Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 649
  4. 650
  5. 651
  6. 652
  7. 653
  8. ...
  9. 838
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.
Yes, this has always been the problem of these short horizontal boost mechanics. Already in Reach it was the case that Evade was easier to get away with than sprint, but sprint got more attention due to being more prominent in gametypes, as Evade loadouts didn't really exist in many gametypes.

However, still, if such a mechanic was to be implemented in such a way that it allowed the player to shoot at all times, I believe that the concept has enough to offer to gameplay of Halo that the faults are excusable, definitely more than sprint has. I don't feel like going into greater detail on this now. If you're interesting in my thoughts on this, I have a detailed post from earlier in this thread discussing the concept.
Interesting discussion. In my opinion, Halo 5 gameplay leans towards unpredictability more so than the past games, and not in a good way. Halo 5's abilities definitely have no inherent randomness, but they do have perceived randomness and create undesirable pacing. The flow of a match simply feels more chaotic and I blame this on two main things: the map design, and the convoluted weapon sandbox.

I'll always blame the map design first and foremost, because most (if not all) of them encourage unpredictable engagements. There are simply way too many lanes of entry to account for when you're in control of a power position -- especially if you're playing solo and don't have a coordinated team to help with call-outs. The insane amount of clamberable ledges along with the ability to chain sprint+thrust+clamber together turns the flow of the map into a headache-inducing clusterfluck.

To make matters worse, most engagements become even more unpredictable due to there being too many viable (and redundant) weapons that completely outshine the "supposed" utility weapon (magnum). Whether Halo 5 needs a competent utility weapon or that the sandbox is redundant are separate arguments entirely so I won't go into that. The point is, every time I round a corner, I don't know whether my enemy will be carrying an AR, BR, Storm Rifle, SMG, etc. Having a surplus of weapons on a map (on low spawn times) creates a sense of chaos, and it discourages skillful gunplay.
tsassi wrote:
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.
Just to chime in... I'm sure you would agree sprint makes gameplay more unpredictable since it introduces another possible speed. Whether it pushes the unpredictability into the realm of unacceptable, non-competitive or "bad" is another matter (opinion). When you throw thrust/slide in with sprint, all of the available skill jumps (none of which take skill in H5), and consider how SA's as a combined toolset completely destroy map structure in many cases, it adds up. In fact, most prediction in H5 has very little to do with the opponent themselves. It's mostly based on teammate positions, spawn positions and the game state.

I'm sure you would also agree predicting the opponent is a major skill element in any FPS. Having the means to approach a situation in an unpredictable manner is fine and arguably ideal. But I think there needs to be limits on your ability to do this, particularly with movement speed. Too much predictability is bad. Too little undermines a very important skiill element in FPS games. Granted, other abilities and how they play into map design are equal offenders to sprint in this area.
It's kind of redundant to even debate this anymore, wether it's too random or if thrust is cheap. I think most of the people who have stopped playing (99% of which are obviously not on here and can't be asked) just have a gut feeling that halo is wrong. We used to love the game because it was the way it was. I hear people say 'oh h2 or h3 weren't perfect either, people complained about them too'. I'd just like to say that whilst some complaining went on, those people still played the game everyday and loved it. Many people like myself and my many xbox live friends only ever moaned about net code, a product of the time 2 and 3 came out in. Whatever way you look it at this new Halo just isn't, hasn't been and never will be (probably) anywhere near popular enough to justify itself. I think maybe it's a pride thing for 343 now or perhaps they want to flex creative muscles. If so said staff should leave now like josh holmes and work on something else. Its like me being given the rights to Lord of the rings and making a -Yoink- novel that pays no respect to the fans, I didn't author it so I shouldn't go in changing everything. Anyway all I'm trying to say is that they should be honest and admit it's been a flop and go back to what worked it couldn't be any worse.
tsassi wrote:
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.
Just to chime in... I'm sure you would agree sprint makes gameplay more unpredictable since it introduces another possible speed. Whether it pushes the unpredictability into the realm of unacceptable, non-competitive or "bad" is another matter (opinion). When you throw thrust/slide in with sprint, all of the available skill jumps (none of which take skill in H5), and consider how SA's as a combined toolset completely destroy map structure in many cases, it adds up. In fact, most prediction in H5 has very little to do with the opponent themselves. It's mostly based on teammate positions, spawn positions and the game state.

I'm sure you would also agree predicting the opponent is a major skill element in any FPS. Having the means to approach a situation in an unpredictable manner is fine and arguably ideal. But I think there needs to be limits on your ability to do this, particularly with movement speed. Too much predictability is bad. Too little undermines a very important skiill element in FPS games. Granted, other abilities and how they play into map design are equal offenders to sprint in this area.
I have no objections to anything you say here. My only objection ever was to the claim that something which makes player behavior more unpredictable is inherently bad, regardless of the circumstances we started with. And the main point of mine was that it's very difficult to know whether the complexity that Spartan Abilities add to making predictions is detrimental to gameplay or not.

I think there are many better arguments against Spartan Abilities where it's much clearer how they detrimentally affect the depth of gameplay.
tsassi wrote:
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.
Very well put. Sorry if how I said it sounded like the added mechanics made it easier to predict players. The moves themselves don't make players easier to predict, but to a degree, it does feel to me like their reactions are somewhat easier to anticipate. It feels like "defensive move A" counters "offensive move B" if that makes sense, which is where my panic button comments originated.

While it's true that players aren't guaranteed to use those moves in any given situation, it is also true that if those moves effectively counter certain situations, they'll be commonly relied upon to do so. *Shudders as a flashback of AL comes* This, to me, does make the gameplay (not the players so much) itself feel a bit more predictable. Note that it doesn't make the outcome of many encounters predictable IMO, just more of the gameplay scenarios preceding it. Hence my preprogrammed comment.

Of course, sprint isn't the sole contributor to that feel. It's likely even less prominent than others, but it does contribute in a way that few others do and in a way that I'd be just fine without.
Quote:
1) 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.

2) 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.

3) "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?

4) 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.

5) 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) When referring to competitive gameplay, I always tend to only focus on "highest level" play. That is where the problems shine through most, from experienced, and smart players. Novice players shouldn't be considered in the grand scheme for terms of competitive games, since they don't fully understand highest level play.

2) Well, there is no need to polarize the options since we've established that base movement speed is also unpredictable, so adding sprint only complicates decision making, which we've also established is problematic. And when you stack the other abilities in with sprint, the possibilities only become greater, which means you are increasing the possible movements, which means it is becoming less possible to predict movement. You can argue that the sweet spot is undeterminable, but that can't fully be true, since BMS already granted a form of unpredictability. We're at the point in the argument where we've established abilities are contributing to more possibilities. This means it can only be complicating things, and your argument stems from whether or not the abilities go too far. But isn't it noteworthy that the older games were also competitive? Were those games less competitive than the current one? Certainly not, I would say.

3) While I can't confirm the exact point, it should hold some relevance that we've only added more options to consider, and whether it is too far or not, is pushing towards that boundary of unacceptable. If we had a formula that worked, why add additional factors that move gameplay towards that tipping point at all? That's what I want to know.

4) I agree, and a lot of points get lost in the fluff of online forum posts, which makes it frustrating to hold an online debate anyway. Anyone can enter the debate at any time, without reading the previously stated points, which can be frustration to restate over and over. So I ask, what is your definition, at this point in the argument, of competitive? Haven't we established that adding decision making factors hurts gameplay the more prevalent they are? So now the question is, do the abilities go too far? Based on the classic games, I would say yes. They were simplistic enough, yet within reason, unpredictable. To me, that is the sweet spot. Not with all the abilities. Especially in regards to ease of use.

5) That is what this whole debate is about. Sprint, but abilities in general. I said abilities stack, and by that I mean, slide-boosting acts as an additional sprint function within sprint. From BMS, you click 1 button to sprint, then while sprinting, you click 2 more buttons, and are traveling roughly 3 times faster than BMS.
In terms of jumps; I sprint and thrust-jump off an edge, stabilize, GP charge, and thrust again. This makes it possible to cross incredible distances with relatively no difficulty.

tsassi
To clarify my earlier comment, I find predicting player movement in H5 is often pointless due in large part to SA's and map design. This is the case for two reasons. One, players have too many ways to alter their speed. They can use any combination of BMS, thrust, slide, sprint, spartan charge, crouch and incremental stick usage to do so. There are too many unknowns. Two, there are so many feasible paths from A to B due to map design. Case and point, consider the possible paths you can take to enter a base on Truth.

The prediction in H5 boils down to my teammates are at X positions, my opponents are at Y positions or set to spawn at Z positions, and they are most likely going to attack objective W based on the state of the game (strongholds held, point totals, slay count, number of dead players in CTF, flag position, weapon/power up timers, etc.). These areas are pretty much the extent of your prediction (outside of call-outs filling in unknowns), and every high accuracy prediction relies on one or all of them.

Take out the SA's and it's a completely different situation. At that point there is only BMS, crouch and incremental stick usage to consider. Possible paths to each spot become limited. Maps have structure. Now I can predict the actual opponent with reasonable accuracy. Encounters become more about outthinking, outshooting or outmaneuvering my opponent and less about guessing right. Gameplay becomes far less chaotic. To me this is better design.

I'd also point out some SA's take actions players could largely already perform with very basic movement or ingenuity/skill and put them on an extra button. If I wanted to jump higher I could crouch jump or exhibit some degree of timing/precision/skill and grenade jump. If I was in a 1v1 my strafe was a big deal, and pushing a button to rapidly throw myself in a direction as a strafe substitute wasn't an option (to elaborate, consider how much less developed strafing often is in H5 due to thrust).

To get to the point... A major selling point for Halo was the simplicity. You had very basic ways to damage other players (guns, grenades, melee) and movement. The deciding factor in skill was taking these basic tools and applying them in different/appropriate ways to outplay the opponent. I think this philosophy got lost somewhere. And using the line of reasoning of a previous poster, the result is the game seems to have trended toward a chaotic -Yoink-. Sprint is one of the contributing factors for that.
We're at the point in the argument where we've established abilities are contributing to more possibilities. This means it can only be complicating things, and your argument stems from whether or not the abilities go too far. But isn't it noteworthy that the older games were also competitive? Were those games less competitive than the current one? Certainly not, I would say.
Sprint not making things overly complicated and Halo 5 being less competitive than some of its predecessors are not mutually exclusive. Neither are sprint not making things overly complicated, and sprint being detrimental to gameplay. I mentioned in an other post that there are better arguments against Spartan Abilities than how they impact predictability. I think the effect on predictability is a weak argument both for and against sprint.

While I can't confirm the exact point, it should hold some relevance that we've only added more options to consider, and whether it is too far or not, is pushing towards that boundary of unacceptable. If we had a formula that worked, why add additional factors that move gameplay towards that tipping point at all? That's what I want to know.
On a purely theoretical level: because it can make the gameplay better. In practice relating to Halo? I'm confident this discussion we're having has very little to do with the actual decision making process circa 2009 when Bungie was considering armor abilities in Reach.

4) I agree, and a lot of points get lost in the fluff of online forum posts, which makes it frustrating to hold an online debate anyway. Anyone can enter the debate at any time, without reading the previously stated points, which can be frustration to restate over and over. So I ask, what is your definition, at this point in the argument, of competitive? Haven't we established that adding decision making factors hurts gameplay the more prevalent they are? So now the question is, do the abilities go too far? Based on the classic games, I would say yes. They were simplistic enough, yet within reason, unpredictable. To me, that is the sweet spot. Not with all the abilities. Especially in regards to ease of use.
As you wish, I will define competitiveness here in a way that in principle should allow one to determine between two games which one is competitive: The competitiveness of a game is the average performance difference between two teams.

Then I need to explain what that means, and why it is a good definition. So, imagine you take 200 people at random who know the rules of chess, and the rules of tic-tac-toe. You divide them randomly into pairs, and put each pair to play 100 games of chess, and 100 games of tic-tac-toe (and you alternate between who gets to start each game). Then for a given game, for each pair, you record the difference of how many games they won (e.g. if for one pair the other player won 67 games and the other won 33, then you get 34 as the difference), add all these differences up, divide by the number of pairs, and you get an average difference. You compare these averages between the two games and conclude that the game with the higher average difference is more competitive.

Consider what happens. Chess is a very skill based game, and you expect that in a random sample of people there are players of varying skill levels. So when you randomly pick the pairs, you'll expect that some pairs end up in a situation where one player totally dominates the other. These players drag the average difference up. Then, consider tic-tac-toe. It's a very easy game where players pick up very fast what's going on. This is why you will have lots of games ending in a tie or alternating between who wins, meaning that in the end most pairs will likely be near 50/50, giving you a very low average performance difference. So, you conclude, correctly, that chess is a more competitive game.

The definition seems to match our intuition, but of course I can't know for sure. I also note that you should be able to replace "performance" with "skill" if the games have a proper skill rating system (and the system needs to be the same for both games), and in this case you could do a much more sophisticated evaluation based purely on the skill distribution. I also mention that we really ought to be talking about the average of the square of the differences divided by twice the number of players, but that'd require more discussion on probability theory.

But, as you see, this definition says nothing about the gameplay, as it shouldn't, because it should be universally applicable to any games. This brings up the practical problem of discussing about which game is more competitive. When we talk about these things, we mostly rely on our intuition about what makes a game competitive, but it's ultimately very difficult to show that one game truly is more competitive than another.

5) That is what this whole debate is about. Sprint, but abilities in general. I said abilities stack, and by that I mean, slide-boosting acts as an additional sprint function within sprint. From BMS, you click 1 button to sprint, then while sprinting, you click 2 more buttons, and are traveling roughly 3 times faster than BMS.
In terms of jumps; I sprint and thrust-jump off an edge, stabilize, GP charge, and thrust again. This makes it possible to cross incredible distances with relatively no difficulty.
I wouldn't consider predictability to be the problem with being able to move huge distances in short time. The problem has always been that when you allow this, the player can be more careless with their positioning. They can put themselves out in the open and get away with it. They can be on the wrong side of the map and move to the right side in little time. It's the importance of good positioning that's at much bigger risk here than how difficult it is to predict the player's movements. This is precisely what I mean when I say that there are better arguments against Spartan Abilities than their impact on predictability.
tsassi wrote:
We're at the point in the argument where we've established abilities are contributing to more possibilities. This means it can only be complicating things, and your argument stems from whether or not the abilities go too far. But isn't it noteworthy that the older games were also competitive? Were those games less competitive than the current one? Certainly not, I would say.
Sprint not making things overly complicated and Halo 5 being less competitive than some of its predecessors are not mutually exclusive. Neither are sprint not making things overly complicated, and sprint being detrimental to gameplay. I mentioned in an other post that there are better arguments against Spartan Abilities than how they impact predictability. I think the effect on predictability is a weak argument both for and against sprint.

While I can't confirm the exact point, it should hold some relevance that we've only added more options to consider, and whether it is too far or not, is pushing towards that boundary of unacceptable. If we had a formula that worked, why add additional factors that move gameplay towards that tipping point at all? That's what I want to know.
On a purely theoretical level: because it can make the gameplay better. In practice relating to Halo? I'm confident this discussion we're having has very little to do with the actual decision making process circa 2009 when Bungie was considering armor abilities in Reach.

4) I agree, and a lot of points get lost in the fluff of online forum posts, which makes it frustrating to hold an online debate anyway. Anyone can enter the debate at any time, without reading the previously stated points, which can be frustration to restate over and over. So I ask, what is your definition, at this point in the argument, of competitive? Haven't we established that adding decision making factors hurts gameplay the more prevalent they are? So now the question is, do the abilities go too far? Based on the classic games, I would say yes. They were simplistic enough, yet within reason, unpredictable. To me, that is the sweet spot. Not with all the abilities. Especially in regards to ease of use.
As you wish, I will define competitiveness here in a way that in principle should allow one to determine between two games which one is competitive: The competitiveness of a game is the average performance difference between two teams.

Then I need to explain what that means, and why it is a good definition. So, imagine you take 200 people at random who know the rules of chess, and the rules of tic-tac-toe. You divide them randomly into pairs, and put each pair to play 100 games of chess, and 100 games of tic-tac-toe (and you alternate between who gets to start each game). Then for a given game, for each pair, you record the difference of how many games they won (e.g. if for one pair the other player won 67 games and the other won 33, then you get 34 as the difference), add all these differences up, divide by the number of pairs, and you get an average difference. You compare these averages between the two games and conclude that the game with the higher average difference is more competitive.

Consider what happens. Chess is a very skill based game, and you expect that in a random sample of people there are players of varying skill levels. So when you randomly pick the pairs, you'll expect that some pairs end up in a situation where one player totally dominates the other. These players drag the average difference up. Then, consider tic-tac-toe. It's a very easy game where players pick up very fast what's going on. This is why you will have lots of games ending in a tie or alternating between who wins, meaning that in the end most pairs will likely be near 50/50, giving you a very low average performance difference. So, you conclude, correctly, that chess is a more competitive game.

The definition seems to match our intuition, but of course I can't know for sure. I also note that you should be able to replace "performance" with "skill" if the games have a proper skill rating system (and the system needs to be the same for both games), and in this case you could do a much more sophisticated evaluation based purely on the skill distribution. I also mention that we really ought to be talking about the average of the square of the differences divided by twice the number of players, but that'd require more discussion on probability theory.

But, as you see, this definition says nothing about the gameplay, as it shouldn't, because it should be universally applicable to any games. This brings up the practical problem of discussing about which game is more competitive. When we talk about these things, we mostly rely on our intuition about what makes a game competitive, but it's ultimately very difficult to show that one game truly is more competitive than another.

5) That is what this whole debate is about. Sprint, but abilities in general. I said abilities stack, and by that I mean, slide-boosting acts as an additional sprint function within sprint. From BMS, you click 1 button to sprint, then while sprinting, you click 2 more buttons, and are traveling roughly 3 times faster than BMS.
In terms of jumps; I sprint and thrust-jump off an edge, stabilize, GP charge, and thrust again. This makes it possible to cross incredible distances with relatively no difficulty.
I wouldn't consider predictability to be the problem with being able to move huge distances in short time. The problem has always been that when you allow this, the player can be more careless with their positioning. They can put themselves out in the open and get away with it. They can be on the wrong side of the map and move to the right side in little time. It's the importance of good positioning that's at much bigger risk here than how difficult it is to predict the player's movements. This is precisely what I mean when I say that there are better arguments against Spartan Abilities than their impact on predictability.
U haven't even played 5
U haven't even played 5
Fantastic detective work. You are the first person to point that out in the year that Halo 5 has been around, have a trophy.

Actually, it's not entirely true that I haven't played Halo 5. When it came out I tried playing the campaign to gauge whether the game was worth paying a bunch of money every year to buy XBL Gold. It wasn't, hence I never played a match of Halo 5 multiplayer until Halo 5 Forge came out. Either way, I gave Halo 5 a chance, and deemed it not worth spending any more money on.
Don't remember seeing this thread, or remember if I commented. Saw the first first comments.. why remove Sprint, when you have the option to use it. It worked fine in Reach, and it works fine now.
tsassi wrote:
Chess is a very skill based game
Chess is not a skilled based game, it is a game of memorization.
Rock, Paper, Scissors is not a skilled based game, it is a game of wits.

Both can be played competitively or socially. However, for chess, competition is played with little risk with known strategies while social is used to explore the game or teach it.

If chess is to have a skill, it's being able to read/distract your opponent into a move they've never been able to set a defense to before. And there's a LOT of draw agreements in chess due to the way stalemates, never-ending mate chases, and other factors come to.

Really, many chess matches should end in a best of 3 RPS to determine the winner of the draw.

Past that, while it makes a great definition to state how you'd rank skill, it does not in fact define skill. And Halo, it's not played with any one skill, it's played with multiple skillsets, "aiming" being just one.
The overall competitiveness of Halo is not determined by the level of the players, it's a matter of recognizing what is "Slippery Slope", "Perpetual Comeback" and "Risk vs Reward" to add to either.
Having not-the-greatest aim but superior positioning and control of PW's is, how Halo is played. Superior aiming and player predicting elevates positioning and control, not determines it.
Don't remember seeing this thread, or remember if I commented. Saw the first first comments.. why remove Sprint, when you have the option to use it. It worked fine in Reach, and it works fine now.
It didn't work fine in reach, unless working fine is making 2/3 of the community leave
tsassi wrote:
U haven't even played 5
Fantastic detective work. You are the first person to point that out in the year that Halo 5 has been around, have a trophy.

Actually, it's not entirely true that I haven't played Halo 5. When it came out I tried playing the campaign to gauge whether the game was worth paying a bunch of money every year to buy XBL Gold. It wasn't, hence I never played a match of Halo 5 multiplayer until Halo 5 Forge came out. Either way, I gave Halo 5 a chance, and deemed it not worth spending any more money on.
Then why are you commenting on something you know nothing about.
tsassi wrote:
Chess is a very skill based game
Chess is not a skilled based game, it is a game of memorization.
If you can apply this logic to chess, you can apply it to any game which has a finite set of possible configurations. Halo has a finite (though unfathomably large) set of possible configurations, does this mean Halo is a game of memorization? Sure, you can say that chess is a game of memorization, which is technically a completely valid claim, but it's not in way a useful point to discuss because it puts us in an absurd situation.

I could change the above statement you quoted to the less contentious "chess is usually considered by people to be more skill based than tic-tac-toe", but I really see no point in it because I don't think most people would find the quoted statement at all problematic given the context. It's an entirely different discussion to which extent chess has been "solved" at the Grandmaster level, which I purposefully ingored because it's not relevant for the point I was trying to make.

Past that, while it makes a great definition to state how you'd rank skill, it does not in fact define skill. And Halo, it's not played with any one skill, it's played with multiple skillsets, "aiming" being just one.
I make no claims that the abstract definition of skill I use also in some way defines the philosophical notion of skill as an ability to do something. But when somebody asks me how I define the competitiveness of a game, I take the reductionist viewpoint because it gives a concrete, unambiguous prediction and therefore leaves on room for subjectivity.

The overall competitiveness of Halo is not determined by the level of the players, it's a matter of recognizing what is "Slippery Slope", "Perpetual Comeback" and "Risk vs Reward" to add to either.
The competitiveness may or may not be determined by players, but gauging the players' performance is the only way to access information about it. I don't really take stance on the philosophical question whether the competitiveness is a property of the game, or fundamentally linked to what set of players you pick to play it.
Then why are you commenting on something you know nothing about.
Such as?
tsassi wrote:
U haven't even played 5
Fantastic detective work. You are the first person to point that out in the year that Halo 5 has been around, have a trophy.

Actually, it's not entirely true that I haven't played Halo 5. When it came out I tried playing the campaign to gauge whether the game was worth paying a bunch of money every year to buy XBL Gold. It wasn't, hence I never played a match of Halo 5 multiplayer until Halo 5 Forge came out. Either way, I gave Halo 5 a chance, and deemed it not worth spending any more money on.
I actually thought that you were playing Halo 5 on a different account this whole time...
tsassi wrote:
Then why are you commenting on something you know nothing about.
Such as?
How sprint affects the game, seeing as matchmaking is where it actually becomes a problem. I doneed care if it's in campaign. I don't play 343s campaigns anyway the level design is awful so Is the ai.
tsassi wrote:
Then why are you commenting on something you know nothing about.
Such as?
How sprint affects the game, seeing as matchmaking is where it actually becomes a problem. I doneed care if it's in campaign. I don't play 343s campaigns anyway the level design is awful so Is the ai.
You can go ahead and try finding something I've said about sprint that's uninformed. I'll sit here and wait. In the mean time, please don't accuse people of something you have no evidence of.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 649
  4. 650
  5. 651
  6. 652
  7. 653
  8. ...
  9. 838