Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 131
  4. 132
  5. 133
  6. 134
  7. 135
  8. ...
  9. 156
Darwi wrote:
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.

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

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.

Grenades 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 making something 'more redundant' is not the same as making something completely redundant.

Unless of course your bias is that it wasn't useful in the first place :)
Or we can just pull a dual wielding and just remove it... It baffles me that folks pretend there isn't any precedent for removing mechanics and focus all their efforts on finding the mythical "balance" or "compromise" that will please everyone but sometimes it just doesn't exist. Two opposing sides do not always have a middle ground.
And the more variables you add the harder it is to balance the overall sandbox.

Having said that... Dual wielding just sucked. :)
WerepyreND wrote:
Darwi wrote:
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.

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

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.

Grenades 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 making something 'more redundant' is not the same as making something completely redundant.

Unless of course your bias is that it wasn't useful in the first place :)
Or we can just pull a dual wielding and just remove it... It baffles me that folks pretend there isn't any precedent for removing mechanics and focus all their efforts on finding the mythical "balance" or "compromise" that will please everyone but sometimes it just doesn't exist. Two opposing sides do not always have a middle ground.
Well as Darwi said everything has sort of gone through many changes over the past years from advanced movement to no movement. Funny thing is that when I talk about fall damage most people on the "Classic Movement" camp are opposed to that. If I was to categorize the games from classic movement (restrictive) to advance movement (super powers) this is how I would rate them.
  1. Halo ODST
  2. Halo CE
  3. Halo Reach
  4. Halo 2
  5. Halo 3
  6. Halo 4
  7. Halo 5
Go ahead and disagree with this rating
WerepyreND wrote:
Darwi wrote:
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.

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

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.

Grenades 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 making something 'more redundant' is not the same as making something completely redundant.

Unless of course your bias is that it wasn't useful in the first place :)
Or we can just pull a dual wielding and just remove it... It baffles me that folks pretend there isn't any precedent for removing mechanics and focus all their efforts on finding the mythical "balance" or "compromise" that will please everyone but sometimes it just doesn't exist. Two opposing sides do not always have a middle ground.
Well as Darwi said everything has sort of gone through many changes over the past years from advanced movement to no movement. Funny thing is that when I talk about fall damage most people on the "Classic Movement" camp are opposed to that. If I was to categorize the games from classic movement (restrictive) to advance movement (super powers) this is how I would rate them.
  1. Halo ODST
  2. Halo CE
  3. Halo Reach
  4. Halo 2
  5. Halo 3
  6. Halo 4
  7. Halo 5
Go ahead and disagree with this rating
I mostly just found the framing of sprint as just another another mechanic in need of some "balancing" to be unfair as we clearly have a history of dropping major mechanics. I also disagree with the notion that classic Halo is more restrictive and NuHalo is less restrictive respectively. Classic Halo(fall damage or not) isn't "restricted" by not having sprint because the games are build from the ground up without it, you can't miss what you don't have. Its also "restricted" by genre trappings like being a shooter by that logic.

Likewise Halo 5 isn't any less "restrictive" because of its mechanics for the simple reason that sprinting and clamber are requirements to be effective on maps designed for them, its all relative to the individual game not the franchise as a whole. To add on to one of my previous posts. More options =/= more depth or player freedom.
I think I prefer the modern movement mechanics because they encourage movement around the map. I'm not a fan of the classic triangle; camping, weapon hoarding, and spawn sniping. I like to see teams moving around and actively seeking out confrontation.

As discussed - I would keep sprint... it just needs to be toned down a bit offensively.

Clamber I like. But not at the expense of good map design. A skilled player should be able to negotiate the core routes with clean jumps - leaving the clamberer at a disadvantage.

Thrusters are handy in their primary role of 'nade dodging (or denying a sloppy sniper their second shot). But tend to be a bit over-used? Nothing a longer recharge delay wouldn't fix.

Spartan charge needs to go. Now. FOREVER.

I also like a longer time to kill. There should be time for suitably skilled players to turn the tables, even if they are initially caught unawares.

I would prefer less emphasis on power weapons and power ups. They are an important game mechanic - something worth fighting over... but I'm not a fan of huge active camo sword sprees. Make these things less frequent, with shorter timers, less ammo, etc.

Weapons should have a certain cadence to them. From that point of view recoil probably works better than the randomness of bloom. Maybe a system instead where if you fire certain weapons too fast then you start to get less aim assist / bullet magnetism? This would be a good way to simultaneously penalise trigger spammers... while also giving a bit of an advantage to the skilled amongst us.

Not so fussed about Ground Pound - but would prefer to see fall damage reinstated.

Of the older abilities. Jet pack was ok. Loved the bubble shield. Again... everything in moderation.

I think the radar needs to be enhanced - particularly to give you warning about players incoming at speed (especially from behind).

And talking about vulnerability from behind... how about a 180 degree turn button? We are very vulnerable from behind... and it wouldn't hurt to have some protection vs sprinters / clamberers. This would also even up the potential controllers vs KBM play a bit?
i really hope they bring back the classic gameplay mechanics, i absolutely despise the new mechanics that are infesting all shooter games at the moment and are inevitably hurting the map design and gameplay itself with its inclusion and if they did go back then it would be a great beacon that would positively highlight Halo above all other FPS

343i has the perfect chance to bring it back and here is how. chief has a new armor and i believe that it's a new generation, if this is true then you can say that this new gen doesn't have jet-pack and the abilities to do all that stuff that H4/H5 does. the beauty of using this is that 343i can pick and choose whatever abilities they want to keep so perhaps sprint would be too radical of a change so you keep it but remove all others.

I relly hope they bring back the old mechanics.
Darwi wrote:
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.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.
That first paragraph throws me off, it seems to me like you imply ecerything is nerfed because it can be better, no matter of we've seen it before or not.

Spartan Charge is it's own feature, and should as such be considered on its own merits, the only link is that sprint is a prerequisit for charging, which could just as easily not be there.
Also, more redundant does not mean "completely redundant".

There's what I like, then there's what a feature is and what it does.
Sprint's "get places faster" is a solution to an issue it creates itself based on the metrics set by map designers. As such it's not really useful there. I don't see a need for sprint in that sense as there are other solutions to the supposed problem of not getting places fast.

Now, Sprint is useful for increasing the odds of escaping an encounter, that's one one useful thing with it, however that has been neuteref by the lack of Shields recharge. But, it's not something useful which I like, it's not gameplay I enjoy.

Nerfing usually means that something has seen an overall decreased in power from previous iterations.
Darwi wrote:
I think I prefer the modern movement mechanics because they encourage movement around the map. I'm not a fan of the classic triangle; camping, weapon hoarding, and spawn sniping. I like to see teams moving around and actively seeking out confrontation.
But, in what way does sprinting encourage you to move around the map? In what way does clamber on its own make you actively seek out confrontations?

I'd attribute map movement on weapons, power ups and power positions, and seeking out confrontations to the goal of the game mode.

Camping and spawn sniping are not movement related issues, and slapping Advanced movement on an older Halo with these supposed issues, would not magically make them disappear.
Weapon hoarding? How is that in any way related to map movement?

Darwi wrote:
As discussed - I would keep sprint... it just needs to be toned down a bit offensively.
As far as I'm concerned, sprint has no offensive attributes.

Darwi wrote:
Clamber I like. But not at the expense of good map design. A skilled player should be able to negotiate the core routes with clean jumps - leaving the clamberer at a disadvantage.
Clamber still allows a second chance to poorly executed jumps, and it's not like clambering is that much of a disadvantage.

Darwi wrote:
Thrusters are handy in their primary role of 'nade dodging (or denying a sloppy sniper their second shot). But tend to be a bit over-used? Nothing a longer recharge delay wouldn't fix.
So, lessen the frequency a player can use a base player ability, rendering it less useful.

Darwi wrote:
Spartan charge needs to go. Now. FOREVER.
Hardly.
This mechanic could be fixed by making it a "charging" ability in the same manner as Laser and Rail Gun, meaning it's less reactionary and more planned.

Darwi wrote:
I also like a longer time to kill. There should be time for suitably skilled players to turn the tables, even if they are initially caught unawares.
Making escaping easier with sprint as there's a larger window of opportunity to escape.

Darwi wrote:
I would prefer less emphasis on power weapons and power ups. They are an important game mechanic - something worth fighting over... but I'm not a fan of huge active camo sword sprees. Make these things less frequent, with shorter timers, less ammo, etc.
As mentioned earlier, as I attribute map movement to things that are in the map, you'd decrease the incentive to move around when there's nothing worthwhile to move to.

Darwi wrote:
And talking about vulnerability from behind... how about a 180 degree turn button? We are very vulnerable from behind... and it wouldn't hurt to have some protection vs sprinters / clamberers. This would also even up the potential controllers vs KBM play a bit?
I thought clamberers were at disadvantage?
Darwi wrote:
I think I prefer the modern movement mechanics because they encourage movement around the map. [...] I like to see teams moving around and actively seeking out confrontation.
Darwi wrote:
I would prefer less emphasis on power weapons and power ups.
These statements are contradictory, because, as Naqser already pointed out, the incentive of players to move around the map has to do with map design more than anything. You need to give the player an incentive to move away from their present position, and map pick ups provide just such an incentive. The presence of power weapons is what makes players seek out confrontation.

Darwi wrote:
I think the radar needs to be enhanced - particularly to give you warning about players incoming at speed (especially from behind).
Or how about we just get rid of radar altogether? It has always been a crutch that players can rely on. The game is much more interesting when players need to rely on awareness of their surroundings and predict the movements of their oppnents rather than having the game tell them if somebody is behind their back.
Darwi wrote:
I think I prefer the modern movement mechanics because they encourage movement around the map. I'm not a fan of the classic triangle; camping, weapon hoarding, and spawn sniping. I like to see teams moving around and actively seeking out confrontation.
I actually love how Halo's competitive gameplay is focused around power weapons and map control. Both things provide incentives to move around (pick up a weapon before the enemy team does/move to control an area where a pw is about to spawn) and add strategy to a game mode that in most games is limited to aimlessly wander around the map while looking for kills. So I really hope they're not changing that aspect which is pretty much a pillar in the Halo multiplayer gameplay.
tsassi wrote:
how about we just get rid of radar altogether? It has always been a crutch that players can rely on. The game is much more interesting when players need to rely on awareness of their surroundings and predict the movements of their oppnents rather than having the game tell them if somebody is behind their back.
As much as this is also a staple in the series, I'd like them to take the radar out in competitive modes. This should be not done without some changes though. I'd make the sound effects from close opponents a tad stronger and generally improve the sound experience to allow players to properly understand where they're coming from. I think it would be a fair trade and there are some FPS games that in recent years did this sound part very well.

I've been out of the loop for a while, but what's the general consensus on the radar? I think I remember it being off in hardcore playlists in H3 but being on in most ranked playlists, but I have no idea what the community thinks of it.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the topic at hand.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Naqser wrote:
But, in what way does sprinting encourage you to move around the map? In what way does clamber on its own make you actively seek out confrontations?
My experience of early Halo was of teams grabbing the power weapons (hoarding) and then controlling parts of the map (camping) so that it was very difficult to wrest control off them. You were pretty much a sitting duck every time you tried to move on their position. Spawn sniping was a big part of that (but less so as the games got smarter).

Now... with sprint, thrusters, sliding, and more vertical movement (where clamber comes in)... it is harder to pick off teams rushing at your position... so the flow of the game seems to involve more movement around the map.

Naqser wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, sprint has no offensive attributes.
Combined with shoulder charge - definitely.

But also with rushing to fire fights with the aim of cleaning up any survivors. Damn vultures. Which is why I would decay the shields on anyone sprinting.

Naqser wrote:
Clamber still allows a second chance to poorly executed jumps, and it's not like clambering is that much of a disadvantage.[\quote]It's a reasonable disadvantage if your opponent gets away from you (or gets to the active camo first)... of if you lose contact with your squad and are picked off on your lonesome... or if you are trying to get away from someone chasing you.

Naqser wrote:
So, lessen the frequency a player can use a base player ability, rendering it less useful.
Every aspect of the game can be bumped or dampened. Something may be less useful... but it doesn't make it useless. And if it fits better in the overall sandbox then wouldn't that would be good for the game?

Naqser wrote:
re: spartan charge... This mechanic could be fixed by making it a "charging" ability in the same manner as Laser and Rail Gun, meaning it's less reactionary and more planned.
It's bad in it's current form. Your idea doesn't sound too bad. Although I really do struggle with the rail gun... so I would be subject to epic fails at the shoulder charge. :)

Naqser wrote:
Making escaping easier with sprint as there's a larger window of opportunity to escape.
Every change would have a consequence. I just like the idea of nearly every encounter being a fair fight. The current time to kill feels pretty good in Halo 5... but I'm a tinkerer at heart... and would slide it up a smidge.

Naqser wrote:
As mentioned earlier, as I attribute map movement to things that are in the map, you'd decrease the incentive to move around when there's nothing worthwhile to move to.
Yep, as I said power ups and the big guns are an important game mechanic. I would just dial them back a bit. Particularly the amount of ammo.

Naqser wrote:
I thought clamberers were at disadvantage?
For quick map movement yes... but here I was using them more as a reference for vertical movement... where you can get up high and then drop down behind an opponent.
Darwi wrote:
My experience of early Halo was of teams grabbing the power weapons (hoarding) and then controlling parts of the map (camping) so that it was very difficult to wrest control off them. You were pretty much a sitting duck every time you tried to move on their position. Spawn sniping was a big part of that (but less so as the games got smarter).
None of this answers how the advanced movement mechanics make players move around the map.
And neither are any of those "issues" related to what kind of movement you have access to.

Darwi wrote:
Now... with sprint, thrusters, sliding, and more vertical movement (where clamber comes in)... it is harder to pick off teams rushing at your position... so the flow of the game seems to involve more movement around the map.
Or we can forfeit the notion that adding more mechanics which reduce your offensive capabilities allow you to move more freely around a map, and instead consider that over the years that map design has changed allowing more movement in pressed situations.

Darwi wrote:
Combined with shoulder charge - definitely.
But Spartan Charge is not sprinting.
Spartan Charge is its own mechanic, it could easily not have been tied to sprinting at all.

Darwi wrote:
But also with rushing to fire fights with the aim of cleaning up any survivors. Damn vultures. Which is why I would decay the shields on anyone sprinting.
Nothing wrong with cleaning up survivors after a firefight in a game where you're supposed to kill off your enemies.
You want to punish people for moving at top speed by draining their shields?

Darwi wrote:
It's a reasonable disadvantage if your opponent gets away from you (or gets to the active camo first)... of if you lose contact with your squad and are picked off on your lonesome... or if you are trying to get away from someone chasing you.
Still get a second chance at any jump you fail.
You gotta fail quite hard to not be able to clamber, or miss that opportunity.
Either you make the good jump and get away from your enemies, or you don't make it and get a second chance to get back with your squad. Losing 1 second is far more desireable to losing 10 seconds.

Darwi wrote:
Every aspect of the game can be bumped or dampened. Something may be less useful... but it doesn't make it useless. And if it fits better in the overall sandbox then wouldn't that would be good for the game?
It being less useful =/= useless. Why decrease the usefullness of Thrusters?

Darwi wrote:
Every change would have a consequence. I just like the idea of nearly every encounter being a fair fight. The current time to kill feels pretty good in Halo 5... but I'm a tinkerer at heart... and would slide it up a smidge.
Every player should strive to make all encounters they have to be unfair in their advantage with the tools at their disposal, in order to increase the odds of winning, that includes getting power weapons, running with a team and learning the maps by heart.

With a higher kill time, matches will drag out longer as people get bigger chances of succesfully escaping.

Darwi wrote:
Yep, as I said power ups and the big guns are an important game mechanic. I would just dial them back a bit. Particularly the amount of ammo.
Reducing their overall significance meaning less incentive to move about.

Darwi wrote:
For quick map movement yes... but here I was using them more as a reference for vertical movement... where you can get up high and then drop down behind an opponent.
And lastly, maps are designed with the mechanics in mind, and I dare say that the map designers have made sure that the map inspires/require to some degree using the newer mechanics.
Any clamberer would in a clamber-less game still have reached you in the clamber-less game because the jumps were supposed to be made.
Darwi wrote:
Quote:
I think I prefer the modern movement mechanics because they encourage movement around the map. I'm not a fan of the classic triangle; camping, weapon hoarding, and spawn sniping. I like to see teams moving around and actively seeking out confrontation.

As discussed - I would keep sprint... it just needs to be toned down a bit offensively.

Clamber I like. But not at the expense of good map design. A skilled player should be able to negotiate the core routes with clean jumps - leaving the clamberer at a disadvantage.

Thrusters are handy in their primary role of 'nade dodging (or denying a sloppy sniper their second shot). But tend to be a bit over-used? Nothing a longer recharge delay wouldn't fix.

Spartan charge needs to go. Now. FOREVER.

I also like a longer time to kill. There should be time for suitably skilled players to turn the tables, even if they are initially caught unawares.I would prefer less emphasis on power weapons and power ups. They are an important game mechanic - something worth fighting over... but I'm not a fan of huge active camo sword sprees. Make these things less frequent, with shorter timers, less ammo, etc.

Weapons should have a certain cadence to them. From that point of view recoil probably works better than the randomness of bloom. Maybe a system instead where if you fire certain weapons too fast then you start to get less aim assist / bullet magnetism? This would be a good way to simultaneously penalise trigger spammers... while also giving a bit of an advantage to the skilled amongst us.

Not so fussed about Ground Pound - but would prefer to see fall damage reinstated.

Of the older abilities. Jet pack was ok. Loved the bubble shield. Again... everything in moderation.

I think the radar needs to be enhanced - particularly to give you warning about players incoming at speed (especially from behind).

And talking about vulnerability from behind... how about a 180 degree turn button? We are very vulnerable from behind... and it wouldn't hurt to have some protection vs sprinters / clamberers. This would also even up the potential controllers vs KBM play a bit?
That would be a short TTK with a longer average TTK like with the pistol in Halo CE. It could kill in 3 shots but on average it took more, rewarding more skilled players and allowing them to reverse situations where they were shot first. It worked well because it was projectile, requiring you to lead your shots. However a short TTK doesn't work with sprint because of the increased aim assist and bullet magnetism.
tsassi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
I think I prefer the modern movement mechanics because they encourage movement around the map. [...] I like to see teams moving around and actively seeking out confrontation.
Darwi wrote:
I would prefer less emphasis on power weapons and power ups.
These statements are contradictory, because, as Naqser already pointed out, the incentive of players to move around the map has to do with map design more than anything. You need to give the player an incentive to move away from their present position, and map pick ups provide just such an incentive. The presence of power weapons is what makes players seek out confrontation.

Darwi wrote:
I think the radar needs to be enhanced - particularly to give you warning about players incoming at speed (especially from behind).
Or how about we just get rid of radar altogether? It has always been a crutch that players can rely on. The game is much more interesting when players need to rely on awareness of their surroundings and predict the movements of their oppnents rather than having the game tell them if somebody is behind their back.
100% agree with the first half of this. Power ups and power weapons make you move. I was playing last night even and the amount of times my team and I said we have to move to get invis. or OS was ridiculous. If you remove such things there would be little to no reason to change positions on the map.

The second half to do with radar I don't totally agree on. I don't see radar as a crutch. I see it as a different style of play. I've been playing since CE and have been too a PILE of local LAN tournaments over the years where some of them was with radar on some of them was with radar off. When playing with my friends we also sometimes had it on, sometimes we had it off. It's just different.

With radar on, I know where the enemy is but the enemy also knows where I am. That changes how you think, your tactics, you're approached, everything. One could argue with radar on, especially in Halo 5 with thrusters, that a player out smarted they're opponent with a well time thrust to avoid a Spartan charge, grenade, Melee etc. And could do it in part because of radar. Things like assassinations or hits from behind are much harder to do in radar games.

Where as no radar one could argue that a skilled player could easily be beat down from behind by not a skilled player by just running up and hitting them from behind in battle. With radar that rarely happens. To me there isn't anything special or skillful when this happens. I'd rather see a player out smart there opponent by avoiding death by doing something like a well timed jump (ninja) or couching to miss a shot or whatever.

Watching competitively in Halo 5, I actually find myself enjoying matches that have radar more than matches that don't. Playing competitively, I'm indifferent but in Halo 5 I lean more towards liking radar actually. I just find more crazier plays happen with it than without it.

No radar has its advantages too, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that radar is better than no radar or anything like this either. I just get tired of people in general saying radar has zero skill or shouldn't be in ranked playlists and such. It's just a different type of game. For me personally, it's a different style of game and I enjoy both.

@ NAG4SE as far as what the majority of community likes radar wise, I think it depends on what style of halo you're talking about. In Halo 5, I'd say that the majority want it social and it'sa good chunk want it in ranked. In like MLG or HCS or whatever, I think it leans more towards not having it but I do know of pros who don't mind it in 5. But in 5 now you also have what they call the ability tracker which means you only show up on radar when using a Spartan ability. I say a lot of people liked it for HCS/MLG etc.

So it's sort depends on what Halo game or style you're talking about when it comes to radar and people liking it or not. For me personally, if it's classic Halo movement aka no sprint animation, I'm pretty indifferent on having radar in social or ranked. In sprint Halo or Halo with Spartan abilities I prefer matches with radar.

As far as I'm concerned, ranked playlists and social should play the same as in, if there's radar in social it should be in ranked, otherwise if it's on in social and a player want to try ranked, they will get destroy the first while at least because it plays so differently that it will turn off a lot of people I feel. I think the best solution has been what's been done for so long and that is social and ranked are the same with radar, but any MLG/HCS playlist in ranked can have its own settings entirely. I think that is the way to go.

There's lots of people that enjoy ranked play and want to be ranked but don't like the style of no radar. I think this is a good compromise and allows people to transition from social to ranked easily and is less intimidating for players who want to try ranked as well.

I know radar isn't talking about the topic at hand per say, but I feel it is relevant though in a way.
People are saying old halos are slower than 5 but honestly if you look at the map stretching and how bigger in general the arena maps are to compensate for the Sprint mechanic sprinting just becomes an illusion at that point. The movement is faster but the maps are bigger therefore they just cancel each other out. Not to mention insane amounts of bullet magnetism and aim assist to account for shooting fast/dashing targets. Halo 3 is very modular and base player traits can be easily edited for custom games. Sprint doesn't need to exist imo. The way you succeed is by being different and Sprint isn't really that innovative.
Dead End 24 thanks for the explanation, I've been out of touch with the competitive community for a while so I don't really know what the general consensus is at the moment.

I don't really mind the radar that much of all the things they could change, but I think it might be interesting to see the difference without it for once and see how it affects the gameplay in mp. If they keep the AAs Halo 5's solution of the ability tracker could work very well though.

I also am all for keeping the gameplay similar between social and ranked for the reasons you expressed and I've talked about it in a different thread. I don't want the community to fragment any further between people who only play social or ranked. I just didn't think the radar being on/off could be such a big difference for players, but I guess it really is.
With radar on, I know where the enemy is but the enemy also knows where I am. That changes how you think, your tactics, you're approached, everything. One could argue with radar on, especially in Halo 5 with thrusters, that a player out smarted they're opponent with a well time thrust to avoid a Spartan charge, grenade, Melee etc. And could do it in part because of radar. Things like assassinations or hits from behind are much harder to do in radar games.

Where as no radar one could argue that a skilled player could easily be beat down from behind by not a skilled player by just running up and hitting them from behind in battle. With radar that rarely happens. To me there isn't anything special or skillful when this happens. I'd rather see a player out smart there opponent by avoiding death by doing something like a well timed jump (ninja) or couching to miss a shot or whatever.

Watching competitively, I actually find myself enjoying matches that have radar more than matches that don't. Playing competitively, I'm indifferent but in Halo 5 I lean more towards liking radar actually. I just find more crazier plays happen with it than without it.

No radar has its advantages too, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that radar is better than no radar or anything like this either. I just get tired of people in general saying radar has zero skill or shouldn't be in ranked playlists and such. It's just a different type of game. For me personally, it's a different style of game and I enjoy both.
The main point I find important here is the extent of awareness the player needs to have about the current state of the game. You're right that running behind an unaware player with no radar takes basically no skill. However, being able to avoid that happening to you does take a tremendous amount of skill. You constantly need to move in a way that minimizes vulnerability to such attacks. You need to monitor not just your immediate surroundings, but try to get into a position where you understand where roughly your enemies are on the map. You need to understand how the spawns work. If you have a team, you need to communicate with your teammates about the locations of opponents. When you have no radar, being aware of where your opponents are is just so much more important, and building that awareness relies on a large number of core skills. This outweighs the skill of performing timed actions using radar.

Naturally, I find no radar matches much more interesting than ones with radar. Lower paced matches like 1v1s can get extremely suspensful when you don't know where your opponent is. The fact that I need to be generally more aware is much interesting to me than not needing to worry about getting surprised. I don't personally find tricks that rely on the radar all that exciting. Sure, a ninja assassination looks cool and is fun when you execute it successfully, but it's a niche trick that relies heavily on the gullibility of the opponent. And even though it's a bit besides the point, I just mention for clarity that ninja assassinations are possible in some circumstances with no radar. They're just a bit more difficult to execute and carry a greater risk.
I'm horrible at quoting, so I'll just post it right away:

Sorry but what? Classic gameplay is known for "less movement" ? If anything, it's quite the opposite when you take the first 3 games as a reference, at least in most cases.
Camping & Spawn Killing have aboslutely nothing to do with some 2-3 Spartan Abilities.

And this is really a coincidence, but recently discovered a thread in the H5 subforum with the title "This is why Warzone Assault isn't permanent"
Just look at the very first post and watch the clip - Thread
Allthough those people were able to shake their arms from left to right, they were not able to escape.
Map movement / beeing able to escape tricky situations or not depend on various other things. Map Layout, team-balance, weapon sandbox, Respawn system, Respawn times and even things like gamemodes, to name a few.

Just because people tend to sprint in a circle all the time it doesn't automatically mean that there is more happening within the game. Chillout, Damnation from CE are maybe one of the maps (if not the most) movement in this Franchise just because of the layout. On the other hand, you have maps like Guardian, Blackout & Sandbox with way less movement, even though CE and 3 are both considered "classic games"

And because Halo is (unlike a lot FPS) a game known for it's great campaigns (or to be more precisely "was known"). When I'm talking about the campaign, I'm not just talking about the story. If the story would be the only thing I care about in a campaign, I'd watch a movie. Components like the Story, Gameplay, Weapon, Level Design Sandbox and AI have to fit well together to guarantee a lot of replayibility.

Do I really have to explain how much 2-3 gimmicky abilities can mess up all the points that have been mentioned right above? Suddenly, you're able to sprint - but all the enemy can't. In order to compensate this, TONS of things had to change and it led to the well known "run OR gun" gameplay in the last few installments. Entire factions like the brutes or the flood wouldn't even fit into this sandbox anymore because of the way you engage them. (Constantly beeing on the move WHILE facing them and not turning your back and look for cover). So, in order to compensate your new abilities, the prometheans w. literally the most annoying abilities have appeared - Teleporting.

To the next point. Clamber makes maps more vertical? I couldn't disagree more. I'd even say that H4 and Guardians have literally the flattest maps of the franchise. Ironically, the 2 installments with the most verticality in my opinion are the ones with fall damage - CE and Reach with maps like Damnation, Death Island, Spire, Sword Base, Boarding Action, Infinity, Gephyrophobia, Hang em High etc. Followed by Halo 2 & 3 w. maps like Relic, Waterworks, Containment, Last Resort, Sandtrap, Epitaph & Longshore.
Guardians has absolutely nothing to offer in contrast to this, at least no dev. made maps from what I remember. Literally the most "vertical" situation is when you're on top of a warzone garage and even this place can be easily reached within seconds through 2 jumps. I can't remember one map that plays vertical like Damnation, Death Island or Waterworks.
This is one point, don't get me even started on the bad map design and the way you traverse the maps in H5 because of clamber - and no, it's not a matter of choice, "Sprint&Clamber-Jumps" are a requirement in various situations in H5, which leads, again to run OR gun gameplay.
I think that's a given. The E3 2018 trailer show a vehicle in a rather vast environment.
Halo Infinite, going by the job offers, will be open world after all.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 131
  4. 132
  5. 133
  6. 134
  7. 135
  8. ...
  9. 156