*snip*Simply insisting that something is true without explaining why neither makes it any more true, nor helps me to understand why you believe it to be true. I can agree with your 1) since that much is evident, but your 2) here is what I'm doubtful of.
*snip*You're absolutely correct that sprint is functionally different from base movement. However, that differences has no effect on the specific issue of the predictability of player movement. You see, how the predictability works is that after a given amount of time has passed after a player was last seen, they can be anywhere within the maximum distance they could have covered in that time from their previous position. The size of this area within which the player can be found is independent of the means by which the maximum distance can be obtained; that is, whether one needs to lower their weapon or not. This should be clear, since the maximum distance only depends on the player's maximal movement speed and on nothing else. The only other mechanism at play here is the individual player's movement tactics, but since that is entirely dependent on the individual, there are no effects from the game mechanics.
To be more precise, the only sense in which we can approach the issue of "predictability" is to consider it in terms of the probability distribution of where the player may be found within the area to which they can move in the given amount of time. If we think of the probability density of finding a player at any given point, the closer this density is to constant, the less predictable the player movement is. This issue is essentially whether a clever player can optimally randomize their movement in this sense. Your claim is essentially that they can't, at least unless the game has sprint. However, for this to be the case, there should be a mechanism that prevents from doing this when there is no sprint. However, I simply do not see a mechanism that would prevent the player from, say, stopping for a second, or doing anything else that would allow them to maximally randomize their movement when all they have is their base movement speed.
You see, this is the courtesy that I'd like from you: to try to explain your reasoning in detail. After all, you can claim that I'm wrong as much as you want, but that claim will ultimately carry no weight if the reasoning behind it is not explained. In fact, I find the statement about screaming "this is false" until one is blue in their face mildly ironic in this context.
Quote:your 2) here is what I'm doubtful of.
The following are more or less straight facts about how the game mechanics work:
A) Sprint allows you to escape bad map positioning more easily than if there is no sprint
B) Because of A, players are less punished for bad map positioning, and correspondingly less rewarded for good map positioning
The combined effect of these two things is that sprint provides a game mechanic that actively disincentivises players from focusing on their map location. This is bad design in a game which holds control of specific map locations as one of its fundamental design principles.
Note that the degree of the effects resulting from A and B apply is irrelevant to the conclusion. For example, you could lessen the degree of the effect of A by allowing players to shoot while sprinting, but it would still be true.
I'll note here as well that the whole debate, following, about predictability of player position, is simply a further substantiation of my #2 above, which I would argue holds on A & B alone even if what follows happened not to be valid.
Quote:However, that differences has no effect on the specific issue of the predictability of player movement. You see, how the predictability works is that after a given amount of time has passed after a player was last seen, they can be anywhere within the maximum distance they could have covered in that time from their previous position
You either missed or dismissed the distinction I first made about this. There is a difference between "what is the range of possibilities for where a player could be now
?" and "where is a player likely to be right now?
". With respect to the former, you are correct. But that's not what I'm talking about, because that's not what matters in game. I'm talking about the latter. And with respect to the latter, you are incorrect. You simply cannot (and in game, in fact do not) assume that the player has been moving at sprint speed the entire time. The problem, as I wrote above, is that sprint adds a variable to the player movement equation which fundamentally makes it harder to predict where they are than in a corresponding system without that variable. As with other matters in this post, the degree to which this effect applies doesn't matter to my point.
Quote:This issue is essentially whether a clever player can optimally randomize their movement in this sense. Your claim is essentially that they can't, at least unless the game has sprint
This is not my claim. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite regarding high level Halo 3 play. To use the terminology here, my point is more that a game with sprint provides a system with two randomized movement variables instead of one, and thus it is harder to predict a player's location.
Quote:EDIT: after seeing the edits, what TeeJaY ChArMs said is totally what I was talking about all the time: sprint compared to equivalent base movement speed.
The point of my illustration is that for any given x
, if you add y
, the system gets worse on all the points I am arguing about (importance of map location, player predictability, etc).
In other words, I believe I understood your point, and that was my response. I am comparing a single system against itself, considered both with and without sprint. I think you are comparing two different systems and showing that you can make a system with sprint that theoretically could be better than a different system without it. In other words, you observe that there are particular values for x
, in a system without y
, which would be worse than other values chosen in a different system that has both x
. I do not disagree with this observation, but that isn't and hasn't been my point.
Quote:Name dropping informal fallacies in an internet argument is such a cliche.
No more cliche than treating any and all claims about objectivity as spurious and pretending to be a philosophical skeptic.