I've already said it before, increasing base movement speed is not a good enough replacement for sprint to "please both worlds" because it will either be too fast or too slow. Sprint provides a way to toggle between two speeds.
I'm curious about that. Let's say sprint, for simplicities sake, makes you move 25% faster than base speed:
So your point is that if we moved at a constant 125%, we'd move too fast and cause further enlargement of maps, or lack necessary control due to the limitations of controllers. By sprint forcing toggle between the two, we move at an average of say, 113% base speed over the course of the match (assuming equal sprinting and non-sprint times).
Is there anything stopping us then, from moving base speed up to 115%? If Halo 3/Reach show us anything (which is debatable as they are arguably the slowest of Bungie's titles), it's that they operate well at around this speed on normal maps ("Normal" referring to MLG in Reach's case, as other maps were designed for sprint). So we wouldn't even necessarily have to upscale in order to compensate.
I'm suggesting this because keeping sprint is an even worse compromise than changing movement speed, due to not really being a compromise. Sure getting the right speed is finicky, but it's a lot less detrimental to other elements of the game than sprint tends to be.
Immersion is a huge factor for a lot of people, it's not a dealbreaker for me but I can see why they like it.
Source? I've got nothing against immersion, I just personally believe quality of gameplay trumps subjective factors. Then again I suppose quality of gameplay could be considered subjective. Hmmm....
I said "some" people on here don't like change. That does not automatically mean everybody who dislikes Halo 5 hates change.
Indeed. The unfortunate problem is that it's impossible to discern to whom you address when you make posts like that. Best to assume that everyone
is going to take it personally, and adjust what you say accordingly.
I do my best to not make statements about the community at large simply because there's no one group that doesn't have a million splinter groups, all of which identify under the main. Referring to one means referring to all, and there are too many differences for that to be possible.
About Smart Scope, you can't deny that most of it's hate comes from how it looks.
Absolutely. I can't necessarily blame them for that either though. There is a certain stigma involved with ADS mechanics in relation to modern gaming. Halo, as of now, is one of the last franchises going strong that hasn't totally conformed to "modern" mechanics, and I can hardly blame people for getting antsy when 343i pushes the bill further and further.
I don't have a huge problem with ADS beyond it being available on every weapon.
A 10-20% increase in speed is not going to alleviate the issues of being on foot on a large map, it's not a substitute for sprint.
What scale of map are we talking here? BTB maps? Or large 4v4 maps like Complex? The latter wouldn't exist if sprint wasn't in the game, the former has movement options such as teleporters, mongeese and mancannons for alternative and faster transportation.
On BTB maps where those things aren't options I can understand a want/need for an alternative movement mechanic. Unfortunately, Halo isn't limited to BTB, and what is considered for that gamemode must be considered in its effects for all gamemodes (within terms of base mechanics).
Just a note, I don't just love sprint, I'm just talking about the other ideas to replace it. Large maps present issues when you move really slow and sprint helps this.
This is part of why I'm in favour of thrusters. I've said for a couple of years now that it could very well replace sprint, and do so in a fashion that's less detrimental to the gameplay.
Of course changes would need to be made on cooldown times to make it viable, but it's an option.
A 1 second build up toggled by a button, as opposed to slowly building up over a few seconds of holding the stick forward.
So, sprint? ;D
No but really, that's certainly a viable option so long as weapons remain at the ready.
The BR is being held on a pedestal. If 343 removed it while keeping other weapons to replace it, people would freak out.
To be fair, people will react like that regardless of whatever weapon is taken out. Remember when we first saw the new (not SPNKR) rocket launcher? People were practically rioting. There's no doubt people will get defensive of the weapon, though. Iconic designs do harbour some sense of character that people like.
Personally, like I said, it could be a cotton candy gun for all I care, so long as it's a precision weapon with enough versatility to be an option regardless of the situation (without being dominant in any). I imagine much of the competitive community feels the same way.
What you described with even starts is exactly what the AR does in Halo 5.
Indeed, but with the addition of a scope that it doesn't need. The AR doesn't need
to compete at medium range, that wasn't it's purpose. I'm all for having an Automatic weapon that does, but not all of them should be capable of doing it.
If 343i are insitent on having a scoped AR I can understand that. I was pushing for the ODST SMG myself to fill the scoped automatic niche, but I'd be fine with the AR. If that's the case, however, they ought to remove the scope from the SMG. Have the AR serve close-mid range, have the SMG fill the semi-power weapon roll for point blank engagements.
There's no reason to put a scope on everything. (Unless you're linda
Again, this isn't propaganda, this is me telling it how it is about people who think the BR should be the only weapon in the game.
I've yet to see one person who thinks the BR should be the only weapon in the game.
Then again if I did
see that, I'd probably ignore them... so that's probably why.
Also again, if you aren't opposed to the weapon balance that Halo 5 provides, then you have nothing to be mad about because you're not a blind hater.
I know you don't refer to me specifically (pretty sure we've had this conversation before) but like I said, when sweeping generalizations are made you have to assume you're referring to everyone
, and then consider how the people you consider to be sensible might take it.
Anyway, have a good day :)