Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 398
  4. 399
  5. 400
  6. 401
  7. 402
  8. ...
  9. 829
Moltened wrote:
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.
nonsense. Sprint was not a major problem (good luck qualifying that term satisfactorily), and dead zones appear in just about any large map. Sidewinder had plenty of spaces that were barren. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to sprint.
Eggnaug wrote:
At this point, the only way Halo will return to classic mechanics is if 343's contract with Microsoft ends and another developer that appreciates those mechanics of classic games picks it up.

Edit: which is in no way supportive of the current mechanics... just lost hope.
Don't think there even is a contract between 343 and Microsoft because they're one and the same. Microsoft specifically made 343 themselves to make halo and only halo. It's not the same relationship that bungie had with Microsoft.
I am looking for an editor that can make me an intro for my YouTube Channel if you could PM me we can talk and maybe set something up. Further editing may be involved.
Moltened wrote:
JIMLUKE104 wrote:
Moltened wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
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.
Here are some polls pertaining to sprint
now of course you will probably say that these polls don't mean anything because I'm assuming they are going to be contrary to what you believe, but here they are

Reditt poll
Beyond.net

and finally just for the sake of showing unbiased here is a poll from
Waypoint You will see that the first two polls show a wide margin of people in favour of having sprint removed compared to staying and in the waypoint poll it's actually pretty close but still
slightly in favour for sprint

PS. Polls don't mean anything
Quite to the contrary; I think sprint should be removed. I am also irrated at the fact that non halo fans are dictating halo's mechanics. It just goes to show mismanagement of the franchise when you are trying to appeal to a new audience despite it hurting and destroying the fan base they currently have. And you're right polls mean nothing. It's hilarious that the polls are so definitive yet 343/Microsoft refuse to adjust the gameplay mechanics to how the fans want them. Polls are meaningless when developers/publishers hold a franchise hostage.
Then I honestly apologise for making the assumption

i I love how despite those two polls I referenced Quinn del Hoya states that 77% of players polled wanted sprint to remain in the "offical poll" 343 conducted
For referenceThis is is what's known as selection bias , especially considering there are other polls in other communities which swing as much as 95% in favour of removing sprint

I also enjoyed how during the development of H4 they said that they (343) intentionally hired people who "didn't like halo"
Using polls as a way to design a game is a horrendous strategy.

Let's say im making a building and I invite 1000 people in to give me their opinions on the building. 900 of these people say it's amazing. They love it. It looks really cool and fancy. The other 100 say(who just happen to be engineers by trade) tell you that it is structurally flawed, unstable and dangerous. Should I ignore those 100 people because they are in a 90-10% minority? Obviously not.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy.

To relate that back to what we are talking about it would have to be applied like this:

I add a new feature (sprint) to a video gamee and ask for 1000 people's opinions. 900 people love the new feature. 100 people do not, those 100 people are game designers.

That's essentially what you said with the 100 people who were engineers and know about building construction.

All 1000 of us (i'm sure there are a few exceptions), are just fans playing the game, not game developers. It seems like 900 people like sprint (and are likely younger/new generation players) & 100 people don't like sprint (which are likely older generation, don't change the winning formula players.)
Ok. Let's change that from engineers by trade to "people who seem to atleast want to talk about the structural integrity of the building instead of just talking about how cool the paint colour is". Better?

The problem with this sprint debate is that one side is looking deeper at the mechanic while the other is only looking at the very most surface layer. If someone can actually explain to 343 how sprint affects each area of the game and why those effects are good, than that's awesome. However 10,000 people saying "I like sprint because it looks cool" doesn't mean anything. These types of people clearly have no idea how sprint affects the other aspects of the game. Due to this sprint could actually be a huge detrimental game mechanic to those same people. They just don't see it.

The reason sprint debates look like "veterans/good players vs new/bad players" is simply because those vets/good players are the players who understand the game. They see how every aspect of the game's design affects the other aspects. That knowledge is generally what makes good players good. This knowledge also reveals the flaws of sprint. Newer players don't see these flaws because all they see is the surface layer of sprint. What it literally is as a mechanic. They don't see the subtle influences it has on other mechanics. This is why if you look through this thread you'll see a lot of posts along the lines of "what's the problem you just press a button and go fast. Don't like it, don't press the button".
I still have yet to see a competent argument for pro sprint, and many of the non competent arguments change sides after having evreything explained to them. If 343 put an evolved settings btb/arena playlist in for a week I bet it would be the most populated playlist as long as it's in the game.
maybe because you haven't looked?
pajama dad wrote:
Moltened wrote:
JIMLUKE104 wrote:
Moltened wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
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.
Here are some polls pertaining to sprint
now of course you will probably say that these polls don't mean anything because I'm assuming they are going to be contrary to what you believe, but here they are

Reditt poll
Beyond.net

and finally just for the sake of showing unbiased here is a poll from
Waypoint You will see that the first two polls show a wide margin of people in favour of having sprint removed compared to staying and in the waypoint poll it's actually pretty close but still
slightly in favour for sprint

PS. Polls don't mean anything
Quite to the contrary; I think sprint should be removed. I am also irrated at the fact that non halo fans are dictating halo's mechanics. It just goes to show mismanagement of the franchise when you are trying to appeal to a new audience despite it hurting and destroying the fan base they currently have. And you're right polls mean nothing. It's hilarious that the polls are so definitive yet 343/Microsoft refuse to adjust the gameplay mechanics to how the fans want them. Polls are meaningless when developers/publishers hold a franchise hostage.
Then I honestly apologise for making the assumption

i I love how despite those two polls I referenced Quinn del Hoya states that 77% of players polled wanted sprint to remain in the "offical poll" 343 conducted
For referenceThis is is what's known as selection bias , especially considering there are other polls in other communities which swing as much as 95% in favour of removing sprint

I also enjoyed how during the development of H4 they said that they (343) intentionally hired people who "didn't like halo"
Using polls as a way to design a game is a horrendous strategy.

Let's say im making a building and I invite 1000 people in to give me their opinions on the building. 900 of these people say it's amazing. They love it. It looks really cool and fancy. The other 100 say(who just happen to be engineers by trade) tell you that it is structurally flawed, unstable and dangerous. Should I ignore those 100 people because they are in a 90-10% minority? Obviously not.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy.

To relate that back to what we are talking about it would have to be applied like this:

I add a new feature (sprint) to a video gamee and ask for 1000 people's opinions. 900 people love the new feature. 100 people do not, those 100 people are game designers.

That's essentially what you said with the 100 people who were engineers and know about building construction.

All 1000 of us (i'm sure there are a few exceptions), are just fans playing the game, not game developers. It seems like 900 people like sprint (and are likely younger/new generation players) & 100 people don't like sprint (which are likely older generation, don't change the winning formula players.)
Ok. Let's change that from engineers by trade to "people who seem to atleast want to talk about the structural integrity of the building instead of just talking about how cool the paint colour is". Better?

The problem with this sprint debate is that one side is looking deeper at the mechanic while the other is only looking at the very most surface layer. If someone can actually explain to 343 how sprint affects each area of the game and why those effects are good, than that's awesome. However 10,000 people saying "I like sprint because it looks cool" doesn't mean anything. These types of people clearly have no idea how sprint affects the other aspects of the game. Due to this sprint could actually be a huge detrimental game mechanic to those same people. They just don't see it.

The reason sprint debates look like "veterans/good players vs new/bad players" is simply because those vets/good players are the players who understand the game. They see how every aspect of the game's design affects the other aspects. That knowledge is generally what makes good players good. This knowledge also reveals the flaws of sprint. Newer players don't see these flaws because all they see is the surface layer of sprint. What it literally is as a mechanic. They don't see the subtle influences it has on other mechanics. This is why if you look through this thread you'll see a lot of posts along the lines of "what's the problem you just press a button and go fast. Don't like it, don't press the button".
I still have yet to see a competent argument for pro sprint, and many of the non competent arguments change sides after having evreything explained to them. If 343 put an evolved settings btb/arena playlist in for a week I bet it would be the most populated playlist as long as it's in the game.
maybe because you haven't looked?
I've been on this thread since around page ten where I first posted to now, I've missed maby ten pages between them and now and the best I've seen is immersion,
NO IT WON't
Do you have any thoughts as to why it won't?
care to elaborate at all?
The Genie is now out of the bottle, if in Halo 6 Sprint, Spartan Charge and other abilities like clamber were removed you would then be playing a different game, you would be back to the core argument of all the supposed "community dividers" Classic Halo Vs New Halo, would classic Halo translate to todays gamers, in a nutshell no. I think Halo is at the moment still different enough from games like COD and Destiny to stand alone as an FPS, it's a very fine balancing act but Halo 5 still pulls it off, fact it is still Halo and not some generic shooter. Though I am sure sections of the community would beg to differ as is their right. I am what people round these parts call a "Halo Veteran" whether it's derogatory or otherwise makes no difference to me. I bought the O.G Xbox with Halo in 2001 and have stuck with the series throughout, I remember how messed up Halo 2 was because MS rushed it out, how good Halo 3 was in comparison and playing Reach for the first time and saying WTF is this, this isn't HALO!!! The campaign was awful but the multiplayer was brilliant once you got used to the changes, Halo 4 was the opposite Great Campaign terrible multiplayer. Halo 5 is in my opinion going in the right direction, again I think MS made the same Dev mistake they did with Halo 2 and wanted the game out before it was ready because of the MCC debacle which could have killed the franchise. If Halo 5 was releasing this October instead of last October with everything that is in the game now available on release it would have been hailed as a major step forward for the Halo brand, but it didn't and it is what it is.
343 have to look at what they have NOW and apply this to Halo 6, there are still issues with Halo 5 but can you name one game that doesn't have Issues. I hope, no, I am sure that Halo 6 will be 343's Halo 3. Mistakes were made by both the publisher and the developer on release of Halo 5 but they have tried their best to rectify them and you have to give them cred for that. This is only one old guy's opinion, but Halo 6 on the Scorpio? Well you can put me down for a pre order right now. Peace out LBC.
PS Sprint must stay lulz .js
Why should sprint stay though? Just because of today's gamers? Solid argument, Captain.
Sprint should stay because I really enjoy smashing into people at full speed whilst they are camping with a sniper rifle and oblivious to the onrushing Spartan mayhem about to be unleashed upon them. Seriously the maps are designed for the use of sprint , I still have CE nightmares about bouncing across the map to get to a location quicker and thinking"I'm a -Yoinking!- super soldier, why can't I RUN a bit faster?"
Don't get me wrong I have posted before that for HALO 6 or even as a HALO 5 update surely they could put a dev team on a proper remake of Classic HALO multiplayer with all the original settings with next generation graphics running at 60 fps as a separate playlist for OG gamers, or hell just for people who have never experienced these game modes to try out, if they are underpopulated, so what! I have 200 armour sets that I will never use, why remove one ability"sprint" when you can have both. I know I would be dipping into a bit of "blood gulch" sniper's and pistols. HEY 343 ARE YOU LISTENING. Peace out. LBC
pajama dad wrote:
Moltened wrote:
JIMLUKE104 wrote:
Moltened wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
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.
Here are some polls pertaining to sprint
now of course you will probably say that these polls don't mean anything because I'm assuming they are going to be contrary to what you believe, but here they are

Reditt poll
Beyond.net

and finally just for the sake of showing unbiased here is a poll from
Waypoint You will see that the first two polls show a wide margin of people in favour of having sprint removed compared to staying and in the waypoint poll it's actually pretty close but still
slightly in favour for sprint

PS. Polls don't mean anything
Quite to the contrary; I think sprint should be removed. I am also irrated at the fact that non halo fans are dictating halo's mechanics. It just goes to show mismanagement of the franchise when you are trying to appeal to a new audience despite it hurting and destroying the fan base they currently have. And you're right polls mean nothing. It's hilarious that the polls are so definitive yet 343/Microsoft refuse to adjust the gameplay mechanics to how the fans want them. Polls are meaningless when developers/publishers hold a franchise hostage.
Then I honestly apologise for making the assumption

i I love how despite those two polls I referenced Quinn del Hoya states that 77% of players polled wanted sprint to remain in the "offical poll" 343 conducted
For referenceThis is is what's known as selection bias , especially considering there are other polls in other communities which swing as much as 95% in favour of removing sprint

I also enjoyed how during the development of H4 they said that they (343) intentionally hired people who "didn't like halo"
Using polls as a way to design a game is a horrendous strategy.

Let's say im making a building and I invite 1000 people in to give me their opinions on the building. 900 of these people say it's amazing. They love it. It looks really cool and fancy. The other 100 say(who just happen to be engineers by trade) tell you that it is structurally flawed, unstable and dangerous. Should I ignore those 100 people because they are in a 90-10% minority? Obviously not.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy.

To relate that back to what we are talking about it would have to be applied like this:

I add a new feature (sprint) to a video gamee and ask for 1000 people's opinions. 900 people love the new feature. 100 people do not, those 100 people are game designers.

That's essentially what you said with the 100 people who were engineers and know about building construction.

All 1000 of us (i'm sure there are a few exceptions), are just fans playing the game, not game developers. It seems like 900 people like sprint (and are likely younger/new generation players) & 100 people don't like sprint (which are likely older generation, don't change the winning formula players.)
Ok. Let's change that from engineers by trade to "people who seem to atleast want to talk about the structural integrity of the building instead of just talking about how cool the paint colour is". Better?

The problem with this sprint debate is that one side is looking deeper at the mechanic while the other is only looking at the very most surface layer. If someone can actually explain to 343 how sprint affects each area of the game and why those effects are good, than that's awesome. However 10,000 people saying "I like sprint because it looks cool" doesn't mean anything. These types of people clearly have no idea how sprint affects the other aspects of the game. Due to this sprint could actually be a huge detrimental game mechanic to those same people. They just don't see it.

The reason sprint debates look like "veterans/good players vs new/bad players" is simply because those vets/good players are the players who understand the game. They see how every aspect of the game's design affects the other aspects. That knowledge is generally what makes good players good. This knowledge also reveals the flaws of sprint. Newer players don't see these flaws because all they see is the surface layer of sprint. What it literally is as a mechanic. They don't see the subtle influences it has on other mechanics. This is why if you look through this thread you'll see a lot of posts along the lines of "what's the problem you just press a button and go fast. Don't like it, don't press the button".
I still have yet to see a competent argument for pro sprint, and many of the non competent arguments change sides after having evreything explained to them. If 343 put an evolved settings btb/arena playlist in for a week I bet it would be the most populated playlist as long as it's in the game.
maybe because you haven't looked?
I've been on this thread since around page ten where I first posted to now, I've missed maby ten pages between them and now and the best I've seen is immersion,
Which is 343's justification for the inclusion of sprint. It makes no sense to me when 343 talks about immersion and realism in this game, while the game never looks realistic and mechanics are not immersive and unrealistic.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Justima wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Moltened wrote:
JIMLUKE104 wrote:
Moltened wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
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.
Here are some polls pertaining to sprint
now of course you will probably say that these polls don't mean anything because I'm assuming they are going to be contrary to what you believe, but here they are

Reditt poll
Beyond.net

and finally just for the sake of showing unbiased here is a poll from
Waypoint You will see that the first two polls show a wide margin of people in favour of having sprint removed compared to staying and in the waypoint poll it's actually pretty close but still
slightly in favour for sprint

PS. Polls don't mean anything
Quite to the contrary; I think sprint should be removed. I am also irrated at the fact that non halo fans are dictating halo's mechanics. It just goes to show mismanagement of the franchise when you are trying to appeal to a new audience despite it hurting and destroying the fan base they currently have. And you're right polls mean nothing. It's hilarious that the polls are so definitive yet 343/Microsoft refuse to adjust the gameplay mechanics to how the fans want them. Polls are meaningless when developers/publishers hold a franchise hostage.
Then I honestly apologise for making the assumption

i I love how despite those two polls I referenced Quinn del Hoya states that 77% of players polled wanted sprint to remain in the "offical poll" 343 conducted
For referenceThis is is what's known as selection bias , especially considering there are other polls in other communities which swing as much as 95% in favour of removing sprint

I also enjoyed how during the development of H4 they said that they (343) intentionally hired people who "didn't like halo"
Using polls as a way to design a game is a horrendous strategy.

Let's say im making a building and I invite 1000 people in to give me their opinions on the building. 900 of these people say it's amazing. They love it. It looks really cool and fancy. The other 100 say(who just happen to be engineers by trade) tell you that it is structurally flawed, unstable and dangerous. Should I ignore those 100 people because they are in a 90-10% minority? Obviously not.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy.

To relate that back to what we are talking about it would have to be applied like this:

I add a new feature (sprint) to a video gamee and ask for 1000 people's opinions. 900 people love the new feature. 100 people do not, those 100 people are game designers.

That's essentially what you said with the 100 people who were engineers and know about building construction.

All 1000 of us (i'm sure there are a few exceptions), are just fans playing the game, not game developers. It seems like 900 people like sprint (and are likely younger/new generation players) & 100 people don't like sprint (which are likely older generation, don't change the winning formula players.)
Ok. Let's change that from engineers by trade to "people who seem to atleast want to talk about the structural integrity of the building instead of just talking about how cool the paint colour is". Better?

The problem with this sprint debate is that one side is looking deeper at the mechanic while the other is only looking at the very most surface layer. If someone can actually explain to 343 how sprint affects each area of the game and why those effects are good, than that's awesome. However 10,000 people saying "I like sprint because it looks cool" doesn't mean anything. These types of people clearly have no idea how sprint affects the other aspects of the game. Due to this sprint could actually be a huge detrimental game mechanic to those same people. They just don't see it.

The reason sprint debates look like "veterans/good players vs new/bad players" is simply because those vets/good players are the players who understand the game. They see how every aspect of the game's design affects the other aspects. That knowledge is generally what makes good players good. This knowledge also reveals the flaws of sprint. Newer players don't see these flaws because all they see is the surface layer of sprint. What it literally is as a mechanic. They don't see the subtle influences it has on other mechanics. This is why if you look through this thread you'll see a lot of posts along the lines of "what's the problem you just press a button and go fast. Don't like it, don't press the button".
I still have yet to see a competent argument for pro sprint, and many of the non competent arguments change sides after having evreything explained to them. If 343 put an evolved settings btb/arena playlist in for a week I bet it would be the most populated playlist as long as it's in the game.
maybe because you haven't looked?
I've been on this thread since around page ten where I first posted to now, I've missed maby ten pages between them and now and the best I've seen is immersion,
Which is 343's justification for the inclusion of sprint. It makes no sense to me when 343 talks about immersion and realism in this game, while the game never looks realistic and mechanics are not immersive and unrealistic.
The actual justification is additional mobility for less defense and offense.

It also adds additional skillcap to the game's movement mechanics by managing speed and height for jumps along with clamber, spartan charge, stabilization, Thrusters. etc.
Is it necessary? no.
Does it give more opportunity for balancing levers, skill differentials, risk/reward, and comboing mechanics for a more user controlled experience? Yes.

It's not even that hard of a concept.
NO IT WON't
Do you have any thoughts as to why it won't?
care to elaborate at all?
Sprint should stay because I really enjoy smashing into people at full speed whilst they are camping with a sniper rifle and oblivious to the onrushing Spartan mayhem about to be unleashed upon them. Seriously the maps are designed for the use of sprint , I still have CE nightmares about bouncing across the map to get to a location quicker and thinking"I'm a -Yoinking!- super soldier, why can't I RUN a bit faster?"
Don't get me wrong I have posted before that for HALO 6 or even as a HALO 5 update surely they could put a dev team on a proper remake of Classic HALO multiplayer with all the original settings with next generation graphics running at 60 fps as a separate playlist for OG gamers, or hell just for people who have never experienced these game modes to try out, if they are underpopulated, so what! I have 200 armour sets that I will never use, why remove one ability"sprint" when you can have both. I know I would be dipping into a bit of "blood gulch" sniper's and pistols. HEY 343 ARE YOU LISTENING. Peace out. LBC
So you don't like "campers", I mean this isn't COD, but okay. Seriously Halo 5 can work well without sprint. The maps are more designed for the use of Clamber rather than sprint. You are complaining about not being able to get across the map, even though there were vehicles on many maps. Also we have a "classic" Halo multiplayer running at 60fps called H2A. It was actually really good attempt at making a classic Halo game, too bad the matchmaking was so broken.
Nneutrino wrote:
Justima wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Moltened wrote:
JIMLUKE104 wrote:
Moltened wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
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.
Here are some polls pertaining to sprint
now of course you will probably say that these polls don't mean anything because I'm assuming they are going to be contrary to what you believe, but here they are

Reditt poll
Beyond.net

and finally just for the sake of showing unbiased here is a poll from
Waypoint You will see that the first two polls show a wide margin of people in favour of having sprint removed compared to staying and in the waypoint poll it's actually pretty close but still
slightly in favour for sprint

PS. Polls don't mean anything
Quite to the contrary; I think sprint should be removed. I am also irrated at the fact that non halo fans are dictating halo's mechanics. It just goes to show mismanagement of the franchise when you are trying to appeal to a new audience despite it hurting and destroying the fan base they currently have. And you're right polls mean nothing. It's hilarious that the polls are so definitive yet 343/Microsoft refuse to adjust the gameplay mechanics to how the fans want them. Polls are meaningless when developers/publishers hold a franchise hostage.
Then I honestly apologise for making the assumption

i I love how despite those two polls I referenced Quinn del Hoya states that 77% of players polled wanted sprint to remain in the "offical poll" 343 conducted
For referenceThis is is what's known as selection bias , especially considering there are other polls in other communities which swing as much as 95% in favour of removing sprint

I also enjoyed how during the development of H4 they said that they (343) intentionally hired people who "didn't like halo"
Using polls as a way to design a game is a horrendous strategy.

Let's say im making a building and I invite 1000 people in to give me their opinions on the building. 900 of these people say it's amazing. They love it. It looks really cool and fancy. The other 100 say(who just happen to be engineers by trade) tell you that it is structurally flawed, unstable and dangerous. Should I ignore those 100 people because they are in a 90-10% minority? Obviously not.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy.

To relate that back to what we are talking about it would have to be applied like this:

I add a new feature (sprint) to a video gamee and ask for 1000 people's opinions. 900 people love the new feature. 100 people do not, those 100 people are game designers.

That's essentially what you said with the 100 people who were engineers and know about building construction.

All 1000 of us (i'm sure there are a few exceptions), are just fans playing the game, not game developers. It seems like 900 people like sprint (and are likely younger/new generation players) & 100 people don't like sprint (which are likely older generation, don't change the winning formula players.)
Ok. Let's change that from engineers by trade to "people who seem to atleast want to talk about the structural integrity of the building instead of just talking about how cool the paint colour is". Better?

The problem with this sprint debate is that one side is looking deeper at the mechanic while the other is only looking at the very most surface layer. If someone can actually explain to 343 how sprint affects each area of the game and why those effects are good, than that's awesome. However 10,000 people saying "I like sprint because it looks cool" doesn't mean anything. These types of people clearly have no idea how sprint affects the other aspects of the game. Due to this sprint could actually be a huge detrimental game mechanic to those same people. They just don't see it.

The reason sprint debates look like "veterans/good players vs new/bad players" is simply because those vets/good players are the players who understand the game. They see how every aspect of the game's design affects the other aspects. That knowledge is generally what makes good players good. This knowledge also reveals the flaws of sprint. Newer players don't see these flaws because all they see is the surface layer of sprint. What it literally is as a mechanic. They don't see the subtle influences it has on other mechanics. This is why if you look through this thread you'll see a lot of posts along the lines of "what's the problem you just press a button and go fast. Don't like it, don't press the button".
I still have yet to see a competent argument for pro sprint, and many of the non competent arguments change sides after having evreything explained to them. If 343 put an evolved settings btb/arena playlist in for a week I bet it would be the most populated playlist as long as it's in the game.
maybe because you haven't looked?
The actual justification is additional mobility for less defense and offense.
There's no "one true justification" for sprints inclusion, there are multiple others. Albeit most of them are rather weak just like the one you are providing. Anyway, why must mobility and and action exist on seperate planes? All it serves to do is make the game less fluid since people have to constantly transition between those two phases in order to play the game properly.
Nneutrino wrote:

It also adds additional skillcap to the game's movement mechanics by managing speed and height for jumps along with clamber, spartan charge, stabilization, Thrusters. etc.
As someone who has a positive KD both in older and newer Halo's, I heavily disagree with the notion that the new movement options affects the skill gap in the game. It's not terribly difficult to understand when and when not to use these abilities.
Nneutrino wrote:
Is it necessary? no.
If it's not necessary and has a controversial presence in the series, then why change the gameplay (e.g. Shield recharge, sandbox balancing, map design, match flow) just to fit this mechanic into the game?
Nneutrino wrote:
Does it give more opportunity for balancing levers, skill differentials, risk/reward, and comboing mechanics for a more user controlled experience? Yes.
Balancing levers? What even is that? I've been studying and partaking in game design for years and I haven't even heard of this term.

As for "skill differentials" and risk/reward, I find these to be rather shallow points. As I stated above, sprint affect on skill in the game is negligible at best. And the risk/reward it presents only mess with the design philosophy of previous entries in the series, specifically in regards to the lack of shield recharge when sprinting and my previous point on how it seperates mobility and action from eachother.

Quote:
It's not even that hard of a concept.
Indeed it isn't, but it's also not a good one.
Naqser wrote:
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.
I pointed out a few points, you just tried to say I'm an idiot. just get off this post thread. do us all a favor
If I recall, the few points out of all your posts in this thread were contradictory to each other, touched how to play the game rather than touch how the mechanics work and a situational scenario.

The latter part of your post is also ironic, because you call others haters and lilwhitetrashflower.

So do you have anything of actual contribution, for example, explaining how choosing not to use sprint, or not to play altogether somehow is relevant to what some see as problems with sprint when they perhaps like other parts of the game and want to continue playing? Or are you the kind of person who abandons ship the instance you see something you dislike? I mean, there's a saying "takes on to know one".
I will respond by saying this. if I don't like a game anymore, I DON'T PLAY IT. I don't start posting in the forums of said game, of how I don't like it anymore and it needs to change. And no, nothing I said contradicted itself.
Nneutrino wrote:
Justima wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Moltened wrote:
JIMLUKE104 wrote:
Moltened wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
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.
Here are some polls pertaining to sprint
now of course you will probably say that these polls don't mean anything because I'm assuming they are going to be contrary to what you believe, but here they are

Reditt poll
Beyond.net

and finally just for the sake of showing unbiased here is a poll from
Waypoint You will see that the first two polls show a wide margin of people in favour of having sprint removed compared to staying and in the waypoint poll it's actually pretty close but still
slightly in favour for sprint

PS. Polls don't mean anything
Quite to the contrary; I think sprint should be removed. I am also irrated at the fact that non halo fans are dictating halo's mechanics. It just goes to show mismanagement of the franchise when you are trying to appeal to a new audience despite it hurting and destroying the fan base they currently have. And you're right polls mean nothing. It's hilarious that the polls are so definitive yet 343/Microsoft refuse to adjust the gameplay mechanics to how the fans want them. Polls are meaningless when developers/publishers hold a franchise hostage.
Then I honestly apologise for making the assumption

i I love how despite those two polls I referenced Quinn del Hoya states that 77% of players polled wanted sprint to remain in the "offical poll" 343 conducted
For referenceThis is is what's known as selection bias , especially considering there are other polls in other communities which swing as much as 95% in favour of removing sprint

I also enjoyed how during the development of H4 they said that they (343) intentionally hired people who "didn't like halo"
Using polls as a way to design a game is a horrendous strategy.

Let's say im making a building and I invite 1000 people in to give me their opinions on the building. 900 of these people say it's amazing. They love it. It looks really cool and fancy. The other 100 say(who just happen to be engineers by trade) tell you that it is structurally flawed, unstable and dangerous. Should I ignore those 100 people because they are in a 90-10% minority? Obviously not.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy.

To relate that back to what we are talking about it would have to be applied like this:

I add a new feature (sprint) to a video gamee and ask for 1000 people's opinions. 900 people love the new feature. 100 people do not, those 100 people are game designers.

That's essentially what you said with the 100 people who were engineers and know about building construction.

All 1000 of us (i'm sure there are a few exceptions), are just fans playing the game, not game developers. It seems like 900 people like sprint (and are likely younger/new generation players) & 100 people don't like sprint (which are likely older generation, don't change the winning formula players.)
Ok. Let's change that from engineers by trade to "people who seem to atleast want to talk about the structural integrity of the building instead of just talking about how cool the paint colour is". Better?

The problem with this sprint debate is that one side is looking deeper at the mechanic while the other is only looking at the very most surface layer. If someone can actually explain to 343 how sprint affects each area of the game and why those effects are good, than that's awesome. However 10,000 people saying "I like sprint because it looks cool" doesn't mean anything. These types of people clearly have no idea how sprint affects the other aspects of the game. Due to this sprint could actually be a huge detrimental game mechanic to those same people. They just don't see it.

The reason sprint debates look like "veterans/good players vs new/bad players" is simply because those vets/good players are the players who understand the game. They see how every aspect of the game's design affects the other aspects. That knowledge is generally what makes good players good. This knowledge also reveals the flaws of sprint. Newer players don't see these flaws because all they see is the surface layer of sprint. What it literally is as a mechanic. They don't see the subtle influences it has on other mechanics. This is why if you look through this thread you'll see a lot of posts along the lines of "what's the problem you just press a button and go fast. Don't like it, don't press the button".
I still have yet to see a competent argument for pro sprint, and many of the non competent arguments change sides after having evreything explained to them. If 343 put an evolved settings btb/arena playlist in for a week I bet it would be the most populated playlist as long as it's in the game.
maybe because you haven't looked?
I've been on this thread since around page ten where I first posted to now, I've missed maby ten pages between them and now and the best I've seen is immersion,
Which is 343's justification for the inclusion of sprint. It makes no sense to me when 343 talks about immersion and realism in this game, while the game never looks realistic and mechanics are not immersive and unrealistic.
The actual justification is additional mobility for less defense and offense.

It also adds additional skillcap to the game's movement mechanics by managing speed and height for jumps along with clamber, spartan charge, stabilization, Thrusters. etc.
Is it necessary? no.
Does it give more opportunity for balancing levers, skill differentials, risk/reward, and comboing mechanics for a more user controlled experience? Yes.

It's not even that hard of a concept.
Randomness isn't competitive, not even close
Gandalfur wrote:
Halo 6 could be the game EVERYONE wants by removing sprint in campaign (yes because who the -Yoink- needs TWO movement speeds in campaign????) and
arena multiplayer at first I thought a no sprint playlist might be optimal but hear me out. I pretty sure the new spartan abilities (save -Yoinking!- spartan charge) would be GENERALLY accepted in a halo game if they werent accompanied by sprint it would feel more competitive more strategic and would also still be recognizable to the fine tuned experience we got in halo 5. Warzone and customs would be a whole other beast entirely retaining ALL the features that made halo 5 successful would keep warzone great and would also allow more options for custom games, for those people that actually wanted to play in a sprint arena type setting they could actually fire up the in game custom game lobby adjust the filter and be good to go! lets face it, sprint has NO place in competitve halo and to argue that it does would just be absurd. this would allow arena maps to continue to be designed the PROPER way and please the vets and basically everyone whos willing to give it a chance and you wouldnt lose much of your sprint loving audience at all because there would still be sprint in the game it would just take a backseat!
Thoughts? :3
Shouldn't super soldiers be able to sprint? I mean makes sense.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show

Do you really want a guy running and shooting with a shotgun? Would not be fun.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show

Do you really want a guy running and shooting with a shotgun? Would not be fun.
Um, that's how it always was before Reach, and no one complained. Please explain how Halo was unbalanced prior to sprint being introduced, or what gameplay problem sprint remedies.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show

Do you really want a guy running and shooting with a shotgun? Would not be fun.
Was that a problem in CE, 2,or 3. I don't recall that ever being a problem.
pajama dad wrote:
Moltened wrote:
JIMLUKE104 wrote:
Moltened wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
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.
Here are some polls pertaining to sprint
now of course you will probably say that these polls don't mean anything because I'm assuming they are going to be contrary to what you believe, but here they are

Reditt poll
Beyond.net

and finally just for the sake of showing unbiased here is a poll from
Waypoint You will see that the first two polls show a wide margin of people in favour of having sprint removed compared to staying and in the waypoint poll it's actually pretty close but still
slightly in favour for sprint

PS. Polls don't mean anything
Quite to the contrary; I think sprint should be removed. I am also irrated at the fact that non halo fans are dictating halo's mechanics. It just goes to show mismanagement of the franchise when you are trying to appeal to a new audience despite it hurting and destroying the fan base they currently have. And you're right polls mean nothing. It's hilarious that the polls are so definitive yet 343/Microsoft refuse to adjust the gameplay mechanics to how the fans want them. Polls are meaningless when developers/publishers hold a franchise hostage.
Then I honestly apologise for making the assumption

i I love how despite those two polls I referenced Quinn del Hoya states that 77% of players polled wanted sprint to remain in the "offical poll" 343 conducted
For referenceThis is is what's known as selection bias , especially considering there are other polls in other communities which swing as much as 95% in favour of removing sprint

I also enjoyed how during the development of H4 they said that they (343) intentionally hired people who "didn't like halo"
Using polls as a way to design a game is a horrendous strategy.

Let's say im making a building and I invite 1000 people in to give me their opinions on the building. 900 of these people say it's amazing. They love it. It looks really cool and fancy. The other 100 say(who just happen to be engineers by trade) tell you that it is structurally flawed, unstable and dangerous. Should I ignore those 100 people because they are in a 90-10% minority? Obviously not.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy.

To relate that back to what we are talking about it would have to be applied like this:

I add a new feature (sprint) to a video gamee and ask for 1000 people's opinions. 900 people love the new feature. 100 people do not, those 100 people are game designers.

That's essentially what you said with the 100 people who were engineers and know about building construction.

All 1000 of us (i'm sure there are a few exceptions), are just fans playing the game, not game developers. It seems like 900 people like sprint (and are likely younger/new generation players) & 100 people don't like sprint (which are likely older generation, don't change the winning formula players.)
Ok. Let's change that from engineers by trade to "people who seem to atleast want to talk about the structural integrity of the building instead of just talking about how cool the paint colour is". Better?

The problem with this sprint debate is that one side is looking deeper at the mechanic while the other is only looking at the very most surface layer. If someone can actually explain to 343 how sprint affects each area of the game and why those effects are good, than that's awesome. However 10,000 people saying "I like sprint because it looks cool" doesn't mean anything. These types of people clearly have no idea how sprint affects the other aspects of the game. Due to this sprint could actually be a huge detrimental game mechanic to those same people. They just don't see it.

The reason sprint debates look like "veterans/good players vs new/bad players" is simply because those vets/good players are the players who understand the game. They see how every aspect of the game's design affects the other aspects. That knowledge is generally what makes good players good. This knowledge also reveals the flaws of sprint. Newer players don't see these flaws because all they see is the surface layer of sprint. What it literally is as a mechanic. They don't see the subtle influences it has on other mechanics. This is why if you look through this thread you'll see a lot of posts along the lines of "what's the problem you just press a button and go fast. Don't like it, don't press the button".
I still have yet to see a competent argument for pro sprint, and many of the non competent arguments change sides after having evreything explained to them. If 343 put an evolved settings btb/arena playlist in for a week I bet it would be the most populated playlist as long as it's in the game.
maybe because you haven't looked?
I've been on this thread since around page ten where I first posted to now, I've missed maby ten pages between them and now and the best I've seen is immersion,
Look harder. There are plenty of good posts on the potential benefits of sprint... wish I had them bookmarked. But "potential" is a key word.

343 hasnt used the mechanic to its fullest. And cant seem to generate maps that complement the ability. Rather they compensate. I think there is more to why h4 and h5 are not top quality halo games, and it has less to do with sprint (Which manages fine in a number of games across the fps and 3rdPS genre) and more to with 343.
pajama dad wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Moltened wrote:
JIMLUKE104 wrote:
Moltened wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
Eggnaug wrote:
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.
Here are some polls pertaining to sprint
now of course you will probably say that these polls don't mean anything because I'm assuming they are going to be contrary to what you believe, but here they are

Reditt poll
Beyond.net

and finally just for the sake of showing unbiased here is a poll from
Waypoint You will see that the first two polls show a wide margin of people in favour of having sprint removed compared to staying and in the waypoint poll it's actually pretty close but still
slightly in favour for sprint

PS. Polls don't mean anything
Quite to the contrary; I think sprint should be removed. I am also irrated at the fact that non halo fans are dictating halo's mechanics. It just goes to show mismanagement of the franchise when you are trying to appeal to a new audience despite it hurting and destroying the fan base they currently have. And you're right polls mean nothing. It's hilarious that the polls are so definitive yet 343/Microsoft refuse to adjust the gameplay mechanics to how the fans want them. Polls are meaningless when developers/publishers hold a franchise hostage.
Then I honestly apologise for making the assumption

i I love how despite those two polls I referenced Quinn del Hoya states that 77% of players polled wanted sprint to remain in the "offical poll" 343 conducted
For referenceThis is is what's known as selection bias , especially considering there are other polls in other communities which swing as much as 95% in favour of removing sprint

I also enjoyed how during the development of H4 they said that they (343) intentionally hired people who "didn't like halo"
Using polls as a way to design a game is a horrendous strategy.

Let's say im making a building and I invite 1000 people in to give me their opinions on the building. 900 of these people say it's amazing. They love it. It looks really cool and fancy. The other 100 say(who just happen to be engineers by trade) tell you that it is structurally flawed, unstable and dangerous. Should I ignore those 100 people because they are in a 90-10% minority? Obviously not.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy.

To relate that back to what we are talking about it would have to be applied like this:

I add a new feature (sprint) to a video gamee and ask for 1000 people's opinions. 900 people love the new feature. 100 people do not, those 100 people are game designers.

That's essentially what you said with the 100 people who were engineers and know about building construction.

All 1000 of us (i'm sure there are a few exceptions), are just fans playing the game, not game developers. It seems like 900 people like sprint (and are likely younger/new generation players) & 100 people don't like sprint (which are likely older generation, don't change the winning formula players.)
Ok. Let's change that from engineers by trade to "people who seem to atleast want to talk about the structural integrity of the building instead of just talking about how cool the paint colour is". Better?

The problem with this sprint debate is that one side is looking deeper at the mechanic while the other is only looking at the very most surface layer. If someone can actually explain to 343 how sprint affects each area of the game and why those effects are good, than that's awesome. However 10,000 people saying "I like sprint because it looks cool" doesn't mean anything. These types of people clearly have no idea how sprint affects the other aspects of the game. Due to this sprint could actually be a huge detrimental game mechanic to those same people. They just don't see it.

The reason sprint debates look like "veterans/good players vs new/bad players" is simply because those vets/good players are the players who understand the game. They see how every aspect of the game's design affects the other aspects. That knowledge is generally what makes good players good. This knowledge also reveals the flaws of sprint. Newer players don't see these flaws because all they see is the surface layer of sprint. What it literally is as a mechanic. They don't see the subtle influences it has on other mechanics. This is why if you look through this thread you'll see a lot of posts along the lines of "what's the problem you just press a button and go fast. Don't like it, don't press the button".
I still have yet to see a competent argument for pro sprint, and many of the non competent arguments change sides after having evreything explained to them. If 343 put an evolved settings btb/arena playlist in for a week I bet it would be the most populated playlist as long as it's in the game.
maybe because you haven't looked?
I've been on this thread since around page ten where I first posted to now, I've missed maby ten pages between them and now and the best I've seen is immersion,
Look harder. There are plenty of good posts on the potential benefits of sprint... wish I had them bookmarked. But "potential" is a key word.

343 hasnt used the mechanic to its fullest. And cant seem to generate maps that complement the ability. Rather they compensate. I think there is more to why h4 and h5 are not top quality halo games, and it has less to do with sprint (Which manages fine in a number of games across the fps and 3rdPS genre) and more to with 343.
Please kindly guide me to one then, saying their out there isn't a very good argument.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 398
  4. 399
  5. 400
  6. 401
  7. 402
  8. ...
  9. 829