Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 766
  4. 767
  5. 768
  6. 769
  7. 770
  8. ...
  9. 830
tsassi wrote:
I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting it in the game but I don't think it is a valid point.
If you don't think it's a valid point, then I'd wager you don't actually understand the reasoning. Or, if you do believe you actually understand the reasoning, then would you like to enlighten us by telling why it's not valid?
From the people I talked to about sprint or no sprint their reasoning was that not having sprint in previous halo. Allowed people to move, jump and maneuver around the map with their gun up ready to fight and to do so while fighting. Just because a mechanic stops people from fighting for a couple seconds doesn't make it bad. having sprint gives the choice to the user of being able to move faster across map but be vulnerable to attacks. While sprinting you give your enemy the advantage in engagements. So the way I see it, sprint makes the game more dynamic and more competitive. I like it.
Just because a mechanic stops people from fighting for a couple seconds doesn't make it bad.
In a game that's all about moving and shooting? Yeah that most likely ends up being a bad thing.

The thing is that we really don't need that specific choice. It starts to promote a stop-and-shoot (or in Halo's case slowdown-and-shoot) gameplay that really doesn't work in its favor. You've always had both the mobility and the gun and was entirely designed to be used in tandem, the only thing you were limited by is how well you could use them.

Especially since just about everything in the game is trying its hardest to tell you not to Sprint. That's why 343i made like 3 different mechanics on top of it to make sure you couldn't use it for a fight.

Tried to get more freedom in movement, but ended up with more limitations in the process.

[having sprint gives the choice to the user of being able to move faster across map but be vulnerable to attacks. While sprinting you give your enemy the advantage in engagements.
So what's the point of sprinting if it's a mechanic that's meant to be avoided? You don't want to Sprint because you can't fight back, and because you're a target at just about any range, what's its benefit that we didn't have before? It's not like moving fast across the map was a problem in the past, all you had to do was increase the Base Movement Speed. And even then, the only reason it's this way now is because the maps are made bigger to accommodate for Sprint in the first place.
Just because a mechanic stops people from fighting for a couple seconds doesn't make it bad.
In a game that's all about moving and shooting? Yeah that most likely ends up being a bad thing.

The thing is that we really don't need that specific choice. It starts to promote a stop-and-shoot (or in Halo's case slowdown-and-shoot) gameplay that really doesn't work in its favor. You've always had both the mobility and the gun and was entirely designed to be used in tandem, the only thing you were limited by is how well you could use them.

Especially since just about everything in the game is trying its hardest to tell you not to Sprint. That's why 343i made like 3 different mechanics on top of it to make sure you couldn't use it for a fight.

Tried to get more freedom in movement, but ended up with more limitations in the process.

[having sprint gives the choice to the user of being able to move faster across map but be vulnerable to attacks. While sprinting you give your enemy the advantage in engagements.
So what's the point of sprinting if it's a mechanic that's meant to be avoided? You don't want to Sprint because you can't fight back, and because you're a target at just about any range, what's its benefit that we didn't have before? It's not like moving fast across the map was a problem in the past, all you had to do was increase the Base Movement Speed. And even then, the only reason it's this way now is because the maps are made bigger to accommodate for Sprint in the first place.
Its not a mechanic that's to be avoided, its an option to use to travel the map. Having sprint gives you two movement speeds in game without changing any settings. it gives people another thing to use to their advantage, think about and another thing to use improperly and get punished for. It makes the game more dynamic and more competitive. Just because there is an original way of doing things doesn't make it right. The real reason people don't like sprint is because it changes the game. If people don't like sprint then they can play the games that don't have it.
Its not a mechanic that's to be avoided, its an option to use to travel the map. Having sprint gives you two movement speeds in game without changing any settings. it gives people another thing to use to their advantage, think about and another thing to use improperly and get punished for. It makes the game more dynamic and more competitive. Just because there is an original way of doing things doesn't make it right.
The problem with two movement speeds is that everything is tailored towards one, when you're spending more time with the slower speed. There was never a need for two different movement speeds for two different reasons when you have one movement speed that does both and better. Again, leading to "stop-and-shoot" gameplay, something Halo was designed for not doing.

I'm not saying the classic movement was right because it was there first, it's better because the gameplay fundamentally worked better with less restrictions and less problems.

The real reason people don't like sprint is because it changes the game. If people don't like sprint then they can play the games that don't have it.
Of course that's why, and that's a perfectly valid reason. If someone doesn't like the sequel to any game, it's because there was some change they didn't like.

I remember when Halo was one of those games they played without Sprint, and people who liked Sprint played the games that did have it. Funny how that worked out.

What gives you the authority to come into an established series, change the fundamental mechanics, and tell the original players of said game that if they don't like the changes, they should leave and play other games? What prevents me from saying the same thing to you? "If you like Sprint, go play a game that already has it." Chances are that would be more valid because said game would implement Sprint better than Halo.
Its not a mechanic that's to be avoided, its an option to use to travel the map. Having sprint gives you two movement speeds in game without changing any settings. it gives people another thing to use to their advantage, think about and another thing to use improperly and get punished for. It makes the game more dynamic and more competitive. Just because there is an original way of doing things doesn't make it right.
The problem with two movement speeds is that everything is tailored towards one, when you're spending more time with the slower speed. There was never a need for two different movement speeds for two different reasons when you have one movement speed that does both and better. Again, leading to "stop-and-shoot" gameplay, something Halo was designed for not doing.

I'm not saying the classic movement was right because it was there first, it's better because the gameplay fundamentally worked better with less restrictions and less problems.

Just because a mechanic stops people from fighting for a couple seconds doesn't make it bad.
In a game that's all about moving and shooting? Yeah that most likely ends up being a bad thing.

The thing is that we really don't need that specific choice. It starts to promote a stop-and-shoot (or in Halo's case slowdown-and-shoot) gameplay that really doesn't work in its favor. You've always had both the mobility and the gun and was entirely designed to be used in tandem, the only thing you were limited by is how well you could use them.

Especially since just about everything in the game is trying its hardest to tell you not to Sprint. That's why 343i made like 3 different mechanics on top of it to make sure you couldn't use it for a fight.

Tried to get more freedom in movement, but ended up with more limitations in the process.

The real reason people don't like sprint is because it changes the game. If people don't like sprint then they can play the games that don't have it.
Of course that's why, and that's a perfectly valid reason. If someone doesn't like the sequel to any game, it's because there was some change they didn't like.

I remember when Halo was one of those games they played without Sprint, and people who liked Sprint played the games they did. Funny how that worked out.

What gives you the authority to come into an established series, change the fundamental mechanics, and tell the original players of said game that if they don't like the changes, they should leave and play other games? What prevents me from saying the same thing to you? "If you like Sprint, go play a game that already has it." Chances are that would be more valid because said game would implement Sprint better than Halo?
Well i am playing the game that has sprint (halo 5). While i enjoy the other halos they just seem way to slow to be fun. What gives 343i the right to change it, is the fact that they own the Halo franchise and can do so with it as they please.
Well i am playing the game that has sprint (halo 5). While i enjoy the other halos they just seem way to slow to be fun. What gives 343i the right to change it, is the fact that they own the Halo franchise and can do so with it as they please.
Slow how? That is a very important distinction. Is it solely because of a lack of Sprint? There's more than one way to be faster. Halo 5 alone has three ways.

Look at how fast DOOM plays without Sprint. You couldn't recreate that speed in Halo 5 at all, even with Sprint. Many people, even at the higher level, consider Halo CE to be the fastest Halo game to date.

I'm not talking about 343i here. I'm talking about you specifically, saying that the reasoning against Sprint isn't valid, trying to dismiss said reasoning, and if they didn't like Sprint, they should play something else.

343i's doing the same thing they did with Loadouts in Halo 4. Made it an overbearing part of the game to follow popular trends, and people defended them saying that if they didn't like it, they should play something else. Lo and behold, lots of people voiced their displeasure, some people showed how Loadouts didn't work with Halo 4's gameplay, and now suddenly you don't see it in Halo 5.

The whole reason a lot of us are here in the first place is because we want the next Halo game to not have Sprint, that way we can have "our own game without Sprint." Not like anyone should be upset at that. "if people like Sprint, they can stay on Halo 5, or move to another game that has Sprint."
tsassi wrote:
I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting it in the game but I don't think it is a valid point.
If you don't think it's a valid point, then I'd wager you don't actually understand the reasoning. Or, if you do believe you actually understand the reasoning, then would you like to enlighten us by telling why it's not valid?
From the people I talked to about sprint or no sprint their reasoning was that not having sprint in previous halo. Allowed people to move, jump and maneuver around the map with their gun up ready to fight and to do so while fighting. Just because a mechanic stops people from fighting for a couple seconds doesn't make it bad. having sprint gives the choice to the user of being able to move faster across map but be vulnerable to attacks. While sprinting you give your enemy the advantage in engagements. So the way I see it, sprint makes the game more dynamic and more competitive. I like it.
And how is that bad?

Why shouldn't I be able to move at my full potential and also be able to fight at the same time?
tsassi wrote:
I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting it in the game but I don't think it is a valid point.
If you don't think it's a valid point, then I'd wager you don't actually understand the reasoning. Or, if you do believe you actually understand the reasoning, then would you like to enlighten us by telling why it's not valid?
From the people I talked to about sprint or no sprint their reasoning was that not having sprint in previous halo. Allowed people to move, jump and maneuver around the map with their gun up ready to fight and to do so while fighting. Just because a mechanic stops people from fighting for a couple seconds doesn't make it bad. having sprint gives the choice to the user of being able to move faster across map but be vulnerable to attacks. While sprinting you give your enemy the advantage in engagements. So the way I see it, sprint makes the game more dynamic and more competitive. I like it.
So, because you personally aren't bothered by having to lower your guns to run at maximum speed, you decide that it's not a valid complaint to have? In a game where movement has traditionally been a rather important part of gameplay, and where it has blended seamlessly into combat, I would say it's rather important that the player is able to shoot at all times. It creates a much more fluid experience when the player doesn't need to jump between two movement modes constantly. Having only a single movement mode is also better for map design since spaces don't need to adapt to two vastly different movement modes, producing a compromise that's not optimal for either, or don't need to be separated into spaces that are solely designed for movement, and ones that are solely designed for combat.

And what do we get in return for sacrificing the simplicity of one movement mode? The decision between whether to sprint or not to sprint is not a very significant one. Given whatever information the player has, it's not a difficult decision to make since it only requires the player to assess how likely they are to run into opponents, and how fast do they need to be where they want to be. The individual decisions are never very complicated, and the complexity of playing well comes from the number of decisions the player has to make, and from acquiring the information the player has to have in order to make educated decisions. There are enough decisions the player needs to make that the existence of this single decision doesn't significantly affect the competitive value of the game.
tsassi wrote:
From the people I talked to about sprint or no sprint their reasoning was that not having sprint in previous halo. Allowed people to move, jump and maneuver around the map with their gun up ready to fight and to do so while fighting. Just because a mechanic stops people from fighting for a couple seconds doesn't make it bad. having sprint gives the choice to the user of being able to move faster across map but be vulnerable to attacks. While sprinting you give your enemy the advantage in engagements. So the way I see it, sprint makes the game more dynamic and more competitive. I like it.
Can you give a reason for why/how Sprint benefits Halo’s gameplay without the use of buzzwords like “dynamic”, “competitive”, or “innovative”? Can your given reason be accomplished by Sprint but not a higher BMS (and maybe a wider FoV)?

Your typical FPS:
  • Increases bullet spread while moving
  • Decreases spread while crouched
  • Further decreases spread while prone
  • Reduces movement speed while ADS
  • Increases forward movement speed and disables weapon usage while sprinting
Your "traditional" Halo FPS does not make players' weapons less accurate while moving (or more accurate while crouching), does not make players' movement slower while zoomed, and does not limit players' options by requiring forward movement or removing offensive abilities to reach max speed. What anti-Sprinters dislike about the mechanic is that it adheres to a different design philosophy than Halo’s. Sprint fits the theme of trading off between movement and combat efficiency, but this is/was the antithesis of Halo's gameplay.

Halo’s design encourages players to move and shoot simultaneously, leading to a different way to play than your run-of-the-mill “modern/near future military” FPS. Adopting mechanics from the other end of the design spectrum reduces what makes Halo work in its own right and leaves very few satisfied. Those who like Halo’s traditional direction are alienated with very few alternatives to get what they got from Halo. Those who like the simplistic/straightforward “tactical” choices involved with Sprint and similar mechanics don’t get as many of these in “New Halo” as they would in other contemporary FPS. The fans of “New Halo”, however, have a plethora of alternatives to enjoy this “run-or-shoot” gameplay.

If you say “just play the older Halos” and think it’s a valid solution to this dilemma, you need to take a long hard look at the flip-side of this argument.
Just my thoughts on the matter, and it’s just my OPINION.

You know how we have Social and Ranked playlists? What if we added a ‘Classic’ playlist? I LOVE the Halo 3 playlist in Halo 5. It gets that part of me that wants to play a classic Halo game. So make that movement and everything into its own playlist. Let us choose wether we want to play Slayer, Team Slayer, SWAT, Assault, Oddball, or even Infection in this playlist. I feel this would let 343 do whatever they want with the new play style while giving people who favor the classic movement an option on the matter. Just my opinion so you don’t have to love it, but it’s just a thought I’m putting out here.
Just my thoughts on the matter, and it’s just my OPINION.

You know how we have Social and Ranked playlists? What if we added a ‘Classic’ playlist? I LOVE the Halo 3 playlist in Halo 5. It gets that part of me that wants to play a classic Halo game. So make that movement and everything into its own playlist. Let us choose wether we want to play Slayer, Team Slayer, SWAT, Assault, Oddball, or even Infection in this playlist. I feel this would let 343 do whatever they want with the new play style while giving pepilepsy who favor the classic movement an option on the matter. Just my opinion so you don’t have to love it, but it’s just a thought I’m putting out here.
It's a really common suggestion, but won't really work. It'll sound a bit hostile if I say "It's one way or the other!" But for the most part, it is.

First off, would this Classic playlist be ranked or Social? would you do both and split it up even more? At that point we're reaching a large number of playlists and not enough people to populate them all.

The game obviously has to lean towards one side, or else you're making essentially two different games. Or worse, half of a game twice.

The movement and weapons for Halo 5 would never fit in a game played like CE-3 and vice versa. Same with the maps. So you'd essentially have to create two weapon sandboxes and two sets of maps, which is twice the resources, or the more likely option, half the maps.
Just my thoughts on the matter, and it’s just my OPINION.

You know how we have Social and Ranked playlists? What if we added a ‘Classic’ playlist? I LOVE the Halo 3 playlist in Halo 5. It gets that part of me that wants to play a classic Halo game. So make that movement and everything into its own playlist. Let us choose wether we want to play Slayer, Team Slayer, SWAT, Assault, Oddball, or even Infection in this playlist. I feel this would let 343 do whatever they want with the new play style while giving pepilepsy who favor the classic movement an option on the matter. Just my opinion so you don’t have to love it, but it’s just a thought I’m putting out here.
It's a really common suggestion, but won't really work. It'll sound a bit hostile if I say "It's one way or the other!" But for the most part, it is.

First off, would this Classic playlist be ranked or Social? would you do both and split it up even more? At that point we're reaching a large number of playlists and not enough people to populate them all.

The game obviously has to lean towards one side, or else you're making essentially two different games. Or worse, half of a game twice.

The movement and weapons for Halo 5 would never fit in a game played like CE-3 and vice versa. Same with the maps. So you'd essentially have to create two weapon sandboxes and two sets of maps, which is twice the resources, or the more likely option, half the maps.
I’m saying to have the movement from the Halo 3 playlist they have, but give us the choice of gamemodes. The weapons and everything seem to fit pretty well in that playlist. I understand the complication of having too many playlist. If it were up to me, I’d make the playlist a social one. I wouldn’t put ALL of the gamemodes in as to not upset the population numbers but I’d definently put Slayer, Oddball, and CTF.

As for maps, you bring up a fantastic point that I never thought of. They’d have to make two sets of maps. Perhaps they could wait after awhile of the next game being released, make the classic movement and everything an option wait for the forge community to make maps based around that movement. This would be under the impression that 343 would let everyone know that they could have a sort of competition for recreating classic maps in forge before this playlist would come. Maybe this would even hype some people up that is a classic Halo experience is on its way back into Halo.

But you are right, their is MANY roadblocks to make this gamemode happen.
Sprint will never work in Halo. Never has never will. The only way to make it work it to change the game enough to where it isn't even Halo anymore.
It still wouldn't fix anything because any and all PvE modes (Campaign, Firefight, Spartan Ops, Warzone or whatever they come up with for the next game) would still choose one of the settings as the main one and balance the game accordingly. Whichever one gets chosen as the primary one, the other would never be anything more than an alibi inclusion, no matter how many maps and modes provided. I'd rather have 343 pick one movement style as the main one and just run with it (pun intended), instead of continuing to frankenstein Halo mechanics with CoD, even if old school Halo is the one that gets dropped. The franchise is already suffering way too much from the developers trying to splice together two styles that will never ever fit.
Obviously we should have never gotten up to this point and if 343 had made a real Halo from the very beginning they could have just picked off where Halo 3 left, being harolded as the savior of a fanbase that was somewhat disillusioned by Reach's twisted direction. But as we all know, they didn't and here we are now. They already drove away a huge chunk of the veteran players, while failing to capture new ones, precisely because they try to satisfy two completely disjunct player preferences. Given the current mess they're stuck in, it's way more important for them to make a good game, period, to satisfy at least part of the remaining customers, rather than juggle with too many props - regardless of whichever part it may be.
Sprint needs to go. It fundamentally goes against Halo's core gameplay design. You can't have movement and combat sewn seamlessly together in a style very much so akin to old arena shooters if you have to lower your weapon to reasonably traverse the terrain without dying.
I like it, it's a welcome addition. I like the fact that you can't shoot and your sheild doesn't recharge. To me, that ballances it out because you can't just go running around the map killing everyone as you go, and running away from a gunfight can easily get you killed. However, I'm not sure sprint in this form can exist without some sort of offensive measure, and currently, that is the abomination that is spartan charge. I don't think sprint should be endless, and I do like the idea of having a Reach style timer on it so it's not over used. In the end though, as much as I love sprint, I would be more than willing to see it disappear if that's what it takes to get rid of spartan charge.
getatme94 wrote:
didn't even bother reading it because it is the dumbest topic out there right now. Just because it has sprint doesn't mean its not Halo. It's one whole mechanic, that's it. If you don't like sprint, don't sprint. Problem solved.
Except the maps are purposefully stretched out to accompany sprint, so that stretched maps will have the same sprint travel time as a non stretched map with just walking. So
not sprinting is punishing because the game had to be made around it.
not true, the only time you NEED, to sprint, is if you are trying to break a wall in warzone. i have stopped sprinting completely and do just fine.

sprint should stay, spartan charge is what needs to leave.

not having sprint is not what made halo, halo. the BR, needler, floaty jumps, and spartans, made halo, halo. sprint alone does not make or break halo, the people who can't get over it, are what breaks halo.
I agree, sprint is justing thats either you use it, or don't. If you dob't like it, then you don't have to use it, but for the other players who do use it they should be free to do so. Also i totally agree with the last statement, people are just trying to have fun, and then there are those that are negative about everything, kinda take the point out of a VIDEO GAME.
getatme94 wrote:
not having sprint is not what made halo, halo. the BR, needler, floaty jumps, and spartans, made halo, halo. sprint alone does not make or break halo, the people who can't get over it, are what breaks halo.
Also i totally agree with the last statement, people are just trying to have fun, and then there are those that are negative about everything, kinda take the point out of a VIDEO GAME.
So those people shouldn't be allowed to criticize something they don't like? Those people being negative aren't also trying to have fun? We should all just accept whatever the game developer creates and be done with it because it's a VIDEO GAME?

This isn't just some throwaway video game that people play for a few months and then move on to the next one. A lot of people have invested years and years into this franchise and care about the direction its taking which means there will be praise, criticisms and straight negativity towards it. You should be glad there are still people with opposing views still around instead of just 'yes' people or else you might end up getting a game that's an abomination even by the most casual player's standards.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
getatme94 wrote:
not having sprint is not what made halo, halo. the BR, needler, floaty jumps, and spartans, made halo, halo. sprint alone does not make or break halo, the people who can't get over it, are what breaks halo.
Also i totally agree with the last statement, people are just trying to have fun, and then there are those that are negative about everything, kinda take the point out of a VIDEO GAME.
So those people shouldn't be allowed to criticize something they don't like? Those people being negative aren't also trying to have fun? We should all just accept whatever the game developer creates and be done with it because it's a VIDEO GAME?

This isn't just some throwaway video game that people play for a few months and then move on to the next one. A lot of people have invested years and years into this franchise and care about the direction its taking which means there will be praise, criticisms and straight negativity towards it. You should be glad there are still people with opposing views still around instead of just 'yes' people or else you might end up getting a game that's an abomination even by the most casual player's standards.
Whoa, ok this is getting a little too intense. It’s good that there are people who criticise the game, I’m just saying you shouldn’t be rude about it, and just explain what’s wrong, rather than going to a developer and shouting at them that they messed and the game is bad. Obviously a game won’t do well if everyone just agreed and moved on, but I actually did agree with what this person said
It’s good that there are people who criticise the game, I’m just saying you shouldn’t be rude about it, and just explain what’s wrong, rather than going to a developer and shouting at them that they messed and the game is bad. Obviously a game won’t do well if everyone just agreed and moved on, but I actually did agree with what this person said
The person you agreed with didn't say anything about just being negative with rudeness though and your negative comment didn't really imply what kind of negativity you were talking about (criticism can be viewed as negative). Anyway, I'm glad you clarified more about what kind of negativity you meant and I agree with the rudeness, but it's understandable if someone's views just seem to be ignored from their point of view. Eventually, you're just going to lash out.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 766
  4. 767
  5. 768
  6. 769
  7. 770
  8. ...
  9. 830