Well, we've recently seen that there's a very selfish streak with absolutely no intention at compromise, so I'm disinclined to continue at pursuing hypothetical compromise.
Having given this some thought and reflection, I asked myself, did you actually offer a compromise, or did you just point at a spot and suggest the others go play there instead?
See, my understanding of a compromise is that two opposing parties give in on different preferences they have, in order to reach a solution they both can work with. As has been said though, a compromise rarely leave anyone actually happy with the result as it's less than ideal for all involved parties.
That's not to say options haven't been presented.
The "anti-side" have for instance advocated increased BMS, larger FoV, motion blur and more violent bobbing at high speeds to give a similar feeling to that of sprinting.
The "pro-side" have suggested being able to use small arms when sprinting, or retaining a tempory high BMS after exiting sprint, an automatic sprint which activate quickly so the user doesn't have to, have sprint be only be temporary as in Halo 4 without a perk.
Between these and your suggestion, there are two big differences.
1: The ones who put these suggestions forward took into account what the other side wants, trying to get closer to that without adventuring their own preferences.
2: The end result would affect the entire game.
From your suggestion I don't really see an understanding in what your opposition wants, and your suggestion is limited to a small section of the whole piece, not only that but your suggestion doesn't even tangent any mechanic on a functional level, it's merely "disable it" and use your own rules in your small segregated playspace.
Sure, I'm selfish, but I'm not the person who has yet to elaborate on why I should give up on my own preferences for people I don't know who weren't interested in what I like from the start.
Are you prepared to give in/up on mechanics and features to your liking so that others who aren't of the same opinion as you potentially may like what you now like less, more?
Quite easy to call "selfish" but I get an entirely different feeling when all I've gotten is "As long as I get what I want, you can get a small piece where you can do what you want".
It's probably easier to just resort back to "Deal with it", as sprinting in various games - FPS included - is industry standard. I can't think of a single FPS game that's come out in the last five years that doesn't have sprint.
Now that'd be constructive.
As far as "industry standard" goes, please do define what that means. Otherwise I'm just going to assume it's a buzzword, whatever excuse you may have to not define that phrase.
Last five years? Quite impressive considering the amount of FPS titles that have been released in that time span.
Then again, I have a feeling that there'll be a lot of caveats that invalidate titles brought to your attention.
Halo's had it for near 10 now. One would think that's a long enough time to get used to something, but here we are...
I wish getting used to something, meant getting to like it.
I take solace in the strong likelihood that Sprint is not going to be removed.
Good for you.
Perhaps this makes me "no better" than Naqser, but again there's little incentive to be better at this point, as dissidents have no intention of compromise.
I like how classfully condencending this is.
You wanted to compromise, failing to even understand the opposition, and as such never touched a single mechanic functionally, which is where the shoe is tight. Hasn't paid attention to a single "classic playlist" since Halo Reach ,( not to mention later on the gaming market ) and gets told why those playlists don't work, then gets mad, stops trying to convince anyone and ignores basically anything other than small things he can use as an excuse to abandon his apparently big desire to compromise.
I'm glad I can be your bad guy to look down on and use as a benchmark of "badness", and to openly talk about in that manner.