> 2533274801176260;16225:
> > 2535444702990491;16222:
> > So basically you admit to taking an approach on the lore discussion that you don’t even agree with, but then attempt to justify it because… You think the other side is flawed and you’re going to show them why… Bravo
>
> Advocatus Diaboli
Awfully cavalier way to label it, if you ask me. Really only shows me that you’ll go to any length possible to attack anything you view as pro sprint.
> 2535444702990491;16226:
> > 2533274801176260;16225:
> > > 2535444702990491;16222:
> > > So basically you admit to taking an approach on the lore discussion that you don’t even agree with, but then attempt to justify it because… You think the other side is flawed and you’re going to show them why… Bravo
> >
> > Advocatus Diaboli
>
> Awfully cavalier way to label it, if you ask me. Really only shows me that you’ll go to any length possible to attack anything you view as pro sprint.
Because of the name? Or what you’re doing?
The name is old and nothing special.
Attack? The only thing done is further the thought of the arguments presented.
Quite common in product development and debates.
But please, do tell “how far” playing Devil’s Advocate is going. Or within what kind of debate-rule-framework we should work within.
> 2535444702990491;16214:
> > 2533274833081329;16211:
> > > 2533274825830455;16048:
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274825830455;15972:
> > >
> >
> > - With Sprint (or rather, your compromise for Sprint), it’s no different. Everyone would Sprint all the time since you can shoot while doing it, you’re doing everything that you can in the slower BMS, so why would you purposely limit yourself to go slower? The only reason we choose not to Sprint now is because we can’t shoot while doing so.No way- everyone does not sprint all the time now; nor would they sprint all the time if you could sprint and shoot at the same time. By default the player can still fire much better and more accurately at slower, walking speeds because it’s a much more stable shot. If you crammed all movement speed into one BMS then you’d reduce the movement control that Halo’s always offered to players. You either walk at the same speed, or (in modern Halo) you can also sprint at the same speed. If all the movement speed gets crunched into one joystick then the player loses this control over their movement. And having everyone mash the thumb stick for the top BMS just doesn’t offer an alternative to two permanent BMS’. Why couldn’t you consider having the ability to run at a faster movement speed while firing your weapons? Wouldn’t this solve your whole, “meh I don’t want to lower my weapon to move faster,” issue? What’s the real problem with this variant instead?
So you are ok with having full control over weapons while moving at top speed?
Also, is there a reason why a button press is required to sprint?
Also also, is there a reason why sprint must only be in a forward manner?. Like, couldn’t we sprint sideways and backwards too?
Because what we could do is have two movement speeds mapped on to the left stick itself. Say, <85%-90% is the lower BMS, and >85%-90% is sprint. And since you aren’t against full weapon usage while sprinting, we could still have full control that way too. And, and, we’d still be able to have full speed in any direction. We wont call it an increase to BMS, we’ll call it “sprint on stick”, or “post-modern sprint”, or “sprint evolved”.
FYI, this is me being facetious.
> 2535444702990491;16226:
> > 2533274801176260;16225:
> > > 2535444702990491;16222:
> > > So basically you admit to taking an approach on the lore discussion that you don’t even agree with, but then attempt to justify it because… You think the other side is flawed and you’re going to show them why… Bravo
> >
> > Advocatus Diaboli
>
> Awfully cavalier way to label it, if you ask me. Really only shows me that you’ll go to any length possible to attack anything you view as pro sprint.
You’re either completely missing the point or twisting the words to your own agenda.
An advocatus diaboli is a century old tradition in rhetorics designed to refine one’s argument, not tear it down.
If a point of view is faulty, it needs to be corrected until it no longer has holes.The AD’s job is to highlight that holes, so they can be fixed.
This has been done plenty of times for anti-sprint arguments as well, over the course of the last 800-ish pages of this thread.
[deleted]
> 2535444702990491;16208:
> > 2594261035368257;16204:
> > > 2533274825830455;16200:
> > > > 2535444702990491;16194:
> > > >
> >
> > - Whether or not you feel that an 800+ page discussion thread is indicative of turmoil… Threads of this magnitude don’t just happen for no reason, or even for smaller issues.
>
> - I don’t and please allow me to explain. - Sure sprint is somewhat controversial to some people in the community… And sure this thread has been an ongoing discussion about sprint- but the thread is nothing more and nothing less than a medium amongst fellow fans to try and understand why some people prefer sprint and some do not. And at the very least I have learned (and continue to learn) a heck of a lot more behind why many of you do not like sprint. To me it was previously incomprehensible to fathom why anyone wouldn’t enjoy the modern movement mechanics in Halo but after participating in this debate the past few months (across a few threads) I definitely have a much broader understanding in that regard… By in large I still disagree with most of you on this issue but I respect and definitely do my best to understand your position on this matter. – Within the echo chamber that is Waypoint, this thread stands out. Wasn’t really meaning more, or less, than that. I should’ve said “this community” as opposed to the Halo community I suppose, but even at that, I have no doubt there are plenty of people who both like and dislike sprint and have never bothered to come here. – - And yet to put things into perspective the size of the thread is still not impressive when you attempt to project it like you’re doing here. That’s not to say that I’m impassionate to your feelings on this issue, but to me this thread has been perpetually kept alive by the same core group of anti sprinters. That’s fine too, I mean it’s interesting to hear ya’ll’s perspective on the issue and all but (no offense intended) IMO the size, or “magnitude,” of this thread does not at all substantiate your implied “magnitude,” of this issue as a whole. – Within the scope of the above response, I believe it’s impressive enough. – - I certainly disagree with sprint creating any perceived “turmoil,” for anyone other than anti sprinters… For us pro sprinters it keeps us enjoying modern Halo for a wide variety of reasons that we are trying to convey to you here in this thread. To us sprint is perfectly fine and it naturally belongs in the franchise. - I will concede to you that “turmoil,” is indeed in the eye of the beholder so what you might consider “turmoil,” might be perfectly fine to others. But try to understand that as much as you dislike Halo with sprint there are many of your fellow fans, myself included, that would be equally upset (if not moreso) without sprint in modern Halo. – I mean… how to put this without seeming rude… the definition of turmoil is “a state of great disturbance, confusion, or uncertainty.” No matter how you choose to limit, or expand the scope of the sprint debate, you’ve chosen to participate for your own reasons and therefor exist within it. Just because you happen to favor the side that currently is getting what it wants, doesn’t mean there’s no disturbance between the two. Making a statement like “I certainly disagree with sprint creating any perceived “turmoil,” for anyone other than anti sprinters…” comes across a bit like saying "Let them eat cake."
> 2533274795123910;16227:
> > 2535444702990491;16226:
> > > 2533274801176260;16225:
> > > > 2535444702990491;16222:
> > > > So basically you admit to taking an approach on the lore discussion that you don’t even agree with, but then attempt to justify it because… You think the other side is flawed and you’re going to show them why… Bravo
> > >
> > > Advocatus Diaboli
> >
> > Awfully cavalier way to label it, if you ask me. Really only shows me that you’ll go to any length possible to attack anything you view as pro sprint.
>
> Because of the name? Or what you’re doing?
> The name is old and nothing special.
> Attack? The only thing done is further the thought of the arguments presented.
> Quite common in product development and debates.
> But please, do tell “how far” playing Devil’s Advocate is going. Or within what kind of debate-rule-framework we should work within.
I understand the concept.
In this instance its deceitful because the person is pretending to project their argument on the grounds that they truly believe that lore supports their anti sprint agenda. I totally comprehend what it is and what they were doing; and playing devils advocate is indeed a justifiable approach to many debates (particularly during legal proceedings) under the pretense that it’s built upon an honest argument. In this instance the person pushing the argument clearly doesn’t believe either a) lore supports their anti sprint agenda or b) lore should even be considered at all during gameplay decisions. So in this case it’s totally dishonest to utilize this tactic in this debate because the person doesn’t believe that lore should be considered in this debated either way. It would be different, for instance, if the person actually believed that lore benefited gameplay but pushed an agenda to the anterior of their perspective stance on the issue to raise an additional layer of thought and perspective on the topic. Let me provide an example: Since I consider lore to benefit sprint, if I instead pushed forth lore as benefiting the anti sprint agenda instead to raise an additional layer of thought and perspective on the topic then I would be playing devil’s advocate in an honest and straight forward fashion.
@FightingChances Sure, I’d agree that Ground Pound is an awful SA and by nature any catering during development towards designing maps to suit an awful SA is a flawed approach to begin with. By in large I really agree with your arguments against Ground Pound, so hopefully they toss that one out in Halo Infinite.
> 2594261035368257;16231:
> > 2535444702990491;16208:
> > > 2594261035368257;16204:
> > > > 2533274825830455;16200:
> > > > > 2535444702990491;16194:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > - Whether or not you feel that an 800+ page discussion thread is indicative of turmoil… Threads of this magnitude don’t just happen for no reason, or even for smaller issues.
> >
> > - Within the echo chamber that is Waypoint, this thread stands out. Wasn’t really meaning more, or less, than that. I should’ve said “this community” as opposed to the Halo community I suppose, but even at that, I have no doubt there are plenty of people who both like and dislike sprint and have never bothered to come here. Within the scope of the above response, I believe it’s impressive enough. I understand when you’re coming from and (with the constraints you just added in here) certainly agree that you can make a case for this thread standing out on Waypoint. I still think some of that is artificial for a variety of reasons like it being cultivated and funneled into one thread. There are positive effects with this happening such as that it makes the discussion as a whole more succint but also all but guarantees that it remains alive and growing; combined with the fact that anti sprint regulars will clearly never let it die… That’s fine if ya’ll want to continue this discussion for forever but the size of the thread just doesn’t strike me as a case for projecting this thread issue any further than what it is at face value. - I mean… how to put this without seeming rude… the definition of turmoil is “a state of great disturbance, confusion, or uncertainty.” No matter how you choose to limit, or expand the scope of the sprint debate, you’ve chosen to participate for your own reasons and therefore exist within it. Just because you happen to favor the side that currently is getting what it wants, doesn’t mean there’s no disturbance between the two.Again, I understand how you feel on this matter. I already gave you that “turmoil,” is in the eye of the beholder. Even by definition, “a great disturbance,” is quite subjective…. Sure there’s a discussion going on here but I still don’t buy that this constitutes “turmoil,” to everyone in this community, or even to everyone in this thread. Plenty of people in this community have voiced that they don’t care about the movement, and there plenty that come here to post their two cents on the matter with a brief post or two then peace out seemingly unimpressed by the discussion at hand.
> 2594261035368257;16231:
> > 2535444702990491;16208:
> > - Making a statement like “I certainly disagree with sprint creating any perceived “turmoil,” for anyone other than anti sprinters…” comes across a bit like saying "Let them eat cake."Not my intention at all. I’m doing my best to separate my bias towards sprint from our debate, and while I may not meet that mark every time (like many of you), I really wasn’t trying to be facecious or snarky like that. I could have definitely worded it better (so apologies if I’ve offended you with this point), but overall any feeling of “turmoil,” from this debate is indeed subjective to whomever is participating in this discussion.
> 2547348539238747;16228:
> > 2535444702990491;16214:
> > > 2533274833081329;16211:
> > > > 2533274825830455;16048:
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2533274825830455;15972:
> > > >
> > >
> > > - With Sprint (or rather, your compromise for Sprint), it’s no different. Everyone would Sprint all the time since you can shoot while doing it, you’re doing everything that you can in the slower BMS, so why would you purposely limit yourself to go slower? The only reason we choose not to Sprint now is because we can’t shoot while doing so.No way- everyone does not sprint all the time now; nor would they sprint all the time if you could sprint and shoot at the same time. By default the player can still fire much better and more accurately at slower, walking speeds because it’s a much more stable shot. If you crammed all movement speed into one BMS then you’d reduce the movement control that Halo’s always offered to players. You either walk at the same speed, or (in modern Halo) you can also sprint at the same speed. If all the movement speed gets crunched into one joystick then the player loses this control over their movement. And having everyone mash the thumb stick for the top BMS just doesn’t offer an alternative to two permanent BMS’. Why couldn’t you consider having the ability to run at a faster movement speed while firing your weapons? Wouldn’t this solve your whole, “meh I don’t want to lower my weapon to move faster,” issue? What’s the real problem with this variant instead?
>
> - So you are ok with having full control over weapons while moving at top speed?As stated before, what I prefer is sprint to remain as it was in Halo 5 (or to be enhanced and expanded upon). The second best alternative to that is to “sprint,” while being able to fire small arms. Lastly to be able to “sprint,” while shooting all weapons is definitely not my first (or even second choice) but would just be a much better compromise than cutting sprint entirely… I say “compromise,” because I’d be letting go of sprint as I prefer it to be- which is essentially how it has been in modern Halo up to this point. “Sprinting,” while being able to shoot is very closely aligned to @tsassi’s proposed changes to movement mechanics- you could even set up the walking speeds to function exactly in the paremeters that tsassi’s suggesting. The only difference is that there would still be two permanent BMS’, with the ability the run faster via another button. - Also, is there a reason why a button press is required to sprint?Sure there is- the ability to properly control temporary increases to your speed is important and it’s better for gameplay to empower the player to be able to decide upon movement boosts beyond 100% normal speed, based upon the situation at hand. - Also also, is there a reason why sprint must only be in a forward manner?. Like, couldn’t we sprint sideways and backwards too?Seems totally unnecessary and irrelevant to me as I’m pretty certain you’re joking anyway… Okay then… Bye bye now.
P.S. Apologies to the mod’s for posting three times in a row like this… I tried to squeeze multiple replies in here, but had so people replying to me over a shortness period of time; not to mention the text limits to deal with. I’ll try to do better with this moving forward.
[deleted]
> 2535464451695009;16235:
> > 2535444702990491;16232:
> > @FightingChances Sure, I’d agree that Ground Pound is an awful SA and by nature any catering during development towards designing maps to suit an awful SA is a flawed approach to begin with. By in large I really agree with your arguments against Ground Pound, so hopefully they toss that one out in Halo Infinite.
>
> I wasn’t going against Ground Pound… I was just giving an example of how designing with something in mind affects other aspects of the game. I could make similar arguments for every single Spartan Ability, which I have done before as you know, specifically with sprint.
Well you really had me sold back there, but I definitely can’t follow you beyond Ground Pound on this one… Each SA is unique and comes with varying degrees of impact to gameplay and overall popularity, so each one would have to be considered individually. Ground Pound is probably the easiest one to refute (This was likely the reason you initially singled it out), but I don’t follow your path of logic beyond just Ground Pound. I’d give you Ground Pound any day of the week, maybe even Shoulder Charge and Slide too… I’d be hard pressed to so easily let go of Thrust or Clamber but I’d definitely hear ya out regarding why you don’t like them… But that path of logic against SA’s wouldn’t extend into sprint, IMO.
[deleted]
> 2535444702990491;16234:
> - Also also, is there a reason why sprint must only be in a forward manner?. Like, couldn’t we sprint sideways and backwards too?Seems totally unnecessary and irrelevant to me as I’m pretty certain you’re joking anyway… Okay then… Bye bye now.
Actually, being able to move in every direction at maximum speed is pretty important for gameplay flow, since it allows players to make jumps regardless of which direction they’re facing, and they can thus make better use of these jumps in combat. It also helps at countering melee attacks, which are favored by an asymmetric speed set-up. Finally, if the player is able to shoot while moving at maximum speed, then being able to move sideways helps in transitioning to combat. In a shooter that’s all about movement, effective movement along all axes is crucial.
> 2535444702990491;16234:
> P.S. Apologies to the mod’s for posting three times in a row like this… I tried to squeeze multiple replies in here, but had so people replying to me over a shortness period of time; not to mention the text limits to deal with. I’ll try to do better with this moving forward.
You should really try to fit as many quotes in a single post as you can. The first two would’ve fit into one. The third probably could also squeeze in if you remove the quotes within quotes. Double posts happen sometimes: you run out of space, you get too excited and start a new post instead of editing to your old one. It’s fine if it doesn’t become a habit. Triple posts, however, are almost always avoidable, with the exception of some extreme length posts.
> 2535444702990491;16232:
> I understand the concept.
>
> In this instance its deceitful because the person is pretending to project their argument on the grounds that they truly believe that lore supports their anti sprint agenda. I totally comprehend what it is and what they were doing; and playing devils advocate is indeed a justifiable approach to many debates (particularly during legal proceedings) under the pretense that it’s built upon an honest argument. In this instance the person pushing the argument clearly doesn’t believe either a) lore supports their anti sprint agenda or b) lore should even be considered at all during gameplay decisions. So in this case it’s totally dishonest to utilize this tactic in this debate because the person doesn’t believe that lore should be considered in this debated either way. It would be different, for instance, if the person actually believed that lore benefited gameplay but pushed an agenda to the anterior of their perspective stance on the issue to raise an additional layer of thought and perspective on the topic.
First of all, I’m still not getting it. You were presented an argument, and your response is going at it how “honest” it is?
No one should see things from the other side’s point of view, and question things from that side in a DA manner because the original view isn’t the same as the point of view you’re looking at?
Second, how is any of that even relevant? The only thing you’ve managed to do was attack the argument Ad Hominem style, whatever is called.
> 2535444702990491;16234:
> > 2547348539238747;16228:
> > > 2535444702990491;16214:
> > > > 2533274833081329;16211:
> > > > > 2533274825830455;16048:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2533274825830455;15972:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > - With Sprint (or rather, your compromise for Sprint), it’s no different. Everyone would Sprint all the time since you can shoot while doing it, you’re doing everything that you can in the slower BMS, so why would you purposely limit yourself to go slower? The only reason we choose not to Sprint now is because we can’t shoot while doing so.No way- everyone does not sprint all the time now; nor would they sprint all the time if you could sprint and shoot at the same time. By default the player can still fire much better and more accurately at slower, walking speeds because it’s a much more stable shot. If you crammed all movement speed into one BMS then you’d reduce the movement control that Halo’s always offered to players. You either walk at the same speed, or (in modern Halo) you can also sprint at the same speed. If all the movement speed gets crunched into one joystick then the player loses this control over their movement. And having everyone mash the thumb stick for the top BMS just doesn’t offer an alternative to two permanent BMS’. Why couldn’t you consider having the ability to run at a faster movement speed while firing your weapons? Wouldn’t this solve your whole, “meh I don’t want to lower my weapon to move faster,” issue? What’s the real problem with this variant instead?
> >
> > - So you are ok with having full control over weapons while moving at top speed?(1) As stated before, what I prefer is sprint to remain as it was in Halo 5 (or to be enhanced and expanded upon). The second best alternative to that is to “sprint,” while being able to fire small arms. Lastly to be able to “sprint,” while shooting all weapons is definitely not my first (or even second choice) but would just be a much better compromise than cutting sprint entirely… I say “compromise,” because I’d be letting go of sprint as I prefer it to be- which is essentially how it has been in modern Halo up to this point. “Sprinting,” while being able to shoot is very closely aligned to @tsassi’s proposed changes to movement mechanics- you could even set up the walking speeds to function exactly in the paremeters that tsassi’s suggesting. The only difference is that there would still be two permanent BMS’, with the ability the run faster via another button. - Also, is there a reason why a button press is required to sprint?(2) Sure there is- the ability to properly control temporary increases to your speed is important and it’s better for gameplay to empower the player to be able to decide upon movement boosts beyond 100% normal speed, based upon the situation at hand. - Also also, is there a reason why sprint must only be in a forward manner?. Like, couldn’t we sprint sideways and backwards too?(3) Seems totally unnecessary and irrelevant to me as I’m pretty certain you’re joking anyway… Okay then… Bye bye now.
But how would being able to shoot while sprinting hurt gameplay?. You’ve only argued that players need two speed settings and that you wouldn’t like sprint with weapons, as opposed to arguing the negative effects such a design choice would have on gameplay. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "expand or enhance?, because with 3) I’m actually talking (and going to talk further) about expanding and enhancing sprint, but you’ve dismissed the idea.
Unless you aim using full pushes of the right stick all the time, this argument is invalid. You are either suggesting you don’t have proper control over your aim without another mechanic such as ADS/zoom, or that the left stick is somehow less capable of registering movement than the right stick. The left stick already recognises 2-3 movement speeds to ‘better gameplay to empower the player to be able to decide upon movement boosts based upon the situation at hand’.
Let’s not avoid a question because we don’t like it. Let’s entertain this idea and see where this takes us. Doing so helps us explore new ideas and question what is important about certain mechanics. You never know, this could actually improve sprint. Would you be against a weapons-down sprint that also allowed us to move ‘beyond 100%’ in any direction?, and if so, why?.
> 2533274795123910;16239:
> > 2535444702990491;16232:
> > I understand the concept.
> >
> > In this instance its deceitful because the person is pretending to project their argument on the grounds that they truly believe that lore supports their anti sprint agenda. I totally comprehend what it is and what they were doing; and playing devils advocate is indeed a justifiable approach to many debates (particularly during legal proceedings) under the pretense that it’s built upon an honest argument. In this instance the person pushing the argument clearly doesn’t believe either a) lore supports their anti sprint agenda or b) lore should even be considered at all during gameplay decisions. So in this case it’s totally dishonest to utilize this tactic in this debate because the person doesn’t believe that lore should be considered in this debated either way. It would be different, for instance, if the person actually believed that lore benefited gameplay but pushed an agenda to the anterior of their perspective stance on the issue to raise an additional layer of thought and perspective on the topic.
>
> First of all, I’m still not getting it. You were presented an argument, and your response is going at it how “honest” it is?
> No one should see things from the other side’s point of view, and question things from that side in a DA manner because the original view isn’t the same as the point of view you’re looking at?
>
> Second, how is any of that even relevant? The only thing you’ve managed to do was attack the argument Ad Hominem style, whatever is called.
Questioning the foundation of an argument is akin to questioning the veracity of a source. For instance in law enforcement if someone provides an anonymous tip the law enforcement official receiving it wouldn’t immediately take the information at face value and automatically act upon it. The person’s motives behind submitting the tip could be flawed and potentially even aimed at misleading their intended audience to benefit their personal agenda.
I’ve discussed my opinions behind why I believe that sprint (or at the very least two permanent BMS’) is supported by lore but the discussion invariably leads to tangents; such as anti sprinters using the approach we’re talking about (Where, in actuality, they don’t even believe lore should be a part of this discussion in the first place). If that’s the case- that it takes a fundamentally dishonest approach for anti sprinters to even want to debate lore in this discussion, then to me it doesn’t serve any further benefit to continue down this particular path of logic at this time.
> 2535444702990491;16241:
> > 2533274795123910;16239:
> > > 2535444702990491;16232:
> > > I understand the concept.
> > >
> > > In this instance its deceitful because the person is pretending to project their argument on the grounds that they truly believe that lore supports their anti sprint agenda. I totally comprehend what it is and what they were doing; and playing devils advocate is indeed a justifiable approach to many debates (particularly during legal proceedings) under the pretense that it’s built upon an honest argument. In this instance the person pushing the argument clearly doesn’t believe either a) lore supports their anti sprint agenda or b) lore should even be considered at all during gameplay decisions. So in this case it’s totally dishonest to utilize this tactic in this debate because the person doesn’t believe that lore should be considered in this debated either way. It would be different, for instance, if the person actually believed that lore benefited gameplay but pushed an agenda to the anterior of their perspective stance on the issue to raise an additional layer of thought and perspective on the topic.
> >
> > First of all, I’m still not getting it. You were presented an argument, and your response is going at it how “honest” it is?
> > No one should see things from the other side’s point of view, and question things from that side in a DA manner because the original view isn’t the same as the point of view you’re looking at?
> >
> > Second, how is any of that even relevant? The only thing you’ve managed to do was attack the argument Ad Hominem style, whatever is called.
>
> Questioning the foundation of an argument is akin to questioning the veracity of a source. For instance in law enforcement if someone provides an anonymous tip the law enforcement official receiving it wouldn’t immediately take the information at face value and automatically act upon it. The person’s motives behind submitting the tip could be flawed and potentially even aimed at misleading their intended audience to benefit their personal agenda.
>
> I’ve discussed my opinions behind why I believe that sprint (or at the very least two permanent BMS’) is supported by lore but the discussion invariably leads to tangents; such as anti sprinters using the approach we’re talking about (Where, in actuality, they don’t even believe lore should be a part of this discussion in the first place). If that’s the case- that it takes a fundamentally dishonest approach for anti sprinters to even want to debate lore in this discussion, then to me it doesn’t serve any further benefit to continue down this particular path of logic at this time.
An argument is an argument, the provider of the argument does not have to be of a specific opinion to be allowed to make it.
An anonymous tip for law enforcement is not an argument, it’s a piece of information.
This is essentially you dictating who’s allowed to make which arguments and on what grounds they are allowed or not allowed to debate the way they do. And / or a way for you to justify not having to be bothered with some arguments.
Does the wager fall in the same line?
We “produced nothing” because we’re not allowed to provide what you asked for?
It has yet to even be acknowledged so I don’t know what to make of it.
How about my thoughts on how i343 dictate lore? That it’d be extremely easy for i343 to make it so sprinting wouldn’t make sense for Spartans? I don’t recall having that acknowledged, so it must be dishonest for me to make that point, with accompanied examples, and thus the point is moot?
> 2533274816299345;2:
> Id rather keep sprint.
And since people have a problem with it nerf it so that it lasts a short amount of time eg. 5 seconds then it has a cooldown of 20 seconds forcing the player to engage in gunfights
> 2535456029664360;16243:
> > 2533274816299345;2:
> > Id rather keep sprint.
>
> And since people have a problem with it nerf it so that it lasts a short amount of time eg. 5 seconds then it has a cooldown of 20 seconds forcing the player to engage in gunfights
But the game would still need to be designed around sprint, so the damage to the sandbox and map design would still be present.
> 2533274894112092;16244:
> > 2535456029664360;16243:
> > > 2533274816299345;2:
> > > Id rather keep sprint.
> >
> > And since people have a problem with it nerf it so that it lasts a short amount of time eg. 5 seconds then it has a cooldown of 20 seconds forcing the player to engage in gunfights
>
> But the game would still need to be designed around sprint, so the damage to the sandbox and map design would still be present.
Its really annoying me that people cant stick with one thing. I dont think that new players would join without sprint, but then again it would annoy the OGs.
Will not having sprint in arena but in btb and warzone be betterb??