Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 138
  4. 139
  5. 140
  6. 141
  7. 142
  8. ...
  9. 155
Leocadius wrote:
Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
yes, in a compromise you gain something and lose something.... but who says compromises are good or even if its needed,

classic mechanics are not bare bones, I would say that its the contrary, you could see the skill gap in the classics while the skill gap in the modern is meh at best, you have a get out of jail free card whatever you do therefore no risk, while in the modern games the mechanics and agency are in the player ALWAYS in the classics they are in the sandbox meaning that you need to be much more knowledgeable of the game in the classics than in the modern and while yes you have more controller combos in the modern, more doesn't mean better for player agency on how you play.
NO new mechanics is a classic feel, you can have a classic feel with new mechanics that fundamentally change the game
I would rather have NO abilities in ANY Halo game because the game, player and company are better off without it as is the case with Halo in the Bungie era
I am just saying that alienating one group of players in favor of the other group players isn't likely. I was giving an example of an Ultimatum.
well in 343i case and specially Halo Infinite you WILL ALIENATE a portion of your fans no matter what you do, my point along with what i think is the majority of the players and almost the entirety of the veterans is that if you're going to alienate a group no matter what you do, you might as well go for the option that makes the game objectively better and then go forth from there and the classic system as seen in the Halo's 1, 2 and 3 shows us that this is the best course that 343i has
Leocadius wrote:
Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
yes, in a compromise you gain something and lose something.... but who says compromises are good or even if its needed,

classic mechanics are not bare bones, I would say that its the contrary, you could see the skill gap in the classics while the skill gap in the modern is meh at best, you have a get out of jail free card whatever you do therefore no risk, while in the modern games the mechanics and agency are in the player ALWAYS in the classics they are in the sandbox meaning that you need to be much more knowledgeable of the game in the classics than in the modern and while yes you have more controller combos in the modern, more doesn't mean better for player agency on how you play.
NO new mechanics is a classic feel, you can have a classic feel with new mechanics that fundamentally change the game
I would rather have NO abilities in ANY Halo game because the game, player and company are better off without it as is the case with Halo in the Bungie era
I am just saying that alienating one group of players in favor of the other group players isn't likely. I was giving an example of an Ultimatum.
well in 343i case and specially Halo Infinite you WILL ALIENATE a portion of your fans no matter what you do, my point along with what i think is the majority of the players and almost the entirety of the veterans is that if you're going to alienate a group no matter what you do, you might as well go for the option that makes the game objectively better and then go forth from there and the classic system as seen in the Halo's 1, 2 and 3 shows us that this is the best course that 343i has
Well, I beg to differ on what I prefer, read the other post I tagged you in.
Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
Don't get me wrong, but I feel like you're beeing a bit ignorant and I highly doubt that you understand what "classic movement" is.
I mean, just a few posts above Tsassi clearly stated what "classic" movement really means, yet you ignore the entire post and say the exact same thing again.

What you people suggest (and by you I mean basicially almost every sprint supporter who's suggesting "compromises") can't be taken serious, because all you want is to remove Spartan Abilities that you don't like anyway. This is no compromise either.

As Tsassi already stated, Sprint & Clamber hurt the "Run & Gun Gameplay" the most, this is the reason why those 2 Abilities are highly debated. At this point, I'm just speaking for myself, but I'm not willing to make compromises. I make compromises when the other site is not beeing ignorant and has something to deliever. But the only thing I see are Insults (nostalgia blinded / learn to adapt / get gud) or something that is straight up wrong)

People need to learn the difference between having an opinion and making baseless assumptions.
The 3-4 Main Reasons people tend to defend sprint:

"It makes the game faster"This is not a fact, it's a baseless assumption - straight up wrong.
It has been mentioned million times why this is wrong, I see no point in repeating myself without any reason.

"Learn to adapt / every Shooter has it "CS, Doom, Overwatch - nothing left to say.
Inb4 the "But but but Overwatch has different Abilities!" Comments - Halo has different sandbox elements for map movement too (Map Pickups, Vehicles, dynamique map elements) etc. Map traversal is not just tied to Player-Abilities.

"You just have to have sprint, new players want sprint, new player would not be able to adapt to a FPS without sprint""Classic should be just for hardcore playlists"First of all, Halo was known for the "easy to learn, hard to master" gameplay. Everyone could pick it up, but it was hard to master. I'm a Run & Gun supporter and I never play competitive, my favorite thing in Halo to do is playing BTB or custom games.

It's just one mechanic, if you dont like sprint, dont sprint"It's not just one mechanic, the influence on the weapon sandbox (combined with other abilities) & map design is massive. This is something that has been mentioned like 1000 times, you can look it up.

I see no valuable reasons and personally I'm not willing to make compromises in areas that hurt my gaming experience (Campaign & Multiplayer). If something has to go first, Sprint & Clamber are the highest priority in my eyes.
eviltedi wrote:
tsassi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
No I'm not a strict supporter of classic movement. I play DOOM and I used to play Quake, I prefer that style and I remember Halo being similar at one time. As stated, I don't usually bother about game movement, I've stated before that mechanics are something to get used to. I just prefer the gun up and run style more. However it's not a make or break thing for me. Just an observation and preference really. Some things like double jump could and thruster could get added without restricting play imo.
Double jump would be as bad as clamber is and thruster is already an unnecessary gimick which lowers the skill ceiling. A change in mechanics are more than something to just "get used to", they have real implications on gameplay and game quality - Reach, 4 and 5 made that abundantly clear.
I don't agree that double jump is as bad as clamber at all. I used to be pretty pro clamber, but the more talks I had about it and thinking about it in general, I've now come to the conclusion that I'd rather have it removed in favor of a double jump that is tied to thrusters so you couldn't spam it like crazy all the time. Double jump to me just makes sense (especially if thrusters are in the game) it would eliminate an animation like what clamber has and your gun would always be up when using it which is what people who don't want the sprint animation want. Why do you think double jump is as bad as clamber?

Thrusters in some form I think is here to stay. Yes, some people may think it's gimmicky, but overall I think most people are ok with it as it doesn't affect gameplay design, like how maps are made for example, anywhere near as much, if at all, as say clamber or sprint does. If I had to bet, I'd say the majority of people who want the sprint animation gone, would be ok with having some form of thrusters still.

Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
Yeah I don't like your choices at all, sorry. They all have the sprint animation. Not much of a choice in my opinion. I'd rather have,

A good BMS, Thrusters and a Double jump.
DaekLaw wrote:
Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
Don't get me wrong, but I feel like you're beeing a bit ignorant and I highly doubt that you understand what "classic movement" is.
I mean, just a few posts above Tsassi clearly stated what "classic" movement really means, yet you ignore the entire post and say the exact same thing again.

What you people (and by you I mean basicially almost every sprint supporter who's suggesting "compromises") can't be taken serious, because all you want is to remove Spartan Abilities that you don't like anyway. This is no compromise either.

As Tsassi already stated, Sprint & Clamber hurt the "Run & Gun Gameplay" the most, this is the reason why those 2 Abilities are mentioned the most. And this point, I'm just speaking for myself, but I'm not willing to make compromises. I make compromises when the other site is not beeing ignorant and has something to deliever. But the only thing I see are Insults (nostalgia blinded / learn to adapt / get gud) or something that is straight up wrong)

People need to learn the difference between having an opinion and making baseless assumptions.
The 3-4 Main Reasons people tend to defend sprint:

"It makes the game faster"This is not a fact, it's a baseless assumption - straight up wrong.
It has been mentioned million times why this is wrong, I see no point in repeating myself without any reason.

"Learn to adapt / every Shooter has it "CS, Doom, Overwatch - nothing left to say.
Inb4 the "But but but Overwatch has different Abilities!!" Comments - Halo has different sandbox elements for map movement too (Map Pickups, dynamique map elements) etc.

"You just have to have sprint, new players want sprint, new player would not be able to adapt to a FPS without sprint""Classic should be just for hardcore playlists"First of all, Halo was known for the "easy to learn, hard to master" gameplay. Everyone could pick it up, but it was hard to master. I'm a Run & Gun supporter and I never play competitive, my favorite thing in Halo to do is playing BTB or custom games.

It's just one mechanic, if you dont like sprint, dont sprint"It's not just one mechanic, the influence on the weapon sandbox (combined with other abilities) & map design is massive. This is something that has been mentioned like 1000 times, you can look it up.

I see no valuable reasons and personally I'm not willing to make compromises in areas that hurt my gaming experience (Campaign & Multiplayer). If something has to go first, Sprint & Clamber are the highest priority in my eyes.
Don't get you wrong on what? Pretty sure that was just a straight insult?

Clearly, we are referring to different definitions of Classic Movement. I am referring to no extra movement mechanics being attached to the player. I don't care for the semantics of run and gun. If there is nothing extra, there is nothing extra, and I consider that Classic. I don't care about the concept behind it, personally.

What Spartan Abilities do I want to be taken away? Don't generalize me into a group, lol.

Do you think I read this whole mega-thread? I tried to make my own forum post but it got locked because this exists, and I am not going to read this entire thread and the entirety of its posts. Once again, you are generalizing me here. I am not telling anyone to get good or anything like that. I think Sprint and Clamber have made for smoother gameplay, that does focus more on how the player uses them. I prefer to be the agent of my own gameplay, not the other way around. So yes, they are "Game Breaking", in the sense, they are not, "Classic". But they provide entirely new gameplay and feel.

What baseless assumptions am I making? I am barely even making any assertions, just asking questions, and trying to get to the nitty-gritty. Everyone else is arguing about semantical concepts.
Leocadius wrote:
Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
yes, in a compromise you gain something and lose something.... but who says compromises are good or even if its needed,

classic mechanics are not bare bones, I would say that its the contrary, you could see the skill gap in the classics while the skill gap in the modern is meh at best, you have a get out of jail free card whatever you do therefore no risk, while in the modern games the mechanics and agency are in the player ALWAYS in the classics they are in the sandbox meaning that you need to be much more knowledgeable of the game in the classics than in the modern and while yes you have more controller combos in the modern, more doesn't mean better for player agency on how you play.
NO new mechanics is a classic feel, you can have a classic feel with new mechanics that fundamentally change the game
I would rather have NO abilities in ANY Halo game because the game, player and company are better off without it as is the case with Halo in the Bungie era
Bare Bones as in the Blank Canvas that has been added on to. Don't complicate with semantics, please. I prefer the agency being mainly on the player. The best players will still shine out the competition if they are good enough. Map control is still a thing in H5 though, maybe to a lesser extent. Also you don't even have H5 gameplay on this account? What experience do you speak from?
and you don't have any Halo gameplay save for H4 and H5 your point???? I sold my Xbox for a PS and now I play whenever I can with my roommate.

you preferring agency be in the player is your preference and that's fine but statistically is neither highly desired not successful in the Halo franchise,

as for good players still having the upper hand in engagements my answer is yes, of course they do, good gamers will always have the advantage, the important thing is how much they will shine and is the game motivating you to become better? and the answer is that with these new mechanics its not good at all, these mechanics act as incentives to simply run headfirst into a fight and if you're in trouble then you just sprint or jump away therefore having a cheat-card always in your person, the game never makes you learn to play better because there is no drawback in being bad and the good players are hurt by these mechanics being used against them when they're winning.

as for map control sure its still a thing but its still one fifth of what map control was in Reach, H2 and H3 but surely since you dont have any classic Halos in your record you surely cant speak of it
eviltedi wrote:
tsassi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
No I'm not a strict supporter of classic movement. I play DOOM and I used to play Quake, I prefer that style and I remember Halo being similar at one time. As stated, I don't usually bother about game movement, I've stated before that mechanics are something to get used to. I just prefer the gun up and run style more. However it's not a make or break thing for me. Just an observation and preference really. Some things like double jump could and thruster could get added without restricting play imo.
Double jump would be as bad as clamber is and thruster is already an unnecessary gimick which lowers the skill ceiling. A change in mechanics are more than something to just "get used to", they have real implications on gameplay and game quality - Reach, 4 and 5 made that abundantly clear.
I don't agree that double jump is as bad as clamber at all. I used to be pretty pro clamber, but the more talks I had about it and thinking about it in general, I've now come to the conclusion that I'd rather have it removed in favor of a double jump that is tied to thrusters so you couldn't spam it like crazy all the time. Double jump to me just makes sense (especially if thrusters are in the game) it would eliminate an animation like what clamber has and your gun would always be up when using it which is what people who don't want the sprint animation want. Why do you think double jump is as bad as clamber?

Thrusters in some form I think is here to stay. Yes, some people may think it's gimmicky, but overall I think most people are ok with it as it doesn't affect gameplay design, like how maps are made for example, anywhere near as much, if at all, as say clamber or sprint does. If I had to bet, I'd say the majority of people who want the sprint animation gone, would be ok with having some form of thrusters still.

Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
Yeah I don't like your choices at all, sorry. They all have the sprint animation. Not much of a choice in my opinion. I'd rather have,

A good BMS, Thrusters and a Double jump.
My choices were merely an example of an Ultimatum to emphasize a compromise being made. Perhaps Stabilizers and Thrust, is a better combo, nonetheless.
Leocadius wrote:
Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
yes, in a compromise you gain something and lose something.... but who says compromises are good or even if its needed,

classic mechanics are not bare bones, I would say that its the contrary, you could see the skill gap in the classics while the skill gap in the modern is meh at best, you have a get out of jail free card whatever you do therefore no risk, while in the modern games the mechanics and agency are in the player ALWAYS in the classics they are in the sandbox meaning that you need to be much more knowledgeable of the game in the classics than in the modern and while yes you have more controller combos in the modern, more doesn't mean better for player agency on how you play.
NO new mechanics is a classic feel, you can have a classic feel with new mechanics that fundamentally change the game
I would rather have NO abilities in ANY Halo game because the game, player and company are better off without it as is the case with Halo in the Bungie era
Bare Bones as in the Blank Canvas that has been added on to. Don't complicate with semantics, please. I prefer the agency being mainly on the player. The best players will still shine out the competition if they are good enough. Map control is still a thing in H5 though, maybe to a lesser extent. Also you don't even have H5 gameplay on this account? What experience do you speak from?
and you don't have any Halo gameplay save for H4 and H5 your point???? I sold my Xbox for a PS and now I play whenever I can with my roommate.

you preferring agency be in the player is your preference and that's fine but statistically is neither highly desired not successful in the Halo franchise,

as for good players still having the upper hand in engagements my answer is yes, of course they do, good gamers will always have the advantage, the important thing is how much they will shine and is the game motivating you to become better? and the answer is that with these new mechanics its not good at all, these mechanics act as incentives to simply run headfirst into a fight and if you're in trouble then you just sprint or jump away therefore having a cheat-card always in your person, the game never makes you learn to play better because there is no drawback in being bad and the good players are hurt by these mechanics being used against them when they're winning.

as for map control sure its still a thing but its still one fifth of what map control was in Reach, H2 and H3 but surely since you dont have any classic Halos in your record you surely cant speak of it
I played Halo CE Multiplayer Demo, Halo 2 Local, Halo 3 Campaign and Multiplayer (GT: SpartanCrazed67), Halo Reach and Halo 4 (GT: Kristaliize, and, AdamIsSuperb), Halo 5 (GT: Adam Is Superb, and, Leocadius). Just have to find the stats in different locations under different GT's.

Once again, to your point of Good Players being screwed by game mechanics, if they are good, they will adapt, and they will still win those engagements. It's really that simple.
I don't agree that double jump is as bad as clamber at all. I used to be pretty pro clamber, but the more talks I had about it and thinking about it in general, I've now come to the conclusion that I'd rather have it removed in favor of a double jump that is tied to thrusters so you couldn't spam it like crazy all the time. Double jump to me just makes sense (especially if thrusters are in the game) it would eliminate an animation like what clamber has and your gun would always be up when using it which is what people who don't want the sprint animation want. Why do you think double jump is as bad as clamber?
Well, for practical purposes, double jump is in many ways like Clamber without the animation. As such it introduces many of the same problems to map design, like changing the standard for what is a difficult jump, and generally just extending jump distances. (There of course also effects it doesn't have, such as not being able to get up ledges that are perpendicular to your movement direction.) Its redeeming quality compared to Clamber is that it doesn't force you to an animation, but it's still questionable. Do we need higher and longer jumps?
Leocadius wrote:
Leocadius wrote:
Once again, to your point of Good Players being screwed by game mechanics, if they are good, they will adapt, and they will still win those engagements. It's really that simple.
This was probably one of the most annoying arguments I heard when these issues first arose (particularly with Reach). To basically summarise Doom Bots point, the problem with these mechanics is they reduce the skill gap and make the game less rewarding (and in some instances add randomness). The mass exodus of Halo has nothing to do with an inability to adapt and everything to do with the game being trash. Indeed, many of the best players did adapt and excel at the newer games with new mechanics, but eventually all of them left because it just wasn't the game they loved anymore.
tsassi wrote:
I don't agree that double jump is as bad as clamber at all. I used to be pretty pro clamber, but the more talks I had about it and thinking about it in general, I've now come to the conclusion that I'd rather have it removed in favor of a double jump that is tied to thrusters so you couldn't spam it like crazy all the time. Double jump to me just makes sense (especially if thrusters are in the game) it would eliminate an animation like what clamber has and your gun would always be up when using it which is what people who don't want the sprint animation want. Why do you think double jump is as bad as clamber?
Well, for practical purposes, double jump is in many ways like Clamber without the animation. As such it introduces many of the same problems to map design, like changing the standard for what is a difficult jump, and generally just extending jump distances. (There of course also effects it doesn't have, such as not being able to get up ledges that are perpendicular to your movement direction.) Its redeeming quality compared to Clamber is that it doesn't force you to an animation, but it's still questionable. Do we need higher and longer jumps?
I don't know, I still think double jump could be added in a way where it doesn't affect map design at all or very little. Why couldn't they make maps without double jump in mind, and then add it after. That way your not making maps that have higher or longer jumps to begin with. I don't see why this would be a problem at all to be honest. They don't have to make the double jump jump super huge either, but still good enough where it's not useless obviously lol

A other thought I had was making double jump a pick up item. Something that attaches to you that you have till you die or could be used x amount of times or something, like equipment.

I think double jump is a much better idea then clamber as it eliminates the animation, allows for guns up all the time gameplay and I see no reason why maps have to be designed around it at all. That's how I see it at this moment. If someone can come up with a better idea or more of a convincing argument to change my mind on it as I did clamber way back when, I'm all ears 🙃
eviltedi wrote:
tsassi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
No I'm not a strict supporter of classic movement. I play DOOM and I used to play Quake, I prefer that style and I remember Halo being similar at one time. As stated, I don't usually bother about game movement, I've stated before that mechanics are something to get used to. I just prefer the gun up and run style more. However it's not a make or break thing for me. Just an observation and preference really. Some things like double jump could and thruster could get added without restricting play imo.
Double jump would be as bad as clamber is and thruster is already an unnecessary gimick which lowers the skill ceiling. A change in mechanics are more than something to just "get used to", they have real implications on gameplay and game quality - Reach, 4 and 5 made that abundantly clear.
I think double jump and thruster could be added without restricting the ability to shoot while doing them, clamber is different as it does stop the ability to shoot, why not replace clamber with double jump ? And I think changes are something to get used to, it's something that I do every time I buy or boot up a different game. My preference has been stated, but movement is not a deal breaker for me.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
tsassi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
No I'm not a strict supporter of classic movement. I play DOOM and I used to play Quake, I prefer that style and I remember Halo being similar at one time. As stated, I don't usually bother about game movement, I've stated before that mechanics are something to get used to. I just prefer the gun up and run style more. However it's not a make or break thing for me. Just an observation and preference really. Some things like double jump could and thruster could get added without restricting play imo.
Double jump would be as bad as clamber is and thruster is already an unnecessary gimick which lowers the skill ceiling. A change in mechanics are more than something to just "get used to", they have real implications on gameplay and game quality - Reach, 4 and 5 made that abundantly clear.
I think double jump and thruster could be added without restricting the ability to shoot while doing them, clamber is different as it does stop the ability to shoot, why not replace clamber with double jump ? And I think changes are something to get used to, it's something that I do every time I buy or boot up a different game. My preference has been stated, but movement is not a deal breaker for me.
Tsassi touched on the point of the difficulty of the jumps and how each jump on a map would need to be reevaluated both horizontally and vertically because of this new ability. Perhaps something this point doesn't make clear is that by adding double jump, one of two things will happen as a consequence:

1) You make each part of the map far more accessible. This might sound like a positive but it's actually a huge negative. If you can get any place at any time you greatly diminish the importance of good map positioning. Taking the correct paths or holding the right position is a core fundamental of any fps and if not balanced appropriately, double jump could destroy this fundamental (in a similar way to sprint). This issue can be combated in only one way, which leads me to the other potential consequence,

2) Maps increase in length, both vertically and horizontally, to compensate for this mechanic. Just as the maps in Reach/4/5 were built with sprint in mind, so too would these maps need to keep double jump in mind. This is inherently problematic because it would greatly slow down gameplay. Maps would be far too large for the players they hold. Imagine playing Halo 5 maps, designed longer horizontally to compensate for sprint, but then take sprint away. Then, also add more verticality. That's what these maps would look like. The result would be a game more akin to hide and seek than Halo.
2) Maps increase in length, both vertically and horizontally, to compensate for this mechanic. Just as the maps in Reach/4/5 were built with sprint in mind, so too would these maps need to keep double jump in mind. This is inherently problematic because it would greatly slow down gameplay. Maps would be far too large for the players they hold. Imagine playing Halo 5 maps, designed longer horizontally to compensate for sprint, but then take sprint away. Then, also add more verticality. That's what these maps would look like. The result would be a game more akin to hide and seek than Halo.
This isn't entirely accurate, because you wouldn't have those long open spaces that sprint necessitates since a double jump doesn't make you any faster. What would be immediately affected is what kind of gaps and walls are needed to form impassable obstacles (and likewise what would make for difficult jumps). Of course this has a bit of knock-on effect on the rest of map design, but it doesn't inherently lead to wider more open maps the same way sprint does.
Simply the new mechanics are not "halo"
Redacted

I didn't like how it read, so I'll come back to it later.
I had a fun idea, although extremely unlikely it's ever to be implemented.

If sprint is to return there should be drawbacks. Preventing your shields from recharging in Halo 5 was good, but we can go further. What if your shields drained as you sprinted or you took increased damage when sprinting? Or both!

People that want to sprint around can sprint around, but if they want to win they'll have to slow down and not use the mechanic. They'll have to learn how to handle engagements besides just bolting out of there.

I know it won't ever happen, but I thought it was a silly/interesting idea.
Dunno why the "shooting while sprinting" tread got closed, feels like an oddly specific question to me. A bit too specific for this topic imho, but oh well.. JadeDragoon136 wrote:

Quote:
Can we use medium to small arms while sprinting? This is always a hot topic between classic and modern Halo viewpoints, I wanted to ask the question since I doubt sprint will disappear.I've seen points made that we cannot traverse the sandbox while firing like in Classic Halos. Other than clamber, sprint does this. But what if we can use weapons like pistols and smgs while sprinting.
Not exactly the same as before but perhaps and improvement to the mechanic?
I wouldn't limit the function to small arms, the tread off in this case would be bullet spread and no zoom. The huge problem about sprint is not the fact you can't shoot though, not just that at least. It's the movement limitation that comes with it. That's the issue!

Compared to a real Halo, 343i COD like modern renditions doesn't let you turn, strafe, jump sideways, go backwards ecc. while achieving top speed. So yeah, being able to shoot while sprinting would make the mechanic better, however it would still be flawed and limiting your spectrum of actions during combat. Also what about nades and melee? Can I throw a grenade while running about? Will my punch reach enemies further away?

For all those reasons I rather "sprint" by pushing the thumbstick than pressing X honestly - even if I could shoot. It's one animation less and you free a button for something meaningful(er)!
Leocadius wrote:
Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel
Just to answer your question: If you were to put a gun up to my head and forced me to choose between these options, I'd take the last one.
I still wouldn't like it, but good lord, I'd take Stabilizers and Spartan Charge and Ground Pound all together over sprint anyday.
At least those mechanics don't disrupt run'n'gun...

EDIT: Also, none of these options feel "classic", but at least the one without sprint might(!) be fun to play...
Leocadius wrote:
The hardcore classic fans are the hardcore classic fans no matter what, and they are ONLY satisfied with Bare Bones Movement Mechanics.

Would you all rather have Sprint + Clamber, Sprint + Thrust, Sprint + Slide, or NONE of those by themselves or combined, BUT you have to keep the rest of the current Movement Mechanics that exist in Halo 5? Stabilizers, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, etc.? What provides a more classic feel. Because I personally think one of the former options is the more classic feel.

A compromise is a compromise, no? If one party wins completely, that's no compromise.
If the dealbreaker with those things is Sprint, then it's not much of a compromise for that side when you're including the exact thing they didn't want.

It's like the people who wanted Splitscreen. You can make the Campaign fun and engaging, put a lot of elements to it, make the multiplayer great, make it good looking, etc. etc., but at the end of the day there's still no Splitscreen and little Brad who plays with his younger brother isn't going to buy or enjoy the game simply based on that dealbreaker.

You'd have a better chance reaching a compromise with "Okay every mechanic in the game stays, except for Sprint"
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 138
  4. 139
  5. 140
  6. 141
  7. 142
  8. ...
  9. 155