Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 836
  4. 837
  5. 838
  6. 839
  7. ...
  8. 840
If you can't look at two maps and be able to tell they are more parallel compared to Heretic and Truth, idk what to tell you.
I'm not even sure what you want to say with "parallel". Pretty sure you want to use another word but I can't even figure that out.

That doesn't change anything though, if there are no values except one, there's nothing to be gained from your experiment.
Well, you didn't exactly provide anything other than claiming you did a test yourself, and that it supports another test.

Sure, it probably isn't completely accurate but, it is more accurate than Halo 5's Truth map.
Accurate to what?
You claimed things regarding the speeds, so did Nighterlev, but neither of you provided enough data to actually support that claim.
No actual distance was provided, you can't calculate a velocity with a time only.
With no velocity, there's no comparison to make.
See the earlier 50 vs 100 car.

At least I tried something
And when asked about it, your answer is that you "tried something", with no values of your own, no explanation of what you did, no measurements.
For all that its worth, you could easily have just written that you did something, without ever doing anything.
Henche the massively confusing paragraph about Halo 2 being faster than Halo 5 but Halo 5 being faster still.

What are you doing? Don't answer, it isn't even relevant.
Why not answer? Because you'll figure out that you haven't actually done anything to support your claims? Or that what you've done, if you've actually done something, was a waste of time for you?

I'm asking you to actually back up claims you have, so that you would have some sort of ground to stand on when arguing.
There's nothing to trust in your statements and claims if you do not have anything tangiable to show for it.
Why should I trust what you say regarding any speeds differences, when all you show is times, not actual velocity.

If you want numbers, get them yourself don't make me do your work for you.
"This is faster than that, because I tested it"
Okay, what did you do and what values did you get?"
"Not my job to provide you with anything regarding with what I did, or how I did it, go do it yourself"

Yeah no that's not how it works.
Your argument has no value, if you do not share anything, and tell others to do it for themselves.
I could just easily in this case manufacture completely false numbers and values supporting my cause, and have far more credibility than you because I've actually provided something to show for.

I'm just saying some things make sense to be more realistic than others.
So yeah, when it's actually suits you, the "realism" card is out for something you like.
But as soon as it's something which would be realistic to have, you'll argue against it if you dislike it, despite using the "realism" card earlier.
What's it going to be? Have things due to realism? Or due to gameplay?

Oh, and "lore realism", as I said, i343 could easily write out sprint, and it'd be realistic to the lore. New armor system which compensate aiming issues at high speeds, resulting in pin-point accuracy at all times, at all speeds.
You'd then be an opponent to sprint, right?

I read a post by someone else and thought I quoted it.
Your second edit still didn't comprehend the post you said you read.

people makes mistakes you know. Not everyone is immortal like you are. Is it not true?
Being immortal has nothing to do with making mistakes.

All the people arguing against sprint haven't even reached D3 in any playlist in Halo 5. Though like some people said earlier, knowledge about sprint is irrelevant because everyone supposedly knows how it works. If I could see one person who has at least hit Onyx arguing against sprint here, I'll shut up because I am not convinced sprint is really bad when lower ranked players are the only ones arguing against it. I have checked the service records.
Yeah you're just digging a deeper hole now, and as pointed out earlier, pretty much confirming what I said, this time with a skill rank attached.
You've picked an arbitrary skill rank for where you think people should be allowed to argue about a mechanic, and then proclaim you've seen no one with that or above skill rank against sprint, how many have you checked? How far back did you start checking, a year? two years? This is exactly the same phenomena which could be witnessed in the old Bungie Halo 3 and Reach forums. "You don't get to say anything because you're not a 50 in Halo 3".
That, on top of "git gud and you'll like it, because gaming preferences, i.e what you like and dislike in a game and its mechanics, is directly tied to you being good"

But you're not going to say anything about people who are below Onyx, and still argue for sprint, now are you? Do they know how to use it? Despite not being in the Onyx and higher ranks?
Nighterlev wrote:
My bad, I didn't know you didn't care about lore because most fans do. I knew you would say "not pushing the stick all the way" but it still isn't walking. It was a misspeak on my part, I mean to say walk not move. Everyone knows about the tip toe and crouching.
I do care about lore, but I know I don't and most fans don't care about lore to the point where the game needs to be a 1-1 recreation with the universe's "reality."

Again, that's why I've said slide jumping. Chief does not slide jump in the lore, but if you like it in Halo 5, you've just created a contradiction with your previous statement.

Lore is just a weak scapegoat to try and justify this mechanic, but no other mechanic. People rejected the lore reason of why you can't play as Elites in Halo 4.

Isn't this just low-grade stat flaming?

You just kinda proved Naqser right with an assertation like that. It's just "git gud" with fluff behind it - waiting for the inevitable "1v1 me and I'll show you" (I have been told that before).
Halo isn't 1-1 with lore, I just explained that with the plasma pistol. The lore doesn't mention slide jumping but, does that mean he didn't do it? It says he kills stuff but does it mention where he aims, what type of bullet, the scope. Do you see what I'm trying to say? If you played a game and people were complaining about it and all the people who complain are slightly under average what would you think? Also I made this post why I don't 1v1 anymore unless it is for fun with friends.
Delta5931 wrote:
Yeah, play the game that you don't like or your opinion isn't worth much to me. Is that really the angle you're going for here? I played 50 hours of Halo 5. I don't need to play any more Halo 5 to know that I personally dislike the mechanic and to see the arguments of Naqser, Wild Vegetable and several others as well as my own experience with the systems to know that I don't want it to come back.
Trying to say that you have to be Onyx, and therefore "skilled" as you define it, in order to argue against a mechanic is laughably foolish.
Naqser wrote:
I'm not even sure what you want to say with "parallel". Pretty sure you want to use another word but I can't even figure that out.

That doesn't change anything though, if there are no values except one, there's nothing to be gained from your experiment.
Well, you didn't exactly provide anything other than claiming you did a test yourself, and that it supports another test.

Accurate to what?
You claimed things regarding the speeds, so did Nighterlev, but neither of you provided enough data to actually support that claim.
No actual distance was provided, you can't calculate a velocity with a time only.
With no velocity, there's no comparison to make.
See the earlier 50 vs 100 car.

And when asked about it, your answer is that you "tried something", with no values of your own, no explanation of what you did, no measurements.
For all that its worth, you could easily have just written that you did something, without ever doing anything.
Henche the massively confusing paragraph about Halo 2 being faster than Halo 5 but Halo 5 being faster still.

Why not answer? Because you'll figure out that you haven't actually done anything to support your claims? Or that what you've done, if you've actually done something, was a waste of time for you?

I'm asking you to actually back up claims you have, so that you would have some sort of ground to stand on when arguing.
There's nothing to trust in your statements and claims if you do not have anything tangiable to show for it.
Why should I trust what you say regarding any speeds differences, when all you show is times, not actual velocity.

"This is faster than that, because I tested it"
Okay, what did you do and what values did you get?"
"Not my job to provide you with anything regarding with what I did, or how I did it, go do it yourself"

Yeah no that's not how it works.
Your argument has no value, if you do not share anything, and tell others to do it for themselves.
I could just easily in this case manufacture completely false numbers and values supporting my cause, and have far more credibility than you because I've actually provided something to show for.

I'm just saying some things make sense to be more realistic than others.
So yeah, when it's actually suits you, the "realism" card is out for something you like.
But as soon as it's something which would be realistic to have, you'll argue against it if you dislike it, despite using the "realism" card earlier.
What's it going to be? Have things due to realism? Or due to gameplay?

Oh, and "lore realism", as I said, i343 could easily write out sprint, and it'd be realistic to the lore. New armor system which compensate aiming issues at high speeds, resulting in pin-point accuracy at all times, at all speeds.
You'd then be an opponent to sprint, right?

Your second edit still didn't comprehend the post you said you read.

Being immortal has nothing to do with making mistakes.
Yeah you're just digging a deeper hole now, and as pointed out earlier, pretty much confirming what I said, this time with a skill rank attached.
You've picked an arbitrary skill rank for where you think people should be allowed to argue about a mechanic, and then proclaim you've seen no one with that or above skill rank against sprint, how many have you checked? How far back did you start checking, a year? two years? This is exactly the same phenomena which could be witnessed in the old Bungie Halo 3 and Reach forums. "You don't get to say anything because you're not a 50 in Halo 3".
That, on top of "git gud and you'll like it, because gaming preferences, i.e what you like and dislike in a game and its mechanics, is directly tied to you being good"

But you're not going to say anything about people who are below Onyx, and still argue for sprint, now are you? Do they know how to use it? Despite not being in the Onyx and higher ranks?
I meant equal lol. Must've been real hard to figure out. You prove my point with the cars though. Halo 5 is the 100 car because it is faster with sprint and the maps are bigger. This is literally the official Halo site. You can check all my games played to see the testing. You are the one who needs proof so I won't link it mostly due to me having played a whole lot of customs for the past two days but, you will find it. You want measurements? If I give you a dollar your going to ask how long it is? I hate to tell you that you can't measure everything. If you can measure a map in a video game, tell me how. If someone can't look at two maps and be able to tell that they are the same size, idk. When did this discussion become about me? This is about sprint btw. I'm not saying people have to be a certain rank to argue about sprint. I'm saying everyone AGINST it hasn't even reached that rank. Just saying. Let me remind you guys again that this is about sprint, a function in a game. Not what immortal or parallel means. Or how fast cars are. Just because you may be a lower rank doesn't mean you cannot argue. I'm just saying play the game a little more, learn more about sprint and adapt. This discussion doesn't matter anymore though, a friend told me 343 confirmed Infinite would be similar to Halo 5. That's why many of the pros have started playing and streaming this game again. So, you can quote me if you want, but I won't be reading it. If you want to play message me on xbox, I play with all skill levels.
I meant equal lol. Must've been real hard to figure out.
Yes, because "paralell" has nothing to do with different 3D objects being "equal".

You prove my point with the cars though. Halo 5 is the 100 car because it is faster with sprint and the maps are bigger.
How can you be so sure when you haven't measured the lengths you've traveled?
All you've got to show for is the times they have to complete their tracks, no distance traveled, no velocity provided.

This is literally the official Halo site. You can check all my games played to see the testing. You are the one who needs proof so I won't link it mostly due to me having played a whole lot of customs for the past two days but, you will find it.
Again, it is not my job to find your work that you say support your claim.
The burden of proof is on you.

You want measurements? If I give you a dollar your going to ask how long it is? I hate to tell you that you can't measure everything. If you can measure a map in a video game, tell me how. If someone can't look at two maps and be able to tell that they are the same size, idk.
Yes, I want measurements when you claim something, and have nothing substantial to back it up.
Why would I ask how long a dollar is if you only give it to me?
If you told me it's a forgery because it is too long, or too wide, I'd ask how long / wide it is, and then the same measurments for a real dollar, so I can hear what the difference is. If I then doubt you I can measure it myself.
The thing here is though, you haven't given me a dollar. You say the dollar is too long, and that is all you say.

Considering this, I'd say it's quite an extraordinary ability knowing two maps from two different games with different FoVs are the same size, without even knowing the respective measurements of the maps.

Tell you how? When I ask for results I'm told to get them myself, without being told how the not-provided results were achieved.
But now I should tell you how to do something for a test you've supposidely done.
Sure, you go to Forge and start looking for area object, item co-ordinates, or whatever you want to use to get a good measurement.

When did this discussion become about me?
Why on earth would it be about you? It's about your method of testing.

This is about sprint btw.
The only reason it didn't even get to sprint was because of sub-par testing and result sharing.
Get the basics right.

I'm not saying people have to be a certain rank to argue about sprint. I'm saying everyone AGINST it hasn't even reached that rank. Just saying.
As I said, arbitrary rank where you think people have a "valid" opinion on sprint and that liking the mechanic kicks in, and "knowing how to use it".

Let me remind you guys again that this is about sprint, a function in a game. Not what immortal or parallel means. Or how fast cars are.
Using the correct terms, and understanding when you're told what you've provided would go a long way to decrease the amount of posts where you're being told what you need to do to support your own argument.

Just because you may be a lower rank doesn't mean you cannot argue. I'm just saying play the game a little more, learn more about sprint and adapt.
You've made it pretty clear that you think anyone below whatever rank you choose, doesn't have a full understanding of sprint and its effects, and that once you reach full understanding, you'll magically start liking it. You don't take anyone below that rank seriously because:

If I could see one person who has at least hit Onyx arguing against sprint here, I'll shut up because I am not convinced sprint is really bad when lower ranked players are the only ones arguing against it.
Have you convinced yourself that reaching Onyx relies soley on your skill with Sprint? There's nothing else needed to hit Onyx, than understanding how sprint works, and how to use it?
I'll reach Onyx in no time practicing sprint and sprint only.

This discussion doesn't matter anymore though, a friend told me 343 confirmed Infinite would be similar to Halo 5. That's why many of the pros have started playing and streaming this game again.
The discussion will matter as long as there are people to bother with it. If not for Infinite, then for the Halo after that, and so forth.
Sure, the friend who said something? I'm assuming you didn't ask for a citation / source? Or if "similar" absolutely confirms sprint? That'd be, to my knowledge, so far, the only thing they've confirmed about gameplay.
Or am I going to assume it's what one of the employed pro's said about Inifinite's gameplay plans a few months after the release of Halo 5? Almost five years ago? Who I doubt count as someone who's qualified to make official statements regarding gameplay plans.
Halo isn't 1-1 with lore, I just explained that with the plasma pistol. The lore doesn't mention slide jumping but, does that mean he didn't do it? It says he kills stuff but does it mention where he aims, what type of bullet, the scope. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
If Halo isn't 1-1 with lore, then I don't need to care how the gameplay is structured. I don't need Sprint in my gameplay to be realistic, I need it to be entertaining. In my subjective opinion, Sprint takes away from my entertainment for multiple reasons (both in and outside the game)

Which comes to my conclusion: Lore is just a scapegoat and always has been.

If you played a game and people were complaining about it and all the people who complain are slightly under average what would you think?
See when I say that to the people who want Sprint and aren't Onyx level, I get called an elitist, gatekeeping, the minority, unable to adapt, etc. etc.

This is just the same thing in the other direction, so I'll also call it gatekeeping.
Halo infinite NEEDS to KEEP SPRINT!

its needs to refine halo 5’s gameplay
Nice:
I find it very interesting how you casually managed to ignore what I wrote about
-Energy sword defined as sprinting? While not using the mechanic.
-Doom's "way too high movement speed" and supposidely maps being to small.
-Doom's "sprint" which is a power up, and Halo's similar method of "sprint"
-How we've easily been able to change our movement speed earlier with no sprint, or what kind of special situational information we need to acquire for sprint which we don't need for non-sprint, or do not benefit from with non-sprint.
-Question regarding GO's spread pattern, in relation to 1.6 and the development period for GO. Along with what kind of massive changes CS:GO has seen, compared to those we've seen with Halo and its iterations. Thus, is that "sticking to their guns"? And how i343 sticking to their got us Halo 4 and 5.
-The dying style of the older Halos. Interesting to note here is that CS is older than Halo,yet you didn't adress what kind of massive gameplay changes there have been, but reference it as the greatest FPS e-sport game of all time, also chose to ignore the OG Halos' e-sport popularity, and their drop off from that.
-What "adaptation" means, and where Doom would be had they completed and released the "Call of Doom" game they had made.
-Answers regarding Doom's MP.
I believe the topic that is being argued is the existence of varia8 movement speed, something that sprint offers. Knife functions the same way as sprint, you lose your ability to shoot for an increase in movement speed.
So, is that a yes on Energy Sword speed boost being sprinting?
Do you lose your offensive capabilities with the knife? Can you not use the knife at all?
Does it reduce your turn rate? Is it in the forward direction only?
As someone who plays CSGO regularly, I can assure you I think of this mechanic as a replacement for sprint.
And that's you.
If it makes you happy, ditch the "sprint" animation but keep the variable movement mechanic in the game. I feel you are miffed at the sprint animation and not the mechanic itself, which is telling a lot.
Pray tell, what is it that it tells you?
Because I don't know what you mean by ditching the sprint animation but keeping the "variable movement mechanic", as the sprint "mechanic" isn't dependant on a visual animation. Remove the animation and you've still got the exact same thing but no visual representation of what's happening.
So, do I take the litreal meaning from someone who happily proclaim "players" know little of game design, the literal meaning above, or am I to take a more liberal interpretation where it's merely a player activated speed boost which lasts for a short duration of time.
I believe I was discussing csgo and not 1.6. I criticized 1.6 and called it a "meme of a game", thereby proving my point that players don't understand anything about game design.
And I asked a question regarding the development of CS:GO and supposed feedback as well as a reaction to that feedback, which I heard quite some time ago, in relation to how "they stuck with their guns".
I could counter-argue you by saying doom stuck to its old ways and now, we all see what happened to the MP.
As opposed to CS? Which has yet to be elaborated on the massive changes that has happened in terms of mechanics and so forth between each iteration
And no, in terms of Multiplayer, Doom "did not stick to its old ways".
Customized loadouts, weapon unlocks based on time played, two weapon slots.
Massively powerful demon power-ups, also unlockable by playing more.
You seem to be missing the point. I quite like halo 5 and the community is very much active. Your assertion that it is not without any fact doesn't change it.
If the top most played games on the Xbox App is anything to go by, Halo 5 isn't on the top 30 list even, I count it to be placed on 43.
An active community is one thing, question is, how big is it?
It is perfectly reasonable to use popularity as a factor when discussing mechanics.
How popular is Halo 5? How popular did Halo 4 get?
In the long run?
CS:GO unmatched in quality and still going strong with an active and virile community.
So what exactly does "active and virile community" mean? Because CS:GO breaks population records, Halo 5 drops, even in these times when people are home and able to play.
What does "popular" mean then?
Moving from a point a to b before you enemy while having control of your movement speed introduces a semblance of mind-games in high rush combat where you need to balance risk and reward delicately. You could run to your cover and noob won't be able to hit a running target, a competent player would. This introduces a level of sophistication to the otherwise bland gunplay where everyone can hit a shot owing to the constant moving speed.
So that's a no then, not having sprint means it is not as important to reach B before the opponents.
I'm not really buying that a "noob" wouldn't be able to hit another player running at constant sprint speed, but suddenly be able to hit that same player if it was constant bms only. Or that forward only sprint speed would make it more difficult for a noob, than against another player fighting back utilising good strafing, changing directions and so forth.
Naqser wrote:
Nice:
I find it very interesting how you casually managed to ignore what I wrote about
-Energy sword defined as sprinting? While not using the mechanic.
-Doom's "way too high movement speed" and supposidely maps being to small.
-Doom's "sprint" which is a power up, and Halo's similar method of "sprint"
-How we've easily been able to change our movement speed earlier with no sprint, or what kind of special situational information we need to acquire for sprint which we don't need for non-sprint, or do not benefit from with non-sprint.
-Question regarding GO's spread pattern, in relation to 1.6 and the development period for GO. Along with what kind of massive changes CS:GO has seen, compared to those we've seen with Halo and its iterations. Thus, is that "sticking to their guns"? And how i343 sticking to their got us Halo 4 and 5.
-The dying style of the older Halos. Interesting to note here is that CS is older than Halo,yet you didn't adress what kind of massive gameplay changes there have been, but reference it as the greatest FPS e-sport game of all time, also chose to ignore the OG Halos' e-sport popularity, and their drop off from that.
-What "adaptation" means, and where Doom would be had they completed and released the "Call of Doom" game they had made.
-Answers regarding Doom's MP.
I believe the topic that is being argued is the existence of varia8 movement speed, something that sprint offers. Knife functions the same way as sprint, you lose your ability to shoot for an increase in movement speed.
So, is that a yes on Energy Sword speed boost being sprinting?
Do you lose your offensive capabilities with the knife? Can you not use the knife at all?
Does it reduce your turn rate? Is it in the forward direction only?
As someone who plays CSGO regularly, I can assure you I think of this mechanic as a replacement for sprint.
And that's you.
If it makes you happy, ditch the "sprint" animation but keep the variable movement mechanic in the game. I feel you are miffed at the sprint animation and not the mechanic itself, which is telling a lot.
Pray tell, what is it that it tells you?
Because I don't know what you mean by ditching the sprint animation but keeping the "variable movement mechanic", as the sprint "mechanic" isn't dependant on a visual animation. Remove the animation and you've still got the exact same thing but no visual representation of what's happening.
So, do I take the litreal meaning from someone who happily proclaim "players" know little of game design, the literal meaning above, or am I to take a more liberal interpretation where it's merely a player activated speed boost which lasts for a short duration of time.
I believe I was discussing csgo and not 1.6. I criticized 1.6 and called it a "meme of a game", thereby proving my point that players don't understand anything about game design.
And I asked a question regarding the development of CS:GO and supposed feedback as well as a reaction to that feedback, which I heard quite some time ago, in relation to how "they stuck with their guns".
I could counter-argue you by saying doom stuck to its old ways and now, we all see what happened to the MP.
As opposed to CS? Which has yet to be elaborated on the massive changes that has happened in terms of mechanics and so forth between each iteration
And no, in terms of Multiplayer, Doom "did not stick to its old ways".
Customized loadouts, weapon unlocks based on time played, two weapon slots.
Massively powerful demon power-ups, also unlockable by playing more.
You seem to be missing the point. I quite like halo 5 and the community is very much active. Your assertion that it is not without any fact doesn't change it.
If the top most played games on the Xbox App is anything to go by, Halo 5 isn't on the top 30 list even, I count it to be placed on 43.
An active community is one thing, question is, how big is it?
It is perfectly reasonable to use popularity as a factor when discussing mechanics.
How popular is Halo 5? How popular did Halo 4 get?
In the long run?
CS:GO unmatched in quality and still going strong with an active and virile community.
So what exactly does "active and virile community" mean? Because CS:GO breaks population records, Halo 5 drops, even in these times when people are home and able to play.
What does "popular" mean then?
Moving from a point a to b before you enemy while having control of your movement speed introduces a semblance of mind-games in high rush combat where you need to balance risk and reward delicately. You could run to your cover and noob won't be able to hit a running target, a competent player would. This introduces a level of sophistication to the otherwise bland gunplay where everyone can hit a shot owing to the constant moving speed.
So that's a no then, not having sprint means it is not as important to reach B before the opponents.
I'm not really buying that a "noob" wouldn't be able to hit another player running at constant sprint speed, but suddenly be able to hit that same player if it was constant bms only. Or that forward only sprint speed would make it more difficult for a noob, than against another player fighting back utilising good strafing, changing directions and so forth.
I don't know if you have played cs or not but I can assure you, a noob will have a LOT of difficulty getting a running headshot on a moving target especially if that target is using a knife and moving fast. You need to aim for the head in CS as most weapons are a one hit kill to the head without the helmet. This mechanical skill separates the wheat from the chaff. Your "buying" matters not to me as I have been playing CS for quite some time now. I have seen how CS noobs shoot. CS has a sprint mechanic like it or not. It is called "pulling out the knife" and what it does is increase the movement speed of the character. Also your assertion here
Naqser wrote:
not having sprint means it is not as important to reach B before the opponents.
reveals your lack of knowledge regarding game design. It is extremely important in CS to reach a position before your enemy. It offers you superior position, more time to prepare yourselves, hold and angle with an AWP. Infact, an entire series of tactics rely upon getting the "best spawn" possible to reach a certain position before your enemy and hold said angle with an AWP (CSGO's version of the sniper rifle). People take out the knife and "run" to get to these position ASAP. You walk faster with knife as well so in clutch situations where you can't allow your enemy to know your location and yet you need to relocate, people pull out the knife and walk.

I have said this before and I will say this again, CS has sprint and it is called "using a knife". If it makes you feel any better, I will phrase it like this. CS has a mechanic that allows its player to mover faster but they must sacrifice their ability to shoot, something that is functionally same as sprint. I understand that the Halo variation of sprint is lacking in that it offers mobility in a single direction whereas in CS, once you pull out your knife you can perform quite a bit of acrobatics. Knife increases your overall movement speed in all directions and this is very important. I suppose halo could do the same with sprint, tweak it and make it so that certain restrictions are lifted. The end game is, sacrifice the ability to shoot while increasing mobility.
I don't know if you have played cs or not but I can assure you, a noob will have a LOT of difficulty getting a running headshot on a moving target especially if that target is using a knife and moving fast. You need to aim for the head in CS as most weapons are a one hit kill to the head without the helmet. This mechanical skill separates the wheat from the chaff. Your "buying" matters not to me as I have been playing CS for quite some time now. I have seen how CS noobs shoot. CS has a sprint mechanic like it or not. It is called "pulling out the knife" and what it does is increase the movement speed of the character.
You do realise, that apart from ignoring even more stuff, with this you're saying there's a movement speed threshold at which noobs can't hit anything anymore.
It's not that you can variate your movement speed which throws noobs off, it's that at a certain value, you're arguing they can't hit anything anymore. Because the knife has a certain value for movement speed, and the other weapons have theirs. If the weapon with the lowest movement speed got bumped to knife speed, and all other weapons bumped accordingly, noobs wouldn't magically be able to hit you any better, they'd start missing you even more, or are you arguing that no matter how high the lowest speed is, noobs will hit you, and as soon as you introduce a way of increasing your speed by a margin, noobs will suddenly be unable to compensate for that marginal speed increase, even though you behave exactly the same in movement as you did with a lower speed, and thus be unable to hit you?

Also your assertion here
Naqser wrote:
not having sprint means it is not as important to reach B before the opponents.
Nope, that's not an assertion, that's an interpretation of the answer you've given me.
See, you left out something, let me fetch it for you.
Naqser wrote:
So that's a no then, not having sprint means it is not as important to reach B before the opponents.
Here:
Variable movement speed is important for a multiplayer game as it adds an extra layer of skill that people have to master and refine, this separates the unskilled from the skilled. Reaching from point A to B before your enemy is a very valuable asset with the risk that it leaves you vulnerable to enemy fire. It is a fair trade-off and people should use it judiciously. Henceforth, I conclude that Sprint should stay.
This is your original post regarding that particular subject. Note that you've yet to elaborate on what kind of information is needed for sprint which we need to acquire that we do not benefit from in a game with no sprint.
Here you're saying that it is important to reach point B before the enemy, and with that concluding that sprint should stay, as in, sprint makes it important to reach a destination before an opponent.

Now, what did I ask you? Well,

Naqser wrote:
And without sprint, it isn't a "very valuable asset" to reach point B before the enemy?
A simple "yes / no" question.

reveals your lack of knowledge regarding game design.
You keep bringing "game design" up but there's nothing behind it, so far only empty words.
I don't know what you know about it, or about game development considering the earlier remark regarding the "sprint animation", which you've skipped to give any more insight into. Then again, "game design" is quite a broad term to bring to the table regarding the discussion about a mechanic and its effect on gameplay.

It is extremely important in CS to reach a position before your enemy. It offers you superior position, more time to prepare yourselves, hold and angle with an AWP. Infact, an entire series of tactics rely upon getting the "best spawn" possible to reach a certain position before your enemy and hold said angle with an AWP (CSGO's version of the sniper rifle). People take out the knife and "run" to get to these position ASAP. You walk faster with knife as well so in clutch situations where you can't allow your enemy to know your location and yet you need to relocate, people pull out the knife and walk.
Here you go again, I do not care about CS gameplay or its strategies, tactics and whatnot, otherwise maybe I would have played it more.
Is it, or is it not, more important to reach a position before your enemy, in a game that features sprint, than in a game that lacks sprint?
Is it more important to get to "Pink" on Truth in Halo 5, than it is getting to Pink on Midship in Halo 3? And this is important, is it more important, because Halo 5 features sprint?
Yes or no.

I have said this before and I will say this again, CS has sprint and it is called "using a knife". If it makes you feel any better, I will phrase it like this. CS has a mechanic that allows its player to mover faster but they must sacrifice their ability to shoot, something that is functionally same as sprint. I understand that the Halo variation of sprint is lacking in that it offers mobility in a single direction whereas in CS, once you pull out your knife you can perform quite a bit of acrobatics. Knife increases your overall movement speed in all directions and this is very important. I suppose halo could do the same with sprint, tweak it and make it so that certain restrictions are lifted. The end game is, sacrifice the ability to shoot while increasing mobility.
Okay then, Halo 5 features sprint and sprint.
Sprint mechanic, and Energy Sword sprint.

Great, now, why is it necessary to sacrifice the ability to shoot in order to gain increased mobility?
I have said this before and I will say this again, CS has sprint and it is called "using a knife". If it makes you feel any better, I will phrase it like this. CS has a mechanic that allows its player to mover faster but they must sacrifice their ability to shoot, something that is functionally same as sprint. I understand that the Halo variation of sprint is lacking in that it offers mobility in a single direction whereas in CS, once you pull out your knife you can perform quite a bit of acrobatics. Knife increases your overall movement speed in all directions and this is very important. I suppose halo could do the same with sprint, tweak it and make it so that certain restrictions are lifted. The end game is, sacrifice the ability to shoot while increasing mobility.
Noticed you've entirely stopped talking about using DOOM at this point, when it was one of your two primary examples in your original statement.

DOOM has a variation of sprint and it is called the Haste powerup.
If you're willing to accept DOOM, then you're admitting to a solution that gives you increased mobility without sacrificing your shooting ability (actually increasing it), making your previous statement essentially irrelevant.

And if this solution works, then Halo has had this solution in place since Halo 4.
Naqser wrote:
You do realise, that apart from ignoring even more stuff, with this you're saying there's a movement speed threshold at which noobs can't hit anything anymore.
It's not that you can variate your movement speed which throws noobs off, it's that at a certain value, you're arguing they can't hit anything anymore. Because the knife has a certain value for movement speed, and the other weapons have theirs. If the weapon with the lowest movement speed got bumped to knife speed, and all other weapons bumped accordingly, noobs wouldn't magically be able to hit you any better, they'd start missing you even more, or are you arguing that no matter how high the lowest speed is, noobs will hit you, and as soon as you introduce a way of increasing your speed by a margin, noobs will suddenly be unable to compensate for that marginal speed increase, even though you behave exactly the same in movement as you did with a lower speed, and thus be unable to hit you?

Nope, that's not an assertion, that's an interpretation of the answer you've given me.
See, you left out something, let me fetch it for you.
Naqser wrote:
So that's a no then, not having sprint means it is not as important to reach B before the opponents.
Here:

This is your original post regarding that particular subject. Note that you've yet to elaborate on what kind of information is needed for sprint which we need to acquire that we do not benefit from in a game with no sprint.
Here you're saying that it is important to reach point B before the enemy, and with that concluding that sprint should stay, as in, sprint makes it important to reach a destination before an opponent.

Now, what did I ask you? Well,

Naqser wrote:
And without sprint, it isn't a "very valuable asset" to reach point B before the enemy?
A simple "yes / no" question.

You keep bringing "game design" up but there's nothing behind it, so far only empty words.
I don't know what you know about it, or about game development considering the earlier remark regarding the "sprint animation", which you've skipped to give any more insight into. Then again, "game design" is quite a broad term to bring to the table regarding the discussion about a mechanic and its effect on gameplay.

Here you go again, I do not care about CS gameplay or its strategies, tactics and whatnot, otherwise maybe I would have played it more.
Is it, or is it not, more important to reach a position before your enemy, in a game that features sprint, than in a game that lacks sprint?
Is it more important to get to "Pink" on Truth in Halo 5, than it is getting to Pink on Midship in Halo 3? And this is important, is it more important, because Halo 5 features sprint?
Yes or no.

I have said this before and I will say this again, CS has sprint and it is called "using a knife". If it makes you feel any better, I will phrase it like this. CS has a mechanic that allows its player to mover faster but they must sacrifice their ability to shoot, something that is functionally same as sprint. I understand that the Halo variation of sprint is lacking in that it offers mobility in a single direction whereas in CS, once you pull out your knife you can perform quite a bit of acrobatics. Knife increases your overall movement speed in all directions and this is very important. I suppose halo could do the same with sprint, tweak it and make it so that certain restrictions are lifted. The end game is, sacrifice the ability to shoot while increasing mobility.
Okay then, Halo 5 features sprint and sprint.
Sprint mechanic, and Energy Sword sprint.

Great, now, why is it necessary to sacrifice the ability to shoot in order to gain increased mobility?
balance? because running around like a rabbit on steroid while retaining the ability to snipe people is not balanced? It is broken and encourages mindless shooting or taking potshots. A tradeoff is necessary to balance this mechanic. If you want you can have sprint with the ability to shoot, go ahead and do that and no one will like it. It will ruin the balance and no one will walk/ use the normal speed. Everyone will sprint. It will defeat the whole purpose of introducing sprint. This goes against the game design and strategic aspects of gunfight that I am trying to present.

I did give you examples of game design and you dismissed it as "hurr durr I don't care about strategy". I am done providing more examples.

How else are you supposed to go from point A to point B quickly? Sprinting. I suppose you could teleport but they are restrictive by design and encourage camping. A sprint/variable movement mechanic is not restrictive.

It is not as if "noobs magically wont be able to hit you". It is a fact that it is difficult to hit a faster target as opposed to slower one even if they are sharing a linear trajectory. It is basic human biology and physics. Noobs are noobs because it is difficult for them to shoot properly. It is especially true for CS as you need to go for the head which makes it a very fast moving, small target if the target is using a knife.

As for your "pink" example, I will try to address it the best I can. It is funny you choose "pink" as your example but I will try to expand on it. If there to be a location that houses a power weapon, then yes, it will be important to get their asap. Now,in halo 3 this is dependent on your spawn and if you get their first, good for you, if not, your enemy gets the weapon first and kills you. In 5, if you don't get the weapon and you can see that you won't be able to make it in time, you can simply sprint in the opposite direction and run away to increase you chances of survival. This strategic element that applies to power-ups and weapons is what I am referring to. Of course, there are certain gamemodes in 5 where you can simply "will your weapons into existence" so this doesn't apply in those game-modes. I am talking from a competitive perspective and the "fair-starts" halo formula where you have to scavenge the map to find power weapons and dominate the map. Sprinting will also save lives in situations where you can simply run away from a grenade if you are on low health. Of course, if you make sprint universal and allow people to shoot while sprinting, without any drawback then no one will use it. We will regress back to a Doom style gameplay with no tactics and everyone running around all over the map trying to shoot each other in the face.
I have said this before and I will say this again, CS has sprint and it is called "using a knife". If it makes you feel any better, I will phrase it like this. CS has a mechanic that allows its player to mover faster but they must sacrifice their ability to shoot, something that is functionally same as sprint. I understand that the Halo variation of sprint is lacking in that it offers mobility in a single direction whereas in CS, once you pull out your knife you can perform quite a bit of acrobatics. Knife increases your overall movement speed in all directions and this is very important. I suppose halo could do the same with sprint, tweak it and make it so that certain restrictions are lifted. The end game is, sacrifice the ability to shoot while increasing mobility.
Noticed you've entirely stopped talking about using DOOM at this point, when it was one of your two primary examples in your original statement.

DOOM has a variation of sprint and it is called the Haste powerup.
If you're willing to accept DOOM, then you're admitting to a solution that gives you increased mobility without sacrificing your shooting ability (actually increasing it), making your previous statement essentially irrelevant.

And if this solution works, then Halo has had this solution in place since Halo 4.
I expanded upon my "sprint" philosophies. I took doom out because doom is not as tactical as Halo or CS. It is run and gun. Halo requires co-ordination and teamwork. This is wherein the whole "mindgames" element of gunplay, compounded with the existence of sprint comes in. A risk and reward system.
Okay honestly....
Halo Reach styled sprint. Have it regen so you don't run around the map at mach 10 like in H5 and slow the sprint speed down to Reach's so people don't race across the map.
Where sprint should and should not be used...
Sprint: Campaign/casual playlists such as btb/grifball/etc
No Sprint: Comp playlists

Easy enough sprint should be allowed for casual things and modes with bigger maps to get around a bit quicker and even in campaign for the same reasons. Though it should be limited so it's not over used and not ruining the sandbox. In competitive play it has no place ie Halo CE-Reach had no sprint in comp playlists and it seems to be better that way.

So I think sprint should stay but be modified to not completely ruin the sandbox like Halo 5 where people had infinite sprint and could run around the map like lunatics but if 343 plays their cards right and makes the sprint just something to get around a bit quicker like Halo Reach in campaign and casual bigger map based games I think it will be fine and accepted as long as the btb maps are nothing like Halo 5's and they make bigger, more open btb maps like how they are in classic Halo games I don't think there would be much of an issue there.

As a side edit I saw someone mention not losing the ability to shoot while sprinting. Dumb idea there needs to be a consequence to moving around the map faster and if you use sprint in the wrong place at the wrong time you shouldn't be rewarded for making bad decisions. I think it's a bad idea for the Halo sandbox with that being said.
I have said this before and I will say this again, CS has sprint and it is called "using a knife". If it makes you feel any better, I will phrase it like this. CS has a mechanic that allows its player to mover faster but they must sacrifice their ability to shoot, something that is functionally same as sprint. I understand that the Halo variation of sprint is lacking in that it offers mobility in a single direction whereas in CS, once you pull out your knife you can perform quite a bit of acrobatics. Knife increases your overall movement speed in all directions and this is very important. I suppose halo could do the same with sprint, tweak it and make it so that certain restrictions are lifted. The end game is, sacrifice the ability to shoot while increasing mobility.
Noticed you've entirely stopped talking about using DOOM at this point, when it was one of your two primary examples in your original statement.

DOOM has a variation of sprint and it is called the Haste powerup.
If you're willing to accept DOOM, then you're admitting to a solution that gives you increased mobility without sacrificing your shooting ability (actually increasing it), making your previous statement essentially irrelevant.

And if this solution works, then Halo has had this solution in place since Halo 4.
I expanded upon my "sprint" philosophies. I took doom out because doom is not as tactical as Halo or CS. It is run and gun. Halo requires co-ordination and teamwork. This is wherein the whole "mindgames" element of gunplay, compounded with the existence of sprint comes in. A risk and reward system.
The existence or style of Sprint does not prevent a game from being tactical. Halo especially since you're constantly moving for a map/weapon advantage and you aren't meant to stop moving once you're shot. It's one step below being as run and gun as DOOM or traditional arena shooters. In this case "tactical" just means "more buttons to press for the same result", but doesn't necessarily mean "better."

"coordination and teamwork" also doesn't directly rely on this one mechanic because I could just bring up Halo CE and how it maintains a competitive community to this day, to the point where teamwork controls the very spawns of the player.

Why does this style provided by DOOM only now not work but the one provided by CS does work? Because now it's no longer "game needs to have Sprint", it's "game needs to have this variation of Sprint," especially since now you're saying that DOOM's way is bad and a regression, as if Sprint was linear progress.

Halo 5 is going with not one, but three variations of Sprint, and some people here are only advocating to remove one of them - and arguably this variation has the weakest amount of "risk/reward" going for it.
balance? because running around like a rabbit on steroid while retaining the ability to snipe people is not balanced? It is broken and encourages mindless shooting or taking potshots.
And that "balance" argument comes from, where?
For example, Josh Holmes' post on teambeyond which is quoted here, only mentions balancing sprint, regarding the escepability of it. Never about anything being "broken" or that it "encourages mindless shooting" before sprint was introduced.

A tradeoff is necessary to balance this mechanic. If you want you can have sprint with the ability to shoot, go ahead and do that and no one will like it. It will ruin the balance and no one will walk/ use the normal speed. Everyone will sprint. It will defeat the whole purpose of introducing sprint. This goes against the game design and strategic aspects of gunfight that I am trying to present.
At which point is "a tradeoff necessary"? At what speed levels does it become "unbalanced" to be able to shoot and move at top speed at the same time?
That's quite the claim, "no one will like it".
The new sprint while retaining all capabilities would be the normal speed, and yes, everyone would sprint.
So, you wouldn't have to introduce sprint.

Not to mention, if Halo CE-3's speeds aren't acceptable to use while being able to shoot, how is Halo 5 with a higher BMS acceptable?

I did give you examples of game design and you dismissed it as "hurr durr I don't care about strategy". I am done providing more examples.
Sure, pulling one of the broadest terms you possible can in terms of game development and telling anyone who you can't highly can't answer properly, that they don't know anything about that subject, is a sure way of getting your own point across, isn't it? Especially when you've very clearly made it seem like you don't know the difference between an "animation", and the "mechanic".

Moving on, "hurr durr I don't care about strategy", you're fairly close to a pattern in leaving out essential parts of what you choose to quote, to, what you choose to quote.
See, what I asked, was a simple "yes no" question, but all you've actually given me are "strategy lectures".
Let me yet again point out that I do not care for CS:GO's gameplay or strategies, if it would've, I'm certain I would have played it more. Not to mention, the original question, if it is more important to reach a specific location in a game with sprint than in a game without sprint, does not include a specific game, at all. Either you don't understand the question, or you do understand it but you do not want to answer it at all, properly.

Your examples of "game design", are tactical and strategical tips 'n tricks which I really doubt made it into any larger overarching document during the development of CS:GO. I'd also narrow that part down to the more specific map design, and weapon balance.
Or do you think Blizzard already had all the Starcraft / Warcraft tactics and strategies planned somewhere?

How else are you supposed to go from point A to point B quickly? Sprinting. I suppose you could teleport but they are restrictive by design and encourage camping. A sprint/variable movement mechanic is not restrictive.
Sprint is not restrictive, said directly after, in the same post no less, mentioning that a restrictive mechanic should be in place, something like removing the ability of long range combat.

How? You move at the highest speed provided to you by the game, the time it takes you to get there is decided by the map designer, the only thing you've managed to do by implementing sprint is removing your combat efficiency, compared to a sprintless game.
Now, I like how you mention "game design" so much, that you use teleporters as the only example and label them as "restrictive" by design.
Not only can teleporters be redesigned in a wide manner of ways, but they are far from the only map utility assets which can be used for fast traversal, and as they're designed now fall well within the "risk / reward" framework which even you yourself have used for sprint, and variable movement.

If we for instance start with teleporters, is simply replace the whole concept with "Portals" from Portal, and with these you can do a lot. If I'm not mistaken, the first Unreal Tournament had every door be a portal, and they were then connected. There's a map called Fractal, where if you fall through the trap door at the bottom you come down from the roof.
Then we've got man cannons, a few earlier games had conveyor belts, we've had elevators and grav lift equipment.
If that's not enough it's entirely possible to introduce "robotic arms" which can take a player along a specific route with twists and turns.
It is not as if "noobs magically wont be able to hit you". It is a fact that it is difficult to hit a faster target as opposed to slower one even if they are sharing a linear trajectory. It is basic human biology and physics. Noobs are noobs because it is difficult for them to shoot properly.
That's exactly what I said.
The way you've been arguing has been that it's the variable speed which makes it difficult, not the velocities themselves.

As for your "pink" example, I will try to address it the best I can. It is funny you choose "pink" as your example but I will try to expand on it.
I recall saying it's a simple "yes / no" question.

If there to be a location that houses a power weapon, then yes, it will be important to get their asap.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was implied from the start, starting with your post, that the desired location is a point of interest to both parties.
Now, that "yes" wasn't so hard, now was it?

Now,in halo 3 this is dependent on your spawn and if you get their first, good for you, if not, your enemy gets the weapon first and kills you. In 5, if you don't get the weapon and you can see that you won't be able to make it in time, you can simply sprint in the opposite direction and run away to increase you chances of survival.
Now with the unnecessary "expansion":

So getting somewhere is not dependant on your spawn point in Halo 5?
And for some reason, in Halo 3 if you're not able to get there in time, the opponents will get it and kill you immediately?
But in Halo 5 you're somehow relayed more information through what means exactly? That you're not going to get there in time, and can make a decision to get out.

Halo 5 spawn points does not matter for map traversal times and you'll always know when an enemy will get somewhere at all times.
As opposed to Halo 3 where spawn points matter for map traversal times and you have no clue ever, when someone will get somewhere, and if they do you die.
Got it.

Sprinting will also save lives in situations where you can simply run away from a grenade if you are on low health. Of course, if you make sprint universal and allow people to shoot while sprinting, without any drawback then no one will use it. We will regress back to a Doom style gameplay with no tactics and everyone running around all over the map trying to shoot each other in the face.
Sure, that would be ignoring any weapons balanced around sprinting speeds so that potential blast radiuses would be increased.
But ok, a skillfully well placed grenade with thought and precision behind it can easily be evaded by noobs with the press of a button, now that's great game design.

Great move there, doing lengths of "tactical" stuff for CS:GO, citing "game design", but dismissing Doom, and with that, its cousins UT, Tribes, Quake and other games where you can run at full speed while shooting as games with no tactics and players running around trying to shoot each other in the face.
Pretty sure Halo CE-3 all required strategies and tactics, but what do I know, perhaps all that came with Halo Reach, or possibly Halo 4.
Naqser wrote:
That's exactly what I said.
The way you've been arguing has been that it's the variable speed which makes it difficult, not the velocities themselves.
Variable velocity adds an element of unpredictability that makes things diffcut and fun. The reason we strafe to avoid shots, crouch, crouch jump, all of it is to add unpredictability.

Naqser wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was implied from the start, starting with your post, that the desired location is a point of interest to both parties.
Now, that "yes" wasn't so hard, now was it?
If a desired location houses an item of interest then yes, the location and by extension, the item is desirable. Then there is case of "vantage points" on certain maps.

Naqser wrote:
So getting somewhere is not dependant on your spawn point in Halo 5?
And for some reason, in Halo 3 if you're not able to get there in time, the opponents will get it and kill you immediately?
But in Halo 5 you're somehow relayed more information through what means exactly? That you're not going to get there in time, and can make a decision to get out.
I don't know if you are trolling or you really seem incapable of understanding. If an enemy has a power weapon, yes, they can instantly kill you. Having the ability to sprint can be the difference between getting one shot by a sniper or a rocket launcher. I don't see how that is difficult to grasp.
Naqser wrote:
Halo 5 spawn points does not matter for map traversal times and you'll always know when an enemy will get somewhere at all times.
As opposed to Halo 3 where spawn points matter for map traversal times and you have no clue ever, when someone will get somewhere, and if they do you die.
Got it.
I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with the relaying of information. I am trying to point out that a variable velocity mechanic,which can be used at will, will provide you with more options to react to an unforeseen scenario, for example, being ambushed by an enemy. I don't even know how how came to the aforementioned conclusion.

Sprinting will also save lives in situations where you can simply run away from a grenade if you are on low health. Of course, if you make sprint universal and allow people to shoot while sprinting, without any drawback then no one will use it. We will regress back to a Doom style gameplay with no tactics and everyone running around all over the map trying to shoot each other in the face.
Naqser wrote:
Sure, that would be ignoring any weapons balanced around sprinting speeds so that potential blast radiuses would be increased.
But ok, a skillfully well placed grenade with thought and precision behind it can easily be evaded by noobs with the press of a button, now that's great game design.
Need I remind you that grenade spam is and has always been a thing in Halo? There is nothing tactical about logging a room full with 20 nades with your buddies. CE was especially horrible with its ability to being able to carry upto 8 nades. There is nothing "skillful" about spamming nades in a room. Other games balance this out by limiting the number of grenades so that players have to think twice before using them. CSGO, for example, allows you to carry only 1 HE grenade. Yes, adding sprint will allow the mitigation of grenade cheese in cases where battle literally becomes a grenade-spam fiesta between 2 teams. It is not fun and it is by no means, balanced.
Naqser wrote:
Great move there, doing lengths of "tactical" stuff for CS:GO, citing "game design", but dismissing Doom, and with that, its cousins UT, Tribes, Quake and other games where you can run at full speed while shooting as games with no tactics and players running around trying to shoot each other in the face.
Pretty sure Halo CE-3 all required strategies and tactics, but what do I know, perhaps all that came with Halo Reach, or possibly Halo 4.
I don't know where you come from but Quake and Doom are arena shooters. They are designed to be twitch shooters where you don't have to think a lot and shoot everybody in the face . I am sorry to have to break you to this but Quake and Doom aren't regarded as "tactical" games.
Naqser wrote:
And that "balance" argument comes from, where?
For example, Josh Holmes' post on teambeyond which is quoted here, only mentions balancing sprint, regarding the escepability of it. Never about anything being "broken" or that it "encourages mindless shooting" before sprint was introduced.
The balance argument comes from the observation of player patterns and their tendency to exploit a system. Something that is sure to happen.

Naqser wrote:
At which point is "a tradeoff necessary"? At what speed levels does it become "unbalanced" to be able to shoot and move at top speed at the same time?
That's quite the claim, "no one will like it".
The new sprint while retaining all capabilities would be the normal speed, and yes, everyone would sprint.
So, you wouldn't have to introduce sprint.

Not to mention, if Halo CE-3's speeds aren't acceptable to use while being able to shoot, how is Halo 5 with a higher BMS acceptable?
If you don't use sprint, it simply becomes Halo with a Doom speed which brings us to the initial point of the discussion. Mindless shooting and a "dumbing" down of the strategies involved.

Naqser wrote:
Sure, pulling one of the broadest terms you possible can in terms of game development and telling anyone who you can't highly can't answer properly, that they don't know anything about that subject, is a sure way of getting your own point across, isn't it? Especially when you've very clearly made it seem like you don't know the difference between an "animation", and the "mechanic".

Moving on, "hurr durr I don't care about strategy", you're fairly close to a pattern in leaving out essential parts of what you choose to quote, to, what you choose to quote.
See, what I asked, was a simple "yes no" question, but all you've actually given me are "strategy lectures".
Let me yet again point out that I do not care for CS:GO's gameplay or strategies, if it would've, I'm certain I would have played it more. Not to mention, the original question, if it is more important to reach a specific location in a game with sprint than in a game without sprint, does not include a specific game, at all. Either you don't understand the question, or you do understand it but you do not want to answer it at all, properly.

Your examples of "game design", are tactical and strategical tips 'n tricks which I really doubt made it into any larger overarching document during the development of CS:GO. I'd also narrow that part down to the more specific map design, and weapon balance.
Or do you think Blizzard already had all the Starcraft / Warcraft tactics and strategies planned somewhere?
I provided you with a literal scenario, in great detail explaining the weapons used and how they interact with the sandbox. You dismissed it as nothing. My explanation was not a "broad term". Your refusal to understand something won't change the reality of the situation. I use CSGO a an example because guess what, it is the king of FPS shooters. It has been so for the past 20 years so I'm sure they must be doing something right to be able to retain that crown. Maybe halo could pick up a few things about balance from it. Something like, I dunno, doing something about the grenade spam meme. Grenade spam becomes even more of an issue in small maps like Zealot. I can't say about Blizzard but in case of CS, yes, the developers are very aware of the strategies used by the players and tweak their game in accordance with those strategies. Strategies and tactics are of the utmost important when evaluating the life-cycle and fun factor of a game because let us be honest, no one wants to play a broken game.
For the thousandth time, I don't care about the animation. I care about the mechanic. Hell, it you want to make your spartan "waltz" to a location while sprinting, do it I don't care. What I care about is that there should be a mechanic that should give considerable boost to the player speed while restricting his combat abilities. Mainly to be used to retreat or reposition. Also, there should be very little delay between the switching of the walk and sprint stances. People should not have to waste a second to start sprinting (looking at you reach) and similarly they shouldn't have to waste time to switch to walk from sprint(once again, looking at you reach). CS does this by making the "switch to knife" time very low.

Naqser wrote:
Sprint is not restrictive, said directly after, in the same post no less, mentioning that a restrictive mechanic should be in place, something like removing the ability of long range combat.

How? You move at the highest speed provided to you by the game, the time it takes you to get there is decided by the map designer, the only thing you've managed to do by implementing sprint is removing your combat efficiency, compared to a sprintless game.
Now, I like how you mention "game design" so much, that you use teleporters as the only example and label them as "restrictive" by design.
Not only can teleporters be redesigned in a wide manner of ways, but they are far from the only map utility assets which can be used for fast traversal, and as they're designed now fall well within the "risk / reward" framework which even you yourself have used for sprint, and variable movement.

If we for instance start with teleporters, is simply replace the whole concept with "Portals" from Portal, and with these you can do a lot. If I'm not mistaken, the first Unreal Tournament had every door be a portal, and they were then connected. There's a map called Fractal, where if you fall through the trap door at the bottom you come down from the roof.
Then we've got man cannons, a few earlier games had conveyor belts, we've had elevators and grav lift equipment.
If that's not enough it's entirely possible to introduce "robotic arms" which can take a player along a specific route with twists and turns.
are you really that incapable of understanding the value of unpredictability in a game? The map-designer argument works against players because once a player has mastered the map, there is nothing else to be mastered. This increases the gap between people who are knowledgeable about the map and who are not. With sprint, even a new player has that advantage of "unpredictability" given their "erratic movement". This unpredictability caused by sprint will persist across all tiers of game and will be something that will have to be factored in with pro-level play.
Teleporters are something I am against because they are very skewed in the risk reward section. Teleporters encourage camping. Once you get out of a teleporter, you can't do much to fight the guy who has camped outside of it. You fight a losing battle. With sprint, you may not be able to shoot but you can evade. Also, teleporters will make the games restrictive as every team will vie for teleporter control. The rest of the map will be relatively unattended. Team who gains teleported control will have the advantage. Sprint is not unbalanced so no matter wherever a team may be, they will have a chance for a fair fight. It won't be a one sided slaughter for the rest of the game just because a team manged to get control of a teleporter (in case of teleporters) owing to their better spawn for the rest of the game.
I sense a trending theme of a game without sprint, but with a slightly boosted movement speed. And that sounds good to me. Try that.
This thread is still going? Nice! Amazed there is still any real debate to be had.

If you enjoy being unable to shoot while moving at max speed like you could in the past, just so you can feel 'immersed' in the illusion of speed then good for you! So what if map design and sandbox balance suffers... it's in the books!... and more importantly it's in other games... Halo had to evolve by dropping it's uniqueness to be more like everything else right???
Naqser wrote:
Nighterlev wrote:
but I've already made videos that contradict the whole "sprint isn't faster paced" logic that people seem to make up. Yes, Sprint is indeed way faster paced, the reason why Sprint doesn't work on the older maps is because the older maps weren't built with Spartan abilities in mind (at least with Halo 5).
It was? That answer is easy.

Halo 5 is the fastest movement in the series because the walk speed is 2.59 units per second and Halo CE-3 is 2.25 units per second. Sprint speed is even faster than that. Assuming all distances are equal, Halo 5 will always be the fastest without even needing Sprint involved - didn't need game comparison videos to do that much.

The consistent problem that I have with Sprint is that I just proved Sprint isn't the only way to be faster (because Halo 5 is still faster without Sprint), and 95% of the attempts to justify it falls flat on its face once you apply it to other parts of the same game.

Like the whole "in the books Chief sprints!" thing. I care less than 0% about what the lore says about what is primarily a game mechanic - and I know most people here feels the same, after all the books never mention Chief having to slide jump to move faster. If we're allowed to take liberties with lore purely due to gameplay, why is Sprint not given the same treatment?

EDIT:

In classic Halo, you cannot move at a slower speed.
Of course you can. It's "not pushing the stick all the way" The only problem is PC keyboards and how they're binary (but some games have a "walk" key).
My bad, I didn't know you didn't care about lore because most fans do. I knew you would say "not pushing the stick all the way" but it still isn't walking. It was a misspeak on my part, I mean to say walk not move. Everyone knows about the tip toe and crouching.
Naqser wrote:
He's actually right. I did a test. Yes, the Halo 2 BMS is faster than Halo 5's walk speed but Halo 5's sprint speed is actually faster. In any video you will see, the Halo 2 example will reach a certain location first. How would a game with a slower speed reach a location faster than a game that has a faster speed? The maps in Halo 5 are way bigger than Halo 2 so, it takes longer. If you play on one of the maps in Halo 5 that have been forged to be the same size as the original in Halo 2(Heretic, Sanctuary) you will see that Halo 5 does have the fastest speed.
Halo 2 BMS is faster than Halo 5 BMS because you get to locations in a shorter time, however play on a Forged 1:1 Halo 2 map in Halo 5 and Halo 5 is the fastest.
What?

Okay, you did a test.
What did you do?
What was the distance you ran?
What time did you do it in?

When you give a distance, and time, velocity can be calculated.
63 world units, or 83 metres are distances.
Midship base to base, for example, is not a distance which can be used in an equation.

Nighterlev's videos only provided travel times on maps between different games. There's no amount of distance provided, there's no velocity anywhere.
Any of those maps could have been shorter or longer, with movement speeds altered between the games, which would net the times which were measured in the videos.

You don't proclaim a car which maxes at 50 km/h to be faster than a car maxing at 100 km/h, when the 50 car completes a 40 km track while the 100 car must complete a 100 km track.
That is the video scenario, taken to its extreme.

Before I post a video regarding this velocity subject, and some pictures to go along with it, I want to see your numbers, and how you got them.
Because all you got now is what I described in extreme with the car example.

Sprint seems more accurate to lore. When you read the books you will see sentences like "He began to sprint towards the sound of gunfire" obviously he was moving at a slower speed. In classic Halo, you cannot move at a slower speed.
Lore again.
i343 can write whatever they want in the lore.
So, if the next book suddenly does away with "weapons down" sprint, you say it's okay to move top speed and fire weapons with full accuracy, like Halo CE - 3.
And yes, you could move att slower speeds in Halo CE - 3.
You just didn't tilt the stick to its max, and you could also crouch which lowered your speed.

You move at the same peed at all times which isn't accurate to lore or reality.
Do you run the same speed everywhere? To the bathroom, kitchen, etc.. It makes more since to have two different speeds but at the same time one speed is easier. Not to mention that everything doesn't have to be accurate to lore or the plasma pistol would be a one shot weapon when overcharged.
What I'm getting from this is.
Halo should be as realistic as possible, but only for things you think, some things doesn't have to.
But that's okay, they can write the lore as they want and you'll change stances on what should and shouldn't be possible to do in the game. How about that prone?

2nd EDIT: I just read what I quoted. What Nightlev has shared is not besides the point at all. His post was about sprint and this thread is about sprint, check. One of the arguments that Vegetable and I were discussing were whether classic Halo or modern Halo with sprint is faster, check. Also, he quoted us directly, check. Seems completely relevant and on topic to me. You may want to read what we were discussing earlier before making false assumptions.
So you don't even read what you quote?

Perhaps you should read what I quoted.
My post is under the assumption that I recall correctly, that Nighterlev made a video some time ago demonstrating sprint speed being in terms of raw speed, in velocity, faster than BMS. Henche the very first part of my own text: "As far as I recall, if it was indeed you who made a "sprint video", you missed the point entirely."
Which I clarified really hasn't been something a lot of people argue would be the case, only seen a handful of cases, but rather, sprint doesn't really make a difference between titles featuring sprint, and titles without
If you can't look at two maps and be able to tell they are more parallel compared to Heretic and Truth, idk what to tell you. Sure, it probably isn't completely accurate but, it is more accurate than Halo 5's Truth map. At least I tried something, what are you doing? Don't answer, it isn't even relevant. If you want numbers, get them yourself don't make me do your work for you. I'm just saying some things make sense to be more realistic than others. I read a post by someone else and thought I quoted it, people makes mistakes you know. Not everyone is immortal like you are. Is it not true? All the people arguing against sprint haven't even reached D3 in any playlist in Halo 5. Though like some people said earlier, knowledge about sprint is irrelevant because everyone supposedly knows how it works. If I could see one person who has at least hit Onyx arguing against sprint here, I'll shut up because I am not convinced sprint is really bad when lower ranked players are the only ones arguing against it. I have checked the service records.
I have been a Champion in almost every playlist in Halo 5, and I can tell you that I am more against sprint now than before Halo 5.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 836
  4. 837
  5. 838
  6. 839
  7. ...
  8. 840