Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 141
  4. 142
  5. 143
  6. 144
  7. 145
  8. ...
  9. 155
Naqser wrote:
I don't think it would make a lot of sense that our characters have been able to do these things in the last few games and then suddenly they can't in Halo infinite.
-Dual Wielding
-Grenade indicators
-Armor Abilities
-Sword blocking

To name a few.
Sprint could easily get a short simple explanation as to why "it isn't possible" anymore.
New BMS is fast, Spartans are able to move as quickly as they can while retaining full accuracy. Going faster would severely damage their bodies.
"A new stabilization firmware in the GEN3 armor allows the wearer aim accurately even at full sprint. Improvements to the force multiplying circuits also enable the wearer to perform strafe and backtracking maneuvers without sacrificing speed, allowing them to keep sight on the enemy in any situation."

Boom! Lack of sprint justified in lore.
Of all the reasons why they should include/not include sprinting and other AAs in multiplayer, lore is possibly the weakest one. I don't think that lore, story, anything should ever be in the way when taking into account multiplayer balance and gameplay mechanics. They add/remove something and want to give players a reason? Cool. They don't want to do that? Cool. I don't think that this should be considered a "flaw" in the plot/lore anyway. At the end of the day it's a game and the gameplay part is what matters the most. Chief suddenly not being able to sprint for no reason is not something that would make the story bad, there are far more important aspects when it comes to that.
tsassi wrote:
Naqser wrote:
I don't think it would make a lot of sense that our characters have been able to do these things in the last few games and then suddenly they can't in Halo infinite.
-Dual Wielding
-Grenade indicators
-Armor Abilities
-Sword blocking

To name a few.
Sprint could easily get a short simple explanation as to why "it isn't possible" anymore.
New BMS is fast, Spartans are able to move as quickly as they can while retaining full accuracy. Going faster would severely damage their bodies.
"A new stabilization firmware in the GEN3 armor allows the wearer aim accurately even at full sprint. Improvements to the force multiplying circuits also enable the wearer to perform strafe and backtracking maneuvers without sacrificing speed, allowing them to keep sight on the enemy in any situation."

Boom! Lack of sprint justified in lore.
What are you even talk about? Read the 1st sentence I'll quote the end of it "allows the wearer to aim accurately even at full SPRINT"
I dont know what this nonsense of "lack of sprint justified by lore" you're talking about
What are you even talk about? Read the 1st sentence I'll quote the end of it "allows the wearer to aim accurately even at full SPRINT"
I dont know what this nonsense of "lack of sprint justified by lore" you're talking about
Evidently, "sprint" in the imaginary lore explanation was in reference to the act of running at full speed, and not the gameplay mechanic. Then in the final sentence "sprint" was in reference to the gameplay mechanic. Your confusion is understandable, but you should keep in mind that the word "sprint" has more than one meaning. Granted, I could have used "speed" in place of the first "sprint" to make it clearer.
eLantern wrote:
While some of the older videos (going back to Reach) touched on a reasonable point relating to the ease of combat escape-ability I feel that the developers became acutely aware of those concerns and took active steps with the mechanic’s implementation in future titles to limit those concerns. Personally, I feel Halo 5 did a tremendous job at balancing the mechanic into its game-play.
I disagree with that, especially when the average or even above average player will swear by Sprint being a viable means of escape.
There's nothing to disagree with. The developers are on record stating that particular design aspects relating to their implementation of the sprint mechanic in Halo 4 and Halo 5 were done precisely to restrict its effectiveness as a means to easily escape encounters.

Also, of course sprint is still a viable means to escape. Escaping an unfavorable encounter has always been a tactic in any FPS and reaching the max movement delta is obviously the best means to escape. I mean, it's not as if players are constantly trying to escape unfavorable encounters by means of crouch-walking away when opponents have a direct line of sight to them. Everyone pretty much moves away from the undesired encounter at the max movement delta allowed to them. With a sprint mechanic that max movement delta isn't as readily available; instead it must be accessed via a mechanic.
Quote:
Some people will go as far as to say that that's Sprint's biggest purpose, to escape fights or bad positioning.
I understand why people who are hostile to the mechanic's inclusion will tend to automatically default to that claim, but I certainly don't agree with it. There are several reasons to include a sprint mechanic, but I personally think the biggest ones are (1) it gatekeeps the max movement delta by means of a risk/reward component which adds a layer of game-play depth, and (2) deals with conveying a more authentic and immersive appearance of reaching a max movement delta within the game-play by means of sacrificing immediate and effective weapon use.
Quote:
Despite 343i explicitly stating that their biggest problem is escape-ability, people will completely disregard their words and do it anyway...because it works.
As I mentioned before, of course people will attempt to escape by means of the max movement delta. That hasn't changed regardless of any Halo title or FPS for that matter. The fact it works shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The question is are the design modifications that the developers incorporated into the mechanic appropriately restricting its effectiveness when being used for that particular intended purpose? And I think they've been extremely appropriate in Halo 5.
eLantern wrote:
ooblah10 wrote:
The amount of people that want Sprint really scares me. There are so many YouTube videos explaining why it's bad for halo. Hopefully 343i go full classic or full movement mechanics. Can't cater to both crowds.
Clarification: There are many YouTube videos attempting to explain why it’s bad for Halo.
I haven’t seen one yet that has convinced me that it’s an inherently “bad” mechanic in Halo and I’ve watched countless of these videos over the years.
Any video from Favyn. Seriously. The guy hits this topic right on the head.
I've watched them all and have had my fair share of discussions with him on the matter. While he's a skillful YouTuber, and a genuinely nice guy, I'd hardly agree that he's hit the topic on the head. He has simply got a perspective on the matter that clearly resonates quite well with a faction of the community. No doubt his well spoken videos have helped increase the size of that particular echo chamber too.
ooblah10 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
ooblah10 wrote:
The amount of people that want Sprint really scares me. There are so many YouTube videos explaining why it's bad for halo. Hopefully 343i go full classic or full movement mechanics. Can't cater to both crowds.
Also, I 1000% disagree with you regarding attempts to cater to both crowds.
Let's agree to disagree on sprint being good or bad for halo.
Absolutely. I realize many people are firmly set in their particular perspectives and for the most part much of it simply boils down to subjective perspectives.
Quote:
How would having both classic and modern Halo work?

Having a playlist for classic isn't good enough, and having a playlist with advanced movement isn't good enough for the new halo crowd. Half doing both is worse then going fully classic or fully Titanfall/Anthem/not halo.
I think having tailorized environments could potentially work well. I've elaborated a bit more on some of the potential mechanic refinements I wouldn't mind seeing for Infinite here too with the assumption that they may build off of the foundation laid forth by Halo 5.
eLantern wrote:
There's nothing to disagree with. The developers are on record stating that particular design aspects relating to their implementation of the sprint mechanic in Halo 4 and Halo 5 were done precisely to restrict its effectiveness as a means to easily escape encounters.
And if people can still use it to easily escape encounters despite all of the extra mechanics explicitly designed to prevent escaping encounters, then they didn't do a good enough job or they failed in their implementation. 343i has also gone on record and said that their current implementation of Sprint leads to escapability problems, and almost didn't make it in the game in the first place.

"Personally, I feel Halo 5 did a tremendous job at balancing the mechanic into its game-play" is definitely a statement I can disagree with.

eLantern wrote:
There are several reasons to include a sprint mechanic, but I personally think the biggest ones are (1) it gatekeeps the max movement delta by means of a risk/reward component which adds a layer of game-play depth
Then I would go back to what I brought up to someone else, a case of "Does there need to be a decision for X scenario?" If there is such a minute difference in enjoyment between whether it exists or not, and we are perfectly capable of designing both decisions in one action, why does it need to be split?

From my perspective, you didn't add a layer - you took away something that already existed (moving at maximum speed) and then tried to give it back to me in a limited form (moving at maximum speed, but now I must sacrifice actions to do it). I'm not seeing this "depth" that doesn't already exist in some form in previous games.

It's like if I took your bike and rented it back to you. You'd have the reward of having your bike, but now you must provide your "risk" by giving up money to obtain it.
Simply having "risk" associated with sprinting is not enough for it to actually add any meaningful depth on its own. Risk/Reward only has merit if it is a calculated risk where the outcome is reasonably predicable. There are of course merits and demerits for sprinting vs guns up, but given the number of players and variables involved there is no way for the individual to predict how whether you will run headfirst into waiting enemies or arrive first and be in a position to ambush your foes. That isn't a calculated risk, its just gambling.

You might try and argue the same is true for classic Halo as you can both vary your speed with the stick as well as crouch, but given you have all the same capabilities either way there is never any reason to move at anything less that full speed when you are moving from A to B. This means there is effectively only one traversal speed which makes player movement far more predictable and because of this degree of predictability the decisions you make regarding your own positioning actually matter.

The other issue with trying to argue the risk/reward value of sprint is that using sprint(or clamber for that matter) or not often isn't a "choice" because the map is designed around its use. Deliberately ignoring sprint regardless of circumstance will only lose you power weapons and positioning and catching the odd enemy player sprinting is simply not going to make up for that. "Choosing" to sprint or not doesn't add any depth when there really isn't any "choice" to begin with. Just because someone can play in a sub-optimal way doesn't inherently give a mechanic depth.
For those that want Sprint in Halo Infinite, what do you think of the Halo 3 Throwback Playlist for Halo 5?

If you find it slow, imagine that the maximum base movement speed is increased slightly. You could do this yourself in Forge and Custom Games, to be honest. Would this now not be a better experience, and allow for more depth? You can move at top-speed while: shooting; zooming; jumping; meleeing; crouching; reloading; looking around; moving in any direction; throwing a grenade; strafing, holding the objective [oddball/flag/etc]; or a combination from all of them. Maps wouldn't require elongation, as there is effectively only one speed (see post above my own, because it is explained better by WerepyreND than I could hope to do so myself), so cover can be better placed for gunfights and slightlines. If still too sluggish, Thrusters could be added on top. It'd just be another option for a player whilst moving at top-speed.

Of course, you may just find it more fun to be able to Sprint, Slide, Thrust, Clamber, Ground Pound, Hover, and Spartan Charge. Which is fair enough, as everybody has a preference.
In my opinion, I could live with or without the "advanced movement" capabilities. Would I prefer a more classic style of gameplay? Sure, but it won't make or break the game for me. I've been around Halo since CE back when I was 6 and have always adapted to the new ways the games played.

Sprint to me has never been inherently necessary for the games, even back in Reach it felt...wrong. I was still getting to where I was going but it never felt any faster or slower it was just getting there regardless, I never felt like I was moving slowly in the original trilogy because I either had vehicles around or my next objective wasn't that far way. Plus I enjoyed the "slow" movement because if gave me time to just take in everything that was going on around me. Sprinting from one objective to the other didn't give me that feeling at all in Halo 4 and 5, just point A to point B. The maps where bigger but they had to be to compensate for the new abilities. I bet it still took me just as long to get there compared to if I was playing Halo 3 and going to the same destination.

As for clambering, I feel like it would take more skill and practice to get good at crouch/grenade jumps than just jumping and clambering onto a ledge. I never had to think about "will I make this jump" or "is this jump worth it" when playing Halo 4 or 5. Especially when I comes to power positions, clambering doesn't make these positions that crucial to get to "oh he has the high ground, eh, whatever I can easily get there" Where as in others you either had to hold it or work your tail off to take it from the enemy.

Ground pound/Spartan Charge: These abilities are kinda where I don't care if they stay or go. They never really had that much of an impact on me. Spartan charge is just a quick melee when your'e sprinting and ground pound you're forced into one direction once you activate it "plus leaves you in the air for a long period of time" great time for snipers to zone in on you.
'In my opinion, I could live with or without the "advanced movement" capabilities. Would I prefer a more classic style of gameplay? Sure, but it won't make or break the game for me'

'Spartan charge is just a quick melee when your'e sprinting'
Completely agree. I would much prefer Sprint not being present, but that would just be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. If Halo 5 didn't have Sprint, it wouldn't have made its story any better, nor the lack of Forge, Theatre, BTB, Infection, etc, at launch.

Playing Team Area in Halo 5 is a much nicer experience to Slayer, with Spartan Charge disable. You're no longer rewarded for sprinting blindly round a corner, and just getting rid of an enemy's shields. If you rush in, you should be left vulnerable, not given the opportunity to take an immediate advantage.

I agreed with your point on Clamber too.
WerepyreND wrote:
This means there is effectively only one traversal speed which makes player movement far more predictable and because of this degree of predictability the decisions you make regarding your own positioning actually matter.
This entire comment is excellent, although I feel the need to emphasise that this snippet is the crux of the sprint vs. no sprint discussion. While I think the negative implications of sprint on map design are evident, the fact that positioning matters in Halo is the paramount issue and, imo, is the reason sprint (and advanced mobility generally) have essentially destroyed Halo.

WerepyreND wrote:
eLantern wrote:
(1) it gatekeeps the max movement delta by means of a risk/reward component which adds a layer of game-play depth
Arguments like this with angle that it "adds depth" seem to conveniently forget that you also remove depth by diminishing the importance of map positioning and other skills. You have to weigh the positive and negative consequences of any given mechanic.
WerepyreND wrote:
Simply having "risk" associated with sprinting is not enough for it to actually add any meaningful depth on its own. Risk/Reward only has merit if it is a calculated risk where the outcome is reasonably predicable. There are of course merits and demerits for sprinting vs guns up, but given the number of players and variables involved there is no way for the individual to predict how whether you will run headfirst into waiting enemies or arrive first and be in a position to ambush your foes. That isn't a calculated risk, its just gambling.
I don't think this is a sound argument. Deciding when to sprint is a calculated decision, and I think saying that it's not "given the number of players and variables involved there is no way for the individual to predict" is not false per se, but uses the word "predict" in a way I don't think is useful in the given situation.

If by "predicting" we mean knowing for sure what will happen, then sure, there are too many unknown variables that this is not possible to achieve. However, that there are too many variables applies literally to anything involving real people making decisions. The behavior of people is just fundamentally complex, especially when they're trying hard to be unpredictable, as is the case in a game. But prediction can, and often does, involve uncertainty. In Halo, literally every prediction you make about other players is an uncertain prediction for aforementioned reasons. But we don't say that there is "no way" to predict what the opponents will do, and we most certainly don't regard the whole game as gambling because of that uncertainty.

The skill involved in prediction is not being able to make certain guesses, but being able to make more educated guesses by using the available information more effectively. The difference between players of different skill levels is not that the better guesses the actions of the worse 100% of the time, but that the better player is correct in their guesses more often (whether this be 99% vs. 95%, or 17% vs. 10%). The depth is in how good a player can become at guessing, how high they can grow their likelihood of making the correct guess. The situation where they can't is what would traditionally be called gambling, where everyone's guess is as good as the next guy's.

With that preamble out of the way, there is skill involved in deciding when to sprint. Through keeping track of where you've last seen opponents, where your teammates are, where gunshots are coming from, where players are dying—and also understanding of the spawn system and communication with teammates if you're a good player—you form an idea of where players are around the map. You probably don't know the exact location of every opponent, but you still have a rough idea of where there definitely are opponents, where there probably aren't, and what parts of the map are safer and what are less safe. Maybe you can even guess where the opponents might want to go in the next couple of seconds, say, if a power weapon just spawned on the map. In addition, you look at the amount of cover you have in the path ahead of you and see where opponents could possibly come from. Using all this, you can make an informed decision on whether you want to sprint or not.

I'm not sure what kind of crazy person would say there's very little depth involve here. It's just that... none of this is unique to sprint. All this understanding and information is equally useful and relevant just in general. In fact, not just useful but necessary, because your knowledge of the game state forms the basis for all your decisions. At that point, sprint is just one fairly simple decision among a dozen others, and it's not even something you need to do that often. And this is why sprint adds a negligible amount of depth to the game.
tsassi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Simply having "risk" associated with sprinting is not enough for it to actually add any meaningful depth on its own. Risk/Reward only has merit if it is a calculated risk where the outcome is reasonably predicable. There are of course merits and demerits for sprinting vs guns up, but given the number of players and variables involved there is no way for the individual to predict how whether you will run headfirst into waiting enemies or arrive first and be in a position to ambush your foes. That isn't a calculated risk, its just gambling.
I don't think this is a sound argument. Deciding when to sprint is a calculated decision, and I think saying that it's not "given the number of players and variables involved there is no way for the individual to predict" is not false per se, but uses the word "predict" in a way I don't think is useful in the given situation.
I don't see how you can actually it a "decision" in a game designed around its use. Choosing to go left or right is a "decision" how you get there given how the game is built and designed isn't. "Choosing" whether or not to sprint(or clamber that matter) is not really a feasible option when the only options you have in front of you require one or the other to do it in an optimal manner.
Quote:
If by "predicting" we mean knowing for sure what will happen, then sure, there are too many unknown variables that this is not possible to achieve. However, that there are too many variables applies literally to anything involving real people making decisions. The behavior of people is just fundamentally complex, especially when they're trying hard to be unpredictable, as is the case in a game. But prediction can, and often does, involve uncertainty. In Halo, literally every prediction you make about other players is an uncertain prediction for aforementioned reasons. But we don't say that there is "no way" to predict what the opponents will do, and we most certainly don't regard the whole game as gambling because of that uncertainty.
I don't think the semantics here are really the issue. I'm not talking about 100% certainty regarding the outcome. Some degree of uncertainty is a given. My issue is with the idea that the binary "choice" of sprint/not sprint adds depth by virtue of being another option to consider and whether you can really consider it a choice at all given how the game is designed. People may be unpredictable at large, but in the context of a very limited game with very specific rules, the number of realistic outcomes shrinks considerably and your choices carry more weight because of it. Having a variable speed available to all players only adds more variables especially when combined with all the other factors in the game so rather than adding another interesting choice I feel it only muddies the waters making outcomes even less certain than they already are.
Quote:
The skill involved in prediction is not being able to make certain guesses, but being able to make more educated guesses by using the available information more effectively. The difference between players of different skill levels is not that the better guesses the actions of the worse 100% of the time, but that the better player is correct in their guesses more often (whether this be 99% vs. 95%, or 17% vs. 10%). The depth is in how good a player can become at guessing, how high they can grow their likelihood of making the correct guess. The situation where they can't is what would traditionally be called gambling, where everyone's guess is as good as the next guy's.
I completely agree with how you breakdown the skill involved in prediction here. I was never arguing that prediction involves only 100% certainty. I argue that sprint actively complicates the issue making educated guesses less accurate, more often, across all skill levels, lowering the skill gap. Because of this when you combine the games design which requires and non-zero amount of sprinting(and not sprinting) with less accurate predictions, the individual doesn't have much if any agency to "choose" whether or not to sprint.
Quote:
With that preamble out of the way, there is skill involved in deciding when to sprint. Through keeping track of where you've last seen opponents, where your teammates are, where gunshots are coming from, where players are dying—and also understanding of the spawn system and communication with teammates if you're a good player—you form an idea of where players are around the map. You probably don't know the exact location of every opponent, but you still have a rough idea of where there definitely are opponents, where there probably aren't, and what parts of the map are safer and what are less safe. Maybe you can even guess where the opponents might want to go in the next couple of seconds, say, if a power weapon just spawned on the map. In addition, you look at the amount of cover you have in the path ahead of you and see where opponents could possibly come from. Using all this, you can make an informed decision on whether you want to sprint or not.
What you are describing is the decision making behind where you need to be at a given time. That doesn't change sprint or no sprint. What does change with sprint is how you get there which I argue is not really a decision. If you need to be at X location in Y time to do Z thing with how the game is designed, you don't really have any choice in the matter. You have to sprint to make that jump or get to that power weapon first. Or you need to be guns up to immediately help out that teammate. At the end of the day there simply are more optimal ways to accomplish certain things. Not all choices are equally valid. Giving players one more way to play poorly doesn't increase the skill gap if the downsides are not consistent.
Quote:
I'm not sure what kind of crazy person would say there's very little depth involve here. It's just that... none of this is unique to sprint. All this understanding and information is equally useful and relevant just in general. In fact, not just useful but necessary, because your knowledge of the game state forms the basis for all your decisions. At that point, sprint is just one fairly simple decision among a dozen others, and it's not even something you need to do that often. And this is why sprint adds a negligible amount of depth to the game.
This is exactly my problem with going along with the idea that "choosing" to sprint or not to sprint is a decision of any real consequence as to be a reason justifying sprint's inclusion. The depth added is so negligible and so unreliable that literally anything you do in the game is something that adds depth. I find it comparable to claiming there is a noticeable skill gap in "choosing" to look left. I don't mean checking your surroundings I mean literally Looking Left as something you need to actively choose to do. Collectively I do believe there is value in all the little things, but narrowing the focusing on a drop in the bucket to justify a mechanic that has such far reaching consequences is not something I'd consider a valid argument.
All they have to do is keep sprint and I’ll spend the $60 on fishing lures instead.
WerepyreND wrote:
To not get lost in the minutia, let me summarize the main point.

You initially claimed that claimed that sprinting is not a calculated risk, because "given the number of players and variables involved there is no way for the individual to predict how whether you will run headfirst into waiting enemies or arrive first and be in a position to ambush your foes". You agree with me that a prediction doesn't require 100% certainty of the outcome. I explained how you can use information at your hands to infer the rough whereabouts of enemies and where they are going. Therefore an individual can predict whether they are likely to run into enemies or not. Hence if the skilled player decides to sprint, they do it because they have reasoned that they are unlikely to run into a trap (or at least that getting there is worth however likely they are to run into a trap). Is this not exactly what a calculated risk is?

I'm not trying to make an argument in favor of sprint here.
tsassi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
To not get lost in the minutia, let me summarize the main point.

You initially claimed that claimed that sprinting is not a calculated risk, because "given the number of players and variables involved there is no way for the individual to predict how whether you will run headfirst into waiting enemies or arrive first and be in a position to ambush your foes". You agree with me that a prediction doesn't require 100% certainty of the outcome. I explained how you can use information at your hands to infer the rough whereabouts of enemies and where they are going. Therefore an individual can predict whether they are likely to run into enemies or not. Hence if the skilled player decides to sprint, they do it because they have reasoned that they are unlikely to run into a trap (or at least that getting there is worth however likely they are to run into a trap). Is this not exactly what a calculated risk is?

I'm not trying to make an argument in favor of sprint here.
I know you are not arguing in favor of sprint. I agree that you might be able to infer where enemies might be or where they might go, but I don't agree you can reliably infer how quickly they are going to move from A to B or whether they will have their guns up. Its one thing to make an educated guess regarding movement when you know for a certainty that both you or an enemy are going to be guns up, its another to do the same when it means either you or your enemy could be defenseless.

My other issue is that this was only ever half of my argument. My other argument was questioning whether you can really "choose" to sprint or not to sprint in a game designed around it. Sprint(and clamber) are not simply another option to maneuver around the map, it is a requirement to move around in a timely manner. I don't think you can "choose" whether or not to sprint in a Halo game with sprint as a core ability than you can "choose" not to wall run in Titanfall or "choose" not to use cover in Gears, it is intrinsically tied to the way players move and utilize the map.
eLantern wrote:
There's nothing to disagree with. The developers are on record stating that particular design aspects relating to their implementation of the sprint mechanic in Halo 4 and Halo 5 were done precisely to restrict its effectiveness as a means to easily escape encounters.
And if people can still use it to easily escape encounters despite all of the extra mechanics explicitly designed to prevent escaping encounters, then they didn't do a good enough job or they failed in their implementation.
Certainly, that's the prevailing perspective they're up against. But, I'm sure they could manage to filter research data from all matches to get a relative idea of just how effective escaping has been with the curbed gatekeeping mechanic in place.

What we do know for sure is that match times (on average) are, for the most part, around what they desire historically. That suggests to me that my anecdotal experience and perspective regarding the tactic of escaping bad situations with the current mechanic isn't too effective.

If it was I think there'd be a direct correlation with the vast majority of matches getting dragged out consistently over historical and desired norms.
Quote:
343i has also gone on record and said that their current implementation of Sprint leads to escape-ability problems, and almost didn't make it in the game in the first place.
Link?
Quote:
"Personally, I feel Halo 5 did a tremendous job at balancing the mechanic into its game-play" is definitely a statement I can disagree with.
Fair enough. It's simply your opinion vs mine.
Quote:
eLantern wrote:
There are several reasons to include a sprint mechanic, but I personally think the biggest ones are (1) it gatekeeps the max movement delta by means of a risk/reward component which adds a layer of game-play depth
Then I would go back to what I brought up to someone else, a case of "Does there need to be a decision for X scenario?" If there is such a minute difference in enjoyment between whether it exists or not, and we are perfectly capable of designing both decisions in one action, why does it need to be split?

From my perspective, you didn't add a layer - you took away something that already existed (moving at maximum speed) and then tried to give it back to me in a limited form (moving at maximum speed, but now I must sacrifice actions to do it). I'm not seeing this "depth" that doesn't already exist in some form in previous games.
This logic can be applied to so much more than how sprint affects movement. For instance, why suffer a reload animation? And why deal with multiple niche weapons instead of using one weapon that's just good at everything?

From your perspective (given the logic you're using), any answer to those questions could be boiled down to removing a form of depth instead of adding depth.
For those that want Sprint in Halo Infinite, what do you think of the Halo 3 Throwback Playlist for Halo 5?
Not much, since besides the maps I have little desire to play it. But, I was curious to experience hit-scan weapons in something that's very much akin to Halo 3.
Quote:
If you find it slow, imagine that the maximum base movement speed is increased slightly. You could do this yourself in Forge and Custom Games, to be honest. Would this now not be a better experience, and allow for more depth?
I've participated in customs like this before.

Increasing the base movement speed with no mechanic gatekeeping a max movement delta certainly felt better than a slower base movement speed with no mechanic gatekeeping a max movement delta.

It doesn't add more depth. It just felt better between the two. That is, until it goes too far.
Quote:
Maps wouldn't require elongation,
This^ is a bit of a counterfactual argument.
Quote:
...as there is effectively only one speed,
Not true. Base movement is variable by the degree of stick angle.
Quote:
...so cover can be better placed for gunfights and sight-lines.
This^ is hypothetical.
eLantern wrote:
(1) it gatekeeps the max movement delta by means of a risk/reward component which adds a layer of game-play depth
Arguments like this with angle that it "adds depth" seem to conveniently forget that you also remove depth by diminishing the importance of map positioning and other skills. You have to weigh the positive and negative consequences of any given mechanic.
I understand the perspective that suggests that map positioning becomes somewhat diminished when the effectiveness of escaping is significantly increased. This is precisely why the effectiveness of escaping unfavorable situations by means of accessing the game's max movement delta must be curbed appropriately.

The thing is, escaping unfavorable situations has always been a component of map positioning; therefore, I'd argue that a properly "curbed" sprint mechanic, such as it was implemented into Halo 5, actually manages to increase the value of map positioning since accessing the max movement delta to escape requires particular sacrifices such as a lowered weapon and delaying the shield recharge.

Another thing, map design also creates a lot of the value associated to map positioning as does the chosen sandbox weapons and power-ups.

And what "other skills" do you reference?
tsassi wrote:
...

And this is why sprint adds a negligible amount of depth to the game.
Agree with everything you stated in your response to WerepyreND except this^.

I would not agree that sprint adds a negligible amount of depth to the game. If it was truly negligible I don't think it would receive the backlash that it does from a faction of the community. In fact, it's all the aspects, including connotations, of that depth that the faction primarily take issue with.

From my perspective, it adds an ideal amount. Particularly, in the way it has been balanced for H5. Also, this is not to say that the amount of depth that I feel sprint adds is so much as to make the game play vastly different or un-Halo-like. Like I said, I just don't agree that it's negligible.

What I'm sure we both understand is that this matter simply boils down to individual opinions and perspectives to which we are all free to possess.
WerepyreND wrote:
I know you are not arguing in favor of sprint. I agree that you might be able to infer where enemies might be or where they might go, but I don't agree you can reliably infer how quickly they are going to move from A to B or whether they will have their guns up. Its one thing to make an educated guess regarding movement when you know for a certainty that both you or an enemy are going to be guns up, its another to do the same when it means either you or your enemy could be defenseless.
Like when you or your enemy might be reloading? See, it's a game of imperfect information. You're never going to know everything about the enemy, but not knowing any one thing isn't suddenly going to cause the whole structure of inference, reasoning, and prediction to topple. Or are you suggesting that you're as good at using sprint as the guy who just sprints around like a headless chicken until he sees an opponent?

WerepyreND wrote:
My other issue is that this was only ever half of my argument. My other argument was questioning whether you can really "choose" to sprint or not to sprint in a game designed around it. Sprint(and clamber) are not simply another option to maneuver around the map, it is a requirement to move around in a timely manner. I don't think you can "choose" whether or not to sprint in a Halo game with sprint as a core ability than you can "choose" not to wall run in Titanfall or "choose" not to use cover in Gears, it is intrinsically tied to the way players move and utilize the map.
I don't understand. Of course these are all choices. Your character in Titanfall isn't programmed to wall run at set intervals, or take cover in GoW, or whatever. You're acting as if the fact that there exists an optimal choice makes the whole choice meaningless. But this is not Tick-Tack-Toe; the optimal choice isn't self-evident. Nobody's playing these games optimally. Nobody in GoW takes cover with the divine insight that stalling for a few seconds prevents an additional death couple of minutes down the line. Nobody in Halo sprints because they divined that in two seconds time a sniper would be sighting their path. Even the choice that seems the most optimal given the information the player has differs because players interpret the information differently. Maybe given the same information someone makes the run for the rocket launcher while someone else decides to take it slow.

Something I've been thinking every now and then: it seems like every single change sprint effects in the game has to be bad. Like it's not just enough that it's generally agreed upon that sprint makes escaping easier, breaks the flow of movement and combat, elongates maps, and doesn't have maningful amounts of depth. No. For anything sprint changes, we find an argument for why it makes the game shallower. Nothing about sprint can be just... neutral. That's some food for thought.

eLantern wrote:
I would not agree that sprint adds a negligible amount of depth to the game. If it was truly negligible I don't think it would receive the backlash that it does from a faction of the community. In fact, it's all the aspects of that depth that the faction primarily take issue with.
This is a mischaracterization. The aspects of sprint people take issue with are the ones they feel take away depth. The whole argument against sprint is that it takes away more depth than it adds. The detrimental effect on the amount of depth is the cause for the backlash.
tsassi wrote:
eLantern wrote:
I would not agree that sprint adds a negligible amount of depth to the game. If it was truly negligible I don't think it would receive the backlash that it does from a faction of the community. In fact, it's all the aspects, including connotations, of that depth that the faction primarily take issue with.
This is a mischaracterization. The aspects of sprint people take issue with are the ones they feel take away depth. The whole argument against sprint is that it takes away more depth than it adds. The detrimental effect on the amount of depth is the cause for the backlash.
Ah, so we find ourselves at another difference of opinion.

To me the mischaracterization is that people believe the game gains depth when the sprint mechanic is absent.

From my perspective, I can certainly understand how the value of the depth that's added by the mechanic might be up for debate as subjective perspectives/opinions will differ on it, but the arguments that attempt to suggest the mechanic itself essentially removes depth I find to be objectively wrong. To me, those attempted arguments begin from a false premise.
tsassi wrote:
Like when you or your enemy might be reloading? See, it's a game of imperfect information. You're never going to know everything about the enemy, but not knowing any one thing isn't suddenly going to cause the whole structure of inference, reasoning, and prediction to topple. Or are you suggesting that you're as good at using sprint as the guy who just sprints around like a headless chicken until he sees an opponent?
See that's the whole thing, eventually, in a game where reloading is a mechanic, eventually you are going to need to reload(or overheat). It is something that has to be done and sometimes reloading can get you killed, but I would never consider "knowing whether or not to reload" to be a skill worthy of note. Like I said in my original post, choosing not to participate in fundamental game mechanics is not what I would consider a skill.
Quote:
I don't understand. Of course these are all choices. Your character in Titanfall isn't programmed to wall run at set intervals, or take cover in GoW, or whatever. You're acting as if the fact that there exists an optimal choice makes the whole choice meaningless. But this is not Tick-Tack-Toe; the optimal choice isn't self-evident. Nobody's playing these games optimally. Nobody in GoW takes cover with the divine insight that stalling for a few seconds prevents an additional death couple of minutes down the line. Nobody in Halo sprints because they divined that in two seconds time a sniper would be sighting their path. Even the choice that seems the most optimal given the information the player has differs because players interpret the information differently. Maybe given the same information someone makes the run for the rocket launcher while someone else decides to take it slow.

Something I've been thinking every now and then: it seems like every single change sprint effects in the game has to be bad. Like it's not just enough that it's generally agreed upon that sprint makes escaping easier, breaks the flow of movement and combat, elongates maps, and doesn't have maningful amounts of depth. No. For anything sprint changes, we find an argument for why it makes the game shallower. Nothing about sprint can be just... neutral. That's some food for thought.
I'm not suggesting every decision is self evident, only that "choosing" whether or not to sprint is not a significant choice on its own. In and of itself I don't think that "knowing whether or not to sprint adds depth" is an argument that has merit. Choosing to do nothing but run around on the ground in TItanfall isn't any more of a real choice than refusing to take cover with Gears. There is a world of difference between choosing something suboptimal, and choosing to do something that is actively detrimental. You can't divorce the decision of whether or not to sprint from the game designed around its use. The framing of "knowing when to sprint" as a skill is so broad that literally everything you can do in the game becomes a skill which makes the skill of "knowing when to sprint" so small as to be irrelevant as an argument in favor of sprint.

If I were to diagnose a particular problem with the sprint debate as a whole I would consider it would be the inability for anyone to simply state their preference in a way without trying to ascribe any higher meaning to their choice. "Actually sprint should be included because it has this special depth of knowing when to use it" or "Its an expected in a modern shooter" or "Its Immersive" Its all mostly fluff trying to dress up their personal preferences for the changes sprint makes to the game. I don't like sprint in Halo, I understand there are those that do. That's fine. We go through all this rigmarole just to arrive at the same destination of "I like/don't like sprint." I just don't care for it when folks try and frame the discussion as "well actually X thing is an improvement rather than a fundamental change that others may like/dislike."
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 141
  4. 142
  5. 143
  6. 144
  7. 145
  8. ...
  9. 155