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.
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.
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 depthThen 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.
(1) it gatekeeps the max movement delta by means of a risk/reward component which adds a layer of game-play depthArguments 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?
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.