Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 395
  4. 396
  5. 397
  6. 398
  7. 399
  8. ...
  9. 829
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
I don't know how we fix what we have but I do not believe that removing sprint is the answer, think about how many people got angry when sprint was added and how it split the player base. People like what they are familiar with and sprint has become familiar, a change that large now might destroy the community and kill the franchise. People would think that 343 is very uncertain on how to make a game and it would make Halo seem quite unstable. We need to find a medium in the middle that makes both sides happy and if we don't then the Halo community might never reach the heights it once was at. Nobody is going to change anyone else's mind so we need to find a compromise that appeases both sides, that is why I suggested a sprint set of playlists and a non sprint playlist, I do not know if this is the best compromise but it is the best one I can think of at this time. We need to stop fighting about sprint or no sprint and instead work together to come up with ideas as a community that 343 could actually implement that would make both sides happy. 343 needs our help and our ideas, not our arguments, arguments won't change what 343 does but a good idea with a lot of support behind it might. :) just think about it guys and let's make halo great for everyone
The only way to find out would be to release a halo game without sprint, but as of now something needs to change because population and sales are steadily decreasing.
Every time I pop on to Waypoint and see this thread still afloat my hope for halo grows.
pajama dad wrote:
i dont mean that these things cant exist, but that they dont always make sense. Narrows is a fine map, so was beaver creek. But there are a number of maps where these two things would be out of place.

As an aside, the teleporters on beaver creek were not about crossing large spaces, they were about tactics and multiple pathways.

An example of an awkward teleporter is headlong. There is no reason for it in the original. Its out of place in the city setting. A man cannon is likewise not appropriate thematically, hence the remake using an engine of a crashed vehicle. you can only get so far with this kind of stuff before you really start limiting the kinds of large maps and spaces you can create and still feel natural.
That's fair, but do you think that sprint is the best answer? Why?

You're right about that.

That teleporter wasn't awkward during objective games, like One Bomb Assault, or Two Flag CTF. It wasn't put there for the map to feel more natural, it was there to provide tactics for objective-based gametypes. The only slayer variant that worked well with Headlong was Snipers. High Ground was another asymmetrical map that was objective-focused, but it was smaller, and much more linear. The teleporters on Wetworks were tactical and natural: they were one route, of several, that you could take the flag, and they made sense. As for the creative limit of teleporters and man-cannons, I don't feel that it has been reached, by a longshot.
do I think Sprint is the best answer for what? Creating large maps that can support a great number of people but for which teleporters, mancannons, and/or vehicles might not be the best solution? Then yeah... the set up sorta puts sprint as the best solution.

That shouldn't be the question you ask though. the issue is if sprint is good for the Halo that 343 has created and will likely create. And my answer to that is, again, the problems we have are not necessarily sprints fault. Rather, they are a failing of 343 to create ideal maps.

But still, we haven't gotten to the heart of the matter. What we should be asking: Is 343 capable of incorporating sprint into a halo game and still maintain the level of quality we've come to expect?

To this I would answer, "Probably not."

And yet... is this even the issue? Would 343 be able to create a halo without sprint that manages to recapture the feel and fun of the originals? Again, I don't think Sprint is the issue. I rather think what we're seeing is an inherent problem with taking an IP and giving it to another group. Passions and Visions change and so the product is going to be a very different beast no matter what you do.

I will say that I think 343 has done admirably with weapon balance. I thought Halo 4 played very well under the right settings (umm... get that ordnance crap outta there! Instant respawn? GARBAGE!!!), but suffered from maps that were uninspired at best (though I think a couple were verging on being decent. I couldn't name them though). Halo 5 is much the same. Despite the gameplay overhaul I still think we're dealing with subpar maps. I don't know what their process is, but its not putting out the same stuff as Bungie did. Even the "boring maps" of halo 2- colossus and burial grounds are two that come to mind- were wonderful with the right gametypes and could be fantastic playgrounds for the gameplay of halo 2.

So, is the teleporter in Headlong awkward? Yes. Not gameplay wise, but thematically. What business does a teleporter have sitting in the middle of a construction zone? Can we justify the existence of these things? Sure. Forerunners and covenant tech can explain away a lot... but what in the world are man cannons doing in the middle of the Halo 5 warzone maps? These things would kill just about any non-spartan that uses them. Sure they play well, but now we've already started hitting walls where the coherence of gameplay and theme breaks down. We've seen two games where 343 can't create a standout map.

but yeah... lets blame sprint for ruining halo rather than consider that the IP just isn't going to survive the changeover well
ZuuluuZ wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
Sprint affects SOOOO much more than movement speed.

- Quicker movement speed means maps have to be stretched out in order to compensate on the TTK's.....This results in poor map quality in my opinion.
- This results in fairly bland map design and maps in general being much larger. I've yet to see maps that compare to Construct, The Pit and Guardian.
- If you test it out, WALKING the length of a relatively small "pre-sprint" map equates to the same time to SPRINT the length of its equivalent. You do not cross a map any quicker than the Halo's without sprint.
- Sprint means that TTK's have had to be reduced slightly in order to kill players crossing open areas (in addition to slightly increased AA).
- It actually slows down gameplay as you're not sprinting all of the time....it can become a game of "who sees who first" depending if someone is sprinting blind.

If someone has specific details such as the above, arguing for how sprint BENEFITS gameplay, please feel free to get into a civilised discussion.
EMMURSION
Thats a big one... But larger maps are also a benefit. You can have larger, grander maps that can handle more players without having to resort to gimmicky teleporters or vehicles, or the awkward man cannons- these don't fit into every setting or always make sense.

Bland design isnt sprint's fault, its 343.
No, it is sprints fault.

I've played sprintless customs on BTB maps in this game and it is wonderful.
Your anecdotal experience doesnt change the facts.
Your anecdotal, personal experiences are no more facts than mine are.
I wasn't sharing anecdotes, rather, I was stating one possible result of having sprint in a game that many would consider a benefit.
But you're dismissing the fact that larger maps cannot work with a high BMS based on your personal experiences. Ie, never playing it.

The problem with sprint isn't about creating large maps based on raw distance. It's about creating maps that are large scale wise.

Without sprint you can have maps that are both overall large and scaled in a manner that eliminates stretching. Think of h5 btb and how ridiculous it feels to have BR starts and how stupid OP the sniper is. Have you played h2 or hce BTB? The H2 BR and HCE pistol are both more oppressive at range than the H5 BR. And yet did BTB in those games feel stagnant and broken? No. Maps were scaled properly without massive deadzones everywhere.
What? I'm dismissing what? ... I'm dismissing the fact that large maps cannot work with a high BMS... ummm...

I think you're struggling putting your thoughts into words and/or making some assumptions about my experience and intents.

I'll just say that I've played plenty of halo. Balls in your court to re-articulate yourself so that I can respond.
pajama dad wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
i dont mean that these things cant exist, but that they dont always make sense. Narrows is a fine map, so was beaver creek. But there are a number of maps where these two things would be out of place.

As an aside, the teleporters on beaver creek were not about crossing large spaces, they were about tactics and multiple pathways.

An example of an awkward teleporter is headlong. There is no reason for it in the original. Its out of place in the city setting. A man cannon is likewise not appropriate thematically, hence the remake using an engine of a crashed vehicle. you can only get so far with this kind of stuff before you really start limiting the kinds of large maps and spaces you can create and still feel natural.
That's fair, but do you think that sprint is the best answer? Why?

You're right about that.

That teleporter wasn't awkward during objective games, like One Bomb Assault, or Two Flag CTF. It wasn't put there for the map to feel more natural, it was there to provide tactics for objective-based gametypes. The only slayer variant that worked well with Headlong was Snipers. High Ground was another asymmetrical map that was objective-focused, but it was smaller, and much more linear. The teleporters on Wetworks were tactical and natural: they were one route, of several, that you could take the flag, and they made sense. As for the creative limit of teleporters and man-cannons, I don't feel that it has been reached, by a longshot.
do I think Sprint is the best answer for what? Creating large maps that can support a great number of people but for which teleporters, mancannons, and/or vehicles might not be the best solution? Then yeah... the set up sorta puts sprint as the best solution.

That shouldn't be the question you ask though. the issue is if sprint is good for the Halo that 343 has created and will likely create. And my answer to that is, again, the problems we have are not necessarily sprints fault. Rather, they are a failing of 343 to create ideal maps.

But still, we haven't gotten to the heart of the matter. What we should be asking: Is 343 capable of incorporating sprint into a halo game and still maintain the level of quality we've come to expect?

To this I would answer, "Probably not."

And yet... is this even the issue? Would 343 be able to create a halo without sprint that manages to recapture the feel and fun of the originals? Again, I don't think Sprint is the issue. I rather think what we're seeing is an inherent problem with taking an IP and giving it to another group. Passions and Visions change and so the product is going to be a very different beast no matter what you do.

I will say that I think 343 has done admirably with weapon balance. I thought Halo 4 played very well under the right settings (umm... get that ordnance crap outta there! Instant respawn? GARBAGE!!!), but suffered from maps that were uninspired at best (though I think a couple were verging on being decent. I couldn't name them though). Halo 5 is much the same. Despite the gameplay overhaul I still think we're dealing with subpar maps. I don't know what their process is, but its not putting out the same stuff as Bungie did. Even the "boring maps" of halo 2- colossus and burial grounds are two that come to mind- were wonderful with the right gametypes and could be fantastic playgrounds for the gameplay of halo 2.

So, is the teleporter in Headlong awkward? Yes. Not gameplay wise, but thematically. What business does a teleporter have sitting in the middle of a construction zone? Can we justify the existence of these things? Sure. Forerunners and covenant tech can explain away a lot... but what in the world are man cannons doing in the middle of the Halo 5 warzone maps? These things would kill just about any non-spartan that uses them. Sure they play well, but now we've already started hitting walls where the coherence of gameplay and theme breaks down. We've seen two games where 343 can't create a standout map.

but yeah... lets blame sprint for ruining halo rather than consider that the IP just isn't going to survive the changeover well
Sprint was here and a major issue before 343 took over.

Big maps would work fine with a high BMS. In fact they would work better because not only would they be large but they would be scaled in such a way that would eliminate the "no man's land" areas that plague big maps in sprint halo games.
I enjoy the movement mechanics
Halo 5 plays nothing like any call of duty game ever created.

This is argument is very detrimental to any kind of debate these threads can possibly bring up. It makes those opposed to certain mechanics appear uninformed and inexperienced in halo 5 gameplay.

I play halo 5 nightly. I played black ops 3 for a day. Didn't like it. And the games are very different. If cod played like halo 5 I would be playing a lot more cod.
Halo 5 isn't like CoD, but Halo 4 sure was. However, CoD is definitely one of the reasons why sprint is in Halo.
Having sprint in a Halo game doesn't ruin Halo. Just because a mechanic got added into the game doesn't mean it changes what is Halo. Really, sprint is a nice feature to have. Yeah, I don't use it constantly, but I use it when I feel the need for it. Really, you should be thinking about how 343 is trying to add newer things to Halo to make a great game even better. Yes, sometimes they're not exactly on point with some features, but that's why our feedback is important. If you seriously feel like a small mechanic like sprint breaks a games, what about something like assassinations? Or some of the other mechanics that was introduced in Halo: Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5?
I was cool with ninjas, they took more skill than holding melee and grappling your opponent when they were out of melee range. The animation for assassinations takes too long, I have them turned off in Halo 5. Halo 4 was trying to be CoD, and--did you even read anything in this thread? I don't think that you even need to answer that.
Yeah, I did read the thread. A lot of it actually. All I was saying was a game mechanic like sprint doesn't ruin a game and added the thing in about assassinations because it wasn't always in Halo. By the way, tell me how Halo was trying to be like Call of Duty. I'm real interested in that one.
When the game is designed around a game mechanic like sprint, and that mechanic doesn't really add anything to the gameplay, then yes, it has ruined Halo. In a twitch shooter, it makes sense, but with Halo's TTK, it just bogs down the gameplay. Assassinations were a cool idea, but they also slowed the gameplay down.

CoD has:

Limited sprint
Loadouts
Killstreaks

Halo 4 had:

Limited sprint
Loadouts
Killstreaks

Explain how Halo 4 wasn't CoD. TTK, weapons, and map design are pretty much the only real differences. And vehicles, I suppose, but yeah, it sure wasn't a Halo game.
So because a game has limited sprint, kill streaks, and loadouts, it makes a clone of another game, right?

I guess that would mean Battlefield is just Call of Duty because it as all the things you described. Next you'll tell me Saints Row is a clone of Grand Theft Auto because you can steal a car. Now, when 343 copies a call of duty story, maybe then I'll say Halo was trying to Call of Duty, but Halo hasn't done that yet.
Listen, I played CoD enough to know what it felt like, and Halo 4 felt a lot more like CoD than Halo. I can go on: perks, no weapon pickups on maps, unable to pick up grenades without a perk, needing to be at a certain rank in order to gain access to specific weapons and such...

In case you haven't noticed, all Bungie and 343i have cared about since Halo CE is the multiplayer. Playing Halo 4's multiplayer felt like playing CoD. I mean, grenades couldn't even be picked up without a perk. Like, WUT!?
Why would you not want sprint?
Read the thread.

Why would you want an unnecessary game mechanic that slows down the gameplay because of how maps are designed to accommodate it?
Why would you not want sprint?
Read the thread.

Why would you want an unnecessary game mechanic that slows down the gameplay because of how maps are designed to accommodate it?
Don't waster your time on the comments like that. There will be people continue to posting "Halo needs to evolve", "I like sprint", "Sprint makes you move faster", etc. Igonore those.

This post has been hidden.

3
SlNkk wrote:
I enjoy the movement mechanics
Vocal minority
didn't even bother reading it because it is the dumbest topic out there right now. Just because it has sprint doesn't mean its not Halo. It's one whole mechanic, that's it. If you don't like sprint, don't sprint. Problem solved.
I fully agree. Don't like sprint? Don't sprint, fine by me, your just an easier target. I personally believe sprint was one of the few things that has improved what little needed to be improved about halo.
Do you believe that the map design has improved? Would you mind explaining your reasons as to why it has or has not?
Thank you for asking a good question. My answer is that, for the most part, the new map designs are focused on allowing players to run, jump, and clamber in fast pace games. This allows a whole new way to strategize your fighting and teamwork. I believe that the new designs are good, but if there was no sprint or clamber it would kind of be pointless in some areas.
Many of those clips demonstrate how the movement in Halo 3 was entirely adequate for gaining a height advantage in a lot of situations. There are a lot more jumps than the ones that I linked, dozens of which are quite practical. Speaking of practicality, going from basement ramp to flag on Viking requires a sprint-jump, which has gotten me killed because I wasn't able to shoot first. A crouch-jump used to do the trick just fine on Valhalla. Momentum and slide-jumps were what clamber and sprint-jumps are now.

The map design is different because, as I said, the maps are scaled to sprint. So, often times what would require clamber in Halo 5, would've only required a precise skill jump in classic Halo. Try crouch-jumping from Top Base to Top Mid on Truth. Clamber has the same problem as sprint: it leaves you vulnerable for a short period of time. Thrust presents its own problems in that it undermines the effectiveness of grenades. It all absolutely clashes with classic Halo gameplay.

As for clamber making up for being slowed down right before attempting a sprint-jump: it can't always compensate, even with a thrust.

Now, for elaboration, do you think that Halo 5 has done a better job with vertical movement than classic Halo titles have?
First off, wow, you are a amazing debater and I like that. Alot of people say stuff and don't really try to back it up. This is what I really like to see from someone I am debating/discussing anything with. I also like you added those links, I will have to make time to watch them. Now to answer your new question, in the case of trying to get to a higher piont easier (by easier I mean if you miss the jump or don't jump enough you can easily clamber, ground pound, or boost onto the ledge you are trying to get on) and more appealing, I would have to answer yes. But, this adds elements to halo 5 that the classics didn't need to be enjoyable and to be overall great games. So to really answer your question, no not really.
Naqser wrote:
Naqser wrote:
sprint and all the new maneuvers have given halo a completely new feel which makes it much harder in some cases to kill. I prefer it this way now (at the beginning I thought it was a horrible idea) but we should keep all of this.
Making it harder to achieve kills doesn't speed up the gameplay.
.
Excuse me?

You say it increases the likelyhood of surviving and encounter, it's harder to fight due to the sheer number of different mechanics presented.
Yet sprint, a boost in forward momentum, increases the speed of the gameplay? A feature not used in combat, outside of Spartan Charge.

I'd say only a small amount of gameplay happens outside combat, and a large part of that small amount is sprinting. When you're experiencing the rest of the gameplay, combat, you're usually not sprinting.
listen... it is harder for BOTH PEOPLE TO KILL. just leave it at that, if you don't like sprinting/everything else, then go to another game. I've been playing halo since halo 1 came out and played on XBC, if you know what that is. games evolve, let them. if you don't like it, don't play them anymore. i'm not trying to start a percentage battle of combat and outside combat experiences to the square root to the 4th power... just leave it alone.
Yeah, you say it's more difficult for both players which would slow down the pace of the game, but sprint speeds it up, a mechanic used most outside of combat.

Yeah, I'm very well aware of what XBC is / was, and I don't care if you had played the earliest build of Halo, the RTS version.

You're saying I'm not letting games evolve? Perhaps I just dislike this "evolutionary" path Halo has taken and want it to take another "evolutionary path".

So you avoid the argument?
Then stop playing halo if you don't like it. argument over...
lol, for real?
Yes. for real.
Right, as in: you can't be serious. You haven't provided a single coherent argument, from what I've read.
Oh i'm so sorry, I had a few people quoting me. Must've lost track of the haters... sorry again lilwhitetrashflower
lol, wow, not sure what to say to that one. I'm just saying what I feel needs to be said, in reply to what others have said. This is a forum.
Justima wrote:
Why would you not want sprint?
Read the thread.

Why would you want an unnecessary game mechanic that slows down the gameplay because of how maps are designed to accommodate it?
Don't waster your time on the comments like that. There will be people continue to posting "Halo needs to evolve", "I like sprint", "Sprint makes you move faster", etc. Igonore those.
I actively strive to act intentionally. I understand that there are many who haven't contributed to the conversation in a meaningful way.
Naqser wrote:
Naqser wrote:
sprint and all the new maneuvers have given halo a completely new feel which makes it much harder in some cases to kill. I prefer it this way now (at the beginning I thought it was a horrible idea) but we should keep all of this.
Making it harder to achieve kills doesn't speed up the gameplay.
.
Excuse me?

You say it increases the likelyhood of surviving and encounter, it's harder to fight due to the sheer number of different mechanics presented.
Yet sprint, a boost in forward momentum, increases the speed of the gameplay? A feature not used in combat, outside of Spartan Charge.

I'd say only a small amount of gameplay happens outside combat, and a large part of that small amount is sprinting. When you're experiencing the rest of the gameplay, combat, you're usually not sprinting.
listen... it is harder for BOTH PEOPLE TO KILL. just leave it at that, if you don't like sprinting/everything else, then go to another game. I've been playing halo since halo 1 came out and played on XBC, if you know what that is. games evolve, let them. if you don't like it, don't play them anymore. i'm not trying to start a percentage battle of combat and outside combat experiences to the square root to the 4th power... just leave it alone.
Yeah, you say it's more difficult for both players which would slow down the pace of the game, but sprint speeds it up, a mechanic used most outside of combat.

Yeah, I'm very well aware of what XBC is / was, and I don't care if you had played the earliest build of Halo, the RTS version.

You're saying I'm not letting games evolve? Perhaps I just dislike this "evolutionary" path Halo has taken and want it to take another "evolutionary path".

So you avoid the argument?
Then stop playing halo if you don't like it. argument over...
lol, for real?
Yes. for real.
Right, as in: you can't be serious. You haven't provided a single coherent argument, from what I've read.
Oh i'm so sorry, I had a few people quoting me. Must've lost track of the haters... sorry again lilwhitetrashflower
lol, wow, not sure what to say to that one. I'm just saying what I feel needs to be said, in reply to what others have said. This is a forum.
Just report him, that was completely uncalled for flaming and could potentially be taken as racism.
Moltened wrote:
SlNkk wrote:
I enjoy the movement mechanics
Vocal minority
Irrelevant two word post is irrelevant.
I say OP makes this a poll. I'd like to see the percentages of people that prefer sprint compared to those who don't.
Moltened wrote:
SlNkk wrote:
I enjoy the movement mechanics
Vocal minority
Irrelevant two word post is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant
when ever someone who argues against sprint and lays out clear concise ideas bit by bit as to why it's bad all we ever get told is that WE are the "vocal minority" and we just need to "adapt" to sprint because they "like the mechanic"
so why is it relevant then but not relevant now?
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 395
  4. 396
  5. 397
  6. 398
  7. 399
  8. ...
  9. 829