[deleted]
[deleted]
Happy 700th page.
Sprint is what stretches us apart while keeping us together <3
> 2533274866652866;13983:
> > 2533274875084332;13981:
> > > 2533274866652866;13979:
> > > > 2533274875084332;13786:
> > > > > 2533274866652866;13783:
> > > > > > 2533274887665513;13654:
> > > > > > If I am honest I am not entirely sure how there is still any debate at all. I swear sprint has been objectively ripped apart 1000 times with the only counter being “I like the immersion”. If you like the immersion that is your opinion of course but sprint has been proven to hurt all aspects of Halos multiplayer design. It’s been explained so many times and in so much depth. Why is there still an argument?
> > > > >
> > > > > How does sprint hurt gameplay. You will need to provide evidence and explain yourself quite well.
> > > >
> > > > All you have to do is read the multiple posts in this very thread showing evidence. All explained far better than any “pro sprint” ‘arguments’ I’ve ever seen. However since there are 680 or so pages, ill put some brief points for you
> > > >
> > > > 1. They had to redesign the whole game around it. This is already a big sign sprint (and other…‘features’)do not fit in Halo, as 343 had to build every map and balance the whole game around sprint, clamber and thruster pack -the main 3). This is because with sprint, there are 2 possible movement speeds, creating a variance that must be accounted for at all times on every map.
> > > >
> > > > This leads to:
> > > > Stretched maps/repetitive map design features to accommodate.
> > > >
> > > > The removal of skill jumps due to clamber, and very very easily dodged grenades due to thruster pack.
> > > >
> > > > 2. There are very few benefits to sprint. Anything that sprint achieves in terms of gameplay, can be done with innovating map design and tweaking base movement speed. E.g., have you noticed there are no more teleporters in Halo? Yep thank sprint for that. Teleporters were a way of increasing map traversal while adding a layer of strategy. Sprint is nothing more than a conforming imitation of the fps genre, to make players of generic fps games feel comfortable and familiar when they play Halo, only to leave it after a few weeks to return to whatever game they were playing previously.
> > > >
> > > > 3. 343 tested a classic Halo 4 prototype, with no sprint and such, to strongly positive feedback from their testers. They decided to scrap it because every fps has sprint and “gamers just expect it”. I linked this in one of my other posts on this thread. 343 are shafting the fans who made Halo great in favor of new players who did not like Halo when it was at its peak, and now 343 are changing it for those very players, and as a result many classic fans have left, this is evidence enough.
> > > >
> > > > Now, sprints effect goes beyond these points, but these are the main impacts it has.
>
> So i didnt say i have read everything, but i should have made myself clearer in my statement. I should have said i have read many of the arguments and after a while you see the same statements. I simply wanted to have a conversation and hear what the other side has to say and see if you could provide examples or evidence of how gameplay is negatively impacted by sprint.
>
> So this is the thing i just dont agree with any of these posts that say that sprint is negatively changing the maps. So if maps are bigger how does this negatively impact gameplay. Ive heard things like bigger maps have bigger voids of inaction, but again how does this negatively impact gameplay.(if people can think of other things im more than happy to have a conversation about them)
>
> The man canon was used in halo 3 but from my memory it was mainly used on BTB maps halo 4 and 5 still use this man canon mechanism.
>
> And i understand the side of “anti-sprint” players however i have yet to hear good arguments for it. That goes the same with pro sprint players. Halo functions with or without it. And no matter what side you come down on dont think that the other side is stupid.
“The man canon was used in halo 3 but from my memory it was mainly used on BTB maps halo 4 and 5 still use this man canon mechanism.”
Most of the maps for BTB in halo 4 were aspired to stay close to the halo trilogy, those maps functioned fine when they were disabled in some gamemodes, you can still sprint and get to places as normal without them, but in halo 3 it was a game changer.
“So this is the thing i just dont agree with any of these posts that say that sprint is negatively changing the maps. So if maps are bigger how does this negatively impact gameplay. Ive heard things like bigger maps have bigger voids of inaction, but again how does this negatively impact gameplay.(if people can think of other things im more than happy to have a conversation about them).”
It negatively impacts gameplay as it messes up with the pace we play halo at.
Halo multiplayer was like who can put a stop to another person, always about momentum, ever since halo CE.
When you put sprint into this, and STRETCH the maps, you only can travel the map at full speed when you don’t have access to your gun without reloading.
So, in firefights, you slow down, when out of a firefight we speed up, why do we want this? It’s completely unnecessary…
> 2533274866652866;13983:
> > 2533274875084332;13981:
> > > 2533274866652866;13979:
> > > > 2533274875084332;13786:
> > > > > 2533274866652866;13783:
> > > > > > 2533274887665513;13654:
> > > > > > If I am honest I am not entirely sure how there is still any debate at all. I swear sprint has been objectively ripped apart 1000 times with the only counter being “I like the immersion”. If you like the immersion that is your opinion of course but sprint has been proven to hurt all aspects of Halos multiplayer design. It’s been explained so many times and in so much depth. Why is there still an argument?
> > > > >
> > > > > How does sprint hurt gameplay. You will need to provide evidence and explain yourself quite well.
> > > >
> > > > All you have to do is read the multiple posts in this very thread showing evidence. All explained far better than any “pro sprint” ‘arguments’ I’ve ever seen. However since there are 680 or so pages, ill put some brief points for you
> > > >
> > > > 1. They had to redesign the whole game around it. This is already a big sign sprint (and other…‘features’)do not fit in Halo, as 343 had to build every map and balance the whole game around sprint, clamber and thruster pack -the main 3). This is because with sprint, there are 2 possible movement speeds, creating a variance that must be accounted for at all times on every map.
> > > >
> > > > This leads to:
> > > > Stretched maps/repetitive map design features to accommodate.
> > > >
> > > > The removal of skill jumps due to clamber, and very very easily dodged grenades due to thruster pack.
> > > >
> > > > 2. There are very few benefits to sprint. Anything that sprint achieves in terms of gameplay, can be done with innovating map design and tweaking base movement speed. E.g., have you noticed there are no more teleporters in Halo? Yep thank sprint for that. Teleporters were a way of increasing map traversal while adding a layer of strategy. Sprint is nothing more than a conforming imitation of the fps genre, to make players of generic fps games feel comfortable and familiar when they play Halo, only to leave it after a few weeks to return to whatever game they were playing previously.
> > > >
> > > > 3. 343 tested a classic Halo 4 prototype, with no sprint and such, to strongly positive feedback from their testers. They decided to scrap it because every fps has sprint and “gamers just expect it”. I linked this in one of my other posts on this thread. 343 are shafting the fans who made Halo great in favor of new players who did not like Halo when it was at its peak, and now 343 are changing it for those very players, and as a result many classic fans have left, this is evidence enough.
> > > >
> > > > Now, sprints effect goes beyond these points, but these are the main impacts it has.
> > >
> > > Ive been here since the start ive read them.
> > >
> > > So your point number 1 doesnt explain how sprint negatively impacts gameplay, it just says they had to design the maps around sprint and new mechanics. And you need to explain why variance is bad in a game. So if they made maps around sprint and the maps got bigger you need to explain why bigger maps are not as good.
> > >
> > > 2. And teleporters limited the ability to shoot players while they moved from place to place, teleporters werent really used in halo 3. The man cannon was used later in halo 3 and later halos. So i dont really agree that because teleporters arent used anymore that somehow this is a sign of poor gameplay. Teleporters were getting used less and less.
> > >
> > > 3.And i would like a fact check on this one, where did you hear this from? I need sources or references
> > >
> > > Now before anyone responds to this just note i dont really care if halo has sprint or doesnt, it is not what makes halo for me. Halo is about power weapons, map control, communication and knowing what spawn sites you block.
> >
> > -snip-
>
> So i didnt say i have read everything, but i should have made myself clearer in my statement. I should have said i have read many of the arguments and after a while you see the same statements. I simply wanted to have a conversation and hear what the other side has to say and see if you could provide examples or evidence of how gameplay is negatively impacted by sprint.
>
> So this is the thing i just dont agree with any of these posts that say that sprint is negatively changing the maps. So if maps are bigger how does this negatively impact gameplay. Ive heard things like bigger maps have bigger voids of inaction, but again how does this negatively impact gameplay.(if people can think of other things im more than happy to have a conversation about them)
>
> The man canon was used in halo 3 but from my memory it was mainly used on BTB maps halo 4 and 5 still use this man canon mechanism.
>
> And i understand the side of “anti-sprint” players however i have yet to hear good arguments for it. That goes the same with pro sprint players. Halo functions with or without it. And no matter what side you come down on dont think that the other side is stupid.
Ok look, once again, there are many good well written posts here that explain just that. I would attempt to reiterate them, however some members here put it far better than I can.
So, sprint = bigger map design. Why? Now, to understand, go play reach. Pick a map with 2 or so CQB weapons, like sword base. Go around the map without sprint, feels fine right? Now, start sprinting, you will quickly realise you cover vast distances way too fast. Combine this with a sword or shotgun…and you understand why they need to “stretch” or make the maps bigger (this is just for sprint btw, not accounting for thruster pack or clamber, which affect how jump areas are designed). Now, in terms of balancing sprint to not make it OP, 343 did well in halo 5 for that regard. Does that mean it is good? No, because as you can see, they had to redesign a lot of halo to fit sprint in. Now, to how I think affects gameplay, I think this is very simple.
Go play MCC and go to classic Halo 2 (this is the best example IMO) now, you will notice a few things, and this is not opinion or nostalgia like some would claim:
You will notice that there is far more shooting, and getting to “the spot” where there is action. This is possible because there is one speed, and no variance in speed. All player are either almost always shooting or getting shot at etc. You will feel that you have far less time to find a weapon, as the maps are smaller. Further, since you are always moving at this one speed, there is no fast-slow (sprinting then when need to shoot/prepare for enemies to stop sprinting to ready weapon) like in Halo 5.
Once again, many here can explain it far better than I can, I am also typing this on mobile so it’s not exactly the best I can do. However, to close this off, as I’ve said many times, why add sprint and other movement gimmicks to imitate and conform to the fps genre, when they can stick to what Halo was known for and innovate that? Buff base speed, add armour power pickups (e.g enhanced melee, speed boost-sort of like overshields and active camo) bring man cannons back to arena maps. Bring back maps with lifts, rather than having to rely on controller based movements, have each map have it’s own styles of play to make the game faster, rather than having multiple buttons to press and not press to go around the map faster like in Halo 5, which get some repetitive and stale very fast.
> 2533274887665513;13985:
> I wanted to add more but ran out of words! Point is, what does sprint really add? Is it worth all the time and effort required to redesign Halo around one mechanic? This time could be spent expanding Halo with new maps and modes, not changing the game entirely. Also, if the entire game has to be re balanced and re scaled, isn’t that good enough evidence that it doesn’t belong? There are so many good arguments made throughout this thread. Maybe someone needs to compile all the pros and cons for sprint in one post. Not sure I am feeling it right now, my fingers are tired. I haven’t seen a single pro for sprint though, it doesn’t make the game more “tactical”, the “players expect it” argument assumes everyone is a narrow minded inpatient player that couldn’t possibly tolerate anything else and “immersion” is the weakest argument to ever come into a discussion about game play and balance.
Yes exactly this. Imagine, how long it took to balance each map for sprint, and then clamber and thruster pack (notice lanes are really wide now to accomodate for thrusters?).
I ask pro sprinters this question: Would you prefer sprint, or would you prefer all the dev time spent on balancing sprint (then having the “pros” TEST it, i.e. The whole feedback dedicated purely for sprint) spent on other areas of the multiplayer in a different way? E,g, innovating map design, having each map have its own style of play. Brand new game modes, new power ups, etc etc. Wouldn’t you prefer new ideas/improved tried and tested Halo ideas, over “new features” that are merely conformative imitations of the fps genre?
Halo reach maps were a mess because they tried to balance too many things which all counter each other.
They all played like crap, but without sprint and armour abilities they were fine.
BUT DON’T GET ME STARTED ON ARMOUR LOCK.
> 2533274887665513;13985:
> I wanted to add more but ran out of words! Point is, what does sprint really add? Is it worth all the time and effort required to redesign Halo around one mechanic? This time could be spent expanding Halo with new maps and modes, not changing the game entirely. Also, if the entire game has to be re balanced and re scaled, isn’t that good enough evidence that it doesn’t belong? There are so many good arguments made throughout this thread. Maybe someone needs to compile all the pros and cons for sprint in one post. Not sure I am feeling it right now, my fingers are tired. I haven’t seen a single pro for sprint though, it doesn’t make the game more “tactical”, the “players expect it” argument assumes everyone is a narrow minded inpatient player that couldn’t possibly tolerate anything else and “immersion” is the weakest argument to ever come into a discussion about game play and balance.
It could be argued(not by me) that sprint removes depth from the game, which means that it adds shallowness to the gameplay. Now, I’ve always argued that sprint doesn’t add depth to the gameplay and I think that that is the best argument for anti-sprinters. But if someone wants a shallow game, then that argument becomes their ally.
> 2533274943854776;13991:
> > 2533274887665513;13985:
> > I wanted to add more but ran out of words! Point is, what does sprint really add? Is it worth all the time and effort required to redesign Halo around one mechanic? This time could be spent expanding Halo with new maps and modes, not changing the game entirely. Also, if the entire game has to be re balanced and re scaled, isn’t that good enough evidence that it doesn’t belong? There are so many good arguments made throughout this thread. Maybe someone needs to compile all the pros and cons for sprint in one post. Not sure I am feeling it right now, my fingers are tired. I haven’t seen a single pro for sprint though, it doesn’t make the game more “tactical”, the “players expect it” argument assumes everyone is a narrow minded inpatient player that couldn’t possibly tolerate anything else and “immersion” is the weakest argument to ever come into a discussion about game play and balance.
>
> It could be argued(not by me) that sprint removes depth from the game, which means that it adds shallowness to the gameplay. Now, I’ve always argued that sprint doesn’t add depth to the gameplay and I think that that is the best argument for anti-sprinters. But if someone wants a shallow game, then that argument becomes their ally.
Another drawback is that you are weaker and messes up the pace of the multiplayer.
Which isn’t an ally to anyone
[deleted]
Just by increasing the FOV you could probably appease the pro-sprint crowd (and it’s something I would want to do anyways) Just look at a game like Quake. It has no sprint, but an FOV around 120 and it plays super fast, far faster than any game with sprint. I’m not saying that Halo needs an FOV that high, but instead of one that’s around 75 or whatever they could increase it to 90-100 and it would make the game feel really fast paced.
> 2533274887665513;13993:
> > 2533274943854776;13991:
> > > 2533274887665513;13985:
> > >
> >
> > It could be argued(not by me) that sprint removes depth from the game, which means that it adds shallowness to the gameplay. Now, I’ve always argued that sprint doesn’t add depth to the gameplay and I think that that is the best argument for anti-sprinters. But if someone wants a shallow game, then that argument becomes their ally.
>
> This is a great point. Before you even go into what sprint does badly, just ask what justifies it in the first place. I would say for sure that sprint removes depth from the game. It messes with the level of predictability which is needed for a match to be strategic. I think it inherently limits what I can do with my map design without having to make things massive (the problem with this being explained to death!). Sprint has added nothing to Halo worth the cost of getting it to balance.
Sprint has never added anything to the gameplay.
Sprint was an answer to a problem that Halo had already solved. Traversal. Which of course Bungie solved with Vehicles, Teleporters and Man-cannons.
Now when pushed the two main answers from 343i and followers are “immersion” and “players’ expectation”. Neither have anything to do with the gameplay directly.
There are two reasons to add or change a gameplay mechanic. 1) There’s an issue that needs fixing. 2) You want to change up the original formula.
Reduced grenade count (Option 1) to prevent the grenade spam that happened a lot during Halo 2.
Spartan Laser from Lock-on rockets (Option 1) to require more skill in using the anti-vehicle power weapon.
Boarding - (Option 1) to give players a better fighting chance against vehicles.
Dual Wielding (Option 2) to add in new flavour to the gameplay (then option 1) it was removed because it messed far too much with the original gameplay design. This was also seen in the Needler from Halo 2 to Halo 3, which went from being a power weapon to useless as a DW weapon in Halo 2.
AAs (Option 2) Again, change up the gameplay (then Option 1) It messed with it too much.
Man-cannons (Option 1) Teleporters gave a player a quick escape and could stop fights dead, even creating stale mates. While both players wait either side of the portal. Man-cannons do not break the line of sight between players like portals do.
Almost every 343i change other than removing AAs was done for the sake of change. They aren’t addressing issues in the original gameplay. They are out-right changing it by constantly adding things. Sprint just happens to be the most annoying because 343i and MS are afraid that people won’t buy a title without sprint.
Funny story here, but we have one friend who would rather play Halo 5 over MCC. However he loves playing Halo 2A. I think the fear or dislike of playing the older Halo titles for some that swear by the modern games may actually have more to do with graphics and presentation, rather than any actual mechanics of the older games. (Which is very plausible when you consider that “immersion” is their number 1 defense for including sprint)
> 2547348539238747;13995:
> > 2533274887665513;13993:
> > > 2533274943854776;13991:
> > > > 2533274887665513;13985:
> > > >
> > >
> > > It could be argued(not by me) that sprint removes depth from the game, which means that it adds shallowness to the gameplay. Now, I’ve always argued that sprint doesn’t add depth to the gameplay and I think that that is the best argument for anti-sprinters. But if someone wants a shallow game, then that argument becomes their ally.
> >
> > This is a great point. Before you even go into what sprint does badly, just ask what justifies it in the first place. I would say for sure that sprint removes depth from the game. It messes with the level of predictability which is needed for a match to be strategic. I think it inherently limits what I can do with my map design without having to make things massive (the problem with this being explained to death!). Sprint has added nothing to Halo worth the cost of getting it to balance.
>
> Sprint has never added anything to the gameplay.
> Sprint was an answer to a problem that Halo had already solved. Traversal. Which of course Bungie solved with Vehicles, Teleporters and Man-cannons.
>
> Now when pushed the two main answers from 343i and followers are “immersion” and “players’ expectation”. Neither have anything to do with the gameplay directly.
>
> There are two reasons to add or change a gameplay mechanic. 1) There’s an issue that needs fixing. 2) You want to change up the original formula.
>
> Reduced grenade count (Option 1) to prevent the grenade spam that happened a lot during Halo 2.
>
> Spartan Laser from Lock-on rockets (Option 1) to require more skill in using the anti-vehicle power weapon.
>
> Boarding - (Option 1) to give players a better fighting chance against vehicles.
>
> Dual Wielding (Option 2) to add in new flavour to the gameplay (then option 1) it was removed because it messed far too much with the original gameplay design. This was also seen in the Needler from Halo 2 to Halo 3, which went from being a power weapon to useless as a DW weapon in Halo 2.
>
> AAs (Option 2) Again, change up the gameplay (then Option 1) It messed with it too much.
>
> Man-cannons (Option 1) Teleporters gave a player a quick escape and could stop fights dead, even creating stale mates. While both players wait either side of the portal. Man-cannons do not break the line of sight between players like portals do.
>
> Almost every 343i change other than removing AAs was done for the sake of change. They aren’t addressing issues in the original gameplay. They are out-right changing it by constantly adding things. Sprint just happens to be the most annoying because 343i and MS are afraid that people won’t buy a title without sprint.
>
> Funny story here, but we have one friend who would rather play Halo 5 over MCC. However he loves playing Halo 2A. I think the fear or dislike of playing the older Halo titles for some that swear by the modern games may actually have more to do with graphics and presentation, rather than any actual mechanics of the older games. (Which is very plausible when you consider that “immersion” is their number 1 defense for including sprint)
Good post, more people need to know the reason why sprint was added.
> 2535470314519336;13992:
> > 2533274943854776;13991:
> > > 2533274887665513;13985:
> > > I wanted to add more but ran out of words! Point is, what does sprint really add? Is it worth all the time and effort required to redesign Halo around one mechanic? This time could be spent expanding Halo with new maps and modes, not changing the game entirely. Also, if the entire game has to be re balanced and re scaled, isn’t that good enough evidence that it doesn’t belong? There are so many good arguments made throughout this thread. Maybe someone needs to compile all the pros and cons for sprint in one post. Not sure I am feeling it right now, my fingers are tired. I haven’t seen a single pro for sprint though, it doesn’t make the game more “tactical”, the “players expect it” argument assumes everyone is a narrow minded inpatient player that couldn’t possibly tolerate anything else and “immersion” is the weakest argument to ever come into a discussion about game play and balance.
> >
> > It could be argued(not by me) that sprint removes depth from the game, which means that it adds shallowness to the gameplay. Now, I’ve always argued that sprint doesn’t add depth to the gameplay and I think that that is the best argument for anti-sprinters. But if someone wants a shallow game, then that argument becomes their ally.
>
> Another drawback is that you are weaker and messes up the pace of the multiplayer.
Isn’t it subjective whether being weaker and having an inconsistent pace are drawbacks?
> 2535470314519336;13992:
> Which isn’t an ally to anyone
Exept to those who want a shallow game.
> 2547348539238747;13995:
> > 2533274887665513;13993:
> > > 2533274943854776;13991:
> > > > 2533274887665513;13985:
> > > >
> > >
> > > It could be argued(not by me) that sprint removes depth from the game, which means that it adds shallowness to the gameplay. Now, I’ve always argued that sprint doesn’t add depth to the gameplay and I think that that is the best argument for anti-sprinters. But if someone wants a shallow game, then that argument becomes their ally.
> >
> > This is a great point. Before you even go into what sprint does badly, just ask what justifies it in the first place. I would say for sure that sprint removes depth from the game. It messes with the level of predictability which is needed for a match to be strategic. I think it inherently limits what I can do with my map design without having to make things massive (the problem with this being explained to death!). Sprint has added nothing to Halo worth the cost of getting it to balance.
>
> Sprint has never added anything to the gameplay.
> Sprint was an answer to a problem that Halo had already solved. Traversal. Which of course Bungie solved with Vehicles, Teleporters and Man-cannons.
>
> Now when pushed the two main answers from 343i and followers are “immersion” and “players’ expectation”. Neither have anything to do with the gameplay directly.
>
> There are two reasons to add or change a gameplay mechanic. 1) There’s an issue that needs fixing. 2) You want to change up the original formula.
>
> Reduced grenade count (Option 1) to prevent the grenade spam that happened a lot during Halo 2.
>
> Spartan Laser from Lock-on rockets (Option 1) to require more skill in using the anti-vehicle power weapon.
>
> Boarding - (Option 1) to give players a better fighting chance against vehicles.
>
> Dual Wielding (Option 2) to add in new flavour to the gameplay (then option 1) it was removed because it messed far too much with the original gameplay design. This was also seen in the Needler from Halo 2 to Halo 3, which went from being a power weapon to useless as a DW weapon in Halo 2.
>
> AAs (Option 2) Again, change up the gameplay (then Option 1) It messed with it too much.
>
> Man-cannons (Option 1) Teleporters gave a player a quick escape and could stop fights dead, even creating stale mates. While both players wait either side of the portal. Man-cannons do not break the line of sight between players like portals do.
>
> Almost every 343i change other than removing AAs was done for the sake of change. They aren’t addressing issues in the original gameplay. They are out-right changing it by constantly adding things. Sprint just happens to be the most annoying because 343i and MS are afraid that people won’t buy a title without sprint.
>
> Funny story here, but we have one friend who would rather play Halo 5 over MCC. However he loves playing Halo 2A. I think the fear or dislike of playing the older Halo titles for some that swear by the modern games may actually have more to do with graphics and presentation, rather than any actual mechanics of the older games. (Which is very plausible when you consider that “immersion” is their number 1 defense for including sprint)
Excellence. This post right here, I would really like to see what the pro sprint members can say against this. As it shows why features in classic games were added, then removed for some (dual wielding) or had their use reduced or limited (teleporters). Then you relate this perfectly to sprint and other unnecessary additions.
I think the more successful maps take this into account versus a map that is just an area to fight in with no clearly defined pathing, positions or sight lines.
I think the spartan abilities are fine expect spartan charge. Stabilising adds something new without negatively impacting on gameplay, sliding again is the same. The one thing that isnt good is spartan charge, its not balanced right. Yeah you definitely need predictability but i think to certain degree. If a game becomes to predictable then i just think that a person could throw a grenade and is going to get a kill, again some predictability but not completely.
Because of the increased movement speed, strength of automatics, certain power weapons and spartan charge I can no longer create tight close quarters areas on maps without them playing incredibly badly. To me, classic maps were interesting because they had a range of close, mid and long range areas. In Halo 5 every area has to be fairly open to support the sandbox.
Yeah i can see this point for sure automatics were powerful and still are again i dont think they have gotten it balanced yet. Halo 2 to 3 for me i wouldnt even use any other gun except for the battle rifle(assualt rifle was rarely used) so i think they have to tweek the guns a little more. For me the classic games had different weapons but what was the point of using them. Again they had their time and place but i would use them very seldomly.
. Restriction is just as important as freedom in a Halo map. When you have complete freedom of movement, there is little strategy in the movement or ability to predict where players will be."
yeah i can see that greater movement can be harder to control but i think that just comes down to better maps. Halo 3 snowbound playing slayer on that map was trying to kill rats who had a shot gun. Not great game play and not a great map. (thats just my opinion tho so who ever reads this dont blast me). Sometimes maps can be restricted in there gameplay and some maps just arent very good. Again i think it comes down to balancing the map and movement.
Weapon balancing suffers also.
As maps are now larger, we have a greater range of distances that weapons have to be built for. One example would be that with bigger maps, the shotgun has to have increased range to be relevant. However when it is used in close ranges similar to some classic maps, it becomes stronger than it should be. The snipers ease of use gets tuned for faster moving players but when used against players trying to shoot, it is far easier to snipe than it should be. Rockets/grenades blast radius’ are optimized for faster moving players as well as the track on the Plasma Pistol and the Needler. Problem with all this is in situations where I am not sprinting and am trying to shoot people, these weapons become much more effective against me than they would have been in the past. Autos get more range and power to deal with larger maps and these too become far too strong up close to be skillfully countered with precision weapons like they could in the past. You shouldn’t get a guaranteed kill for happening to hold the right weapon at a certain range, there should still be a chance to counter your enemy with skill. Halo 5 has too many first shot wins situations because of the increased power of unskillful weapons up close.
If halo had a single base movement but the base movement speed was increased compared to classic halo’s im not sure that you could just have aim assist, magnetism i think would have to be used still. (If anyone has any evidence to the contrary add it but yeah im not sure on this one). Yeah i fundamentally disagree with this i dont think halo 5 has a guaranteed kill for holding the right weapon. Either you have the right weapon or you dont. Halo 5s automatics are definitely problematic, but pick any halo game and if you had the right weapon your probably going to get the kill, not to mention that when your in a gun battle there are a lot of variables and not just movement.
> 2547348539238747;13995:
> > 2533274887665513;13993:
> > > 2533274943854776;13991:
> > > > 2533274887665513;13985:
> > > >
> > >
> > > It could be argued(not by me) that sprint removes depth from the game, which means that it adds shallowness to the gameplay. Now, I’ve always argued that sprint doesn’t add depth to the gameplay and I think that that is the best argument for anti-sprinters. But if someone wants a shallow game, then that argument becomes their ally.
> >
> > This is a great point. Before you even go into what sprint does badly, just ask what justifies it in the first place. I would say for sure that sprint removes depth from the game. It messes with the level of predictability which is needed for a match to be strategic. I think it inherently limits what I can do with my map design without having to make things massive (the problem with this being explained to death!). Sprint has added nothing to Halo worth the cost of getting it to balance.
>
> Sprint has never added anything to the gameplay.
> Sprint was an answer to a problem that Halo had already solved. Traversal. Which of course Bungie solved with Vehicles, Teleporters and Man-cannons.
>
> Now when pushed the two main answers from 343i and followers are “immersion” and “players’ expectation”. Neither have anything to do with the gameplay directly.
>
> There are two reasons to add or change a gameplay mechanic. 1) There’s an issue that needs fixing. 2) You want to change up the original formula.
>
> Reduced grenade count (Option 1) to prevent the grenade spam that happened a lot during Halo 2.
>
> Spartan Laser from Lock-on rockets (Option 1) to require more skill in using the anti-vehicle power weapon.
>
> Boarding - (Option 1) to give players a better fighting chance against vehicles.
>
> Dual Wielding (Option 2) to add in new flavour to the gameplay (then option 1) it was removed because it messed far too much with the original gameplay design. This was also seen in the Needler from Halo 2 to Halo 3, which went from being a power weapon to useless as a DW weapon in Halo 2.
>
> AAs (Option 2) Again, change up the gameplay (then Option 1) It messed with it too much.
>
> Man-cannons (Option 1) Teleporters gave a player a quick escape and could stop fights dead, even creating stale mates. While both players wait either side of the portal. Man-cannons do not break the line of sight between players like portals do.
>
> Almost every 343i change other than removing AAs was done for the sake of change. They aren’t addressing issues in the original gameplay. They are out-right changing it by constantly adding things. Sprint just happens to be the most annoying because 343i and MS are afraid that people won’t buy a title without sprint.
>
> Funny story here, but we have one friend who would rather play Halo 5 over MCC. However he loves playing Halo 2A. I think the fear or dislike of playing the older Halo titles for some that swear by the modern games may actually have more to do with graphics and presentation, rather than any actual mechanics of the older games. (Which is very plausible when you consider that “immersion” is their number 1 defense for including sprint)
[deleted]
Seems like people might be afraid to break the beautiful 14000 post count, I’ll oblige.
@Sgt x Slaphead though, I have a habit of instantly liking your posts, you usually never disappoint me with your word choice. So much so that I usually have nothing really new to add ;p
> 2533274887665513;14001:
> I don’t know one good designer in the Forge community that likes spartan abilities.
I wonder, does this imply that you know forgers who like Spartan Abilities, but think they are bad? Or is it just to deflect anyone hypothetical person who might admit to being a forger, and also happens to like Spartan Abilities? It comes off as slightly pretentious when you phrase it like that. You’re not going to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you with that.