Reloading is an interesting choice, because I absolutely do see it as a mechanic purely based on restriction, much like sprint. There are actually weapons in the Halo sandbox for which I think removal of reloading would improve combat flow in a way that has some parallels to removal of sprint. But reloading is also an example of how acknowledging a mechanic is purely a restriction doesn't mean you have to think the mechanic is bad. Reloading adds a second cadence on top of firing rate that can be used to get a bit more variety out of the weapon sandbox.TheKiltdHeathen wrote:For example (not comparison), imagine the same outlook were to be applied to reloading. That it is a set of restrictions, varying in severity, often detrimental to combat, while still acknowledging that it replenishes magazine size. There is definitely a time and place where the restrictions of reloading do not negatively impact the player, but combat is certainly not it.
It's not that if it's a restriction, it's bad. But if thinking of the mechanic as a restriction makes you uncomfortable, maybe it suggests that there's an alternative. I think you've demonstrated you can find good things to say about sprint (regardless of whether I agree with them), irrespective of its top speed. But if somebody doesn't, maybe they don't actually need sprint, maybe they just want the speed.
Really, though, you could (hypothetically) agree with me on this view without losing anything.
In all of this, I can't help but see a lack of reference to the restrictions of sprint. If sprint was merely a speed toggle, would you take it? Or is there something about the restrictions specifically you view necessary for your enjoyment?TheKiltdHeathen wrote:As I've mentioned often, I don't want to be going at 130% speed all the time. This is why having Sprint as an additional mechanic is beneficial, as it gives a greater level of control over when it is applied. In combat I don't need to be going 130%, and that might be too much depending on the area. But every so often an opportunity is presented, be it cutting off a vehicle, rushing in-range to deploying enemies, or getting into position quickly for an ambush where having a boost is useful.
And even small things. There is an element to immersion that I enjoy with Sprint. Using it to quickly cover ground and assassinate a high ranking Sangehili before his lance can react. Taking a Sprinting jump off a cliff to get more distance (it was especially useful for the "If They Came To Hear Me Beg" achievement). Quickly getting to a vehicle before a tank gets in range to kill me. Or even quickly getting to a fleeing enemy (e.g. the BOB on "Winter Contingency" at the very beginning).
I can't change what people enjoy, which is why I focus on the positive functions of Sprint. How it's limitations make it useful, and inversely how simply increasing the BMS does not offer the same tactical benefits or introduce the same immersive functions.
This is what I don't really understand. If it's just a corridor, a straight line from A to B, why would someone not want to run that straight line at top speed?TheKiltdHeathen wrote:
- Tediousness is in the eye of the beholder, yes. Which is why having Sprint as an engaged mechanic, rather than the speed reached at full-tilt LS, is best left to player choice. Some people might want to run down a given corridor, others might prefer to sprint.
- Level design only limits the fastest possible time, and Sprint would contribute to that possible time. But the level design does not dictate that time; there will always be the fastest, shortest route through any given area, but that isn't the only path that a player must take.
I mean, I'm very aware of the fact that a player might want to explore. If there is instead of a corridor, say, a wide canyon with all sorts of features, of course a player might not want to take the straight path through the canyon, but explore and take a longer winding path. Maybe the player wants to stop to look at something, maybe they try to jump up a rock face which naturally slows them down. These are all facilitated by the analog stick degrees of freedom, as far as I'm concerned. But the need for finer control than that is really hard for me to wrap my head around. Like, if somebody just wants to get from A to B, I don't understand why they would they not want to do that at top speed.
Okay, this makes sense. I mean, for me the way Evade conserves speed makes it interesting, but it's undeniable it behaves completely differently to sprint in this way.TheKiltdHeathen wrote:First and foremost, Evade locks you into that movement, forward being the greatest distance, with the inability to turn at all. [...]Secondly, and additionally, the lack of direct control over Evade can lead to it being a fatal mistake. [...]
Complementarity is this idea that movement plays an active role in combat, possibly encourages combat, and doesn't interfere with combat. This is what I mean when I say movement should complement combat. if a player has to leave combat to use a movement ability, or if they have to stop using the movement ability to engage in combat, the movement ability is fundamentally not complementing combat.TheKiltdHeathen wrote:I don’t disagree that movement should compliment combat, and in this regard having Sprint behind a “click-up” mechanic is the best course of action. Because the purpose of Sprint is to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, and it doesn’t have a purpose in combat. Base Movement has the range of applicability suitable for combat encounters, and can be utilized as more than A-to-B. Sprint is separate from that Base Movement, and does serve that express purpose.
You don't have to denounce the complementarity of movement and combat to like sprint, but being content with its present and past implementations make it at least not a very high priority for you.
———————————————
Also, because I criticized you previously, I'm now going to say thanks. This was a good post. More time explaining your perspective.
