Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 142
  4. 143
  5. 144
  6. 145
  7. 146
  8. ...
  9. 188
eLantern wrote:
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.
At least in the higher level, someone recorded stats for matches in Truth and Heretic, the only kinda(?) comparable map between two games.

According to this, matches are taking almost 50% longer, but with less kills per game. I'm not going to say that this is absolutely positively because of Sprint and Sprint alone, but it gets a bit disingenuous when people say that we're getting much faster games and more "freedom" in movement, when talking about a mechanic specifically designed to limit movement.

eLantern wrote:
Link?
GDC 2016 (14:20)
eLantern wrote:
eLantern wrote:
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.
This is factually incorrect.

By 'curbed' I assume you mean guns down, reduced speed when shot and delayed shield recharge. If so, you are defining unfavourable situations strictly as those where you are being attacked and wish to escape. Escaping an unfavourable situation has much broader of a definition. I've literally posted this a few pages ago but I'll reiterate.

Unfavourable situations include those where you are not helping your team and they suffer as a consequence. If you are not pushing the right part of the map or holding the right angle and your team gets into a fight, you can quickly sprint and relocate to help them. Prior to sprint, your team would be punished by having to fight a numbers disadvantage due to your bad decision. This argument also holds in objective gametypes. When your team pulls a flag or holds the oddball there are key angles or spots to hold. Having sprint allows for a greater margin for error as you can quickly sprint to these places. When there was no sprint, if you committed to moving to one area of the map and it was the wrong choice there was no sprint to relocate.

Unfavourable situations include being stuck in spawn. Before sprint was a thing, knowing how to push out of spawn or how to break a spawn trap was a high level skill. If a team went 4 down in a CTF match (4v4) quite often they would find themselves in spawn with the other team controlling mid and if the enemy team was really good, they would try to spawn trap them. Without writing a novel about how spawn traps work or how to set them up, the overarching premise is that you are containing the enemy to one half of the map. Sprint throws this into total disarray and often makes it impossible. With sprint, breaking a spawn trap is usually as simple as sprinting to all corners of the map, including the enemies half of the map, before a spawn trap can be established.

The 'curbed' version or any other version of sprint does nothing to alleviate these issues.

Quote:
And what "other skills" do you reference?
To summarise the above, sprint significantly diminishes the skills of:
- Being in position to help your team at the right time
- Holding the right angles or positions in objective gametypes such as CTF or Oddball.

And has essentially made redundant the skills of:
- setting up a spawn trap
- breaking a spawn trap
Unfavourable situations include those where you are not helping your team and they suffer as a consequence. If you are not pushing the right part of the map or holding the right angle and your team gets into a fight, you can quickly sprint and relocate to help them. Prior to sprint, your team would be punished by having to fight a numbers disadvantage due to your bad decision. This argument also holds in objective gametypes. When your team pulls a flag or holds the oddball there are key angles or spots to hold. Having sprint allows for a greater margin for error as you can quickly sprint to these places. When there was no sprint, if you committed to moving to one area of the map and it was the wrong choice there was no sprint to relocate.

Unfavourable situations include being stuck in spawn. Before sprint was a thing, knowing how to push out of spawn or how to break a spawn trap was a high level skill. If a team went 4 down in a CTF match (4v4) quite often they would find themselves in spawn with the other team controlling mid and if the enemy team was really good, they would try to spawn trap them. Without writing a novel about how spawn traps work or how to set them up, the overarching premise is that you are containing the enemy to one half of the map. Sprint throws this into total disarray and often makes it impossible. With sprint, breaking a spawn trap is usually as simple as sprinting to all corners of the map, including the enemies half of the map, before a spawn trap can be established.
If I'm reading correctly, the premise of this argument is that in a game with sprint (say, Halo 5) it takes less time to move from one part of a map to another (e.g., from one end to the other) than in a game without sprint (e.g., Halo 2). Is this correct?

WerepyreND wrote:
Like I said in my original post, choosing not to participate in fundamental game mechanics is not what I would consider a skill.
But choosing when to use that game mechanic is, right? I mean, the alternative is that it's completely irrelevant when you start reloading, or when you start/stop sprinting, or when you turn right. The position that knowing when to use any of the game's fundamental mechanics is not a skill seems untenable to me.

And I'm not talking about a conscious choice here where you have a five second internal monologue before every button press. I'm talking about the fact that at a given time you perform a particular action when there are numerous actions you could've performed. These choices are mostly unconscious, but they are still fundamentally based on processing information about the game, and therefore require a degree of skill.

WerepyreND wrote:
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.
Yes. Did I ever say anything else?

WerepyreND wrote:
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.
I assume this is not just the pot calling the kettle black, and you are acknowledging that we're all just as guilty of the same.

For what it's worth, I think the alternative would be really boring, because there would be no discussion at all. Sure, it often just seems like an endless circle where the same things get said over and over again. But every now and then, somebody says something interesting. Maybe I'm just crazy and alone in this, but these threads are often a source of introspection to me, which is the main reason I hang around. My views have become more nuanced over the years, and I've learned a lot about other people's views.

You can view this thread cynically as people trying to make their personal views seem more universal and altruistic than they are. Who knows, maybe most of it is. Certainly, I don't think much of anything that includes "majority of Halo fans" or "most people". But you can also see it as people struggling to understand why they have a particular preference and give it some meaning. That way it's not just fluff, but a glimpse into how someone who's not you views the game.
There is absolutely no way this game won't have the classic gameplay
That's purely speculation. Making assumptions like this is goofy at best.
the oldest of Halo fans have adored! I am so pumped for this!
I think the first part of this statement is biased based on the second part. There are plenty of older Halo fans that like the new mechanics.
At first I didn’t really mind the new abilities but now I’m just super sick of them. They only added them to continue the enhanced mobility trend a lot of shooters used to follow. Halo needs to be unique again by bringing back the classic gameplay
In my opinion, reverting back to the original mechanics will be the death of new halo games. As much as we all want to go back to playing custom games with our friends on sand trap, they need to gain a wider audience; one that will most likely be coming from CoD. If they just removed spartan charge and ground pound, I think they'll have the perfect middle ground between OG players and new ones.
<p></p>

This post has been hidden.

5
tsassi wrote:
If I'm reading correctly, the premise of this argument is that in a game with sprint (say, Halo 5) it takes less time to move from one part of a map to another (e.g., from one end to the other) than in a game without sprint (e.g., Halo 2). Is this correct?
Yes.

There is absolutely no way this game won't have the classic gameplay
they need to gain a wider audience; one that will most likely be coming from CoD.
<p></p>
I've seen this argument before and it makes me want to gouge my eyes out every time I see it. They already tried to steal the CoD player base by adding sprint, req packs, etc. and is literally the reason Halo is in the toilet right now. They created an abomination; one that alienated the existing fans they had who wanted to play Halo, but didn't quite resonate with the players who enjoyed CoD and other similar games. The result was that nobody liked the game and now the franchise is -Yoinked!-.

Also, not sure if you know this, but Halo CE, H2 and H3 competed just fine against CoD back in the day (pretty it was more popular, but it was neck and neck either way) because they were different games which appealed to different audiences. One was an arena shooter and one was a run and gun pub shooter.

Your line of thinking is similar to the one 343 has had in the past and if they implement it again in infinite, I would stake my life that the downward spiral of the franchise continues.
they need to gain a wider audience; one that will most likely be coming from CoD.
Yeah, because that worked so well in the past...
If they just removed spartan charge and ground pound, I think they'll have the perfect middle ground between OG players and new ones.
How do kids learn how to compromise these days?
Person A: wants to eat pizza and does not want to eat sushi
Person B: does not want to eat sushi and does not want to eat pizza
-> does eating pizza sound like a middle ground to you?
tsassi wrote:
If I'm reading correctly, the premise of this argument is that in a game with sprint (say, Halo 5) it takes less time to move from one part of a map to another (e.g., from one end to the other) than in a game without sprint (e.g., Halo 2). Is this correct?
Yes.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that maps have increased in size to compensate for sprint, and—as is often demonstrated with Midship and Truth—that this completely negates the effects of increased movevement speed? Even if we question whether map sizes have increased sufficiently to fully negate this effect, the fact that they can be suggests that this issue is not inherent to any mechanic that increases the maximum movement speed, but is in the domain of map design.

I'm just a bit confused, because you appear to be taking the exact opposite of a position that has been thoroughly assumed by the majority of the anti-sprint crowd, has been acknowledged by the developers, and has been fairly substantially demonstrated in-game. Am I missing something here?
tsassi wrote:
tsassi wrote:
If I'm reading correctly, the premise of this argument is that in a game with sprint (say, Halo 5) it takes less time to move from one part of a map to another (e.g., from one end to the other) than in a game without sprint (e.g., Halo 2). Is this correct?
Yes.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that maps have increased in size to compensate for sprint, and—as is often demonstrated with Midship and Truth—that this completely negates the effects of increased movevement speed?
The issue does mostly boil down to map design. Truth is a simple map as it has relatively few paths, meaning you can just scale up the map horizontally and you mostly mitigate the effect of sprint. However, it should be noted that sprint + clamber has still changed the map fundamentally in so far as the pathways available. For example, you can now move from flag (not the nest, the actual flag platform) to top mid, which was never an option in previous versions. My suspicion is the devs realised this and added the nests in as an afterthought to make it seem intentional, but that is of course speculation. In any case, here we have possibly the simplest map in the game, but still sprint has changed the map fundamentally by adding a direct path from flag to top mid, which can have huge implications. This issue is only magnified when you consider maps with more intricate or numerous paths. As such, I would disagree with your statement that scaling up the maps is an effective way to negate the effect of sprint.

Quote:
Even if we question whether map sizes have increased sufficiently to fully negate this effect, the fact that they can be suggests that this issue is not inherent to any mechanic that increases the maximum movement speed, but is in the domain of map design.
Even if we assume scaling up the maps perfectly negated the effect of sprint, I believe this would still be a matter of perspective. We could scale up the maps to compensate for sprint, or we could leave the maps as they were and remove sprint. Both are options and both would have the same effect.
tsassi wrote:
If I'm reading correctly, the premise of this argument is that in a game with sprint (say, Halo 5) it takes less time to move from one part of a map to another (e.g., from one end to the other) than in a game without sprint (e.g., Halo 2). Is this correct?
Yes.

There is absolutely no way this game won't have the classic gameplay
they need to gain a wider audience; one that will most likely be coming from CoD.
<p></p>
I've seen this argument before and it makes me want to gouge my eyes out every time I see it. They already tried to steal the CoD player base by adding sprint, req packs, etc. and is literally the reason Halo is in the toilet right now. They created an abomination; one that alienated the existing fans they had who wanted to play Halo, but didn't quite resonate with the players who enjoyed CoD and other similar games. The result was that nobody liked the game and now the franchise is -Yoinked!-.

Also, not sure if you know this, but Halo CE, H2 and H3 competed just fine against CoD back in the day (pretty it was more popular, but it was neck and neck either way) because they were different games which appealed to different audiences. One was an arena shooter and one was a run and gun pub shooter.

Your line of thinking is similar to the one 343 has had in the past and if they implement it again in infinite, I would stake my life that the downward spiral of the franchise continues.
Well just take a look at where the franchise is today. Do you think a slower and lore strategic game will attract more people than one that feels faster pases with more mechanics to master? The fan base that made the games more popular in the early 2000’s is now just a fraction of who will be playing these games. It would be pretty naive to only cater to the OGs. I’m excited to see what they implement on the new generation, and will play it regardless. But at the end of the day, 343 is still a company that needs to make money.
they need to gain a wider audience; one that will most likely be coming from CoD.
Yeah, because that worked so well in the past...
If they just removed spartan charge and ground pound, I think they'll have the perfect middle ground between OG players and new ones.
How do kids learn how to compromise these days?
Person A: wants to eat pizza and does not want to eat sushi
Person B: does not want to eat sushi and does not want to eat pizza
-> does eating pizza sound like a middle ground to you?
In your situation, there is no compromise. Imagine a 12 year old buying infinite as his first halo title, and it’s the sort of chess match that was halo 2. I love playing chess, and I love playing halo, but the 12 year old won’t.

OGs want original halo with actual tactics and map flipping,
Young bloods want a fast paced arena shooter to play with their friend.

What do you think makes the most fiscal sense, ignoring potential income or modifying a game to still attract them?
The issue does mostly boil down to map design. Truth is a simple map as it has relatively few paths, meaning you can just scale up the map horizontally and you mostly mitigate the effect of sprint. However, it should be noted that sprint + clamber has still changed the map fundamentally in so far as the pathways available. For example, you can now move from flag (not the nest, the actual flag platform) to top mid, which was never an option in previous versions. My suspicion is the devs realised this and added the nests in as an afterthought to make it seem intentional, but that is of course speculation. In any case, here we have possibly the simplest map in the game, but still sprint has changed the map fundamentally by adding a direct path from flag to top mid, which can have huge implications. This issue is only magnified when you consider maps with more intricate or numerous paths. As such, I would disagree with your statement that scaling up the maps is an effective way to negate the effect of sprint.
Off the top of my head, I don't think there are any new paths on Truth if you remove all Spartan Abilities except sprint. Certainly, this example doesn't work if you remove Clamber, which makes singling out sprint a bit questionable. I can agree with the general idea that the increasing freedom of movement provided by Spartan Abilities makes player movement more and more difficullt to control, but the speed increase of sprint alone is fairly straightforwardly taken care of.

Even if we assume scaling up the maps perfectly negated the effect of sprint, I believe this would still be a matter of perspective. We could scale up the maps to compensate for sprint, or we could leave the maps as they were and remove sprint. Both are options and both would have the same effect.
I just don't think "this mechanic causes problems on a map that hasn't been properly designed for it" is a very strong argument against the mechanic. Whether the map design we end up with is desirable, or whether we'd be better off removing the mechanic to preserve map design is of course a different story, but that is an entirely different argument.

Young bloods want a fast paced arena shooter to play with their friend.
How's Quake Champions doing?
OGs want original halo with actual tactics and map flipping,
Young bloods want a fast paced arena shooter to play with their friend.
You make such a bold claim, not only with no evidence to back it up, but you easily shove the population in one of two buckets based on their age.

And this is also the age where everyone is playing Battle Royales, which are traditionally much slower than the high-octane multidirectional games of Brink, Titanfall, and Mirror's Edge.

Even Rainbow 6 Siege, which has only gotten more popular, should have been dead in the water under this perspective.
tsassi wrote:
If I'm reading correctly, the premise of this argument is that in a game with sprint (say, Halo 5) it takes less time to move from one part of a map to another (e.g., from one end to the other) than in a game without sprint (e.g., Halo 2). Is this correct?
Yes.

There is absolutely no way this game won't have the classic gameplay
they need to gain a wider audience; one that will most likely be coming from CoD.
<p></p>
I've seen this argument before and it makes me want to gouge my eyes out every time I see it. They already tried to steal the CoD player base by adding sprint, req packs, etc. and is literally the reason Halo is in the toilet right now. They created an abomination; one that alienated the existing fans they had who wanted to play Halo, but didn't quite resonate with the players who enjoyed CoD and other similar games. The result was that nobody liked the game and now the franchise is -Yoinked!-.

Also, not sure if you know this, but Halo CE, H2 and H3 competed just fine against CoD back in the day (pretty it was more popular, but it was neck and neck either way) because they were different games which appealed to different audiences. One was an arena shooter and one was a run and gun pub shooter.

Your line of thinking is similar to the one 343 has had in the past and if they implement it again in infinite, I would stake my life that the downward spiral of the franchise continues.
Well just take a look at where the franchise is today. Do you think a slower and lore strategic game will attract more people than one that feels faster pases with more mechanics to master? The fan base that made the games more popular in the early 2000’s is now just a fraction of who will be playing these games. It would be pretty naive to only cater to the OGs. I’m excited to see what they implement on the new generation, and will play it regardless. But at the end of the day, 343 is still a company that needs to make money.
Why does everyone seem to think that no sprint animation means slow!!! I've said this so many times it's not even funny... The new Doom doesn't have sprint, is it slow paced? Absolutely not! And even better example is Overwatch which doesn't have the sprint animation save but two characters I think and It's arguably the most popular FPS right now and has been the last couple years now, and don't give me this whole "you can't use that game as a comparison" Because you can, it's a FPS and that's what we're talking about. Not Arena FPS's or load out FPS's or class FPS's or whatever.... Just FPS. FPS like Overwatch prove fundamentally that sprint is not needed for a game to be popular or fun.

Lots and lots of young players play Overwatch, but according to you, young people shouldn't like it because it's not super fast pace. Overwatch has moments of insaneness 100% but overall it is not a fast-paced FPS with quick kill times or anything. I played it at a pretty high level and watched enough tournaments to know.

....and for the last time, can we get it through our head that people don't care If a game has the sprint animation or not. People just care about one thing, is the game fun...ok maybe two things, the other being price lol If it is fun, people will play that game. End of story.
OGs want original halo with actual tactics and map flipping,
Young bloods want a fast paced arena shooter to play with their friend.
You make such a bold claim, not only with no evidence to back it up, but you easily shove the population in one of two buckets based on their age.

And this is also the age where everyone is playing Battle Royales, which are traditionally much slower than the high-octane multidirectional games of Brink, Titanfall, and Mirror's Edge.

Even Rainbow 6 Siege, which has only gotten more popular, should have been dead in the water under this perspective.
First off, I’d rather not write a cited essay on the psychology of people who play video games. Going to your point on RS being dead in the water, you can squeeze a lot of matches into a short period of time. I haven’t played the game for more than a few hours, but in my time doing so, there aren’t many slow points. And by all means, I’m not calling the Bungie era games boring, I’m just simply stating my opinion on this.

Play the games you wanna play, have the opinions you wanna have. My two cents are based off personal experience. I’ve had a considerable amount of fun playing H5, so I choose to wish this multiplayer trend continues.
OGs want original halo with actual tactics and map flipping,
Young bloods want a fast paced arena shooter to play with their friend.
You make such a bold claim, not only with no evidence to back it up, but you easily shove the population in one of two buckets based on their age.

And this is also the age where everyone is playing Battle Royales, which are traditionally much slower than the high-octane multidirectional games of Brink, Titanfall, and Mirror's Edge.

Even Rainbow 6 Siege, which has only gotten more popular, should have been dead in the water under this perspective.
First off, I’d rather not write a cited essay on the psychology of people who play video games. Going to your point on RS being dead in the water, you can squeeze a lot of matches into a short period of time. I haven’t played the game for more than a few hours, but in my time doing so, there aren’t many slow points. And by all means, I’m not calling the Bungie era games boring, I’m just simply stating my opinion on this.

Play the games you wanna play, have the opinions you wanna have. My two cents are based off personal experience. I’ve had a considerable amount of fun playing H5, so I choose to wish this multiplayer trend continues.
You can have all your opinions, more power to you. But then you go on to say "Certain people want X", which isn't an opinion, that's a claim.

If you just want a trend to continue because it's fun to you and your personal preference, just say so. Just don't make huge generalizations on some imaginary group of people that feels that way.

If we try to define "fast-paced" by the length of matches, at the higher level, the average Halo 3 game is faster than the average Halo 5 game (at least with Truth vs Heretic).
First off, I’d rather not write a cited essay on the psychology of people who play video games.
By all means do. It would be a very interesting read.

Going to your point on RS being dead in the water, you can squeeze a lot of matches into a short period of time. I haven’t played the game for more than a few hours, but in my time doing so, there aren’t many slow points. And by all means, I’m not calling the Bungie era games boring, I’m just simply stating my opinion on this.
So, popular games are fast in the sense that matches are short?
How about popular long match games like DotA, LoL and CS:GO?

Play the games you wanna play, have the opinions you wanna have. My two cents are based off personal experience. I’ve had a considerable amount of fun playing H5, so I choose to wish this multiplayer trend continues.
Would you say "A lot of people like green apples" could be your *opinion*?
eLantern wrote:
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.
At least in the higher level, someone recorded stats for matches in Truth and Heretic, the only kinda(?) comparable map between two games.
According to this, matches are taking almost 50% longer, but with less kills per game. I'm not going to say that this is absolutely positively because of Sprint and Sprint alone, but it gets a bit disingenuous when people say that we're getting much faster games and more "freedom" in movement, when talking about a mechanic specifically designed to limit movement.
This^... correction: these (including the link below) are some excellent sources of information. Thanks for providing these.

A couple key things I noted about the match time data was (1) it’s a small sample size, and (2) the time frame in which the comparisons were being made between titles. 2011 was the 4th season of Halo 3 tournament play which means the meta and gameplay were fairly well understood by then; plus, map weapons/power-ups had already become fine-tuned for a more optimal competitive experience. I imagine that might lead to some slightly quicker match times than the 1st season of Halo 3 MLG tournaments, but obviously that’s just an educated guess.

In comparison, 2016 was essentially the 1st season of Halo 5 tournament HCS play. This indicates to me that the meta and gameplay were not as well understood (in comparison); plus, these matches are all prior to the major HCS changes that took place throughout Halo 5. Now, I’m not saying this absolutely accounts for the match time differences, but it could be a potential contributing factor.

Nevertheless, it’s very interesting to see these tracked and recorded differences. I’m now curious to see what the margin of error might be if all pro tournament matches across all titles were to be compared. I don’t believe you need to isolate the comparison down to map remakes; though, they do serve as an intriguing side note about how the developers wanted to try recreating a particular map’s experience in different titles.

I agree that we may not be getting faster matches (time wise) despite what some people may sense, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that we are receiving more mobility freedom within Halo 5. And it’s not really related to sprint; although, sprint > jump, sprint > jump > boost, and the sprint > boost > slide > jump technique all grant some mobility freedom in how they extend jump distances. The real freedom primarily comes from the clamber and boost features. Plus, in more advanced techniques like stabilizing crouch-clambers, spring jumps, etc.
Quote:
eLantern wrote:
Link?
GDC 2016 (14:20)
I completely forgot about this GDC event. Thank you for linking it.

I can see why you said this:
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.
But, you’re taking Ryan’s comment a bit out-of-context to do so.

He was basically saying that the concepts of integrated thruster boost and (unlimited) sprint both introduced complexities that directly affect escape-ability. There was certainly a reasonable sense of concern related to how they would increase escape-ability to undesirable levels thus making their inclusion contentious and iffy; however, at that time he was not giving a direct reference to the actual “current” implementation of those mechanics when he said that. He was simply referencing the complexities that the design team faced and the need to bring balance to them for potential inclusion.

Also, he gives a decent accounting on the steps that were taken to appropriately curb sprint’s affect on escape-ability while discussing the nuanced design of Spartan Charge (an extension of Melee during particular player conditions) at the 39:51 to 41:31 minute mark in the video.

Not to mention, he addresses a question asked to him at the 59:28 minute mark about the effect H5’s mobility has had on arena map design. In his answer he explains that overall size has remained relatively the same and goes on to mention that the shield recharge delay for sprint was a primary component to appropriately curbing the issue of escape-ability.

Sounds like 343i felt as if it was acceptably addressed per the standards they had for it. And as a consumer of the Halo FPS franchise since it’s birth, including with Bungie’s Marathon, I feel they’ve done an absolutely fantastic job of adding reasonable and justifiable depth to this franchise while appropriately honoring its roots and uniqueness. You are all free to feel otherwise, but don’t bring objective falsities as the reason why. It’s logical and personally sensible to expect subjective opinions to differ.
I dont mind if they get rid of them. I've been playing halo since day 1 drop of CE. I prefer the old style but if they keep new I want halo 2 strafing, they can keep sprint and clamber. All other abilities suck.
You know, I feel there's a simple solution to all this that would satisfy most, if not all parties: Simply increase the base movement speed
This would allow for the fast mobility people perfer from the newer games, while catering to those who simply want to play halo how it used to be. clamber is fine as long as it can only be performed on places you can actually get to, but other than that, get rid of the Halo 5 spartan abilities, as they have been nothing but detrimental both to map design and the core Halo gameplay.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 142
  4. 143
  5. 144
  6. 145
  7. 146
  8. ...
  9. 188