Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 151
  4. 152
  5. 153
  6. 154
  7. ...
  8. 155
As I have stated before, I am a fan of H5's enhanced movement, and the strategy of using sprint when needed like H4. If there is a reason for Chief losing the ability to sprint, fine. Don't just throw it away for no reason.
Was there ever an in-universe explanation why Spartans suddenly lost the ability to sprint and shoot at the same time?
Why they can no longer dual wield?
Why they can no longer smart-link their weapon sights?

Not that I know of, at least.
In the same way I don't see a reason to justify every single gameplay decision in-universe, including a potential removal of the sprint mechanic (which was probably never canon to begin with) seeing as the games have never really adhered to lore in the first place.
Something I keep seeing here, that I personally think is ridiculous, is the notion of fun. That players are or aren't sprinting and having fun while doing it. As though we're mashing that left stick with a huge, goofy grin on our faces shouting "Yeah!" like we're soaring away on Falkor's back. It's silly to try and single out one movement mechanic and put it's level of fun under scrutiny. Can we do the same with jumping? Crouching?

It's a matter of function, and any fun to be had comes in context. Jumping in an of itself is a tool, no one's deriving pleasure from the action itself, but jumping over a ghost that almost hit you? Fun. Crouching is the same, it just is, and no one's itching to go at the edge of their seat for the next crouch. But managing to stay undetected through crouching and clearing an entire room of sleeping enemies, or setting up the perfect ambush? Again, that's the fun. Same with sprint; in and of itself it is a tool, and the circumstance is where it is fun or useful. Getting away from a hot situation. Chasing down an enemy. Covering expansive ground faster than normal because your vehicle just got blown up. I really don't get where the fun argument came in.
Something I keep seeing here, that I personally think is ridiculous, is the notion of fun. That players are or aren't sprinting and having fun while doing it. As though we're mashing that left stick with a huge, goofy grin on our faces shouting "Yeah!" like we're soaring away on Falkor's back. It's silly to try and single out one movement mechanic and put it's level of fun under scrutiny. Can we do the same with jumping? Crouching?

It's a matter of function, and any fun to be had comes in context. Jumping in an of itself is a tool, no one's deriving pleasure from the action itself, but jumping over a ghost that almost hit you? Fun. Crouching is the same, it just is, and no one's itching to go at the edge of their seat for the next crouch. But managing to stay undetected through crouching and clearing an entire room of sleeping enemies, or setting up the perfect ambush? Again, that's the fun. Same with sprint; in and of itself it is a tool, and the circumstance is where it is fun or useful. Getting away from a hot situation. Chasing down an enemy. Covering expansive ground faster than normal because your vehicle just got blown up. I really don't get where the fun argument came in.
Agreed, although I despise sprint the problem is not if it's more fun with or without it, the problem is that sprint and advanced movement altogether makes map design impossible, I don't recall any Halo 5 map as memorable because of this...
Advanced movement works if a game franchise is built on it from its birth - see Titanfall
It just doesn't belong to Halo

IMO
Celestis wrote:
As I have stated before, I am a fan of H5's enhanced movement, and the strategy of using sprint when needed like H4. If there is a reason for Chief losing the ability to sprint, fine. Don't just throw it away for no reason.
Was there ever an in-universe explanation why Spartans suddenly lost the ability to sprint and shoot at the same time?
Why they can no longer dual wield?
Why they can no longer smart-link their weapon sights?

Not that I know of, at least.
In the same way I don't see a reason to justify every single gameplay decision in-universe, including a potential removal of the sprint mechanic (which was probably never canon to begin with) seeing as the games have never really adhered to lore in the first place.
Agree with Celestis 1000%
Something I keep seeing here, that I personally think is ridiculous, is the notion of fun. That players are or aren't sprinting and having fun while doing it. As though we're mashing that left stick with a huge, goofy grin on our faces shouting "Yeah!" like we're soaring away on Falkor's back. It's silly to try and single out one movement mechanic and put it's level of fun under scrutiny. Can we do the same with jumping? Crouching?

It's a matter of function, and any fun to be had comes in context. Jumping in an of itself is a tool, no one's deriving pleasure from the action itself, but jumping over a ghost that almost hit you? Fun. Crouching is the same, it just is, and no one's itching to go at the edge of their seat for the next crouch. But managing to stay undetected through crouching and clearing an entire room of sleeping enemies, or setting up the perfect ambush? Again, that's the fun. Same with sprint; in and of itself it is a tool, and the circumstance is where it is fun or useful. Getting away from a hot situation. Chasing down an enemy. Covering expansive ground faster than normal because your vehicle just got blown up. I really don't get where the fun argument came in.
Fun is at the heart of the issue. If the basic movement in the game isn't fun, the whole game falls flat because the movement is half the foundation for the game (the other half being gunplay). The individual mechanics need to be fun. This doesn't mean that the player needs to be giggling with joy whenever they push a button to jump. It means that the mechanics need to feel satisfying and congruent. You can absolutely screw up basic movement mechanics so that they are not fun. A somewhat classic example of a minor failure is the jump delay in Halo CE. It makes jumping feel ever so slightly unresponsive and uncertain, and trying to do precise jumps in the game is kind of a frustrating experience.

A movement mechanic is fun if it behaves as the player intuitively expects it to behave, and if it empowers the player. The reason that you're not used to thinking movement mechanics in terms of fun is that developers generally make a pretty good job of making them fun, or alternatively, games where the movement mechanics aren't fun never get anywhere, so they don't come to your attention, so you never get to play them. But it's still pretty important to remember. For example, it's the reason I always shoot down suggestions to nerf sprint: the more you nerf it, the less fun it is. As much as I dislike sprint for other reasons, running around not needing to worry that I will run out of sprint, or that a bullet will slow me down is fun. It makes me feel powerful, and any of the things that can force me to slow down break that feeling. I wouldn't wish a disempowering sprint on my worst enemy.
tsassi wrote:
Fun is at the heart of the issue. If the basic movement in the game isn't fun, the whole game falls flat because the movement is half the foundation for the game (the other half being gunplay).
Yet see this, in particular, is really silly to me. It truly is. Basic movement - including sprint - is a tool, it just is, and circumstance makes it fun or just so. Running is just another day in the game. Running down the back of a Guardian? Much more thrilling, especially when you jump and move forward. I don't think anyone "has fun" sprinting, but they might have fun, say, sprinting into a group of enemies to rush them, Spartan Slamming away one, shooting another, grabbing the flag and then getting the hell out.

Firing a gun is something else entirely, as that has a separate level of satisfaction both visual and audial.

Your example of jump delay, however, is a good example of unsatisfying mechanics. Personally I never noticed that in CE, but that does present an issue that can be frustrating. To which, however, I feel the mechanics of Halo 4 and 5 - namely Sprint - live up to mechanical operation. They are responsive, properly measured, and satisfying in that they deliver the intended function; to offer a temporary boost to speed when the situation calls for it. In this regard, Sprint is "fun" in that (personally speaking) when it's absent, it's truly a temporary disapointment. Constantly, as mentioned before, I find myself trying to sprint in older titles, only to quickly remember that I cannot. Which leads to a moment of frustration before I ultimately just adapt to the situation at hand.
Yet see this, in particular, is really silly to me. Basic movement - including sprint - is a tool, it just is, and circumstance makes it fun or just so.
Maybe to you it is just a tool, but calling it silly because you can't appreciate the nuances of mechanics in and of themselves is just... silly, and arrogant.

I don't think anyone "has fun" sprinting
Hmm... what did I just say. Oh, yes: "as much as I dislike sprint for other reasons, running around not needing to worry that I will run out of sprint, or that a bullet will slow me down is fun". And I'm sure I would find many people to agree with me on that. Of course, I only needed anyone to prove this statement wrong, so I will do.

Firing a gun is something else entirely, as that has a separate level of satisfaction both visual and audial.
I'm not entirely sure whether you're knowingly ignoring the audiovisual aspects of movement mechanics, or whether you actually know so little about the design of gameplay mechanics. In any case, I think the people who animated sprint and the people who made the foley work for it would shed a tear if they read this comment. I wish I could show you a version of sprint where all the extra visuals and sounds have been removed.

The other thing you have ignored is the non-audiovisual aspect of gameplay mechanic design. A weapon that sounds and looks powerful can still feel bad for a variety of reasons, including damage, accuracy, rate of fire. Same applies to movement mechanics.

To which, however, I feel the mechanics of Halo 4 and 5 - namely Sprint - live up to mechanical operation.
Maybe you do. However, I think the decision in Halo 4 to make players stop sprinting when they got hit was very poor, and made the mechanic less fun to use. Similarly, the finite sprint of Halo Reach feels very frustrating to use in retrospect.
tsassi wrote:
Fun is at the heart of the issue. If the basic movement in the game isn't fun, the whole game falls flat because the movement is half the foundation for the game (the other half being gunplay).
Yet see this, in particular, is really silly to me. It truly is. Basic movement - including sprint - is a tool, it just is, and circumstance makes it fun or just so. Running is just another day in the game. Running down the back of a Guardian? Much more thrilling, especially when you jump and move forward. I don't think anyone "has fun" sprinting, but they might have fun, say, sprinting into a group of enemies to rush them, Spartan Slamming away one, shooting another, grabbing the flag and then getting the hell out
Mechanics can still have repercussions that make a game more or less fun, though. It's not that sprinting in and of itself isn't fun to me; It's the feeling of constant disempowerment that makes the game overall less fun. When I go fast, I can't shoot. When I shoot, I can't go fast. You're always handicapped in at least one aspect. The simple act of movement in Halo has no longer been fun to me ever since ODST, regardless of circumstances, because the game is perpetually putting a spoke in my wheel.
tsassi wrote:
Maybe to you it is just a tool, but calling it silly because you can't appreciate the nuances of mechanics in and of themselves is just... silly, and arrogant.
Could you maybe stop baselessly calling me arrogant? That's twice in recent posts that you've done so, and it makes this whole thing decidedly less pleasant. Me finding the notion (not the nuances) that a mechanic must be intrinsically "fun" silly does not make me arrogant. It's not an exaggerated display of my own abilities or self-importance, it's a simple opinion.

Quote:
Hmm... what did I just say. Oh, yes: "as much as I dislike sprint for other reasons, running around not needing to worry that I will run out of sprint, or that a bullet will slow me down is fun". And I'm sure I would find many people to agree with me on that. Of course, I only needed anyone to prove this statement wrong, so I will do.
And that cuts off the rest of the statement regarding circumstantial enjoyment, not the mechanic itself. Remember when you accused me of selectively ignoring bits of your argument? Well, you're doing that now.

Is it the sprinting that you're having fun doing? If we were to drop you into a blank Forge map, 100km end to end with nothing around, would you still be having fun? Frankly we can say just about anything here, so the question is more rhetorical. I already provided examples of situational factors in my last post.

Quote:
I'm not entirely sure whether you're knowingly ignoring the audiovisual aspects of movement mechanics, or whether you actually know so little about the design of gameplay mechanics.
Then just don't assume on it. That's poor show.

Quote:
The other thing you have ignored is the non-audiovisual aspect of gameplay mechanic design. A weapon that sounds and looks powerful can still feel bad for a variety of reasons, including damage, accuracy, rate of fire. Same applies to movement mechanics.
No, I didn't ignore it, I didn't mention it. There's a stark difference there, tsassi. Yes, if you've got a (seemingly) super powerful rocket launcher that makes a loud boom, bucks with backblast and rumbles the controller, yet barely takes out a fourth of a player's shields, that's highly unsatisfying. It's poor design. It's not fun. Firing the rocket might be, but the results - the circumstances - spoil or make that.

Similarly with sprint, circumstance makes or breaks it. I am not of the opinion that it is intrinsically "fun" itself, but reliant on the outcome. Did you get away, or did you get stopped and taken out? Getting knocked out of sprint when you get hit (unless you're using the Resistor Tactical Package in your loadout) might not be fun, but that doesn't make sprinting not fun. That's like saying it's fun to have a full shield bar, but getting his ruins that fun; also casting the experience into a selfish light, as what's not fun for you in that situation is fun for the enemy. If everyone was to have fun in such a way all the time every time, the game would fall apart.
Could you maybe stop baselessly calling me arrogant? That's twice in recent posts that you've done so, and it makes this whole thing decidedly less pleasant.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I called you arrogant, and I stand by it. "I don't find movement mechanics intrinsically fun. Thinking they can be is silly" is arrogant because you're denying the whole notion based on your own feelings. You're calling a concept "silly" and refusing to entertain it because you don't subscribe to it. If you didn't call it "silly" I might give you a pass, but the disrespect implied by that word leaves with no regrets calling the statement arrogant.

And that cuts off the rest of the statement regarding circumstantial enjoyment, not the mechanic itself. Remember when you accused me of selectively ignoring bits of your argument? Well, you're doing that now.

Is it the sprinting that you're having fun doing? If we were to drop you into a blank Forge map, 100km end to end with nothing around, would you still be having fun?
No, that's the thing. I can have fun sprinting, period. If you drop me onto a huge flat plane by myself, I can still find the act of sprinting fun. However, make no mistake, I'm not saying "I can derive endless enjoyment from sprinting around an empty plane and I will never get bored". What I am saying is I can find it fun: I can derive some meaningful amount of momentary enjoyment from the act of pushing a button and observing the effects that indicate my character has sped up.

Yes, I am selectively ignoring part of your argument, because it didn't relate to anything I was saying, because I can literally find sprint intrinsically fun. Not just that: the intrinsic enjoyment is the only enjoyment I can derive from the mechanic. The only thing about sprint that is in any way appealing to me is the sensation of speed provided by the associated animations and sound that seek to convince me that I'm going really fast. As soon as I remove it from the infinite flat plane, and start to consider its gameplay implications, it becomes not fun.

No, I don't find sprinting into a group of enemies fun. No, I don't find using Spartan Charge fun (I assume you meant it with "Spartan Slamming"). It's literally just the plain act of sprinting that I find in any way engaging about sprint.

Does that make my answer clear enough?

Getting knocked out of sprint when you get hit (unless you're using the Resistor Tactical Package in your loadout) might not be fun, but that doesn't make sprinting not fun.
Suppose you were playing Halo, and someone came to you and punched you in the face and left. With your face hurting, would you experience the same enjoyment as before? How about, would you enjoy playing Halo as much as you do now if there was a chance that at any moment someone could come and punch you in the face while playing it?

It's an intentionally ridiculous scenario, but it points out the important fact that the fun you're having doing a thing is intrinsically tied to the consequences of that activity.

That's like saying it's fun to have a full shield bar, but getting his ruins that fun
"Having a full shield bar" isn't an activity the player engages in. It's just a passive element the player has no control over. Apples and oranges.
My vote is for Halo 3 movement mechanics or something very similar.
As much as I would love too see the old movement make a return, I just don't see it happening. Or at least to the extent of what most people would imagine to me the "Classic" movement.

A much more likely scenario I see is that we'll see the removal of the thruster pack abilities, but we'll likely keep the more basic movement like sprint and slide. Personally I don't mind what system Infinite uses, as long as it come in as complete package at launch.
tsassi wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I called you arrogant, and I stand by it. "I don't find movement mechanics intrinsically fun. Thinking they can be is silly" is arrogant because you're denying the whole notion based on your own feelings. You're calling a concept "silly" and refusing to entertain it because you don't subscribe to it. If you didn't call it "silly" I might give you a pass, but the disrespect implied by that word leaves with no regrets calling the statement arrogant.
Just one page over you quote me and give me the line of "I used to be arrogant," insinuating that I am being such. Neither is that my stance as you state; if you're going to quote me or attribute statements to me, do it properly. I said:

It's silly to try and single out one movement mechanic and put it's level of fun under scrutiny.
Again, arrogance is defined as an exaggerated sense of self-importance or ability. If me stating my opinion is a display of arrogance then every single person here is arrogant, you included. Not only that, but I can't help but feel a constant sense of disrespect towards my position and views, and it's increasingly frustrating. You have accused me of arrogance, of ignorance to issues and matters not brought into my points, as well as delivering counter-arguments in a condescending manner. I'm replying to this one, but I wouldn't expect a reply past this; it's clear that level discussion isn't to be had and I've little interest in keeping this going. There is a difference between assaulting an idea and assaulting a person, and my opinion that a notion is silly - based on my feelings or not - does not warrant you calling me arrogant.

Quote:
The only thing about sprint that is in any way appealing to me is the sensation of speed provided by the associated animations and sound that seek to convince me that I'm going really fast.
Which ignores the marked and measured fact that you are, in fact, going faster. There is no convincing needed, it is measured fact. 23mph is faster than 17mph.

Quote:
Suppose you were playing Halo, and someone came to you and punched you in the face and left. With your face hurting, would you experience the same enjoyment as before?
Yes. I've fractured my thumb while playing, patched it up with a plastic spoon, and gone right back to finish the level out. This is not a good metaphor as you note, however, as you're breaking the fourth wall and bringing real-world issues to compare gameplay. Truly apples to oranges, rather than comparing gameplay to gameplay. Getting shot isn't an activity that the player engages in, be it a matter of sprinting or continuing to have a full health/shield bar.

But fine, how about scoping? In every single Halo game (except Halo 4) since Halo: Combat Evolved, you're knocked out of scoping when hit. Does that make scoping not fun?
Just one page over you quote me and give me the line of "I used to be arrogant," insinuating that I am being such.
Has it crossed your mind that I was just, you know, making a self-depreceating comment about past me? Opening my heart about things I'm not proud of, mistakes that aren't easy to admit? Maybe how you interpreted that comment tells more about you than it tells about me.

Neither is that my stance as you state; if you're going to quote me or attribute statements to me, do it properly.
In case you didn't notice, I had it in quotation marks instead of a box quote with your name on it (and I never claimed you said such a thing) to indicate that it's not something you said, but a paraphrasing of the thinking I interpreted from your comments, written in a way that emphasizes the problematic part of your attitude.

If me stating my opinion is a display of arrogance then every single person here is arrogant, you included.
Sure, I can deal with that. I already know I used to be arrogant. Who's to say I've completely gotten rid of it? If you find something I say arrogant, by all means bring it to my attention so that I can improve as an individual.

But, just to be clear, stating an opinion is not arrogant, per se. Stating that other people are sillly for (and this is a direct quote of what you said) "singl[ing] out one movement mechanic and put[ting] it's [sic] level of fun under scrutiny" is because you're implying that a point of view differing from yours is silly. The thing that makes it arrogant is precisely that whether there is intrinsic fun found in mechanics that's worth analyzing is entirely subjective as fun is, so there is no other reason for you to call it silly other than it not matching with your personal idea of fun. It doesn't get much more textbook than that.

Not only that, but I can't help but feel a constant sense of disrespect towards my position and views, and it's increasingly frustrating.
I'm glad to hear that feeling is mutual.

Which ignores the marked and measured fact that you are, in fact, going faster. There is no convincing needed, it is measured fact. 23mph is faster than 17mph.
Umm, okay? Sure. I'm not entirely sure why you felt the need to say this, but cool.

Yes. I've fractured my thumb while playing, patched it up with a plastic spoon, and gone right back to finish the level out. This is not a good metaphor as you note, however, as you're breaking the fourth wall and bringing real-world issues to compare gameplay. Truly apples to oranges, rather than comparing gameplay to gameplay. Getting shot isn't an activity that the player engages in, be it a matter of sprinting or continuing to have a full health/shield bar.
Ah, yes, analogies. Never use them, because people will always try to focus on the differences and not the similarities. I thought I'd get away with it by explicitly stating the point I'm trying to get you to focus on, but apparently that doesn't work either. I guess the reason it doesn't work is that people are more interested in finding that "gotcha" moment rather than understanding the point being communicated, and analogies are inherently susceptible to that because by design they're not 1:1 with the subject matter.

But fine, how about scoping? In every single Halo game (except Halo 4) since Halo: Combat Evolved, you're knocked out of scoping when hit. Does that make scoping not fun?
Probably, for someone. I've definitely heard people express frustrations over getting stuck to the scope–descope loop, and I've experienced those frustrations myself. But of course, because it has been with us since the beginning, the people who have stuck around are the people not bothered that much by descope. The people who think it hurts the experience would be long gone.
For god sakes, I hope they leave the old movement in the past. They made MCC for a reason, for you to play those games with those movements. Let this generation of Halo fans make Halo into theirs. Plus it makes zero sense to have a super-enhanced soldier 500 years in the future, unable to sprint or do any of these abilities considering they've done it in all throughout the lore
EGL Edits wrote:
For god sakes, I hope they leave the old movement in the past. They made MCC for a reason, for you to play those games with those movements. Let this generation of Halo fans make Halo into theirs. Plus it makes zero sense to have a super-enhanced soldier 500 years in the future, unable to sprint or do any of these abilities considering they've done it in all throughout the lore
Is this supposed to be an attempt at adding fuel to a fire? Because if not, I would suggest doing some basic research before posting something like this on this thread.
EGL Edits wrote:
For god sakes, I hope they leave the old movement in the past. They made MCC for a reason, for you to play those games with those movements. Let this generation of Halo fans make Halo into theirs. Plus it makes zero sense to have a super-enhanced soldier 500 years in the future, unable to sprint or do any of these abilities considering they've done it in all throughout the lore
(Halo 4 doesn't have that movement either and that's on MCC. Is that for the people of the past too?)

What's with people being so quick to go "just stay in your corner and play MCC!"? Isn't that just blatant low level gatekeeping? In some forums out there that's simply against the rules. But if anyone were to say "just stay on Halo 5," suddenly it's different.

I've never seen a Spartan in the lore put his gun away and do an epic Ground Pound in a military setting. I've also never seen a Spartan be unable to hold more than two weapons in the lore either.
If sprint isn't really needed or wanted or even considered a strategy to use when out gunned. Even nerfed to be limited or stopped due to damage. Why not hold that same standard to other mechanics? Lets say Sprint is the same as walking from point A to B just faster (not comparing remake maps from originals in older games).
. The same can be said for Reloading, the reload button is the same as empting the magazine then the game auto reloads. The gun gets reloaded either way so why have a reload button? Or since reloading with the button is an extra mechanic why not nerf it by taking longer if under fire suppression? Or totally cancelled if you take damage?
. Maybe the same could be said for jumping? What if you take damage as you jump? Could that knock someone out of their jump? Then people couldn't "halo jump" as a defense while getting shot. Or why even have jump? Couldn't the level designers make every level walkable?
. I'm sure there's more nerfing or removal that could be done to the mechanics in the game, but why only hold sprint to a different stanard then all the other mechanics? Judge all equally.
.
EGL Edits wrote:
For god sakes, I hope they leave the old movement in the past. They made MCC for a reason, for you to play those games with those movements. Let this generation of Halo fans make Halo into theirs. Plus it makes zero sense to have a super-enhanced soldier 500 years in the future, unable to sprint or do any of these abilities considering they've done it in all throughout the lore
It's called gameplay gameplay gamplay, and sprint doesn't add anything to the gameplay. It's just an unneeded ability that gives that sense that you're doing more. In reality, maps designed without sprint in mind play just as well and just as fast - probably faster. I'm sick of sprint myself. We've had 3 halo games try pushing sprint on us and none of them have had the success nor the lasting impression of the first 3 games that were more classic. It's time for 343 to man up and go back to what works.

Have any of the sprint halo games had the player retention and longevity that the older halos have had? I don't think so. So why does 343 keep going back to it? Please make it stop. Kill it with fire :(

My solution, and i continue to recommend this, is to have 2 halo games being made simultaneously, with a staggered 3-5 year release cycle. Keep Halo with classic movement and classic gameplay. THen have a new halo game called something else, which explores the halo universe (spartan III's, IV's and ODST's). In this new halo, 343 can go to town trying new things. Boom. Traditional fans get their halo. Contemporary fans get their halo. Plus we get expanded lore. But if we are stuck with just one game in development all the time, please please please give us classic movement again.
Battle wrote:
If sprint isn't really needed or wanted or even considered a strategy to use when out gunned. Even nerfed to be limited or stopped due to damage. Why not hold that same standard to other mechanics? Lets say Sprint is the same as walking from point A to B just faster (not comparing remake maps from originals in older games).
. The same can be said for Reloading, the reload button is the same as empting the magazine then the game auto reloads. The gun gets reloaded either way so why have a reload button? Or since reloading with the button is an extra mechanic why not nerf it by taking longer if under fire suppression? Or totally cancelled if you take damage?
. Maybe the same could be said for jumping? What if you take damage as you jump? Could that knock someone out of their jump? Then people couldn't "halo jump" as a defense while getting shot. Or why even have jump? Couldn't the level designers make every level walkable?
. I'm sure there's more nerfing or removal that could be done to the mechanics in the game, but why only hold sprint to a different stanard then all the other mechanics? Judge all equally.
.
We don't want nerfed. We want it removed.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 151
  4. 152
  5. 153
  6. 154
  7. ...
  8. 155