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.
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?