The sprint discussion thread

> 2533274866652866;14403:
> In the end its hard to determine which game is faster because it is kind of determined by players and strategy, i would say to people that stay away from this type of argument cause it cant really be proven. Sprint may be a gimmick but so are a lot of things that halo brought “im looking at you Dual welding”.

On the contrary, I would say gameplay speed is one of the few things in this discussion that we can actually treat systematically and get concrete numbers on, and people have done that. Of course, we can always disagree on what metrics are relevant and such, but at least we can obtain concrete data reasonably easily. Something that can’t be said about many other points in this discussion.

You’re correct that the results do depend on how players choose to play, but we can still average over players in different groups and find how the game behaves for a given group. For example, we can ask how fast the gameplay is at a professional level, or how fast it is for the average player. We can ask and answer quantitative questions about the speed of gameplay. That’s about the best case scenario we can have as far as arguments go because we can try to make someone’s argument precise and then go out there and see whether there is evidence in favor or against that argument.

> 2533274825830455;14404:
> > 2533274866652866;14403:
> > In the end its hard to determine which game is faster because it is kind of determined by players and strategy, i would say to people that stay away from this type of argument cause it cant really be proven. Sprint may be a gimmick but so are a lot of things that halo brought “im looking at you Dual welding”.
>
> On the contrary, I would say gameplay speed is one of the few things in this discussion that we can actually treat systematically and get concrete numbers on, and peoplehavedone that. Of course, we can always disagree on what metrics are relevant and such, but at least we can obtain concrete data reasonably easily. Something that can’t be said about many other points in this discussion.
>
> You’re correct that the results do depend on how players choose to play, but we can still average over players in different groups and find how the game behaves for a given group. For example, we can ask how fast the gameplay is at a professional level, or how fast it is for the average player. We can ask and answer quantitative questions about the speed of gameplay. That’s about the best case scenario we can have as far as arguments go because we can try to make someone’s argument precise and then go out there and see whether there is evidence in favor or against that argument.

You’ll have to explain to me why the lower numbers mean slower gameplay, thats if i read it correctly.
Halo 2: 0.1904 ± 0.0036 k/s
Halo 3: 0.1937 ± 0.0041 k/s
Halo Reach: 0.1735 ± 0.0034 k/s
Halo 5: 0.1807 ± 0.0021 k/s
**“Based on this small analysis, it does appear that games before Reach might have been faster than games after, though Halo 5 again appears to be slightly faster than Reach.”**And this is great im just curious how this data was collected, eg just normal matches not Pro? Or are you measuring the time it takes for a person to find another person to kill them or are you finding the time it takes to kill a person eg “TTK”. I would love to see the time it takes for the average match of 4v4 slayer to finish on H2,H3, reach H5 and see if there is a significant difference. Maybe even separate the matches that didnt get to 50 kills and look at the amount of kills they got. That would be good.

> 2533274866652866;14405:
> > 2533274825830455;14404:
> > > 2533274866652866;14403:
> > > In the end its hard to determine which game is faster because it is kind of determined by players and strategy, i would say to people that stay away from this type of argument cause it cant really be proven. Sprint may be a gimmick but so are a lot of things that halo brought “im looking at you Dual welding”.
> >
> > On the contrary, I would say gameplay speed is one of the few things in this discussion that we can actually treat systematically and get concrete numbers on, and peoplehavedone that. Of course, we can always disagree on what metrics are relevant and such, but at least we can obtain concrete data reasonably easily. Something that can’t be said about many other points in this discussion.
> >
> > You’re correct that the results do depend on how players choose to play, but we can still average over players in different groups and find how the game behaves for a given group. For example, we can ask how fast the gameplay is at a professional level, or how fast it is for the average player. We can ask and answer quantitative questions about the speed of gameplay. That’s about the best case scenario we can have as far as arguments go because we can try to make someone’s argument precise and then go out there and see whether there is evidence in favor or against that argument.
>
> You’ll have to explain to me why the lower numbers mean slower gameplay, thats if i read it correctly.
> Halo 2: 0.1904 ± 0.0036 k/s
> Halo 3: 0.1937 ± 0.0041 k/s
> Halo Reach: 0.1735 ± 0.0034 k/s
> Halo 5: 0.1807 ± 0.0021 k/s
> **“Based on this small analysis, it does appear that games before Reach might have been faster than games after, though Halo 5 again appears to be slightly faster than Reach.”**And this is great im just curious how this data was collected, eg just normal matches not Pro? Or are you measuring the time it takes for a person to find another person to kill them or are you finding the time it takes to kill a person eg “TTK”. I would love to see the time it takes for the average match of 4v4 slayer to finish on H2,H3, reach H5 and see if there is a significant difference. Maybe even separate the matches that didnt get to 50 kills and look at the amount of kills they got. That would be good.

It’s kills per second. Smaller numbers mean that less kills are happening in a given amount of time. So, if we agree that kill rate is a reasonable metric of speed, then in this sense smaller numbers mean slower gameplay.

The data was just me trying to find a set of players with plenty of playtime accross all Halo games (which turns out to be more difficult than you’d think). I would say these players are all well above average, but certainly not professional, or even top level. What I collected from these players were the durations and total numbers of kills in Team Slayer matches. The average kill rate of a match, then, is the number of kills in a match divided by the length of the match.

> 2533274825830455;14406:
> > 2533274866652866;14405:
> > > 2533274825830455;14404:
> > > > 2533274866652866;14403:
> > > > In the end its hard to determine which game is faster because it is kind of determined by players and strategy, i would say to people that stay away from this type of argument cause it cant really be proven. Sprint may be a gimmick but so are a lot of things that halo brought “im looking at you Dual welding”.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I would say gameplay speed is one of the few things in this discussion that we can actually treat systematically and get concrete numbers on, and peoplehavedone that. Of course, we can always disagree on what metrics are relevant and such, but at least we can obtain concrete data reasonably easily. Something that can’t be said about many other points in this discussion.
> > >
> > > You’re correct that the results do depend on how players choose to play, but we can still average over players in different groups and find how the game behaves for a given group. For example, we can ask how fast the gameplay is at a professional level, or how fast it is for the average player. We can ask and answer quantitative questions about the speed of gameplay. That’s about the best case scenario we can have as far as arguments go because we can try to make someone’s argument precise and then go out there and see whether there is evidence in favor or against that argument.
> >
> > You’ll have to explain to me why the lower numbers mean slower gameplay, thats if i read it correctly.
> > Halo 2: 0.1904 ± 0.0036 k/s
> > Halo 3: 0.1937 ± 0.0041 k/s
> > Halo Reach: 0.1735 ± 0.0034 k/s
> > Halo 5: 0.1807 ± 0.0021 k/s
> > **“Based on this small analysis, it does appear that games before Reach might have been faster than games after, though Halo 5 again appears to be slightly faster than Reach.”**And this is great im just curious how this data was collected, eg just normal matches not Pro? Or are you measuring the time it takes for a person to find another person to kill them or are you finding the time it takes to kill a person eg “TTK”. I would love to see the time it takes for the average match of 4v4 slayer to finish on H2,H3, reach H5 and see if there is a significant difference. Maybe even separate the matches that didnt get to 50 kills and look at the amount of kills they got. That would be good.
>
> It’s kills per second. Smaller numbers mean that less kills are happening in a given amount of time. So, if we agree that kill rate is a reasonable metric of speed, then in this sense smaller numbers mean slower gameplay.
>
> The data was just me trying to find a set of players with plenty of playtime accross all Halo games (which turns out to be more difficult than you’d think). I would say these players are all well above average, but certainly not professional, or even top level. What I collected from these players were the durations and total numbers of kills in Team Slayer matches. The average kill rate of a match, then, is the number of kills in a match divided by the length of the match.

So the calculation would be (Kills/second = number of kills by a player A / total game time) then i assume we take the average of this across the 8 players. So when you collected the data did you tell people what it was for or kept them in the dark? Also how did/ do you need to account for player bias for example, people may like the classics more therefore get more kills on it while people who dont like H5 perform poorly or vice versa. Or did you have different groups for each Halo game. I guess what im saying is how did you account for biased data if there was any.

> 2533274866652866;14407:
> So the calculation would be (Kills/second = number of kills by a player A / total game time) then i assume we take the average of this across the 8 players. So when you collected the data did you tell people what it was for or kept them in the dark? Also how did/ do you need to account for player bias for example, people may like the classics more therefore get more kills on it while people who dont like H5 perform poorly or vice versa. Or did you have different groups for each Halo game. I guess what im saying is how did you account for biased data if there was any.

No, it’s total number of kills per match, across all players, divided by total match length. When it comes to the data collection, it’s all from the past and current service records of some high-playtime gamertags I found from the Halotracker leaderboards.

When it comes to the bias you’re suggesting, these players have a high amount of time in all the games, so there’s no possibility that any of them would be significantly inexperienced in any of the games. I can only assume that someone with over 10,000 matches wouldn’t exactly dislike the game, but even if they did, I don’t really see how that would cause them to get kills slower. After all, you’ll have to remember that even if a player performs poorly, as long as they run into encounters at the same rate, one player usually has to die, so skill differences wouldn’t be that significant a factor anyway.

Differences in style of play between games I think are a more realistic source of systematic error, and the fact that there are three players in the data set was my attempt to reduce that. I would’ve liked to have more players, but as I said earlier, turns out it’s really difficult to find players with lots of playtime in all the games. So, you can definitely take it with a grain of salt.

It was suggested to me that I come here to provide objective, evidence based, and detailed feedback on what I think about sprint and why, so here are my two cents as someone that has played every online FPS from Halo 2 and CoD4 up to Overwatch and Destiny:

First, let me define “native sprint” because I’ll be using the term a lot:

All players always have and always spawn with sprint. “Native” means that it is a base part of the movement system, everyone always has sprint. Sprint can still have a place in Halo as a pickup, but “Native” is what I’ll be discussing here.I believe that:
-Native sprint for all players is objectively bad for Halo and its competitiveness
-We don’t need native sprint to have fast paced gameplay (increase base movement and strafe speed by a bit)
-Sprint can have a place in Halo! Just not native sprint. (Sprint would be great as one of many pickups on the map.)

**1)**Native sprint requires an increase to engagement distance and map size.

Why? To support increased player movement speed. This is why we have controversial features like aiming down sights for automatic weapons, and long range engagements across the board. Things like this naturally fit in a game designed around native sprint.

This is bad because: This is not what Halo needs to be. This is what Call of Duty is, what Battlefield 1 is, what Destiny is. We have a suffocating amount of this. Halo is losing its niche as the king of arena style play by homogenizing itself as another game where you spam sprint to get across the large map, take potshots at someone 50 meters away who you won’t be able to kill, and hope that you don’t run headlong into someone who is camping. Long-distance engagements are also not well suited for a console controller, this is a well known topic we are all acutely aware of, increased map size only serves to make this worse.

**2)Native sprint causes more bad spawns.

Players can move more quickly and unpredictably. The spawn system may have to spawn you in an objectively poor place just because of how spread out the players are on the map. This results in bad spawns like “low ground” spawns, spawns where you’re confusingly far away from the action, and spawns where you are visible to the enemy, and able to be shot at, but just not physically close to them. This can be avoided with a map designed around it, but then we are damaging the integrity of the playable space to accommodate for sprint.**3)**Native sprint requires the game to have a faster Time to Kill.

Sprint allows players to run away from fights or between cover very easily. The only way to make sure that people die at all with such a system is to make the TTK faster.

This is bad because: This requires weapon design to be more shallow and as a result the whole sandbox feels worse. Automatic weapons have to melt people because they need to be tangibly better at close/medium range than the already buffed marksman weapons. Marksman weapons have to be consistent hitscan weapons without much recoil to manage or they wouldn’t be able to kill anyone. It also makes things that one-hit kill like a sword or a sticky much less valid, you can and do get melted before even skillful use of a weapon like that gets you the kill.
And TTK isn’t just a number: Tangible, ingame TTK includes ease of aiming the weapon, recoil, etc. While the Halo 5 BR and the Halo 3 BR might kill in a similar amount of time if all shots hit, Halo 3 asked much more from the player to hit those shots. The relevancy of this is often glossed over by people having this debate.

**4)**Native sprint cheapens the positioning game

With sprint players can more easily evade bad situations they have gotten themselves into, and more quickly retake positions they have been removed from.

This is bad because: It makes the game less thoughtful, it makes escaping a bad situation less skillful. The game as a whole becomes less about who and how to engage, and more akin to yet another game about twitchy reflex. It cheapens the meaning of holding down defensible positions when the more open positions can be traversed quickly and with little risk. It cheapens high ground advantage when players can escape in the time it takes you just to fall to the ground to catch them. Players losing gunfights can run away successfully even if they do so with a one-track ‘gotta run fast’ mentality… when they should have been easily followed and killed for losing the gunfight.

**5)**Native sprint creates a lose/lose player decision for map movement

Option A) You sprint as you move around the map. You run into an enemy who is not sprinting. You have to ready your weapon and they do not.
Option B) You don’t sprint as you move around the map. You get flanked because the mapflow and spawn system aren’t balanced around that speed of play.
Option C) You only sprint sometimes. You have both the chance to get flanked and a chance to start a gunfight with a disadvantage, but hey, roll the dice.

This is bad because: This is very “-Yoink!- if you do, -Yoink!- if you don’t” … sprint causes a lose/lose situation where the best strategy is to either sprint and hope to catch someone unaware, or camp and wait to get the first shot on someone rushing into you. Checking corners and moving tactfully around the map is not a viable option because you’ll just take it from behind via a long sight-line and it feels bad. Giving all players this option to sprint at all times effectively adds another element of “well sometimes you just get boned and there’s nothing to be done about it,” to the game.

**6)**Native sprint mandates that melee weapons perform poorly

This is why the sword in Halo 5 feels so much worse than the one in Halo 3 or 2 or even Reach. This is why there are practically no melee weapons on maps any longer. Sprint allows you to rush at the enemy faster, so how do you balance that? First the maps are generally larger so that’s already a nerf, but then you reduce lunge distance, you make the lunge animation take a silly amount of time to deliver the death blow, you make melee weapons require much more aim than they should. You nerf the way these weapons feel in your hands until they just aren’t good any more. Swords and Hammers end up becoming vending machines for Bulltrue medals while they as a “power weapon” are outperformed in their own ideal ranges by a standard SMG or sometimes even a loadout weapon.7) Native sprint has changed the way a fight in Halo is won

Halo has historically had a long TTK and heavily emphasized positioning. Sprint, and to a similar extent “B to boost” has cheapened the core gameplay loop to such a degree that Halo is now less a game about outsmarting, predicting, and outgunning and now almost purely about twitch reflex and your ability to shoot while boosting.

This is bad because: When players can’t really set up engagements due to the speed at which everyone can easily launch into the fray, it ultimately becomes shallow.
It’s now: “I see you, you see me, I’m gonna rush in at mach speed right past your grenade and hope you miss your first shot. But if you hit it, I’ll run.”
When it used to be: “I’m low, but he’s coming into an area he can’t escape from. I’m going to predict where he’s pushing and nadeshot him when he comes in for the kill.”

I really could go on about this forever. I hope these are some well-defined concerns with sprint being standard on all spartans and I hope that they showcase the transformative harm that native sprint can have on a game like Halo.

Sprint is fine

<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the topic at hand.</mark>

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

This threads still going a year later

I personally like sprint, the older halo titles 1-3 were too slow paced and i honestly hope that 343 industries keep sprint as it is 2017 and it just makes sense for a super soldier Spartan to be able to sprint.

I personally like sprint, the older halo titles 1-3 were too slow paced and i honestly hope that 343 industries keep sprint as it is 2017 and it just makes sense for a super soldier Spartan to be able to sprint.

> 2535409359344569;14413:
> I personally like sprint, the older halo titles 1-3 were too slow paced and i honestly hope that 343 industries keep sprint as it is 2017 and it just makes sense for a super soldier Spartan to be able to sprint.

It just makes sense for a super soldier spartan with a scope linked to their visor to be able to shoot while maintaining top speed. Don’t think of Halo 1-3 as not having sprint. Think of them as having sprint always activated plus the ability to shoot while sprinting.

> 2535409359344569;14412:
> I personally like sprint, the older halo titles 1-3 were too slow paced and i honestly hope that 343 industries keep sprint as it is 2017 and it just makes sense for a super soldier Spartan to be able to sprint.

Could you elaborate on how sprint increases the pace? Seeing as there are people who argue against that very idea, some have even put it to math, and I think Halo 5 came out, not looking as “fast” as you’d think compared to Halo 3.

How is the current year any indication of what should be implemented into a game?

There are plenty of things that makes sense for a super soldier to do, prone for instance, or corner firing, or having drawn out melee fights. It could even make sense to have an AI assisted Aimbot in the game, from the lore. Additionally there are those who argue it’d make more sense for a Super Soldier to maintain a high speed while shooting at pin point accuracy.

Personally, I like Sprint. In Halo 5’s case, I think the problem is how it ties into the rest of the movement and animations. Readying up your weapon after sprinting, things like Spartan Charge etc are incredibly lengthy, which worsens the start stop-gameplay people complain about.

Animations and transitions between various actions need to be faster and more fluid.

I like how uninformed and uneducated the posts by those who favour sprint appear. I’m sure many feel the same way, but yes, if Halo 6 still has sprint, then I won’t be buying it.

It’s heartbreaking and almost surreal to hear myself say that.

> 2533274837077215;14417:
> I like how uninformed and uneducated the posts by those who favour sprint appear. I’m sure many feel the same way, but yes, if Halo 6 still has sprint, then I won’t be buying it.
>
> It’s heartbreaking and almost surreal to hear myself say that.

Guess you wont be buying it because im pretty sure it will have sprint lol

> 2533274837077215;14417:
> I like how uninformed and uneducated the posts by those who favour sprint appear. I’m sure many feel the same way, but yes, if Halo 6 still has sprint, then I won’t be buying it.
>
> It’s heartbreaking and almost surreal to hear myself say that.

Yep guess you won’t be buying halo 6, it’s the new generation of halo sprint is most definitely staying with halo 6

> 2535409359344569;14419:
> > 2533274837077215;14417:
> > I like how uninformed and uneducated the posts by those who favour sprint appear. I’m sure many feel the same way, but yes, if Halo 6 still has sprint, then I won’t be buying it.
> >
> > It’s heartbreaking and almost surreal to hear myself say that.
>
> Yep guess you won’t be buying halo 6, it’s the new generation of halo sprint is most definitely staying with halo 6

That doesn’t make Sprint any more of a good thing.

It actually only shows that the “new generation” is too adamant to see why Sprint is a problem in the first place.

> 2533274837077215;14417:
> I like how uninformed and uneducated the posts by those who favour sprint appear. I’m sure many feel the same way, but yes, if Halo 6 still has sprint, then I won’t be buying it.
>
> It’s heartbreaking and almost surreal to hear myself say that.

I bought Halo 5 used from gamestop and think I will do the same thing for Halo 6. I disagree with the direction but have played Halo for 15 years. I want to keep playing, but I want 343 and Microsoft to know that I don’t support them in this direction. By buying used I give gamestop the business and MS and 343 will not be getting profit from it, and if people buy used it stops units from being shipped as much since the new ones are still in stock, which means we can’t hear the BS of 5 million units shipped, which tells us little of actual sales figures.

With that said I’d preorder a halo game without sprint because I want to again speak with my wallet and show my support for this idea. If it fails commercially, then I’d understand sticking with the old style, but there’s an obvious desire for the classic style, which makes it an odd choice to not cater to that, or to say to play a broken game.

Also, I just want to point our how great Gubsz post is.

Finally for pro sprint people, the majority of us agree that Halo 3 was slow, but we can increase FOV and base speed without stretching the maps and removing vehicle gameplay to the point it’s at now. And stop it with the Lore stuff. 343 dictates the Lore. They can come up with a lore friendly reason to not have sprint and it’s lore friendly for a spartan to move at full speed while being able to shoot.

> Also, I just want to point our how great Gubsz post is.

Thanks my dude.

> And stop it with the Lore stuff. 343 dictates the Lore. They can come up with a lore friendly reason to not have sprint and it’s lore friendly for a spartan to move at full speed while being able to shoot.

Cortana is effectively in the process of disarming the galaxy. There has never been a more perfect time to say “Well darn, now only the old non-smart link weapons and the legacy Spartan armor can be used against her. We can repurpose some of the new technology onto the old kits, but it’s not all going to work.” I see nothing wrong with this from a lore standpoint… it even fits with the deeper lore: Cortana might have the logic plague and she’s secretly weakening us up for the Flood and the Precursor’s Test for the Mantle.

> I want to keep playing, but I want 343 and Microsoft to know that I don’t support them in this direction.

This really is the biggest problem isn’t it? It’s not that we won’t play what we’ve got, it’s that we’re disappointed that it’s not anywhere near as good as it could be. I feel like this applies to so many games nowadays.

> 2535417761739301;14422:
> > Also, I just want to point our how great Gubsz post is.
>
> Thanks my dude.
>
>
> > And stop it with the Lore stuff. 343 dictates the Lore. They can come up with a lore friendly reason to not have sprint and it’s lore friendly for a spartan to move at full speed while being able to shoot.
>
> Cortana is effectively in the process of disarming the galaxy. There has never been a more perfect time to say “Well darn, now only the old non-smart link weapons and the legacy Spartan armor can be used against her. We can repurpose some of the new technology onto the old kits, but it’s not all going to work.” I see nothing wrong with this from a lore standpoint… it even fits with the deeper lore: Cortana might have the logic plague and she’s secretly weakening us up for the Flood and the Precursor’s Test for the Mantle.
>
>
> > I want to keep playing, but I want 343 and Microsoft to know that I don’t support them in this direction.
>
> This really is the biggest problem isn’t it? It’s not that we won’t play what we’ve got, it’s that we’re disappointed that it’s not anywhere near as good as it could be. I feel like this applies to so many games nowadays.

I may buy the next Halo used as well. It’s just not as fun as no sprint Halo. H5 is a good game, it’s not a good Halo.