Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 648
  4. 649
  5. 650
  6. 651
  7. 652
  8. ...
  9. 838
Sprint was part of halo 4 and 5, back in the old times we din't have sprint since halo ce,halo 2 and halo 3 that recently released. all I'm saying is without sprint halo players can get killed real easily, especially when you attempt to take cover.
I mean I think thats part of why I hate sprint. In the old halo games you stroll through the map always ready to fire, suddenly you get shot in the back, it was much easier (and smarter) to immediately break into a strafe and locate the player, cause one missed shot and level the playing field again. It also lead more players to be conscious of their flanks and surrounding as you had to stay near cover and couldn't easily run away from a fight.

Sprint not only makes the option to run away a much more successful strategy but the preferred one. You are running through the map trying to get to a decent position off your spawn, you're shot in the back and you just keep running and quickly find and duck behind the nearest cover. Then the player spams nades, chases you, or gives up. To fight back is almost silly, you must first stop sprinting, then turn to find the enemy (and with the faster fire rate and 5 shot kill) you are probably down 2 shots to someone who could run away themselves if you turn the tables with a good strafe.

I just think the sprint encourages running away instead of confrontation, removes necessary map awareness as cover is almost always moments from access, and just places more people in shot disadvantages than without it (even if you sprint into a room and see a guy first he could get the first shots on you because you were sprinting). You may argue that I should just stop sprinting or be far more cautious but with the map size, sprinting really is a necessity to transverse most maps in a timely manner.
so you're saying that if I keep sprinting,then perhaps i played the game in the wrong way. your right i guess all this time i've been sprinting and sprinting and all the sudden i keep getting shot we'll not all the time
"For example, maps are over scaled to accommodate faster movement speeds and timing, leaving large "no man lands."
That is not just my opinion, that is a factual occurrence." This is indeed fact. I never disputed that. what I did dispute is your claim that it is bad for gameplay. Which is strictly your opinion.
Now this "That DOES in turn, ruin gameplay" is again strictly your opinion. Which you then go to explain why. I do not disagree what the game more or less forces you to do. However. Whether it ruins the game or improves the game is still matter of opinion.
Whether scaled up maps are good or bad are also a matter of opinion. Whats good or bad no matter the mechanic or weapon is a matter of opinion. We both know what the game mechanics do. Nobody is disputing what they do from a gameplay perspective. its just you think its bad while I think its good. Any game mechanic, ANY of Them, may be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on two things- Situation and playstyle. I will fully admit I benefit from larger maps I consistently do better than I do on smaller maps. Does that make big maps better? for me yes. But that doesn't make it fact. Forcing a player to choose between sprinting and walking benefits me and my playstyle. But that doesn't make it fact. Th

As far as the statements :
"Opinion: Halo 5 is is negatively viewed because sprint is in the game."
"Opinion: Halo 5 is positively viewed because sprint is in the game."

Yes both are indeed facts as statements. However the different views are indeed opinions. So if you really want to argue semantics we can do that too. But I really have no quarrel with you per say. So there is no point in that. What you still don't seem to be willing to accept is what is good or bad in Halo when it comes to game mechanics is still opinion. What the majority opinion is remains to be seen.
I can respect where you are coming from, so I apologize for the mislabeling, BUT
Ultimately, I can argue all those things hurt competitive gameplay, but if all you say is "it helps me" or "It is my play style"
Does that give you any pull in an argument for why it should be in the game? Not at all man,
There is a certain point where you have to evaluate all the provided evidence, and consider what that means for the argument.
Consider everything I said as my reasoning for why that does not make Halo competitive.
What is your counter argument specifically? Because all I have to go off now is that those things are "enjoyable" to you.

Notice, I am not arguing that I do not enjoy those things, but rather that they are harmful to competitive Halo, since Halo is supposed to be a competitive FPS arena shooter.
Sure that is my opinion, but I use examples, specifics, and clear cut logic.
Tell me how sprint IS competitive and GOOD for Halo please, because I have never heard that standpoint.
"For example, maps are over scaled to accommodate faster movement speeds and timing, leaving large "no man lands."
That is not just my opinion, that is a factual occurrence." This is indeed fact. I never disputed that. what I did dispute is your claim that it is bad for gameplay. Which is strictly your opinion.
Now this "That DOES in turn, ruin gameplay" is again strictly your opinion. Which you then go to explain why. I do not disagree what the game more or less forces you to do. However. Whether it ruins the game or improves the game is still matter of opinion.
Whether scaled up maps are good or bad are also a matter of opinion. Whats good or bad no matter the mechanic or weapon is a matter of opinion. We both know what the game mechanics do. Nobody is disputing what they do from a gameplay perspective. its just you think its bad while I think its good. Any game mechanic, ANY of Them, may be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on two things- Situation and playstyle. I will fully admit I benefit from larger maps I consistently do better than I do on smaller maps. Does that make big maps better? for me yes. But that doesn't make it fact. Forcing a player to choose between sprinting and walking benefits me and my playstyle. But that doesn't make it fact. Th

As far as the statements :
"Opinion: Halo 5 is is negatively viewed because sprint is in the game."
"Opinion: Halo 5 is positively viewed because sprint is in the game."

Yes both are indeed facts as statements. However the different views are indeed opinions. So if you really want to argue semantics we can do that too. But I really have no quarrel with you per say. So there is no point in that. What you still don't seem to be willing to accept is what is good or bad in Halo when it comes to game mechanics is still opinion. What the majority opinion is remains to be seen.
I can respect where you are coming from, so I apologize for the mislabeling, BUT
Ultimately, I can argue all those things hurt competitive gameplay, but if all you say is "it helps me" or "It is my play style"
Does that give you any pull in an argument for why it should be in the game? Not at all man,
There is a certain point where you have to evaluate all the provided evidence, and consider what that means for the argument.
Consider everything I said as my reasoning for why that does not make Halo competitive.
What is your counter argument specifically? Because all I have to go off now is that those things are "enjoyable" to you.

Notice, I am not arguing that I do not enjoy those things, but rather that they are harmful to competitive Halo, since Halo is supposed to be a competitive FPS arena shooter.
Sure that is my opinion, but I use examples, specifics, and clear cut logic.
Tell me how sprint IS competitive and GOOD for Halo please, because I have never heard that standpoint.
Competitive Halo with sprint
Having sprint in a halo game can still be competitive look at flag juggling, yes it was in the classic halos but now with the addition of sprint you can combine certain abilities to move faster. The more abilities you can master the faster you will move.
Jumping distance being able to combine thrust crouch slide jump helps to move people quicker again a person who is skilled will have an advantage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8POY-Bz4Y. (look at the plaza jump in particular because i think its most useful there.)
there are also jumping higher with sprint again i would consider this a skill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1S_YhhbCHA&t=160s

Having sprint in a halo game doesnt take away any skill same with not having sprint.
GED2208 wrote:
Notice, I am not arguing that I do not enjoy those things, but rather that they are harmful to competitive Halo, since Halo is supposed to be a competitive FPS arena shooter.
Sure that is my opinion, but I use examples, specifics, and clear cut logic.
Tell me how sprint IS competitive and GOOD for Halo please, because I have never heard that standpoint.
Competitive Halo with sprint
Having sprint in a halo game can still be competitive look at flag juggling, yes it was in the classic halos but now with the addition of sprint you can combine certain abilities to move faster. The more abilities you can master the faster you will move.
Jumping distance being able to combine thrust crouch slide jump helps to move people quicker again a person who is skilled will have an advantage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8POY-Bz4Y. (look at the plaza jump in particular because i think its most useful there.)
there are also jumping higher with sprint again i would consider this a skill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1S_YhhbCHA&t=160s

Having sprint in a halo game doesnt take away any skill same with not having sprint.
Thank you for a real response,

Careful with that last statement.
I already stated sprint creates different movement speeds by uncertainly knowing how fast a person is moving when not in sight.
This means you cannot accurately predict movement, which leads to randomization. And randomization is not competitive.
Would chess still be competitive if pawns could increase movement abilities?
While it gives more value to the flag juggler, it only restates the ability of being able to move faster than you should. That doesn't justify anything, it reroutes the problem.
The argument that the player needs "skill" to effectively use sprint/thruster/slide/stabilize doesn't really hold up since they are all granted with the push of a button.

Think about clamber, it may feel rewarding to climb on obstacles that the bottom of your feet barely reached, but that doesn't make it competitive. It breaks map design. Why use any ramps or pathways to get a height advantage when you can just climb? The only thing that stops you from doing that clamber removes the ability to shoot. It is a band-aid fix to a mechanic that rewards the player's feelings over being competitive. Regardless if you enjoy it, is it then a good mechanic? You may think so based on the "balance" of not shooting, but that only means the idea itself is flawed and needs to be balanced...

The same goes for sprint... You stated the increase of speed could be a skill, but what about not being able to shoot. Is that competitive? Should moving outweigh shooting? No... So why can't we shoot while sprinting then? Simple. Because if we could, what would be the difference between sprinting then, and BMS? Nothing much. Shooting while sprinting would be much more competitive but then think, at that point, do we need two movement speeds? No, because it would only make activating sprint a necessity. An extra click of a button. That means then everybody would always be sprinting because there would be no reason NOT to. So then why be obligated to click a button every time you spawn? Access to slide? Now ask yourself, besides feeling good, what does slide bring to Halo? Not much. The reason it works fine in TF2, is due to the rapid kill times and it acts as a momentum button. Halo has always incentivized headshot kills. Sliding in halo doesn't get you anything unless maybe you have a shotgun. At that point, is it worth having a mechanic for that narrow window of use? I'm getting a little off topic, but it all relates to sprint.

So if you can shoot while sprinting, there is basically no reason to have sprinting then right?
So if you want sprint to stay, you shouldn't be able to shoot during it right?
So if you cannot shoot at certain times of necessary moving, is that competitive? I don't see how it possibly could be.
Maybe risk vs reward? Intentionally making a play where you cannot affect your enemy. That shouldn't be considered competitive...

Wouldn't it make more sense mechanically, and competitively, if everyone was moving and shooting at the same rate? Equal playing field all around?
GED2208 wrote:
Competitive Halo with sprint
Having sprint in a halo game can still be competitive look at flag juggling, yes it was in the classic halos but now with the addition of sprint you can combine certain abilities to move faster. The more abilities you can master the faster you will move.
Jumping distance being able to combine thrust crouch slide jump helps to move people quicker again a person who is skilled will have an advantage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8POY-Bz4Y. (look at the plaza jump in particular because i think its most useful there.)
there are also jumping higher with sprint again i would consider this a skill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1S_YhhbCHA&t=160s

Having sprint in a halo game doesnt take away any skill same with not having sprint.
This has been discussed before: none of those tricks inherently need to be based on sprint. For example, while sliding requires sprint now, there is no fundamental reason why it couldn't be designed in such a way that it can be activated at base speed.

On a side note, a problem I have with these Spartan Ability tricks in Halo 5 is that they generally aren't particularly difficult. The timings needed are so loose that combining thrust, slide, and jump for example takes not a lot of skill. Moreover, the only reason you get such long tricks to begin with is that there's redundance in Spartan Abilities. Thrust and slide are essentially one ability divided into two, they accomplish the exact same thing, which is to give a short horizontal boost. Moreover, when you combine these short horizontal boosts with jumps, they accomplish essentially the same that sprinting does, which is to get the player fast from A to B.

These days, with how the sprint is implemented in Halo 5, I'd find it hard to argue that it takes away skill as the usefulness of running away has decreased significantly when your shields don't recharge while sprinting. However, let's not pretend that it adds anything meaningful to gameplay either. It has never added, and it doesn't add now. And this has always been my favorite argument against sprint: it's completely superficial. It's only in the game due to peer pressure from other games. From the point of view of gameplay depth, it's at best entirely irrelevant, and at worst somewhat detrimental.
I already stated sprint creates different movement speeds by uncertainly knowing how fast a person is moving when not in sight.
This means you cannot accurately predict movement, which leads to randomization. And randomization is not competitive.
Would chess still be competitive if pawns could increase movement abilities?
I don't like this sort of binary view on randomness. With that logic, your ideal game would be one where players are all standing still in an empty room. After all, then there would be zero unpredictability in as to where a player might run. But you can see how that'd be an entirely stupid and shallow game because unpredictability is a fundamental part of what makes games interesting. The whole challenge of any game where players compete comes from the fact that players can behave unpredictably, and you need to predict their actions. Chess wouldn't be as competitive if all pieces could only move one step forward at any turn. Allowing players to behave unpredictably is fundamentally necessary in competitive games.

The important distinction that I like to make is the difference between player generated and game generated randomness. Player generated randomness is the randomness that stems from players making complex decisions which can be difficult to predict. Everything from strafing to movement tactics to strategies relies on this player generated randomness and it is absolutely necessary part of any competitive game. The catch is that the decisions of players are inherently guided by something, and the ability to understand someone's decisions allows you to see their choices as less random. Moreover, humans are generally bad at being completely unpredictable.

Game generated randomness on the other hand is something that could be said to be inherently anticompetitive. The reason is that as the system rolling the dice is beyond human prediction ability, so there's nothing to learn about the system. You can learn the probabilities at which the dices roll, but you can never decrease those probabilities by understanding more about the system.

This is important, because players easily lump all randomness in the same category, while in reality the type created by players is essential for competitive play. And due to making this mistake that people often do, you hastily accused sprint of something that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sprint enables players to behave more unpredictably; it has no inherent randomness built in. Therefore it's illinformed to declare this effect detrimental as we know that allowing players to behave unpredictably is what creates interesting competitive play. There is obviously a balance somewhere with an optimal amount of unpredictability in player actions, based on the fact that at both ends of the spectrum---complete determinism, and complete randmness---there is no skill involved, whereas inbetween there is some. It's an extremely difficult question where exactly this optimum lies. I doubt you have an objective argument for why sprint would take as further from this optimum than closer to it.

Access to slide? Now ask yourself, besides feeling good, what does slide bring to Halo? Not much.
I'm curious whether this is just a commentary on slide, or whether you think the same of thrust and all other similar mechanics? Because depending on which it is I may or may not have something to disagree with.
tsassi wrote:
I already stated sprint creates different movement speeds by uncertainly knowing how fast a person is moving when not in sight.
This means you cannot accurately predict movement, which leads to randomization. And randomization is not competitive.
Would chess still be competitive if pawns could increase movement abilities?
I don't like this sort of binary view on randomness. With that logic, your ideal game would be one where players are all standing still in an empty room. After all, then there would be zero unpredictability in as to where a player might run. But you can see how that'd be an entirely stupid and shallow game because unpredictability is a fundamental part of what makes games interesting. The whole challenge of any game where players compete comes from the fact that players can behave unpredictably, and you need to predict their actions. Chess wouldn't be as competitive if all pieces could only move one step forward at any turn. Allowing players to behave unpredictably is fundamentally necessary in competitive games.
Access to slide? Now ask yourself, besides feeling good, what does slide bring to Halo? Not much.
I'm curious whether this is just a commentary on slide, or whether you think the same of thrust and all other similar mechanics? Because depending on which it is I may or may not have something to disagree with.
My ideal game would not be players standing in an empty room, that is an absurd and illogical classification.
Polarization fallacy.
Consider that map design is the key factor that distinguishes the only unpredictability required.
If all players move and shoot at the same pace, how they navigate the level is the uncertain aspect of gameplay.
That is a skill that can be learned. You can play and develop an understanding of the gameplay for each map.
This means you can understand and predict gameplay simply from the map. (If all players are on equal playing field)
You wouldn't want to click a button that makes your weapon stronger situationally, similarly, I don't want a button that makes my movement stronger situationally.

You said "The whole challenge of any game where players compete comes from the fact that players can behave unpredictably, and you need to predict their actions."
How can you predict the unpredictable?
By definition, you cannot do that, do you understand?
The player NEEDS to be predictable, and that is how you competitively dominate your opponent.

You mentioned chess. Perfect example. The squares on the board are compared to level design.
You predict gameplay based on the map (chess board)
You do NOT predict the gameplay if you give each chess piece the ability to move however they want.
It simply is not possible to predict that behavior, and the game itself falls apart.
That is what happened in Halo.

As for other abilities, I have my complaints, but I am far more against sprint, for every justifiable reason. Different discussion, for a different place.
Can we not just let classic fans have a game, one that works properly. We have had wacky halo since 2010. It's been 6 long painful years. Let us have a game.
tsassi wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
Competitive Halo with sprint
Having sprint in a halo game can still be competitive look at flag juggling, yes it was in the classic halos but now with the addition of sprint you can combine certain abilities to move faster. The more abilities you can master the faster you will move.
Jumping distance being able to combine thrust crouch slide jump helps to move people quicker again a person who is skilled will have an advantage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8POY-Bz4Y. (look at the plaza jump in particular because i think its most useful there.)
there are also jumping higher with sprint again i would consider this a skill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1S_YhhbCHA&t=160s

Having sprint in a halo game doesnt take away any skill same with not having sprint.
This has been discussed before: none of those tricks inherently need to be based on sprint. For example, while sliding requires sprint now, there is no fundamental reason why it couldn't be designed in such a way that it can be activated at base speed.
Yeah absolutely agree they could program slide and spartan charge (if you want spartan charge..) into a BMS it would be easy. On a side note, a problem I have with these Spartan Ability tricks in Halo 5 is that they generally aren't particularly difficult. The timings needed are so loose that combining thrust, slide, and jump for example takes not a lot of skill. Moreover, the only reason you get such long tricks to begin with is that there's redundance in Spartan Abilities. Thrust and slide are essentially one ability divided into two, they accomplish the exact same thing, which is to give a short horizontal boost. Moreover, when you combine these short horizontal boosts with jumps, they accomplish essentially the same that sprinting does, which is to get the player fast from A to B.
Im talking more about the timing have a look at this clip at 2:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8POY-Bz4Y this trick is not as easy as combining the 3 ability there is timing in there. These days, with how the sprint is implemented in Halo 5, I'd find it hard to argue that it takes away skill as the usefulness of running away has decreased significantly when your shields don't recharge while sprinting. However, let's not pretend that it adds anything meaningful to gameplay either. It has never added, and it doesn't add now. And this has always been my favorite argument against sprint: it's completely superficial. It's only in the game due to peer pressure from other games. From the point of view of gameplay depth, it's at best entirely irrelevant, and at worst somewhat detrimental.
For me personnally im fine with a halo game with sprint but i would also be fine with an increase BMS or FOV. Either way not fussed.
GED2208 wrote:
Notice, I am not arguing that I do not enjoy those things, but rather that they are harmful to competitive Halo, since Halo is supposed to be a competitive FPS arena shooter.
Sure that is my opinion, but I use examples, specifics, and clear cut logic.
Tell me how sprint IS competitive and GOOD for Halo please, because I have never heard that standpoint.
Competitive Halo with sprint
Having sprint in a halo game can still be competitive look at flag juggling, yes it was in the classic halos but now with the addition of sprint you can combine certain abilities to move faster. The more abilities you can master the faster you will move.
Jumping distance being able to combine thrust crouch slide jump helps to move people quicker again a person who is skilled will have an advantage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8POY-Bz4Y. (look at the plaza jump in particular because i think its most useful there.)
there are also jumping higher with sprint again i would consider this a skill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1S_YhhbCHA&t=160s

Having sprint in a halo game doesnt take away any skill same with not having sprint.
Thank you for a real response,

Careful with that last statement.
I already stated sprint creates different movement speeds by uncertainly knowing how fast a person is moving when not in sight.
This means you cannot accurately predict movement, which leads to randomization. And randomization is not competitive.
Would chess still be competitive if pawns could increase movement abilities?
I guess i see it differently and fundamentally this is where our ideology seperates for me classic halo still had randomness otherwise gameplay would be predictable. The things that aided in randomness are spawns (with enough information you could eliminate this one), map layout (moving from A to B but with multiple routes), classic halo movement liking crouching and moving slower than BMS still created randomness. At worst sprint creates a little more randomness, however i dont particular see it this way as i see player movement more as a probabilistic sense, what is the likelyhood they are there.While it gives more value to the flag juggler, it only restates the ability of being able to move faster than you should. That doesn't justify anything, it reroutes the problem.
The argument that the player needs "skill" to effectively use sprint/thruster/slide/stabilize doesn't really hold up since they are all granted with the push of a button.
I disagree with this point as co ordination of your controller i see as a skill. Think about clamber, it may feel rewarding to climb on obstacles that the bottom of your feet barely reached, but that doesn't make it competitive. It breaks map design. Why use any ramps or pathways to get a height advantage when you can just climb?
Some jumps in Halo 5 can be accessed quicker using jump then pressing stabilize then clamber.The only thing that stops you from doing that clamber removes the ability to shoot. It is a band-aid fix to a mechanic that rewards the player's feelings over being competitive.
I kind of agree with this point and kinda dont, i strongly think that creating a map that has more crouch jumps would be useful to competitive players that way you can always shoot. Regardless if you enjoy it, is it then a good mechanic? You may think so based on the "balance" of not shooting, but that only means the idea itself is flawed and needs to be balanced...

The same goes for sprint... You stated the increase of speed could be a skill, but what about not being able to shoot. Is that competitive? Should moving outweigh shooting?
Like most mechanics in halo i think there needs to be a strong side to use them and a weakness to use them. And unfortunately again this is where our ideology moves apart, when you introduce something it needs to be useful and also needs to have a weakness and unfortunately the weakness it has is guns down.
My ideal game would not be players standing in an empty room, that is an absurd and illogical classification.
Polarization fallacy.
I suppose the notion of intentional hyperbole is completely lost on you.

Consider that map design is the key factor that distinguishes the only unpredictability required.
If all players move and shoot at the same pace, how they navigate the level is the uncertain aspect of gameplay.
That is a skill that can be learned. You can play and develop an understanding of the gameplay for each map.
This means you can understand and predict gameplay simply from the map. (If all players are on equal playing field)
You wouldn't want to click a button that makes your weapon stronger situationally, similarly, I don't want a button that makes my movement stronger situationally.
That is not how it works. It doesn't make a difference whether it requires the player to push an extra button to achieve maximum speed or not. All that matters in terms of predictability is how far can a player possibly move in a given amount of time. Within this "radius" of motion, the player can be anywhere after the amount of time has passed. They might have run as far as they can, they might have not moved at all, or they might have taken a significant detour. All that matters is how large this radius is, and that is only dependent on the maximum speed achievable. And to that end, it makes no difference whether the maximum speed is achieved by means of sprint, or is the base movement speed. Of course, if you're also against a higher base movement speed, it's a different discussion we should have.

You said "The whole challenge of any game where players compete comes from the fact that players can behave unpredictably, and you need to predict their actions."
How can you predict the unpredictable?
By definition, you cannot do that, do you understand?
The player NEEDS to be predictable, and that is how you competitively dominate your opponent.
Sorry, I should've explained more carefully how competitive games work because my choice of words may appear strange to someone familiar with the topic. You see, no good competitive game is entirely deterministic. There is no skill involved if players always know what everyone else will do beforehand. The skill in a game arises from the fact that a player can choose to make decisions other players are not expecting them to make; that is, to make choices other players have not predicted. After all, if the opponent knows your strategy, they can create a counter strategy and beat you with it. So, you want to keep your strategy as unclear as possible. In other words, you want to appear as unpredictable to the opponent as possible.

There needs to be an element of the game that allows the player to make choices in such a way that their opponents cannot predict those choices all the time. Else the game is deterministic and the winner is known before the game even starts, which is not interesting or challenging. To that end, it is necessary for players to be able to behave unpredictably.

But let's consider this word that confused you more carefully. The statement that a player "can behave unpredictably", is not the same as "every action of the player will be completely unpredictable". Rather, it means that the player can make choices, some of which the opponent will fail to predict.

The problem here is that there's no predictability in the absolute sense. That is, as far as the opponent is concerned, they can never be 100% certain that what they expect to happen will happen. There only exists some probability that the player will do something. And when it comes to probabilities, something being predictable and unpredictable are not as much polar opposites as they are just two sides of the same coin. Nothing is ever completely predictable, but neither is it completely unpredictable. The difference between how predictable and how unpredictable something is is the same as the difference between glass half full, and glass half empty.

You mentioned chess. Perfect example. The squares on the board are compared to level design.
You predict gameplay based on the map (chess board)
You do NOT predict the gameplay if you give each chess piece the ability to move however they want.
It simply is not possible to predict that behavior, and the game itself falls apart.
That is what happened in Halo.

As for other abilities, I have my complaints, but I am far more against sprint, for every justifiable reason. Different discussion, for a different place.
It's not the board you predict in chess, it's the other player. Same goes for Halo.
tsassi wrote:
My ideal game would not be players standing in an empty room, that is an absurd and illogical classification.
Polarization fallacy.
I suppose the notion of intentional hyperbole is completely lost on you.

Consider that map design is the key factor that distinguishes the only unpredictability required.
If all players move and shoot at the same pace, how they navigate the level is the uncertain aspect of gameplay.
That is a skill that can be learned. You can play and develop an understanding of the gameplay for each map.
This means you can understand and predict gameplay simply from the map. (If all players are on equal playing field)
You wouldn't want to click a button that makes your weapon stronger situationally, similarly, I don't want a button that makes my movement stronger situationally.
That is not how it works. It doesn't make a difference whether it requires the player to push an extra button to achieve maximum speed or not. All that matters in terms of predictability is how far can a player possibly move in a given amount of time. Within this "radius" of motion, the player can be anywhere after the amount of time has passed. They might have run as far as they can, they might have not moved at all, or they might have taken a significant detour. All that matters is how large this radius is, and that is only dependent on the maximum speed achievable. And to that end, it makes no difference whether the maximum speed is achieved by means of sprint, or is the base movement speed. Of course, if you're also against a higher base movement speed, it's a different discussion we should have.

You said "The whole challenge of any game where players compete comes from the fact that players can behave unpredictably, and you need to predict their actions."
How can you predict the unpredictable?
By definition, you cannot do that, do you understand?
The player NEEDS to be predictable, and that is how you competitively dominate your opponent.
Sorry, I should've explained more carefully how competitive games work because my choice of words may appear strange to someone familiar with the topic. You see, no good competitive game is entirely deterministic. There is no skill involved if players always know what everyone else will do beforehand. The skill in a game arises from the fact that a player can choose to make decisions other players are not expecting them to make; that is, to make choices other players have not predicted. After all, if the opponent knows your strategy, they can create a counter strategy and beat you with it. So, you want to keep your strategy as unclear as possible. In other words, you want to appear as unpredictable to the opponent as possible.

There needs to be an element of the game that allows the player to make choices in such a way that their opponents cannot predict those choices all the time. Else the game is deterministic and the winner is known before the game even starts, which is not interesting or challenging. To that end, it is necessary for players to be able to behave unpredictably.

But let's consider this word that confused you more carefully. The statement that a player "can behave unpredictably", is not the same as "every action of the player will be completely unpredictable". Rather, it means that the player can make choices, some of which the opponent will fail to predict.

The problem here is that there's no predictability in the absolute sense. That is, as far as the opponent is concerned, they can never be 100% certain that what they expect to happen will happen. There only exists some probability that the player will do something. And when it comes to probabilities, something being predictable and unpredictable are not as much polar opposites as they are just two sides of the same coin. Nothing is ever completely predictable, but neither is it completely unpredictable. The difference between how predictable and how unpredictable something is is the same as the difference between glass half full, and glass half empty.

You mentioned chess. Perfect example. The squares on the board are compared to level design.
You predict gameplay based on the map (chess board)
You do NOT predict the gameplay if you give each chess piece the ability to move however they want.
It simply is not possible to predict that behavior, and the game itself falls apart.
That is what happened in Halo.

As for other abilities, I have my complaints, but I am far more against sprint, for every justifiable reason. Different discussion, for a different place.
It's not the board you predict in chess, it's the other player. Same goes for Halo.
They should add exo suits from AW to make the game less predictable.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Quote:
"...Sorry, I should've explained more carefully how competitive games work because my choice of words may appear strange to someone familiar with the topic. You see, no good competitive game is entirely deterministic. There is no skill involved if players always know what everyone else will do beforehand. The skill in a game arises from the fact that a player can choose to make decisions other players are not expecting them to make; that is, to make choices other players have not predicted. After all, if the opponent knows your strategy, they can create a counter strategy and beat you with it. So, you want to keep your strategy as unclear as possible. In other words, you want to appear as unpredictable to the opponent as possible.

There needs to be an element of the game that allows the player to make choices in such a way that their opponents cannot predict those choices all the time. Else the game is deterministic and the winner is known before the game even starts, which is not interesting or challenging. To that end, it is necessary for players to be able to behave unpredictably..."
I'd just like to say something in regards to this part of your post. I believe it sheds some light on something I've said more than a few times in these forums, about Halo as a game, in regards to many additional mechanics including sprint (but not limited to it).

I've often referred to several mechanics as little more than filler moves that, in part, bury the core gameplay in a layer of fluff mechanics that make the gameplay feel preprogrammed because they show off innovation on the devs' side as opposed to promoting it on the players' side. Before sprint and the other added mechanics, a Spartan on foot had only BMS, weapons, grenades, melee and to a limited degree, crouch and jump as their options for any given encounter. Aside from their wits of course.

While those options may seem limited to some, they most certainly didn't make any of the Halo games I ever played feel "limited". I've also said more than a few times, that I had more intense, white-knuckle type encounters in those games than with all the additional moves because it actually felt less predictable... with less abilities... strange as that may sound, it's true.

Example; I can remember many H2 games with a friend who was pretty good and we were pretty fairly matched for each other. Even when I'd get the drop on him, he'd often come up with some crazy strafing moves... even strafe, crouch, strafe, then jump combos to throw me off... and often it would be a toss up as to which one of us walked away. I mean, what do you do when someone has the drop on you and you don't have any panic buttons to fall back on? Just your wits and a few basic movements to counter their attack? Do you throw a grenade, fire a few shots and resign yourself to the fact that the best you can hope for is to take the aggressor with you? Do you try to improve your strafing technique? Bunny hop? Crouch-strafe-jump...? What did my friend and I do? We did our best to become unpredictable within our "limited" abilities and out maneuver each other before the encounters, just as much as during them. We had to out think each other, not out... panic button push each other. Our encounters were more a test of our wits and our ability to react unpredictably within our circumstances than our reactions and ability to see who was better with the button combos.

I mean, today it seems like the spotlight is expected to shine on the devs for being "innovative" by burying a solid, balanced core game under a myriad of fluff mechanic moves as opposed to expecting players to "innovate" by doing more with and becoming better with the core gameplay itself. I know I certainly felt more tension and excitement playing and was less able to predict my opponents when they had a less preprogrammed set of moves to utilize.

Chess was mentioned and although it may not be a video game, I like the reference. It's been around for what... well over 1500 years... and how many moves has it needed to add in order to keep current? I really don't know and I'm not a chess player, but from memory I can recall none. It's a pretty solid game to begin with...

Anyway, sorry for the long post and if it seemed to stray a bit.
tsassi wrote:
My ideal game would not be players standing in an empty room, that is an absurd and illogical classification.
Polarization fallacy.
I suppose the notion of intentional hyperbole is completely lost on you.

Consider that map design is the key factor that distinguishes the only unpredictability required.
If all players move and shoot at the same pace, how they navigate the level is the uncertain aspect of gameplay.
That is a skill that can be learned. You can play and develop an understanding of the gameplay for each map.
This means you can understand and predict gameplay simply from the map. (If all players are on equal playing field)
You wouldn't want to click a button that makes your weapon stronger situationally, similarly, I don't want a button that makes my movement stronger situationally.
That is not how it works. It doesn't make a difference whether it requires the player to push an extra button to achieve maximum speed or not. All that matters in terms of predictability is how far can a player possibly move in a given amount of time. Within this "radius" of motion, the player can be anywhere after the amount of time has passed. They might have run as far as they can, they might have not moved at all, or they might have taken a significant detour. All that matters is how large this radius is, and that is only dependent on the maximum speed achievable. And to that end, it makes no difference whether the maximum speed is achieved by means of sprint, or is the base movement speed. Of course, if you're also against a higher base movement speed, it's a different discussion we should have.

You said "The whole challenge of any game where players compete comes from the fact that players can behave unpredictably, and you need to predict their actions."
How can you predict the unpredictable?
By definition, you cannot do that, do you understand?
The player NEEDS to be predictable, and that is how you competitively dominate your opponent.
Sorry, I should've explained more carefully how competitive games work because my choice of words may appear strange to someone familiar with the topic. You see, no good competitive game is entirely deterministic. There is no skill involved if players always know what everyone else will do beforehand. The skill in a game arises from the fact that a player can choose to make decisions other players are not expecting them to make; that is, to make choices other players have not predicted. After all, if the opponent knows your strategy, they can create a counter strategy and beat you with it. So, you want to keep your strategy as unclear as possible. In other words, you want to appear as unpredictable to the opponent as possible.

There needs to be an element of the game that allows the player to make choices in such a way that their opponents cannot predict those choices all the time. Else the game is deterministic and the winner is known before the game even starts, which is not interesting or challenging. To that end, it is necessary for players to be able to behave unpredictably.

But let's consider this word that confused you more carefully. The statement that a player "can behave unpredictably", is not the same as "every action of the player will be completely unpredictable". Rather, it means that the player can make choices, some of which the opponent will fail to predict.

The problem here is that there's no predictability in the absolute sense. That is, as far as the opponent is concerned, they can never be 100% certain that what they expect to happen will happen. There only exists some probability that the player will do something. And when it comes to probabilities, something being predictable and unpredictable are not as much polar opposites as they are just two sides of the same coin. Nothing is ever completely predictable, but neither is it completely unpredictable. The difference between how predictable and how unpredictable something is is the same as the difference between glass half full, and glass half empty.

It's not the board you predict in chess, it's the other player. Same goes for Halo.
Your condescending tone is infuriating, but I'll play along.

You're misrepresenting your own reasoning. You are saying that sprint makes you as unpredictable as possible.
Which is a weak argument when talking about competitive gameplay.
The players are able to make choices that are unpredictable regardless of having sprint or not.
You can't say that adding another movement speed is more competitive simply because it is far less predictable.
For that to be true, the definition of competitive would have to be about guessing. The more layers you add to having to predict someone, the less competitive it is, because eventually there will be too many options to consider in the critical time-slot you need in a live game. This means that you have to make a split second decision without reviewing all the possible options, because you simply cannot review all the possible options. Therefore, you're blindly guessing one of said options. Without sprint, the choices are narrowed down significantly, and you are more effective at prediction. (Sprint stacks with thruster/slide/GP/SC) adding even more variables.

Being realistic here, Halo is an open sandbox, and anything you do can be unpredictable, but once you give the player an abundance of options, you cannot accurately account for all the variables, and then competition turns into a train wreck of guessing games.

Back to chess,
I never said you predict the board, that makes no sense,
I said you use the board to predict movement, which is accurate. In the same way you predict a players movement off the map.

Any competitive chess game uses a timer, that forces the players to move in real-time.
They can do this, because they are able to see their options, and account for them.
If each piece had additional movement mechanics, the decision making would have to slow down.
Which is more competitive?:
Staring at a chess board for 5 minutes figuring out your move,
Or, instantly moving based on predictable movements of your opponent?
The correct answer is the latter.

Back to Halo,
Since gameplay unfolds in real-time, you have to be able to predict movement, especially in correlation to the map.
Just like a game of chess.
Once you add mechanics that stack together, (sprint/slide/thruster/pound/charge)
you lose all efficient predictability in regards to timing,

Making the player exponentially less predictable only hurts gameplay.
Remove sprint.
I'd just like to say something in regards to this part of your post. I believe it sheds some light on something I've said more than a few times in these forums, about Halo as a game, in regards to many additional mechanics including sprint (but not limited to it).

I've often referred to several mechanics as little more than filler moves that, in part, bury the core gameplay in a layer of fluff mechanics that make the gameplay feel preprogrammed because they show off innovation on the devs' side as opposed to promoting it on the players' side. Before sprint and the other added mechanics, a Spartan on foot had only BMS, weapons, grenades, melee and to a limited degree, crouch and jump as their options for any given encounter. Aside from their wits of course.

While those options may seem limited to some, they most certainly didn't make any of the Halo games I ever played feel "limited". I've also said more than a few times, that I had more intense, white-knuckle type encounters in those games than with all the additional moves because it actually felt less predictable... with less abilities... strange as that may sound, it's true.

Example; I can remember many H2 games with a friend who was pretty good and we were pretty fairly matched for each other. Even when I'd get the drop on him, he'd often come up with some crazy strafing moves... even strafe, crouch, strafe, then jump combos to throw me off... and often it would be a toss up as to which one of us walked away. I mean, what do you do when someone has the drop on you and you don't have any panic buttons to fall back on? Just your wits and a few basic movements to counter their attack? Do you throw a grenade, fire a few shots and resign yourself to the fact that the best you can hope for is to take the aggressor with you? Do you try to improve your strafing technique? Bunny hop? Crouch-strafe-jump...? What did my friend and I do? We did our best to become unpredictable within our "limited" abilities and out maneuver each other before the encounters, just as much as during them. We had to out think each other, not out... panic button push each other. Our encounters were more a test of our wits and our ability to react unpredictably within our circumstances than our reactions and ability to see who was better with the button combos.

I mean, today it seems like the spotlight is expected to shine on the devs for being "innovative" by burying a solid, balanced core game under a myriad of fluff mechanic moves as opposed to expecting players to "innovate" by doing more with and becoming better with the core gameplay itself. I know I certainly felt more tension and excitement playing and was less able to predict my opponents when they had a less preprogrammed set of moves to utilize.

Chess was mentioned and although it may not be a video game, I like the reference. It's been around for what... well over 1500 years... and how many moves has it needed to add in order to keep current? I really don't know and I'm not a chess player, but from memory I can recall none. It's a pretty solid game to begin with...

Anyway, sorry for the long post and if it seemed to stray a bit.
I get that it's just a feeling you're describing here, but regardless, I still feel like I need to say that it is highly unlikely that there was anything fundamentally more difficult to predict in old Halo. At least I can't think of a way in which any mechanic added over the years would make it easier to predict player actions.

It seems to me that the argument you're making here is one about simplicity, which is something I can completely agree on. Halo has a set of basic mechanics---what you call the core---that contribute the vast majority ofthe depth of its gameplay. In contrast, the other mechanics, namely Spartan Abilities, contribute relatively little for the most part to the gameplay. There are six Spartan Abilities, if I counted correctly. Aside from the trivial basic actions of these mechanics, they all combined only create a handful of nontrivial tricks. Moreover, some of these abilities are redundant, and some even detrimental. Frankly, I think what the Spartan Abilities accomplish for the movement of Halo is pretty pathetic.

So, as you said, or at least implied, we have a bunch of "fluff" mechanics that seem to go for the wow-factor without adding anything meaningful to gameplay. And this added complexity that doesn't really contribute much to gameplay tarnishes the elegance of deep movement from a simple set of mechanics that Halo used to have. The movement system of old Halo has been misunderstood and underutilized by both players and map designers. I think the trick jumping montages of Halo 3 show a glimpse of what's possible, but this has never been supported in map design well enough with jumps that are difficult, yet feasible and useful. And on an even more basic level, there's lot that could be done in terms of map geometry to facilitate small movement tricks that together create something useful.

Anyway, as this is a thread about sprint, I don't want to go on to rambling about slopes and momentum conservation and details in map geometry. The point is that you're right that the added complexity that doesn't contribute anything to gameplay makes the game feel less elegant. Game design should be about creating the deepest possible experience from the minimal set of mechanics. Chess often comes up in these discussions because it's such a great example of how to design an elegant game where immense depth stems from a set of few simple rules.
Quote:
These days, with how the sprint is implemented in Halo 5, I'd find it hard to argue that it takes away skill as the usefulness of running away has decreased significantly when your shields don't recharge while sprinting.
Unfortunately, that is where the thrust comes in. Its current implementation is just as bad if not worse than sprint in halo.
TryHardFan wrote:
Quote:
These days, with how the sprint is implemented in Halo 5, I'd find it hard to argue that it takes away skill as the usefulness of running away has decreased significantly when your shields don't recharge while sprinting.
Unfortunately, that is where the thrust comes in. Its current implementation is just as bad if not worse than sprint in halo.
True, but they could salvage a few things from it as its not a wholly terrible mechanic. A few tweaks to it could make it a more unpredictable, low skilled alternative to strafing that while not as effective, could potentially throw off a lesser skilled player.
TryHardFan wrote:
Quote:
These days, with how the sprint is implemented in Halo 5, I'd find it hard to argue that it takes away skill as the usefulness of running away has decreased significantly when your shields don't recharge while sprinting.
Unfortunately, that is where the thrust comes in. Its current implementation is just as bad if not worse than sprint in halo.
True, but they could salvage a few things from it as its not a wholly terrible mechanic. A few tweaks to it could make it a more unpredictable, low skilled alternative to strafing that while not as effective, could potentially throw off a lesser skilled player.
I played some skirmish earlier today. Then I hopped into a custom game of slayer on evolved settings. I can't count the number of times I reflexively hit the thrust button only to get killed and almost every single time I was using it as a get out of jail free card for my bad positioning, strafing, or shooting. That's not to say that I didn't use thrust for some aggressive plays in skirmish but the ratio of using it aggressively to defensively is a solid 2 to 10 at best.
You're misrepresenting your own reasoning. You are saying that sprint makes you as unpredictable as possible.
I think you should quote the exact part of my post where I said that, as I can't find such a statement from my posts.

Which is a weak argument when talking about competitive gameplay.
Phew, luckily I never made such an argument.

The players are able to make choices that are unpredictable regardless of having sprint or not.
Yes. And the point is?

You can't say that adding another movement speed is more competitive simply because it is far less predictable.
You're right, which is why I never said so. I recommend reading posts before responding to them.

For that to be true, the definition of competitive would have to be about guessing. The more layers you add to having to predict someone, the less competitive it is, because eventually there will be too many options to consider in the critical time-slot you need in a live game. This means that you have to make a split second decision without reviewing all the possible options, because you simply cannot review all the possible options. Therefore, you're blindly guessing one of said options.
Now, here you are wrong. The statement "the more layers you add to having to predict someone, the less competitive it is" is not true. Else the most competitive games would be ones that involve no prediction at all. But as we know, the result of a game that involves no prediction at all is known before the game even starts, making the whole point of competition moot, and means that there is no skill involved in the game when everything is predetermined. What you fail to appreciate here is that there needs to be some level of uncertainty on the player's part. There needs to be something in the game that needs to be predicted. There needs to be some layers of prediction in a game.

However, you are right that if you make it more and more difficult for the player to predict what the opponent will do, at some point the process becomes so convoluted and there are so many possibilities that the player cannot feasibly make any educated guesses, and their choices will amount to blind guessing. At this point there is nothing differentiating the educated guesswork of an experienced player, and the completely ignorant guesswork of a novice, and hence there is no skill involved because the guesses of the experienced player will be only as good as the guesses of the novice.

What you fail to realize is that there are two extremes involving no skill at all. One where there is nothing to guess, and one where there are too many possibilities. Between theseextremes, however, there must exist some optimum. And the question of whether to add more options or not comes down to which side of this optimum do we believe ourselves to be on.

Being realistic here, Halo is an open sandbox, and anything you do can be unpredictable, but once you give the player an abundance of options, you cannot accurately account for all the variables, and then competition turns into a train wreck of guessing games.
Yes, but how do you know where this tipping point is?

Which is more competitive?:
Staring at a chess board for 5 minutes figuring out your move,
Or, instantly moving based on predictable movements of your opponent?
The correct answer is the latter.
This is an interesting claim. But I'm afraid we haven't defined the term "competitive" well enough to make statements this precise. However, even if we did, the question you ask is much more difficult to answer than you believe it to be.

Once you add mechanics that stack together, (sprint/slide/thruster/pound/charge)
you lose all efficient predictability in regards to timing,
You make claims such as this, but you don't back them up. You constantly claim that Spartan Abilities make the game too unpredictable, but at no point have you explained your reasoning as to why you believe this to be the case. I personally wouldn't be so hasty to say anything regarding this as it's quite a complex question that I don't think can be answered in a satisfactory way by pure reason alone.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 648
  4. 649
  5. 650
  6. 651
  7. 652
  8. ...
  9. 838