Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 130
  4. 131
  5. 132
  6. 133
  7. 134
  8. ...
  9. 156
Sprint is bad because it messes with map size and overall pacing of gameplay.
It's been a while since I posted in this thread, but I think i should again, just to add more to the discussion/update my opinions. With Halo Infinite, it seems 343 want to bring back what Halo was, but they also don't want to alienate the newer fans. I think for multiplayer, there will be """""'enhanced"""""" movement, and normal playlists. Enhanced movement will basically be Halo 5, and normal will be either like Halo 3, or closer to Halo 3. I think duel-wielding will make a return, and if it doesn't, I think it will be a huge mistake. I think movement in the normal playlists/campaign will have Sprint, slide, and clamber. I *hope* the Assault rifle will have a zoom function (like SPV3). This gives greater utility and range, and therefore makes it more competitive (hearing nothing but BRRT BRRT BRRT gets quite annoying in multiplayer) NO BLOOM. PLEASE, NO BLOOM. I wish we could have classic gameplay, but that's not realistic.
I think our problem is that we perceive depth differently. That is the focus. Does depth come in a plethora of options or simplicity that's hard to master?
No, that's not it. It's rather that you find significantly lower amounts of depth satisfactory than I do. You consider the introduction of a single very basic tactical decision to be enough to justify a mechanic, while I need so much more. I need for the mechanic to introduce a range of tactics or maneuvers, at varying levels of difficulty, that get used sufficiently frequently. There should ideally be some creative uses of the mechanic different from its intended use case. I need more than a one-trick pony.

Rather than looking at the mechanics we have and saying what stays and what changes, we should look at what kind of gameplay we want and then attach mechanics that will accomplish that vision. That is the only way I can see 343 make the most amount of people happy.
It would definitely elevate the discussion if people could at least lay down some general principles and beliefs they have about gameplay design in Halo. For example, I think that movement mechanics should not interfere with combat abilities, but should support them instead. This lays down the foundation for what types of movement mechanics I'm willing to accept. I value simplicity, which limits how many extra mechanics I'm willing to accept and raises my standard for what is an acceptable mechanic. I believe that movement depth is much more influenced by map design than mechanics, which means one should understand how to make the most of existing mechanics before coming up with new ones. I value the challenge and simplicity of gameplay over my immersion to my character, which means I'm not interested in mechanics which are only interested in making someone more immersed.

However, I have my doubts about whether most people have thought about their preferences far enough that they can that they can speak about them in terms of general principles and beliefs. Maybe the people who regularly partake in this discussion can, but I'm doubtful about the rest.

This post has been hidden.

6
tsassi wrote:
I think our problem is that we perceive depth differently. That is the focus. Does depth come in a plethora of options or simplicity that's hard to master?
No, that's not it. It's rather that you find significantly lower amounts of depth satisfactory than I do. You consider the introduction of a single very basic tactical decision to be enough to justify a mechanic, while I need so much more. I need for the mechanic to introduce a range of tactics or maneuvers, at varying levels of difficulty, that get used sufficiently frequently. There should ideally be some creative uses of the mechanic different from its intended use case. I need more than a one-trick pony.

Rather than looking at the mechanics we have and saying what stays and what changes, we should look at what kind of gameplay we want and then attach mechanics that will accomplish that vision. That is the only way I can see 343 make the most amount of people happy.
It would definitely elevate the discussion if people could at least lay down some general principles and beliefs they have about gameplay design in Halo. For example, I think that movement mechanics should not interfere with combat abilities, but should support them instead. This lays down the foundation for what types of movement mechanics I'm willing to accept. I value simplicity, which limits how many extra mechanics I'm willing to accept and raises my standard for what is an acceptable mechanic. I believe that movement depth is much more influenced by map design than mechanics, which means one should understand how to make the most of existing mechanics before coming up with new ones. I value the challenge and simplicity of gameplay over my immersion to my character, which means I'm not interested in mechanics which are only interested in making someone more immersed.

However, I have my doubts about whether most people have thought about their preferences far enough that they can that they can speak about them in terms of general principles and beliefs. Maybe the people who regularly partake in this discussion can, but I'm doubtful about the rest.
I don't know about the rest because truth be told I have not read more than 5 pages of this thread. I do completely agree though with what you want gameplay to be like. The mechanics added need to have meaning and purpose if any are added at all from the classic games. It's the reason why I still don't want all mechanics from Halo 5 because I don't feel all mechanics give me that. I am hoping that there will be a sweet spot between the classic and new mechanics that will merge the can add. Thanks for elaborating your posts.
Sprinting has become to aggressive. It's primary use should be to quickly buddy up with your team-mates.

So I would increase the risk/reward of sprint by tying it to your shields;
1. You can't initiate sprint unless your shields are 100%
2. While sprinting your shields decay.
3. When you finish sprinting there is a short delay before your shields regenerate.
4. If you are shot while sprinting you immediately drop out of sprint with zero shields.

This will stop players;
a) From over-using sprint (you are very vulnerable if hit).
b) Sprinting away from an engagement (that first hit takes your shields below 100%).
c) Sprinting around the map and cherry picking injured players (by the time you get to the fire fight your shields are down as well).

And in addition I would also; Remove shoulder charge (it's a cheap shot). Adjust the radar so that sprinting players are shown clearly (and early) - maybe a bright colour with an appropriate warning noise - enough at least to give players a chance to protect their backs. And finally, put an absolute limit of sprinting - your shields eventually over heat and seize for a period.
Darwi wrote:
Sprinting has become to aggressive. It's primary use should be to quickly buddy up with your team-mates.

So I would increase the risk/reward of sprint by tying it to your shields;
1. You can't initiate sprint unless your shields are 100%
2. While sprinting your shields decay.
3. When you finish sprinting there is a short delay before your shields regenerate.
4. If you are shot while sprinting you immediately drop out of sprint with zero shields.

This will stop players;
a) From over-using sprint (you are very vulnerable if hit).
b) Sprinting away from an engagement (that first hit takes your shields below 100%).
c) Sprinting around the map and cherry picking injured players (by the time you get to the fire fight your shields are down as well).
I don't get it. You want to keep sprint, but you don't want people to use it all the time, and you want to nerf it to the point where it basically feels awful to use. Tell me: what's the point of a movement mechanic that serves almost no purpose, is rarely used, and is not at all fun to use? What's your end goal? To create a version of sprint that absolutely no one would like?
You don't need to nerf it to the point of no-return.

I'm sure there is a risk reward balance somewhere (the main variable being the rate of shield decay).

Just enough to drag the emphasis from simply being able to run away from an encounter (stay and fight you damn scoundrel)... or effortlessly running long distances to pick off injured players (damn vultures).

Short bursts of sprint to adjust your tactical position is fine. And are indeed important to help break up the tactics of spawn camping weapon hoarders.

Currently, however, unlimited sprint is too powerful and abused offensively (especially combined with the coup de grace of a shoulder charge).
Darwi wrote:
You don't need to nerf it to the point of no-return.

I'm sure there is a risk reward balance somewhere (the main variable being the rate of shield decay).

Just enough to drag the emphasis from simply being able to run away from an encounter (stay and fight you damn scoundrel)... or effortlessly running long distances to pick off injured players (damn vultures).

Short bursts of sprint to adjust your tactical position is fine. And are indeed important to help break up the tactics of spawn camping weapon hoarders.

Currently, however, unlimited sprint is too powerful and abused offensively (especially combined with the coup de grace of a shoulder charge).
But the thing is that sprint has already been nerfed from how it started in Reach, and the more and more you nerf a mechanic, the more questionable it becomes why you're keeping it around to begin with.

Any good designer would understand that a movement mechanic like sprint is meant to be empowering and fun to use. You want players to use the mechanic as much as reasonably possible and have fun with it. Frankly, the only thing keeping a significant number of players in support of sprint is the fact that they find it immersive and fun to use. If you give them sprint that's frustrating, disempowering, and disappointing to use, you're going to turn a lot of players against yourself. At that point all you have left defending sprint are people who have deluded themselves into thinking that sprint serves some meaningful tactical role.
tsassi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
You don't need to nerf it to the point of no-return.

I'm sure there is a risk reward balance somewhere (the main variable being the rate of shield decay).

Just enough to drag the emphasis from simply being able to run away from an encounter (stay and fight you damn scoundrel)... or effortlessly running long distances to pick off injured players (damn vultures).

Short bursts of sprint to adjust your tactical position is fine. And are indeed important to help break up the tactics of spawn camping weapon hoarders.

Currently, however, unlimited sprint is too powerful and abused offensively (especially combined with the coup de grace of a shoulder charge).
But the thing is that sprint has already been nerfed from how it started in Reach, and the more and more you nerf a mechanic, the more questionable it becomes why you're keeping it around to begin with.

Any good designer would understand that a movement mechanic like sprint is meant to be empowering and fun to use. You want players to use the mechanic as much as reasonably possible and have fun with it. Frankly, the only thing keeping a significant number of players in support of sprint is the fact that they find it immersive and fun to use. If you give them sprint that's frustrating, disempowering, and disappointing to use, you're going to turn a lot of players against yourself. At that point all you have left defending sprint are people who have deluded themselves into thinking that sprint serves some meaningful tactical role.
Sprint is fine in Halo 5. You cannot Sprint away in the middle of a firefight. Taking away Spartan charge alone would be a nerf to Sprint because it is currently an escape goat for using it poorly. Tsassi is right, the ability will no longer be fun to use but actually become frustrating to those who see it as immersive. I don't even agree on the whole immersion thing of Sprint because that can be achieved in multiple different ways such as graphics, map design, animations, and a higher base movement speed.
Unknown wrote:
As 343 have been very vocal about dubbing Infinite as a 'spiritual reboot', I feel this is the most likely opportunity to return back to more traditional Halo gameplay mechanics.

Taking into account the momentum from 343's new direction and the expectations that come with their new focus - I'd say the return of classic mechanics, will benefit 343 commercially and reputation wise, much more than it would damage them.

Personally I'd actually like for thruster to remain (can be switched off in custom games) and for sprint and all other AA's to be removed. I'd also like them to build on equipment from h3.
Believe it or not, I didn't get my hopes up when I saw the new trailer. People seem to forget about Halo 5, like it never happened. Until I see actual gameplay footage, I know I'm not wasting money on the new Xbox. For those of you veterans that are still left, if Infinite fails, I highly recommend switching to Siege. It's very competitive and new content is always being released. Ironically enough, it was released the same year as Halo 5 yet has more players. Almost everybody uses mics too.
I can't believe that I'm actually playing another FPS for the first time in years. It feels weird, but at the same time, it's like a huge weight was taken off my shoulders. Microsoft really needs to step their game up instead of selling bodywash and shampoo. They're losing customers.
I agree with you but I feel like they'll get it done right this time, really do hope that I'm right about that.
Still looking for the compromise between the classic and the improvements, so I am going back very far back to Halo Combat Evolved which had fall damage.
So clamber it makes it easier to go up but again going up is not the problem it is the long way down that could be worse. So if fall damage was back that would act as a cap to the clamber. The higher you go the more you risk in the fall unless you could cushion it somehow (If they came to hear me beg).
Still looking for the compromise between the classic and the improvements, so I am going back very far back to Halo Combat Evolved which had fall damage.
So clamber it makes it easier to go up but again going up is not the problem it is the long way down that could be worse. So if fall damage was back that would act as a cap to the clamber. The higher you go the more you risk in the fall unless you could cushion it somehow (If they came to hear me beg).
I guess the lack of replies to this idea gives the impression that most people (at least in this thread) simply don't care one way or the other about fall damage. Not many maps consistently put you in situations where fall damage is an active threat, and even pulling off that one achievement is done in less than a handful of places in Campaign and Multiplayer.

I guess with the inclusion of Ground Pound, could you even implement fall damage on top? Its very nature implies you to go really high and land at lethal speeds, something fall damage would punish you for doing.

It's not like fall damage has to be in because its the "classic-est" of the classic because "classic" isn't a checklist that's written in stone, the same way "modern" isn't a checklist that a game needs to fulfill to be satisfactory.
Still looking for the compromise between the classic and the improvements, so I am going back very far back to Halo Combat Evolved which had fall damage.
So clamber it makes it easier to go up but again going up is not the problem it is the long way down that could be worse. So if fall damage was back that would act as a cap to the clamber. The higher you go the more you risk in the fall unless you could cushion it somehow (If they came to hear me beg).
I guess the lack of replies to this idea gives the impression that most people (at least in this thread) simply don't care one way or the other about fall damage. Not many maps consistently put you in situations where fall damage is an active threat, and even pulling off that one achievement is done in less than a handful of places in Campaign and Multiplayer.

I guess with the inclusion of Ground Pound, could you even implement fall damage on top? Its very nature implies you to go really high and land at lethal speeds, something fall damage would punish you for doing.

It's not like fall damage has to be in because its the "classic-est" of the classic because "classic" isn't a checklist that's written in stone, the same way "modern" isn't a checklist that a game needs to fulfill to be satisfactory.
The lack of replies I see was mostly due to the banter back and forth between a few people burying it. I didn't make a new thread because well talking about movement mechanics and the differences between the old and the new and this was one of the mechanics in the first game, but again the debate seems a bit off since classic mechanics changed back with Halo 2. Still I wanted to see if there is an input on fall damage or not without having a mod lock the thread and tell me to post it here.

Ground pound does seem to be the biggest thing with fall damage and likely the reason why it was removed. As far as I understand fall damage being removed allowed you to take a banshee and ditch it to drop down on the opposing team. Ground pound completely inverse the concept of fall damage turning it into a risk on some paths to a weapon.

Now back on modern the only modern mechanics I am against was granting all these abilities at all times. I prefer if the abilities were pick ups or selections of what kind of abilities. I liked when Reach took two of the equipment that went well together like bubble shield and regen and put them in as the combo. I am not against sprint, clamber, and ground pound being in the next game, but I am against all of them being standard abilities instead of selected options/pickups that forces you to be aware of your inventory.
Still looking for the compromise between the classic and the improvements, so I am going back very far back to Halo Combat Evolved which had fall damage.
So clamber it makes it easier to go up but again going up is not the problem it is the long way down that could be worse. So if fall damage was back that would act as a cap to the clamber. The higher you go the more you risk in the fall unless you could cushion it somehow (If they came to hear me beg).
Situations where you'd be affected by fall damage in a meaningful way are rare, especially with modern map design that's very flat. Failing completely with Clamber is also, by design, very rare. So, fall damage is not any real deterrent to Clamber. In general, unless the map design takes advantage of it, fall damage is just not all that relevant most of the time, which is why I don't think people feel very passionately about it one way or the other.
tsassi wrote:
Still looking for the compromise between the classic and the improvements, so I am going back very far back to Halo Combat Evolved which had fall damage.
So clamber it makes it easier to go up but again going up is not the problem it is the long way down that could be worse. So if fall damage was back that would act as a cap to the clamber. The higher you go the more you risk in the fall unless you could cushion it somehow (If they came to hear me beg).
Situations where you'd be affected by fall damage in a meaningful way are rare, especially with modern map design that's very flat. Failing completely with Clamber is also, by design, very rare. So, fall damage is not any real deterrent to Clamber. In general, unless the map design takes advantage of it, fall damage is just not all that relevant most of the time, which is why I don't think people feel very passionately about it one way or the other.
Yeah, the modern maps do feel flat and I think clamber exasperates this perception as well. There have been maps that have made good use of it though. But the conversation does seem like the mechanics influence the map design and not the other way around.
God lets hope the old mechanics make a comeback, I used to play halo 2, 3, reach and ODST for 4 straight hours before and whenever I play the new games I just feel sick from all that flying and sliding i just have to take a break after 30 min because its TOO MUCH, Halo now feels like any other AAA shooter and doesn't feel like Halo anymore which is a shame because the great franchise with millions of players is getting shaped into something its not and all aspects of the game are suffering for it from map design to game play.
I know that some people like the new mechanics but here is my thought on it and I hope that someone in 343 listens to me.
Definitely agree that shoulder charge needs to go. It's just cheap and nasty.

As for 'nerfing' sprint - all mechanics in the game are essentially 'nerfed'. The software could easily make grenades infinite in number and equivalent to mini-nukes in their damage - but they are 'nerfed' to little pop tarts so that they fill their role in the game.

Adding some restrictions to sprint shouldn't automatically make it redundant.

And yep... I'm a bit old school in regards to fall damage. I would be more than happy to give up ground pounding to get fall damage back.

Oh... and bubble shield. Huge fan!
Darwi wrote:
As for 'nerfing' sprint - all mechanics in the game are essentially 'nerfed'. The software could easily make grenades infinite in number and equivalent to mini-nukes in their damage - but they are 'nerfed' to little pop tarts so that they fill their role in the game.
Excuse me, what?
I get the feeling you mean something entitely different than the way I understand this wording. Or are you seriously saying something is "nerfed" because it potentially could be better?
And you do not mean that it has been nerfed as it was better in a previous iteration?

Darwi wrote:
Adding some restrictions to sprint shouldn't automatically make it redundant.
How do you impose restrictions on a feature without making it less usefull, and as a result, more redundant?
Every feature in the Halo sandbox is on a spectrum... from useless / fully redundant all the way up to God like.

Sprint, jumping, power ups, aim assist... everything.

Active camo for example... could be permanent, fully invisible (no shimmer), and no have no changes when sprinting, firing, or taking damage. But that would be silly... so it's 'nerfed' back to a point where it fits it's role in the game.

The nigh on impossible job for developers is finding where on the spectrum each aspect best sits... balancing the sandbox.

Grenades, for example, have undergone multiple nerfs and boosts over the lifetime of Halo...

Sprint is no different. Personally I think Halo 5 it is a bit too far to the right of the spectrum (especially with shoulder charge). Adding some restrictions would certainly make it 'less useful'... but not necessarily completely redundant.

Unless of course your bias is that it wasn't useful in the first place :)

And sorry if my turn of phrase muddied the waters. I was using 'nerf' and 'more redundant' to describe a more subtle softening. I appreciate that these terms usually imply a harsher restriction.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 130
  4. 131
  5. 132
  6. 133
  7. 134
  8. ...
  9. 156