Search the Community

343 I would like you to understand your base of players is off of a competitive community! We do not like sprint at all... It makes the game play different we do not need it this is not COD the game does not have 10 second kill times. We are looking at about a 1 minute to 1 and a half kill time.. We don't want a super fast paced game cause halo is not meant to be that way. You need to listen to the pro player cause I guarantee if you put sprint your gonna end up with a bad outcome selling your game! Even enhancing the base speed to compensate for the sprint would be better.

The introduction of sprint into Halo has been one of the most controversial changes to the franchise. Many are in favor of removing it, while others think it is/can be beneficial to gameplay. Personally, I'm not a fan of sprint in Halo, but I do see potential for a somewhat similar mechanic. Those of you who have played Counter Strike probably know that some weapons (the knife, for instance) allow faster movement speed. This mechanic works well for the game, giving players the option to sacrifice superior firepower for speed to get to locations more quickly, but without rendering them completely vulnerable when doing so. My idea is that, similarly to CS's mechanic, players gain a small speed boost (maybe 5-10%, but would require play-testing) when wielding the Magnum (and maybe similar weapons like the SMG). This would give these sidearms more purpose without making their kill-times "unrealistically" competitive with those of "primary" rifles like the BR and AR, respectively. With the Magnum rebalanced to have a similar kill-time to the BR and allow faster movement, offset by the smaller magazine size and less effectiveness/ease-of-use at longer ranges (perhaps through a shorter red reticle range), it could have a greater purpose than merely a "secondary" or "backup" weapon that players wouldn't give a second thought about trading out. What do you think? Could this mechanic be beneficial for Halo? Are there aspects of it you would change? If you don't like the idea, leave a comment discussing why.

Putting aside whether or not we think sprint should be in the game, and putting aside whether or not we think it will be in the game, how would you guys react if Halo 5 Guardians didn't have sprint? Would you be unhappy but continue playing as normal? Would it actually worsen the experience to the point that you'd play significantly less? Would you play less campaign and more multiplayer?

Every Argument for Sprint, Countered The purpose of this thread is not to explain why sprint is bad in Halo, but to counter all of the arguments that are put forward in favour of sprint. I understand this is a long read, but I don't expect anyone to read it all. Instead, treat this like a list of arguments and counters that you can visit at any time if for any reason you struggle to put them into your own words... Argument 1: "it speeds up gameplay" Counter: no, it doesn't. Gameplay is as fast as developers intend for it to be, and the average map size in Halo 4 is increased to accommodate sprint. It doesn't take any longer to traverse the average map in Halos 1, 2 or 3 than it does in Halo 4. Also, with regard to the amount of time it takes to travel across maps in Halo, there is nothing that needs to be fixed. If you don't like taking the time to move across maps in Halo, to the point that you think a fundamental part of the way Halo plays needs to be changed just so you can travel a bit faster, then Halo might simply not be the game for you. Inevitable response: "Um, no. I'm pretty sure that sprinting across Haven is faster than walking across Haven" Counter: ah, but you've already misunderstood the argument. The argument is not that sprinting across Haven is no faster than walking across Haven, the argument is that sprinting across the average map on Halo 4 is no faster than moving (at top speed) across the average map in Halo 1, 2 and 3 where the maps are smaller to accommodate a lack of sprint. Argument 2: "but Halo feels slow without it" Counter: firstly, as pointed out above, if you don't like the way Halo feels without sprint, then Halo simply wasn't the game for you. Other people were absolutely fine with it, and not only were they fine with it, they actually appreciated it. Secondly, the only reason you think Halo feels slow without sprint is because there is an illusion of speed that is created when running in bursts, even though you aren't necessarily getting anywhere faster. A person who sprints at 20 miles an hour from one side to the other in a 30 meter room will almost certainly feel like they're going faster than if they were to run at 10 miles an hour from one side to the other in a room that is half the size. There is no decrease in travel time, yet an illusion of speed is created because you are moving past your sorroundings faster. The human brain is more sensitive to immediate differences in speed than it is to differences in time that happen over longer periods; periods of time such as those experienced when traversing maps in Halo. Putting aside for a moment that it isn't actually necessary to make traversing maps faster in future titles, as that is not something that ever needed "fixing", I should mention that there is a much more appropriate way to increase the feeling of speed that you experience when moving around, and that is by doing any combination of these 4 things: 1) Decrease the average map size. This would mean less travel time, which is the effect that most sprint fans claim is a desirable impact of sprint on the game. 2) Increase base speed. This would mean less travel time AND it would mean that you were moving faster relative to your sorroundings - one of the main reasons sprint gives an illusion of speed. 3) Increase field of view. An increased field of view gives the illusion of speed as it gives the impression that you are moving past your sorroundings faster than if you had a lower field of view. Keeping in mind that these demonstrations often show both sides of the extreme in order to magnify the effect, see any one of these videos for demonstration: 4) Through the use of vehicles, teleporters and man cannons on larger maps. By giving players more vehicles that are only effective for travelling, such as the Mongoose, you give them the means to travel across larger maps if they don't feel like travelling on foot. Inevitable response: "but I can't shoot while I'm on a Mongoose. I want to be able to move and shoot at the same time!" Counter: isn't it funny then that you are arguing for sprint - a feature that completely takes away from your ability to shoot while moving at top speed - by saying that vehicles aren't good enough because you can't shoot while using them? Inevitable response: "but I can't stop and shoot right away if I'm in a Mongoose. I would have to stop and get out of it" Counter: that's the trade-off that you experience when using vehicles. If you could simply drive a vehicle and then instantly get out and start shooting with only a slight delay, then you would not really be experiencing any draw-backs to using something that puts you at such an easy advantage. The Mongoose gets you across the maps in much less time than if you were simply to travel on foot, which means possibly (and likely) getting to advantageous spots/weapons/power-ups than those who didn't travel by vehicle. Not being able to shoot straight away after getting out is a tiny price to pay for having such a decrease in travel time. Argument 3: "I'm a super soldier in a sci-fi future - I should be able to sprint" Counter: firstly, as far as gameplay goes, gameplay is more important than canon. I mean, it sounds real obvious when I say it like that, but there are still many who use the 'I'm supposed to be a super soldier' argument. Why are we not able to go prone? Why are we not able to aim down sights (yes, it would be possible even though there is a smart link system)? Why are we not able to put our enemies in a rear naked choke? Why are we not able to cook grenades? Why are we not able to throw our knives? Why are we not able to kick? Why are we not able to wrestle? There are any number of things that spartans "should" be able to do as far as canon goes, but we can't do them as far as gameplay goes because many of them just simply wouldn't fit with what Halo is about. Sprint is no different. If people were genuinely concerned about gameplay not completely reflecting canon, then they would all be complaining about all of the things that we can't do in-game, but they simply don't. Secondly, if we were actually to go by canon, then we would be able to sprint at much faster speeds without having to stop after 5 seconds. Also, we would be able to do this while aiming and shooting accurately. The smart-link system doesn't simply shut down once a spartan decides to sprint, nor do a spartans arms decide to suddenly lose the ability to raise. For examples of spartans sprinting and shooting, see Forward unto Dawn, Halo Legends: The Package, The Thursday War (Naomi), and any other examples that may I have forgotten. Argument 4: "every game has sprint these days" Counter: this doesn't come close to being a valid argument. There is no requirement that every game needs to be the same. Variety and uniqueness are far more valuable than monotony and lack of variety. If you simply can't stand the idea of ever playing a game that doesn't include sprint, then the answer is simply to only play those games that do. It certainly doesn't mean that every game should sacrifice its own way of doing things simply so that you don't personally have to worry about there being games that don't cater 100% to your tastes. Also, the 'every game has sprint these days' argument falls into two categories. One is the 'appeal to novelty', which is the false assertion that when something is new or modern, it is automatically good. This of course is untrue. The other is the 'argument by consensus', which is the false assertion that when something is popular or common, therefore it is good. This of course is also untrue. Whether or not every other game today has sprint has no bearing on whether or not sprint works for Halo. It is completely unrelated. Argument 5: "most people like sprint, therefore it should be in the game" Counter: firstly, once you make such a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence, yet based on the information we have available to us that might give us a clue as to how fans might feel about sprint, there is no logical pathway that would lead to a belief that most Halo fans do like sprint. The information we do have available to us is the fan feedback on various websites such as Halowaypoint, unofficial Halo sites, game websites and YouTube videos and comments. Unless you are going to go through a very large amount of the feedback in all of these different sites, and then put it together in a way which is shown to be non-biased, then you will struggle to find sufficient evidence to suggest that sprint is favoured by most fans. What I will say is that when fans were polled on Halowaypoint about their views on sprint and flinch, more people said that they don't like sprint in Halo. Now this doesn't prove anything as far as whether or not most Halo fans like sprint, but it certainly doesn't sit well with the assertion that most people do like sprint. To see the poll, click this link: https://forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postst211131_Should-Sprint-Flinch-stay-in-the-Halo-series.aspx Argument 6: "games can't compete today without sprint" Counter: as with the previous argument, when making such a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim. We haven't had a modern Halo game without sprint in recent years, so therefore we cannot draw any conclusions as to whether or not Halo would survive today without sprint. What we can see is that Halo hasn't done so well with sprint, and one of the most common reasons that is suggested in feedback by fans who dislike Halo 4 is that they don't like sprint in Halo. This would indicate a strong likelihood that Halo 4 would have done better to some degree (perhaps only slightly better) if it did not base itself around default sprint. It certainly doesn't prove such a thing, but it is an indication. Argument 7: "you're just scared of change. You want every Halo game to be exactly the same" Counter: this particular argument finds itself guilty of being a 'straw-man' argument. There is no logical pathway from seeing a person say they dislike sprint (or any other feature) to assuming they are scared of or against all possible change. There is no logical pathway from seeing a person say they dislike sprint (or any other feature) to assuming that they want every Halo game to be exactly the same. The only way you can possibly claim that a person is scared of change is if they literally utter the words: 'I'm scared of change'. For example, if you were to ask me to make you a pizza, but to put some different toppings on from the last time you ate pizza, and then I went and made a pizza with slugs, grass, mouldy apples and hair from the bathroom sink, you would likely reject the pizza. It's highly likely that you would tell me I had done a horrible job of deciding on what kind of pizza to make you. Now, would it make sense for me to then say: "wow, so you hate pizza toppings? I can only assume that you are scared of change. You just can't move on from the days when margherita was your favourite pizza. You'll never be pleased"? Most people would know that such an assumption would be a logical fallacy, however, people are very selective with when they apply every day logic, and if the 'you're scared of change' argument happens to help their own argument, then they'll gladly abandon any semblance of logic. That's where this whole argument stems from, and it is quite simply ineffective when it comes to demonstrating that sprint is a good thing for Halo. Argument 8: "I enjoy sprint, and that's all that matters" Counter: simply untrue. Any possible feature that you can imagine, no matter how terrible, has the potential to be "enjoyed" by someone out there. I think most people would agree that having Rockets and Incineration cannons as loadout options would simply be bad for Halo gameplay, yet those additions would likely be enjoyable to someone somewhere. Following the 'I enjoy it, so it's right' logic, Rockets and Incineration cannons absolutely SHOULD be loadouts options. Why? Because they have the potential to be liked. How about a perk that grants invincibility, and a second perk that allows all your weapons to shoot Rockets that kill anyone within 10 meters? There could be people out there who would enjoy such things, but I don't think many people would disagree that these things shouldn't be added simply on the basis that some might find the additions enjoyable. Sprint is no different. Whether or not we like sprint as individuals is actually incidental and is irrelevant to whether or not it should be in the game. What matters is whether or not it fits with what Halo is fundamentally about when it comes to gameplay - sprint does not. Argument 9: "if someone runs away from you, you have sprint too, so you can just chase them" Counter: there are two things here which you are assuming are part of the problem for people who don't like sprint, which are actually not part of the problem at all. 1) The assumption that non-sprint fans think players running away is bad. This is a false assumption. Players running away from encounters they're losing is completely understandable and completely viable. 2) The assumption that non-sprint fans somehow don't realise that they can chase the player that is running away. This is false; non-sprint fans haven't suddenly forgotten that they have the ability to move in Halo. The real problem is that the game grants an unfair and unearned advantage to players who decide to run away from encounters. This advantage comes in the form of lowered weapons. The objective of a player who runs away is to get to safety and allow their shields to recharge. The objective of a chasing player is to keep up with the escapee and to continue to shoot them so that the escapee's shields don't recharge. In Halos 1, 2 and 3, the chaser could simply run at the same speed as the escapee and continue shooting at the same time. However, this abiltiy is not granted in Halo 4 as the chaser has to sacrifice his/her ability to shoot in order to simply keep up with the escapee. This nullifies the chase to begin with, because the point of chasing a player who you were in the middle of killing is to kill them before their shields recharge, thus finishing the encounter. Inevitable response: "but they aren't going to not run away are they? That would be dumb"Counter: again, >> running away isn't the problem, << the problem is that the person who runs away after performing worse than their enemy is granted a free advantage in the form of lowered weapons. They simply do not need raised weapons to accomplish the goal of running away, whereas the chaser needs raised weapons in order to chase at the same speed AND have the ability to shoot. Inevitable response: "but why should the chaser have the ability to shoot? Who says they deserve it?" Counter: firstly, because that's a large part of what made Halo play the way it did ona fundamental level historically. Secondly, because they put themselves in the situation of being on top by actually playing better than their opponent; they out-played that person, and therefore have earned the position of being in the likely place of winning the encounter. The person who is losing the encounter should now have to put himself back on top in the face of being in a disadvantageous position. This means that while they are fighting to get back on top (whether it's by running or fighting), they should have to do it by putting themselves there through work, as opposed to pressing a button which gives them an automatic advantage. After all, the player who out-played them to begin with didn't get there by being granted an automatic advantage. They got there in the face of equal opportunity through various skills such as good positioning, fast reactions, good strafing, good shooting etc. Argument 10: "sprint makes the game more immersive" Counter: let's first make sure we're clear on the definition of immersive. When something is immersive, that means it provides information or stimulation for a number of senses. In this particular case, the sense we are talking about is sight. The claim is that sprint makes you feel more like you're in the game due to running in bursts (as the average human would do in real life), and therefore should be in the game. Firstly, immersion is not actually a top priority as far as gameplay goes. It is something that should be sought after so long as more important factors, such as balance, are not disrupted in the process. Sprint is an example of "immersion" that does have several harmful effects on the gameplay itself, and therefore is not an appropriate addition simply for the sake of "immersing" the player. Secondly, if immersion means making you, a normal human being, feel more like you're moving around in the world itself in the same way that you would be capable of, then immersion is not appropriate in that sense. You are playing as a spartan who, as pointed out earlier, have been shown in the canon to be able to sprint at speeds far faster than you or I are capable of, while aiming and shooting accurately and without having to stop after 5 seconds. True immersion in the sense of making us feel like spartans from the Halo universe would mean making us move around the world in the way that they would be capable of, and in the process, sprint and lowered weapons would simply be abandoned. As with the canon argument, if you really truly believe that "immersion" is a priority in a game, then you'll actually be against sprint and lowered weapons. Argument 11: "it helps me get into battle faster" Counter: as we discussed earlier, maps have been stretched to accommodate sprint. That means that on the maps in Halo 4, the average time between you and "battle" at spawn is no different than the average time between you and "battle" at spawn in Halo 1, 2 or 3. Also, there was no fault in how fast you were able to get into battle in Halos 1, 2 and 3. The time it took was the time that was intended, and there was nothing broken about that. If you didn't like that, then Halo might not have been for you. Argument 12: "it helps me get to my teammates faster so I can help them out" Counter: as above, maps have been stretched to accommodate sprint. That means that on the maps in Halo 4, the average time you spawn from your teammates is no different than the average time you spawn from your teammates in Halos 1, 2 or 3. Therefore, you simply do not get to your teammates any faster. Argument 13: "it adds an element of excitement and franticness" Counter: First of all, there was no lack of excitement in previous Halo games for the people that liked the gameplay that they were built upon. As mentioned in an earlier part of this post, Halo doesn't need to change fundamentally - alienating many who appreciated the original core gameplay - just to please people who aren't already into the franchise. Secondly, any number of things could add a sense of excitement, adrenaline and franticness; things such as giving all players Rockets and perks that get rid of the need to reload. However, these things come with draw-backs, and therefore are not appropriate gameplay additions. Sprint is no different. Argument 14: "it's annoying to switch from one shooter to another and having to get used to no sprint" Counter: any number of differences in gameplay and button layouts between games could be annoying, but variety and gameplay are far more important than consistency between different game franchises. The slight inconvenience of having to get used to different gameplay for different games is nothing compared to the inconvenience of all games in each genre being the same in every way, and at the expense of quality gameplay, just so that some people don't have to learn to get used to the differences when they switch between games. Many games have the ability to go prone and aim down sights, but we don't say that Halo absolutely has to have those in order to be consistent with other games. Halo playing like Halo and working as a whole from a gameplay perspective is far more important than Halo not being inconvenient to switch to will ever be. ... The Big Question You might be thinking: "so why on Earth do people like sprint?" Well, there are 3 legitimate reasons that people like sprint in Halo: 1) As we discussed earlier on, it gives the illusion of speed. Some people genuinely enjoy the illusion, and it's completely understandable. However, the negative impact on gameplay is far more important than the intangible illusion of traversing maps slower without sprint. 2) It's slightly more convenient to move between shooters that all have the same or similar mechanics. 3) It's another defensive ability which makes the game easier. We've all heard this referred to as the 'get out of jail free card'. And as we discussed earlier, it allows players to run away more easily from encounters they are losing, which means they don't have to stay and fight it out as often. Some people find these types of defensive capabilities - which make playing the game require less skill and thought - to be enjoyable. That's not something I would personally criticize, but it is something that is objectively bad for deciding on how the core gameplay of Halo is built, as those are not the principles Halo's core gameplay was originally built around or known for. Please feel free to let me know if you disagree with anything, and please feel free to share with people the arguments you find in this thread if you can't seem to put them into words. Thanks for reading.

I see this posted pretty much everywhere: "Halo needs to go back to its roots. Take out sprint and armor abilities." I don't really want to argue about whether or not sprint should be in the game because I mostly think it's a really dumb argument. It's more realistic to sprint and to some having more realism is more important than having the type of gameplay we did without sprint. There is no right answer once again it's just people's opinion. Armor abilties however...I don't like their current implementation either but I believe they have a place in the game. A core gameplay element of Halo has been racing to weapons/power-ups on the map. I'm not sure if Halo started this kind of gameplay but I know that games even today adapt this mechanic (battlefield 4). It's a really fun and rewarding mechanic. Whether or not Halo started this mechanic I would argue that it is essential to Halo, just like no ADS. Having no ADS may seem stupid and to be honest it kind of is but without it I believe the way Halo plays would just change too much. Besides the spartan's have H.U.D which allows them to hipfire accuratley with the center reticle. I think that armor abilties should be in the game but I think that they should be severley limited compared to their current frequency. I think that 1, 2 at most armor abilities should be pick-up-able objects on the map. This way you can give armor abilties more purpose by making them essential to finding power weapons/items. For example a Banshee may only be accessable by a jet-pack. I think the issue with armor abilties is their frequency. It sucks to have to be constantly shooting desperatley upwards at people who don't know how to use jetpacks stuck miles in the sky spraying their assault rifles down at you while the rest of the team is wreslting you from behind with armor lock or zipping around you with evade. It's just a ******* mess. I don't want multiplayer to be a mess. How do you clean it up? Limit the crazy **** that players can do and give each crazy thing a clearly defined purpose. I admire 343i's effort to take multiplayer to the next level. However, giving players a bunch of crazy abilties that they can spam doesn't help making the game more fun to play. It just makes it a giant mess as I said above. So, we can have armor abilties....just make them infrequent and pick-up-able on the map. Thoughts?

Sprint. Arguably the most debated and controversial element in the modern Halo environment. With many pros and cons that make it very hard to decide between keep or drop. To be clear, I support the drop argument, but the ability of faster map crossing without putting lower skilled players at the disadvantage of being unable combating overly effective strafing seem good. However, as many of you may have seen on other threads, I have come up with which may be the best solution yet. It's simple, but I feel it can and would be very effective at resolving this very frustrating issue. The Idea: Basically, in a nutshell, it takes the main arguments for sprint; faster paced gaming, better map crossing speed without creating overly effective strafing and simple realism of the player, and gives those benefits without the sacrifice of skill gaps or creating new unnecessary ones. It does this by removing sprint, and replacing it with this mechanic: Base player strafing and backwards movement is the same speed of that seen in Halo 3, while moving in a forward direction is 110% faster than this, giving the ability to cross maps faster without the risks of being unprepared for firefights, resulting in cheap deaths. No "get out of jail free" card for mistakes, as now you cannot run faster than someone chasing you down and shooting you at the same time. Flag Carriers are no longer at a disadvantage from being unable to sprint. Able to jump larger gaps and shoot at the same time. It also gives benefits to things outside of player movement. It gives players that use Automatics a buff that does not change the weapons mechanics. In a typical Automatic vs Precision confrontation, The Precision user will attempt move backwards to prevent the Automatic user from doing both of the following: staying accurate, and preforming pummels. Now Automatics can catch up to these players and as result be able win more straight up conflicts in this style. In conclusion, I feel this is the best mutual agreement for the argument. It prevents the issues of sprint and the overly effective strafing of a universal faster base speed

I'll start off by saying that I've been a fan of the franchise since Halo: Combat Evolved, and that I'm currently studying game design. These are my impressions of Halo 4 so far after spending roughly five or more hours snapping up every tid-bit of information on the net and from E3. I'm going to focus on the things I DON'T like, there are a lot of things I'm excited for about Halo 4 including Campaign, Spartan Ops, the fact that they brought the BR back into the sandbox, etc. Please realise that I'm writing this for the love of Halo. ARMOUR ABILITIES should be removed, or toned down. They slow down the gameplay too much, they imbalance the gameplay, they're unnecessary for a fun, engaging experience and most importantly they go against the core principle of halo gameplay, that everyone has the same abilities (when I say that, I'm talking about moving, shooting, reloading, jumping, etc.) and everyone starts off a match on equal footing. I'll go into a bit of detail about the new armour abilities and why I think they're unnecessary. -Promethean Vision, the radar is a classic Halo staple, and gives players everything they need in terms of player detection. Seeing through walls also focuses the player on visual detection too much and detracts from the simply awe inspiring sound engine that's been in every Halo. -Active Camo, not sure if this has actually made the cut or if it's coming back as a powerup from an ordnance drop, in which case I wouldn't have too many problems with it. But in it's armour ability form, active camo slows down gameplay A LOT, promotes camping and is activated too often, making radar redundant. -Hardlight Shield, for those that don't know is Halo 4's version of armour lock (what I like to think of as the spanner-in-the-works of Reach) and appears like a riot shield. It's much more toned down than armour lock however most of the same problems remain. It promotes defensive gameplay, ergo slowing down gameplay, and makes 2v1 situations (traditionally always an interesting dynamic where the underdog always has that chance for the double) untenable for the lone player. It is also far too useful in team situations where focus firing should be rewarded as an active component of gameplay and is instead punished by the press of one button. -Thrusterpack is implemented like a toned down version of evade from Halo: Reach. It detracts from the gameplay because it makes grenade placement and aiming redundant when combined with the new grenade indicator (just like the jetpack did in Reach) ergo slowing down gameplay, it promotes double bashing, it makes close combat weapons like the sword and the Promethean shotgun overpowered as players are able to rapidly close distance between targets, it makes escaping far too easy and thus promotes elusive playstyles, slowing down gameplay even more. -Hologram, from what I've seen it seems to be implemented the same as it was in Halo: Reach and the same problems remain, it doesn't really add anything to the gameplay as players will use it EVERY fight, it's possible for it to trick a skilled player but most of the time it's just a small irritant, therefore it's unnecessary. -Jetpack (I really hope this doesn't make the cut) it has all the same problems as thrusterpack with the added problem of having to make all maps abuse-proof and an unhealthy redundancy of power weapons like the rocket and sword. PERKS are not as bad as armour abilities, but still unnecessary. They also go against that main tenet of core halo gameplay. SPRINT, sprint is unnecessary because; 1. Halo has never needed sprint to produce dynamic, fast, fun and engaging gameplay. 2. It rewards players for playing elusively, thus slowing down gameplay. For example it makes the important positional gameplay of Halo 2 and 3 redundant because players can high tail it out of situations with sprint that they should really be punished for entering. 3. It makes close combat weapons like the sword overpowered. 4. It promotes double bashing. The RANKING AND EXPERIENCE SYSTEM of Halo: Reach that rewards mindless playing. I'm not against an exp system that gives unlocks and shows how much a player has played in a holistic sense, but I'm more of the mind that it NEEDS to take second place next to a WORTHWHILE RANK that accurately displays a player's LEVEL OF SKILL. RANKED PLAYLISTS should not be thrown in the same category as "social" playlists like the Arena in Halo: Reach. It should have it's own category to make it seem worthwhile and important and encourage players to try it out. This was one of the main reasons the Arena in Reach is a wasteland, along with the fact that the rank attained in the Arena isn't visible outside that playlist. If armour abilities, perks, loadouts and unlocks absolutely must be in Infinity Slayer, then so be it, but RANKED PLAYLISTS should NOT have these, they should remain a more pure, traditional halo experience that I'm confident 343 can deliver. BLOOM is another major element that ruined Halo; Reach for me, it introduced far too much luck. Rather than promoting skilful shooting as it was intended, it rewards players that spam the trigger and get lucky with the bullet-spread at the more common encounter ranges. From what I've seen and heard, bloom isn't as major an issue in Halo 4 as it was in Reach but I'd like to see it removed and have distance dps modifiers implemented in a different fashion. tl;dr To sum up, and continue, SUGGESTIONS FOR HALO 4. -Remove armour abilities from the game, if they must be in, give them a long cool-down, for example 60- seconds, so that they're only usable in every 4th or more encounter rather than every encounter. OR, simply have them in a separate playlist from everything else. -Remove Sprint, Bloom and Perks from the game. -Ranked playlists separate from "social", without armour abilities, perks, bloom and with fixed loadouts. -Ranks attained in ranked playlists that are worthwhile, accurate, and given a priority on a player's gamer card in-game. -Maps to bring back from the franchises' past (me faves) Guardian, The Pitt and Sanctuary. Although I love a lot more, there's no point listing everything. -A no-scope medal! Thanks for reading.

Heres a bit of a rant about two arguments I am always reading. 1) "But that's not Halo!" -Traditionalist Halo player complaining about changes. 2) "Adapt" -Progressive Halo player complaining about people complaining about changes. Neither argument means much of anything because neither argument really says much of anything about the nature of the change being made. The first argument isn't as bad because there are a few cases when it actually applies...for example, I personally don't think the perk system in Call of Duty detracts from Call of Duty but it certainly does not belong in Halo, so I guess its okay to say "But that's not Halo!" but then (for example) when people talk about something like universal sprint or 1st person vehicles, people say "but that's not Halo!". Yeah...its not Halo because it hasn't been in Halo. Might as well say Brutes "aren't Halo" (before Halo 2) or Forge isn't Halo (before Halo 3). What I'm wondering is what is this strange intangible "Halo-ness" which we are comparing these new elements to? Then you get people saying "adapt", like when talking about changes in Reach. This is even worse than the previous argument because at least saying something wasn't Halo was making some sort of value judgement about something...with "adapt" we could be talking about any change in the book and the progressive Halo player might blindly insist that the change is for the best and that we should blindly keep singing the particular Halo game (and its developers) praises even though people might very well know in their heart of hearts that the new element is at best neutral in terms of improving the game and at worst completely stupid. Point is, the community should just judge a particular element by its own merits, not based on a need to freeze Halo as it currently is, or to deceive yourself into thinking that the last Halo is as good or better than the last.