Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 86
  4. 87
  5. 88
  6. 89
  7. 90
  8. ...
  9. 104
I enjoy the old halo movement but playing h5 for the last 3 years wants to keep me moving fast.
Celestis wrote:
Would Sprint be okay if you picked up items on the ground that charged your Sprint?
Not as long as sprint still disables shooting. Other than that, you're describing speed boost: An item you pick up that lets you go faster.
So I don't really understand the issue with this imaginary conception of Sprint, and I can only think it comes down to disliking any mechanic that forces you to lower your gun, which is fair enough. So I'd like to change this a bit. Imagine Sprint orbs on the map. Players can pick up, say 5 of them, and each one provides a second of Sprint. This version of Sprint is like the similar one, in that to activate it you press down the left swivel, but unlike the current one because it allows you to sprint with your gun out, and allows you to move in different directions. Is this okay now? A player needs some level of skill in order to get these sprint orbs (presumably one would be able to acquire them by killing someone else too), but they still provide the get out of jail free card in combat, provided the attacker has less sprint time. The way I see it this hurts perfect players in pretty much the same way that sprint does, but it does so in a way that you could excuse in the same way that you'd excuse plasma grenade pickups if someone were to subject them to great scrutiny. Would your view change significantly if players started to automatically get them simply by getting a kill, rather than by picking them up from the ground? I'd be kind of interested to know.
Any way this version of sprint is implemented (where it's some sort of universal chargable) will punish players with poor performance. Unlike the current and previous iterations of sprint, there would be no way for poor performers to access sprint consistently in order to help the team come out on top, which is what happens in Overwatch. If someone else steals a kill in your system, then the person whose kill was stolen doesn't get rewarded at all or as much, right? It's most likely going to turn all the playlists into Slayer-lite modes with a group-based meta, discouraging both solo and bad players from picking up the game. This kind of gameplay isn't really what Halo is about or was built upon. Either let everyone have the advantage, or let them fight for a limited amount of it. I'd rather have them fight for it, because at least map design and Custom Games (and most likely competitive as well) wouldn't suffer from having shoved-in/forced/mandatory gameplay mechanics.
Korgoth wrote:
As a gameplay mode, sure. As the core mechanics of the game, no. Those mechanics are stale and old and had their place. If halo 1-3 (the mechanics of movement) was so good, go play it, there is nothing wrong with doing that. The mindset you are putting forth is like the new star wars movies: "let's make it exactly like the first one". Making a halo that is itself a halo clone wont Cut it. There is alot to work with with the current halo 5 system, and most fans would be pleased if it were added to, not stripped away.
I was one of the unlucky people who started the series with Halo 4 (even though I still like the game and will defend it at times), but even I prefer the gameplay mechanics of the original trilogy. Halo CE and 2 had satisfying weapons and didn't have sprint to restrict your weapons. The movement speed from those games were fast enough. Although I agree Halo 3 was kind of slow and the weapons just felt very nerfed. Otherwise, it was simple and straight-forward.

Considering the amount of people who prefer the same opinion, I wouldn't say that "most" fans would be pleased with your outcome. Just because the mechanics are old doesn't mean it's bad. Doom (2016) had the classic no health regen, no reloading, item pickups, and fast movement speed and the game was praised as the best shooter in years. Just sayin'.
Doom 2016 was a great game, but the multiplayer side died really fast, there were many that did not like the loadouts, movement is only one aspect, there is more to it, but the pace Doom 2016 was great. I was one of the lucky people who started the series when Halo CE was released, but I prefer the movement of Halo 5, we're all different. I will not buy Halo Infinite if 343i simply revert to classic movement, they need to try to balance it for all the fans.
eviltedi wrote:
Korgoth wrote:
As a gameplay mode, sure. As the core mechanics of the game, no. Those mechanics are stale and old and had their place. If halo 1-3 (the mechanics of movement) was so good, go play it, there is nothing wrong with doing that. The mindset you are putting forth is like the new star wars movies: "let's make it exactly like the first one". Making a halo that is itself a halo clone wont Cut it. There is alot to work with with the current halo 5 system, and most fans would be pleased if it were added to, not stripped away.
I was one of the unlucky people who started the series with Halo 4 (even though I still like the game and will defend it at times), but even I prefer the gameplay mechanics of the original trilogy. Halo CE and 2 had satisfying weapons and didn't have sprint to restrict your weapons. The movement speed from those games were fast enough. Although I agree Halo 3 was kind of slow and the weapons just felt very nerfed. Otherwise, it was simple and straight-forward.

Considering the amount of people who prefer the same opinion, I wouldn't say that "most" fans would be pleased with your outcome. Just because the mechanics are old doesn't mean it's bad. Doom (2016) had the classic no health regen, no reloading, item pickups, and fast movement speed and the game was praised as the best shooter in years. Just sayin'.
Doom 2016 was a great game, but the multiplayer side died really fast, there were many that did not like the loadouts. I was one of the lucky people who started the series when Halo CE was released, but I prefer the movement of Halo 5, we're all different. I will not buy Halo Infinite if 343i simply revert to classic movement.
Not to, sound pessimistic, but, I think people here will buy it either way. That is the good problem. The bug question is what will it be post launch and on that notion I am on the same boat as you. I think most are and do not realise it, due to them not having the oppurtunity to see what actually happens when mechanics are watered down. Remember armor lock? It was removed because it overtly voided other mechanics in the game (it would make a good power up though). Dual wielding was removed because it could not compliment the weapon set up at the time. It can now. Any mechanic that is removed should be done so in the purpose of keeping the game in sync with itself. Most of halo 5 s stuff is good but should be changed for the better of anything new. For example spartan charge should stun and drain stam, drop shield, but not kill. These are Spartans, not pedestrians crossing the side walk.
Korgoth wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Korgoth wrote:
As a gameplay mode, sure. As the core mechanics of the game, no. Those mechanics are stale and old and had their place. If halo 1-3 (the mechanics of movement) was so good, go play it, there is nothing wrong with doing that. The mindset you are putting forth is like the new star wars movies: "let's make it exactly like the first one". Making a halo that is itself a halo clone wont Cut it. There is alot to work with with the current halo 5 system, and most fans would be pleased if it were added to, not stripped away.
I was one of the unlucky people who started the series with Halo 4 (even though I still like the game and will defend it at times), but even I prefer the gameplay mechanics of the original trilogy. Halo CE and 2 had satisfying weapons and didn't have sprint to restrict your weapons. The movement speed from those games were fast enough. Although I agree Halo 3 was kind of slow and the weapons just felt very nerfed. Otherwise, it was simple and straight-forward.

Considering the amount of people who prefer the same opinion, I wouldn't say that "most" fans would be pleased with your outcome. Just because the mechanics are old doesn't mean it's bad. Doom (2016) had the classic no health regen, no reloading, item pickups, and fast movement speed and the game was praised as the best shooter in years. Just sayin'.
Doom 2016 was a great game, but the multiplayer side died really fast, there were many that did not like the loadouts. I was one of the lucky people who started the series when Halo CE was released, but I prefer the movement of Halo 5, we're all different. I will not buy Halo Infinite if 343i simply revert to classic movement.
Not to, sound pessimistic, but, I think people here will buy it either way. That is the good problem. The bug question is what will it be post launch and on that notion I am on the same boat as you. I think most are and do not realise it, due to them not having the oppurtunity to see what actually happens when mechanics are watered down. Remember armor lock? It was removed because it overtly voided other mechanics in the game (it would make a good power up though). Dual wielding was removed because it could not compliment the weapon set up at the time. It can now. Any mechanic that is removed should be done so in the purpose of keeping the game in sync with itself. Most of halo 5 s stuff is good but should be changed for the better of anything new. For example spartan charge should stun and drain stam, drop shield, but not kill. These are Spartans, not pedestrians crossing the side walk.
I don't disagree. I think players will buy it. As stated in previous threads, I'm waiting this time. I stopped playing Halo 5 for reasons other than movement. I thought Halo 5 was ok in that department, but there are things that need changed imo. I'll be waiting to see how complete Halo Infinite is, how will micro transactions work ? What DLC plans are there ? Will they forsake some content for another ? Example, BTB for warzone. There's a lot more, I'm adding movement to the list ? They need to try and balance it for everyone, tough job imo.
Any way this version of sprint is implemented (where it's some sort of universal chargable) will punish players with poor performance. [...] Either let everyone have the advantage, or let them fight for a limited amount of it. I'd rather have them fight for it, because at least map design and Custom Games (and most likely competitive as well) wouldn't suffer from having shoved-in/forced/mandatory gameplay mechanics.
Am I misunderstanding something here? Isn't that the exact same thing: A map-pickup that only provides a limited speed increase and can be fought over?

Imagine Sprint orbs on the map. Players can pick up, say 5 of them, and each one provides a second of Sprint. This version of Sprint is like the similar one, in that to activate it you press down the left swivel, but unlike the current one because it allows you to sprint with your gun out, and allows you to move in different directions. Is this okay now? A player needs some level of skill in order to get these sprint orbs (presumably one would be able to acquire them by killing someone else too), but they still provide the get out of jail free card in combat, provided the attacker has less sprint time. The way I see it this hurts perfect players in pretty much the same way that sprint does, but it does so in a way that you could excuse in the same way that you'd excuse plasma grenade pickups if someone were to subject them to great scrutiny. Would your view change significantly if players started to automatically get them simply by getting a kill, rather than by picking them up from the ground? I'd be kind of interested to know.
So reading through this concept, it at least fixes my single-most issue with sprint and the game being arbitrarily split into "movement mode" and "combat mode". So off the top of my head, I'd say I'm fine with it, on principle. However, the details would still need to be figured out through extensive testing and are affected by more than the base mechanic itself: How many of those pickups are on the map? How fast do they respawn? Where are they placed, can their spawns be controlled and fought over like power weapon spawns? Although to be fair, it does seem like at least an interesting idea to collect sprint time on the map and from defeated enemies the same way you would collect ammo and grenades. At the very least I'm not outright against it.

Now, onto this and the quote I saved up there before it. You're right, getting spawn trapped does generally require at least one error. However, I would argue that a game allowing you to die in a way that feels unfair is significantly worse than a game not allowing you to get a kill in a way that feels unfair, if you see what I'm saying. In CE, the fact that spawn trapping is possible, means that when you die once, you are at risk of getting spawnkilled again. Hence the punishment that dying and being spawnkilled places on all non-perfect players, is so large that, out of the two options, I'd much rather a game that has a 1/5 chance of ripping off someone who has made a perfect play, than a game that has a 1/30 chance of punishing any play with spawntrapping.
I kind-of agree in how the perceived fairness varies, but here's my rebuttal: You can train yourself to not be spawntrapped.
You don't even have to necessarily know how the spawn system works precisely, but a spawntrap can only be realized once all (or at least all-but-one) players in a team are killed at the same time. This can be avoided through better personal skill or coordination within a team. This also is less likely to happen if both teams are equally matched, be it low-skill-players or high-skill-players because it's harder to pull off an extermination when the enemy team is just as good as yours, so it's something that can almost be circumvented by adequate matchmaking preferences. (Which, to be fair, haven't been present in earlier releases and completely botched in the MCC.) It's also something that only really affects 4v4s (or similar team sizes), as it has no effect on FFA, is arguably a good thing in 2v2s, and good luck containing an entire To8 within one limited area for extended periods of time when playing an 8v8. If even one of them gets a random spawn on the other side of the map, the spawntrap is broken, because all other players are slowly going to spawn outside of it.
On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing you can train to "not have the other player push the sprint button". You have absolute zero influence on that. Zip. Nada. Niente. And it's also not as if only high-skill-players are affected by that. I did say that weaker players benefit more oftern from that mechanic, but that does not say who they're using it against. And if even pro's can get cheated out of kills, imagine how much more likely it is to happen to a player that does not have the same marksmanship. It's also something that is pretty much detrimental across the board, regardless of team size or anything, because any player in any gametype has access to the "Get out of Jail Free" button, unlike the spawn system which really only affects certain modes.
So you have one mechanic that poses problems for all players in all modes and cannot be circumvented by superior performance versus another mechanic that poses problems for some players in some gametypes that can be countered by the player. This really isn't a contest: Sprint is the worse problem, by far and large.

I think the other thing is, if I get spawntrapped, I blame the game. If someone runs away with one shot of health left, I'm much more inclined to blame myself.
I guess that's another difference between you and me, because knowing that I would have gotten that kill if sprint hadn't been available in the game, "myself" is the absolute last person I'd blame in that scenario.
Gomez1992 wrote:
I enjoy the old halo movement but playing h5 for the last 3 years wants to keep me moving fast.
This is why the solution is, and always has been, to just increase the base movement speed and acceleration. This has been understood ever since base movement speed was increased for MLG settings in Halo 3. Sprint does NOT speed up the game. All it does is provide the illusion of speed while accomplishing the opposite and negatively affecting the actual game design and gameplay. In the 30 year history of FPS, ZERO great arena FPS games have had sprint. That's not coincidence.
Will 343 finally understand that and get rid of sprint and movement abilities and open up the possibility of actually making a great game? Maybe when pigs fly. Because they will focus test the game with groups of people who don't give a crap about Halo and who tell them that when they can't press a button to make a whoosh sound and give them a running animation, the game is slow. And 343 will listen to meaningless drivel like that and shoot themselves in the foot by keeping sprint and abilities in their game.
Celestis wrote:
Any way this version of sprint is implemented (where it's some sort of universal chargable) will punish players with poor performance. [...] Either let everyone have the advantage, or let them fight for a limited amount of it. I'd rather have them fight for it, because at least map design and Custom Games (and most likely competitive as well) wouldn't suffer from having shoved-in/forced/mandatory gameplay mechanics.
Am I misunderstanding something here? Isn't that the exact same thing: A map-pickup that only provides a limited speed increase and can be fought over?.
I was thinking the idea was kinda like Overwatch ultimates rather than a predetermined boost like Reach MLG, if you know what I'm saying. I caught that discrepancy too, but I couldn't really word it better while being concise. One of my earlier drafts of the post talked about every piece of the Halo sandbox having some pros and cons and the pieces with stronger pros are usually more limited in accessibility than the other sandbox items, which the chargeable sprint idea breaks if it had 5 charges and was a map pickup or was rewarded on kills. I didn't want to go overlong in my posts again, so I left that out.

More explanation of my stance, PhonicCanine99
. So I'd like to change this a bit. Imagine Sprint orbs on the map. Players can pick up, say 5 of them, and each one provides a second of Sprint. This version of Sprint is like the similar one, in that to activate it you press down the left swivel, but unlike the current one because it allows you to sprint with your gun out, and allows you to move in different directions. Is this okay now?
IMO this just sounds like Speed Boost with extra steps.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Speed Boost, I want Speed Boost and I'm glad H2A did this, but I feel like the whole "carry some orbs for a second of kinda-Sprint-but-not-Sprint" is redundant when you already have a power up that does the same thing for like 30 seconds.
VividSnow wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
Yes... I feel the same way. Please. Do away with ground pound and Spartan charge.

I would also also be fine with sprint leaving the game entirely in favor for increasing overall movement speed.

Thrust can can stay if it must. I don’t mind it. It’s not a bad mechanic.
I'd rather thrust go too. Most cases it just feels like a cheap way to avoid getting killed. The only thing I don't mind staying is the ability to climb objects.
So is the majority in favor of classic movement? What's the percentage(more or less)? Is it 50-50? Because if the community is split in half, then they should find a middle solution.
Pankar94 wrote:
So is the majority in favor of classic movement? What's the percentage(more or less)? Is it 50-50? Because if the community is split in half, then they should find a middle solution.
No one is gonna know unless they do proper polling. This thread isn't a good basis to go on since it just represents a minuscule micro fragment of the overall population.
Pankar94 wrote:
So is the majority in favor of classic movement? What's the percentage(more or less)? Is it 50-50? Because if the community is split in half, then they should find a middle solution.
Great question. It's unknown. There seems to be a vocal majority in favor of classic movement here in this thread, but that's not going to be reflective of the entire player base. For most players, they'll only come to leave feedback when they have a problem; if they don't have a problem, they'll probably just quietly enjoy the game. I think the argument that "most players want classic Halo" or "classic Halo would make it great again" lack objective substance and are just projections of what the people who make those statements want in their Halo game.
Chimera30 wrote:
For most players, they'll only come to leave feedback when they have a problem; if they don't have a problem, they'll probably just quietly enjoy the game.
Not even that. Most players probably will never engage with the community regardless of whether they like or dislike the game. They'll just silently put down the game if they don't like it. Leaving feedback, negative or positive, requires certain level of passion, not just for the game, but for engaging with the community.
ronnie42 wrote:
VividSnow wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
Yes... I feel the same way. Please. Do away with ground pound and Spartan charge.

I would also also be fine with sprint leaving the game entirely in favor for increasing overall movement speed.

Thrust can can stay if it must. I don’t mind it. It’s not a bad mechanic.
I'd rather thrust go too. Most cases it just feels like a cheap way to avoid getting killed. The only thing I don't mind staying is the ability to climb objects.
I agree. If I had a choice I’d say get rid of thrust but as I said if it must stay than I am okay with thrust over ground pound and spartan charge.

When mastered red it can be very useful.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
Pankar94 wrote:
So is the majority in favor of classic movement? What's the percentage(more or less)? Is it 50-50? Because if the community is split in half, then they should find a middle solution.
No one is gonna know unless they do proper polling. This thread isn't a good basis to go on since it just represents a minuscule micro fragment of the overall population.
Thing is, proper polling isn't alle that easy.
If 343 wanted to do it right, they had to do an open test: early announcment, big marketing, 2-4 weeks, 2x3 maps (three maps, each scaled for both sprint and no sprint), create two set of balancing, and have "force" players to fill out a poll in-game after a set amount of games played using both settings.
THis is the only set-up I can think of that would creat a somewhat accurate result free of pre-existing bias, be it pro-sprint or pro-classic

Chimera30 wrote:
I think the argument that "most players want classic Halo" or "classic Halo would make it great again" lack objective substance and are just projections of what the people who make those statements want in their Halo game.
It should go without saying but the same logic applies to the other side of the argument as well ;)
I don't think trying to determine what is popular is useful for this discussion. I also think that it is why we're in this predicament in the first place, as I truly believe the original logic for it went something like this, even if nobody ever stated it so explicitly: CoD is popular, CoD has sprint, therefore Halo ought to have sprint.

I think that there are objective arguments for why sprint and movement abilities are bad in any arena shooter. They devalue the rewards and consequences for good positioning on the map, they make it borderline impossible to ever predict where other players are on the map since their movement speed is erratic, and they replace fluid player movement with a stuttery slow-fast rhythm that makes the gameplay feel less consistent.

Sprint and other abilities should be disqualified from inclusion in any arena shooter on the first item on that list alone. Arena shooters are about fighting for positioning on a map to control advantages so you can accomplish your objective and win. Mechanics which devalue player positioning on the map (which is exactly what Sprint and thruster pack do) are thus harmful and backwards at the most basic game design level.

This is why sprint is 100% fine in CoD but not Halo. CoD is not a game about fighting for positioning on a map to gain advantages over the other team. So sprint is fine there - it doesn't work against the game's fundamental design principles. With an arena shooter like Halo, it is fundamentally counterproductive and has no place being in the game.
I don't think trying to determine what is popular is useful for this discussion. I also think that it is why we're in this predicament in the first place, as I truly believe the original logic for it went something like this, even if nobody ever stated it so explicitly: CoD is popular, CoD has sprint, therefore Halo ought to have sprint.

I think that there are objective arguments for why sprint and movement abilities are bad in any arena shooter. They devalue the rewards and consequences for good positioning on the map, they make it borderline impossible to ever predict where other players are on the map since their movement speed is erratic, and they replace fluid player movement with a stuttery slow-fast rhythm that makes the gameplay feel less consistent.
Sprint and other abilities should be disqualified from inclusion in any arena shooter on the first item on that list alone. Arena shooters are about fighting for positioning on a map to control advantages so you can accomplish your objective and win. Mechanics which devalue player positioning on the map (which is exactly what Sprint and thruster pack do) are thus harmful and backwards at the most basic game design level.

This is why sprint is 100% fine in CoD but not Halo. CoD is not a game about fighting for positioning on a map to gain advantages over the other team. So sprint is fine there - it doesn't work against the game's fundamental design principles. With an arena shooter like Halo, it is fundamentally counterproductive and has no place being in the game.
This is really the heart of the discussion, and I agree with you 100%. The choices 343 has made in their Halo titles have undermined the most basic tenets of arena gameplay. That is why there are still so many different issues with the game. Many of the newer game's mechanics are simply at odds with basic arena formula.
I've been playing halo since the OG xbox but if sprint gone so am I. I can't go back to the slow movement of halo 3. If that's the case good bye halo I loved u so much
If you actually loved Halo you wouldn’t leave over the possible return of classic movement, quite a childish act if I have to say
What's childish is crying about sprint which is a natural movement in modern games and wanting people to pay 60 bucks of their money for a halo3 clone. If you like Halo 3 that much go back and play Master Chief Collection don't stop the regular evolution of games
I've been playing halo since the OG xbox but if sprint gone so am I. I can't go back to the slow movement of halo 3. If that's the case good bye halo I loved u so much
If you actually loved Halo you wouldn’t leave over the possible return of classic movement, quite a childish act if I have to say
What's childish is crying about sprint which is a natural movement in modern games and wanting people to pay 60 bucks of their money for a halo3 clone. If you like Halo 3 that much go back and play Master Chief Collection don't stop the regular evolution of games
Who said they wanted a Halo 3 clone? He sure didn't. Neither did I.

Are you telling me that the only difference between Halo 3 and Halo 5 is that one has Sprint and the other doesn't?

I mean you already said you've leave if Sprint is gone, so what stops you from just staying on Halo 5? That's the ultimatum you just offered him.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 86
  4. 87
  5. 88
  6. 89
  7. 90
  8. ...
  9. 104