on my proposition, however. It’s close, and some of its ideas are floating around on my posts, but I can’t think of a way to fix a big problem I thought about, which involves “universality.”

How can we not “circle jerk” this thread? The fact that sprint has been in the last 3 halo games is why we continue to have this argument. Many of us have mentioned multiple ways to improve Halo that aren’t just “remove sprint” There’s only so much depth possible in an argument like this.