Every argument for sprint, countered

[Jazzii Man]

I should explained that before the patch Halo 4's base movement speed was 10 % slower than in Halo 3, after the patch they were equal, making sprint at least 10 % faster.

It's still the increase in base speed that made the difference then, not the inclusion of sprint.

 

You misread, field of vision is not used, a change in field of view all of sudden with the press of a button is disorientating this is not personal, this is biology. to give any feel of moving faster, instead of just only increasing speed they add motion blur to make it more in terms of real life view. Again sprint does not give an illusion, it increases speed.

Ah that's where the confusion is coming in. I was never suggesting that there should be a sudden change in FOV at the push of a button, but rather an appropriate increase in FOV that is permanent.

Also, you're still claiming that sprint increases speed in response to the arguments I've given as to why sprint does not make Halo 4 faster than a lack of sprint in previous games. Of course sprint makes you faster than if you were not to sprint, but sprinting in a game that compensates for sprint with larger maps is not faster than moving at top speed in a game that has smaller maps to compensate for a lack of sprint.

 

The combination of moving and shooting is still there, sprinting adds an extra movement option,

The combination of top movement speed and shooting is not there.  

 

I understand your point perfectly, because most of all sprinting cancels a fundamental part of Halo namely shooting, but I think the trade off does balance it,

Balances what? I don't know what you're saying is being balanced here.

 

... being able to shoot during sprint renders it useless, while 343I wants it to be part of the game.

Exactly! Exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly. BAM. Right there ^

It's not an increase in travel speed when it comes to traversing maps.

It's not an increase in travel speed when it comes to getting into battle faster.

It's not immersion.

It's not believability.

It's not lore.

It's not canon.

It's the fact that you can't shoot that makes sprint "worthwhile". If sprint is "useless" without lowered weapons, then that simply means it's the lowered weapons that give it the "purpose" of being in the game.

That's exactly my point. Those who like sprint enjoy the impact that lowered weapons at top speed has on gameplay - the impact being that it is easier to get out of a bad situation when your enemy can't match your speed and shoot you at the same time.

Travel times aren't impacted by whether or not you can shoot.

 

Shooting a sprinter slows them down to normal speed, making sprint useless and if they do not equipe the infinite sprint perk well they just wasted their chance , I think I should have elaborated more on this.

It slows them down momentarily, not nearly enough to negate the effect of the fleeing player having an easier time getting out of a bad situation than the pursuing player has when it comes to keeping them in the bad situation.

 

I wish you would read that part again, I didn't mean speed up the game, I was merely saying it increases yoru speed of its own.

Please can you elaborate on this. I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by the bolded part.

 

Bit on a side note here, I enjoy this discussion, been a long time since I could argue with someone on this level.

I prefer not to call it an argument because that word has negative connotations that really don't apply to what we've been doing here. But I totally agree, it's enjoyable when it happens like this. It proves that there's no reason two people can't discuss a subject that they heavily disagree on without resorting to hostility.

lol indeed and above i meant to quote coldfreeze instead of that guy who doesnt know what hes talking about

Feel free to chip in. Demonstrate how I don't know what I'm talking about - I invite you to do so.

So basically, it doesn't matter if everybody finds the implementation of it utterly retarded/the greatest thing ever to the metagame? That makes no sense considering games are made to cater to players.

If literally every person who cared about Halo had the same opinion on it, then there would be no reason not to put it in the game. Same case for any feature.

If literally every person in the world demonstrated that they will not play the game unless:

1) Rockets, Swords and Incineration Cannons are loadouts options

2) There is a perk that grants all your weapons to kill all enemies within a 10 meter radius

3) Armour Lock is a default ability that lasts as long as the player holds the button and has no cool-down time

4) Going prone, aim-down-sights and grenade cooking are put in there

 

... then by all means they may as well be in the game. But then why put Halo in the title?

 

In a world where not everyone shares the same opinion, and where Halo's original gameplay obviously already has its fans, then there is no reason to focus on any individual's opinion as if it is an authority - which is why I point out that simply saying 'I like it and that's all that matters' is not a very convincing argument when it comes to demonstrating that sprint should indeed be in Halo - and every reason instead to focus on building the game around the principles of the original games themselves.

 

"If a developer had that thought process, this is how they'd go:

"Oh, I think sprint isn't good when added to Halo. But my opinion is irrelevant as to whether or not it should actually be in the game though - therefore that's why I should add it."

*Add's sprint to Halo*"

This just simply doesn't relate in any shape or form to what I've been saying. What you're claiming here is not only something that I haven't been saying, but it is in fact the polar opposite of what I've been saying.

What I've been saying is that an individual's personal enjoyment of a feature is not enough in itself to argue in favour of the feature. That's very different than suggesting that we should look at an individual's opinion and then for some reason cater to the exact opposite.

 

"Just because it is designed from the ground up around core gameplay doesn't stop something from featuring sprint. Halo 4 is certainly designed from the ground up around core gameplay that is consistent with that of the original games; it has, y'know. Guns, Melee, Grenades - a la golden triangle. It has radar. It has shields. It has many core features; it has many new features."

Logical fallacy: some things are consistent, therefore all things must be consistent.

All you've done here is pointed out that there are some aspects that are consistent from Halo 4 with the original Halo games, but that does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that every important aspect of the game has been kept intact.

 

"I think the reason why it's relevant to point how how Halo 4 could suffer due to lack of sprint is because, y'know, this is an argument FOR sprint."

You've demonstrated to me that you either didn't read over that part properly, you didn't understand it, or you are being dishonest in your response.

That's an argument for keeping sprint in Halo 4 post-release (due to the game having been designed, made and shipped already), not an argument for keeping sprint in the franchise from now on. If you don't understand the difference, then I'm lost for where to go from here because any attempt to clarify would just be saying what I already said in the post you were responding to. I guess I'll ask you to read it over for clarification and hope for the best.

 

"Tell me the FACTUAL, PROVEN, 100% true reasons that have no relation whatsoever to opinion, that sprint is plain bad and that it should never be in a Halo game ever again."

Tell me the "FACTUAL, PROVEN, 100% true reasons that have no relation whatsoever to opinion" that sprint is good and should be kept in future games.

 

What I can tell you are the reasons that it is not consistent with the things that made Halo play the way Halo used to play at a core level. Whether or not you think games should be consistent from a core gameplay perspective from game to game is up to you, but whether or not the games actually are consistent from that perspective is not a subjective matter. I mean, we can have our opinions on those things, but we are still either right or wrong about it.

We can think that green is a nice colour, and we wont have to worry about being right or wrong because that is a genuinely subjective point of view.

We can think that green is the colour of sand, but we are either right or wrong about that.

 

If you want the reasons that sprint is not consistent with the way previous games played on a fundamental level, then I'll go into a small amount of detail here:

1) Halo used to put advantages and disadvantages in the hands of the players alone. If a player was put in a disadvantageous position, it happened in the face of equal opportunity - the game wasn't set up so that one player had it easier than the other - and more importantly, if that player was to take themselves out of that bad situation, they had to exert a similar skill level to put themselves back on top. That push and pull factor happened due to the skills and decisions of the players alone, and NOT due to any advantages that the game granted them.

 

Sprint changes this because, well... here's the part from the OP:

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.

 

2) Halo used to grant the ability to all players to be able to move and shoot all at the same time and at any speed. This meant that gameplay revolved around the skills that were present when players effectively combined movement (strafing and running) and shooting (handling descope, aiming) simultaneously. None of this ever got in the way of map movement, as players didn't have to trade-off between traveling and shooting - it all happened at the same time.

With sprint, all of this changes. In order just to travel from one place to another at top speed, I have to completely sacrifice my ability to shoot, and thus movement is traded with combat.

It's the complete opposite of what we had originally, which was a necessity for the effective combination of the two. Trade-off vs combination - it changes the way Halo plays out at a fundamental level, and whether we personally like it or not, it simply isn't consistent with the way Halo played originally.

Your inevitable response will be to tell me that it's only my opinion that these things are bad for Halo, but again, that brings the argument down to whether or not game sequels should be consistent at their core with the gameplay of their predecessors. The argument at that point actually ceases to be about sprint and its impact on gameplay.

[Is not JL]

If literally every person in the world demonstrated that they will not play the game unless:

1) Rockets, Swords and Incineration Cannons are loadouts options

2) There is a perk that grants all your weapons to kill all enemies within a 10 meter radius

3) Armour Lock is a default ability that lasts as long as the player holds the button and has no cool-down time

4) Going prone, aim-down-sights and grenade cooking are put in there

 

... then by all means they may as well be in the game. But then why put Halo in the title?

 

In a world where not everyone shares the same opinion, and where Halo's original gameplay obviously already has its fans, then there is no reason to focus on any individual's opinion as if it is an authority - which is why I point out that simply saying 'I like it and that's all that matters' is not a very convincing argument when it comes to demonstrating that sprint should indeed be in Halo - and every reason instead to focus on building the game around the principles of the original games themselves.

It may not be a very convincing argument but it is nonetheless argument that you literally cannot argue against because it is an opinion.

 

"I like something." "No, you're wrong." That clearly doesn't make sense, and in this situation it's the same; you can't argue back against an opinion, because opinions, to the person who generated the opinion, are always right. Maybe he's dumb and objectively wrong, but subjectively, to him/her, he or she is right.

 

 

"If a developer had that thought process, this is how they'd go:

"Oh, I think sprint isn't good when added to Halo. But my opinion is irrelevant as to whether or not it should actually be in the game though - therefore that's why I should add it."

*Add's sprint to Halo*"

This just simply doesn't relate in any shape or form to what I've been saying. What you're claiming here is not only something that I haven't been saying, but it is in fact the polar opposite of what I've been saying.

What I've been saying is that an individual's personal enjoyment of a feature is not enough in itself to argue in favour of the feature. That's very different than suggesting that we should look at an individual's opinion and then for some reason cater to the exact opposite.

It may be two different things but the situations can align. Just because the intention isn't to cater to the exact opposite, doesn't mean it isn't possible to cater to the exact opposite as well. Your point is that an individual's personal enjoyment is not enough to argue for or against a feature being included; here is an example of just that - and you clearly understand how illogical it is.

 

 

"Just because it is designed from the ground up around core gameplay doesn't stop something from featuring sprint. Halo 4 is certainly designed from the ground up around core gameplay that is consistent with that of the original games; it has, y'know. Guns, Melee, Grenades - a la golden triangle. It has radar. It has shields. It has many core features; it has many new features."

Logical fallacy: some things are consistent, therefore all things must be consistent.

All you've done here is pointed out that there are some aspects that are consistent from Halo 4 with the original Halo games, but that does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that every important aspect of the game has been kept intact.

But why do we need to keep every single important aspect of the game intact? If that were true, then we'd be playing clones of whatever Halo you are referring to as the 'core' gameplay. Halo 2 would not have been the same if every single important aspect from Halo: CE was kept; Halo 3 would not have been the same if every important aspect from Halo 2 was kept.

 

 

"I think the reason why it's relevant to point how how Halo 4 could suffer due to lack of sprint is because, y'know, this is an argument FOR sprint."

You've demonstrated to me that you either didn't read over that part properly, you didn't understand it, or you are being dishonest in your response.

That's an argument for keeping sprint in Halo 4 post-release (due to the game having been designed, made and shipped already), not an argument for keeping sprint in the franchise from now on. If you don't understand the difference, then I'm lost for where to go from here because any attempt to clarify would just be saying what I already said in the post you were responding to. I guess I'll ask you to read it over for clarification and hope for the best.

Except Halo 4 is clearly a Halo game, and you've consistently said that the new games should be made with the older games' core features intact. Halo 4 had sprint as a core feature - do we have to 100% not build off Halo 4's core gameplay?

 

 

"Tell me the FACTUAL, PROVEN, 100% true reasons that have no relation whatsoever to opinion, that sprint is plain bad and that it should never be in a Halo game ever again."

 

What I can tell you are the reasons that it is not consistent with the things that made Halo play the way Halo used to play at a core level. Whether or not you think games should be consistent from a core gameplay perspective from game to game is up to you, but whether or not the games actually are consistent from that perspective is not a subjective matter. I mean, we can have our opinions on those things, but we are still either right or wrong about it.

We can think that green is a nice colour, and we wont have to worry about being right or wrong because that is a genuinely subjective point of view.

We can think that green is the colour of sand, but we are either right or wrong about that.

How on earth does thinking sprint should/shouldn't be in a future Halo game relate to thinking that Green is the color of sand? It's like you were attempting to make a metaphor, but along the way of making it logic decided to not take part and just walked out.

 

 

If you want the reasons that sprint is not consistent with the way previous games played on a fundamental level, then I'll go into a small amount of detail here:

1) Halo used to put advantages and disadvantages in the hands of the players alone. If a player was put in a disadvantageous position, it happened in the face of equal opportunity - the game wasn't set up so that one player had it easier than the other - and more importantly, if that player was to take themselves out of that bad situation, they had to exert a similar skill level to put themselves back on top. That push and pull factor happened due to the skills and decisions of the players alone, and NOT due to any advantages that the game granted them.

Yes, this is obvious, except:

 

 

Sprint changes this because, well... here's the part from the OP:

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.

Unfair and unearned advantages to players always appear in any situation; you're nitpicking on a single 'unfair and unearned' advantage. The reality of the fact is that you can consider this situation in 2 different ways - it is completely fair: Because both players spawned EQUALLY - OR at any given moment one player has a momentous advantage over the other: Because gameplay is dynamic, and always in motion. 

 

The situation you've described above can be summed up like this:

 

- 2 men enter

- 1 men is defeated in the encounter due to a number of factors

- However, he isn't dead yet and thus is given the option to retreat

- His retreat is successful; the person attacking him was given ample oppurtunity to chase down, kill, or prevent the retreat but simply wasn't skilled/lucky enough to do so due to yet another set of factors

- The person who failed at killing his adversary blames it on the fact that his enemy had the ability to escape while he didn't utilize his ability to chase at all.

 

Not just that - lets say you chase, shields recharge, yadahyadah - the encounter is in no way over, because your chase is successful. If there was a perk that the escapee/chaser had that gave them an advantage, then yes, that's unearned. But in this situation, if we assume that it isn't - the encounter hasn't been finished, and therefore it is STILL 2 men enter, the better (with a number of governing factors *cough* luck *cough) man leaves. 

 

 

2) Halo used to grant the ability to all players to be able to move and shoot all at the same time and at any speed. This meant that gameplay revolved around the skills that were present when players effectively combined movement (strafing and running) and shooting (handling descope, aiming) simultaneously. None of this ever got in the way of map movement, as players didn't have to trade-off between traveling and shooting - it all happened at the same time.

With sprint, all of this changes. In order just to travel from one place to another at top speed, I have to completely sacrifice my ability to shoot, and thus movement is traded with combat.

Except gameplay still revolves around the skill in players combining their movement and shooting simultaneously. They simply have a new choice to make, one that could be a deciding factor in many engagements. 

 

 

It's the complete opposite of what we had originally, which was a necessity for the effective combination of the two. Trade-off vs combination - it changes the way Halo plays out at a fundamental level, and whether we personally like it or not, it simply isn't consistent with the way Halo played originally.

Your inevitable response will be to tell me that it's only my opinion that these things are bad for Halo, but again, that brings the argument down to whether or not game sequels should be consistent at their core with the gameplay of their predecessors. The argument at that point actually ceases to be about sprint and its impact on gameplay.

If literally every person who cared about Halo had the same opinion on it, then there would be no reason not to put it in the game. Same case for any feature.

It definitely isn't a necessity.

 

And yes, the inevitable response is that this is your opinion - and it is. 

 

Sprint has changed up the gameplay, in a unique way that has changed the way Halo 4/Reach plays with non-sprint Halo. Whether or not you find enjoyment in this new playstyle is completely subjective.

 

Your argument entirely is that you want Halo 1, 2 and 3 styled gameplay being the style of gameplay in future Halo games and for that reason sprint shouldn't be in the game. However, it's clear that you can build sprint into the game even if you build off your so called 'core' of Halo games, as evidenced by Halo 4. Any further feelings you have that implies sprint goes against said core gameplay has been subjective opinion, and most of them based off of/referencing situations where a player isn't skilled enough to win an encounter and places the blame on a game mechanic that he, too, can utilize.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Meteor Storm

[Axilus Prime]

This thread is still going?
 
Buddy, it's pretty clear that you aren't here to debate, but rather have already made up your own mind. You're claiming your opinion is absolute fact, being generally obnoxious, and
 

[Jazzii Man]

It may not be a very convincing argument but it is nonetheless argument that you literally cannot argue against because it is an opinion.

    "I like something." "No, you're wrong." That clearly doesn't make sense, and in this situation it's the same; you can't argue back against an opinion, because opinions, to the person who generated the opinion, are always right. Maybe he's dumb and objectively wrong, but subjectively, to him/her, he or she is right.

You're confusing two different things here:

1) The argument that sprint is enjoyable

2) The argument that that is enough of an argument in itself to demonstrate that a feature should be in a game.

My argument goes against number 2. I don't argue that a person is lying if they say they enjoy sprint in Halo, I argue that that in itself isn't a very good argument for keeping a feature in a game, and I go into detail as to why that is.

In the end you actually agree with me, because the very first thing you say is that it may not be a very convincing argument, which is exactly the thing I've been saying. But the second half of that sentence is irrelevant because I'm not arguing against a person's personal enjoyment of sprint.

 

It may be two different things but the situations can align. Just because the intention isn't to cater to the exact opposite, doesn't mean it isn't possible to cater to the exact opposite as well. Your point is that an individual's personal enjoyment is not enough to argue for or against a feature being included; here is an example of just that - and you clearly understand how illogical it is.

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here. I'm not entirely convinced that you do either.

I'll go over it again:

My argument: an individual's personal enjoyment of a feature isn't enough in itself to argue in favour of the feature being in a game.

The straw-man that you replaced that argument with: we should look at an individual's opinion and then cater to the exact opposite.

 

If you don't see how those are two entirely different things being said, then once again, I'm lost for how else to explain it.

 

But why do we need to keep every single important aspect of the game intact?

Why do we need to keep every single important aspect of the game intact? Well, because they're important? If they didn't absolutely need to be kept intact then they wouldn't be important. This is semantics revolving around the word 'important'.

 

If that were true, then we'd be playing clones of whatever Halo you are referring to as the 'core' gameplay.

I should have remembered what site I'm on, and I mean no disrespect by saying that. But you aren't aware of what core gameplay is if you think that core gameplay refers to the contents of an entire game.

Halo 2 would not have been the same if every single important aspect from Halo: CE was kept; Halo 3 would not have been the same if every important aspect from Halo 2 was kept.

See above.

You're confusing core gameplay with secondary gameplay. Core gamepaly was kept entirely intact from Halo CE to Halo 2 to Halo 3. The gameplay changed, by the changes were aligned with the fundamental ways in which the original game played.s

 

 

Except Halo 4 is clearly a Halo game, and you've consistently said that the new games should be made with the older games' core features intact. Halo 4 had sprint as a core feature - do we have to 100% not build off Halo 4's core gameplay?

Once again I'm struggling to grasp what it is you're trying to say. Halo 4 is 'clearly a Halo game' because it shares certain things with the older games and it has Halo in the title, but that does nothing to say that everything that should be consistent has been kept consistent. I have already gone through this.

 

How on earth does thinking sprint should/shouldn't be in a future Halo game relate to thinking that Green is the color of sand?

Straw-man argument, yet again. Sigh.

Read that part over again please... slowly and carefully.

Enjoying sprint and thinking that Halo should have sprint is the equidistant of liking the colour green.

Claiming that sprint does or doesn't have a certain objective impact on the game is the equivalent of claiming that a particular object (that does indeed have a colour) is green. You're either right or wrong in this regard.

 

Unfair and unearned advantages to players always appear in any situation; you're nitpicking on a single 'unfair and unearned' advantage.

I knew that we'd get to this point eventually. People always make this confusion.

 

If a situation is uneven -meaning one player has better height advantage, better weapons, shields are higher etc. - that is a situation that occurred (in traditional Halo) due to the combined actions of the players themselves.

Once again you're confusing two different things:

1) The unevenness that occurs due to the actions of the players.

2) The unevenness that occurs due to the mechanics the game imposes on the players that promote inequality and randomness.

 

Sprint is one-sided in its benefits.  

 

 

- 2 men enter

- 1 men is defeated in the encounter due to a number of factors

- However, he isn't dead yet and thus is given the option to retreat

- His retreat is successful; the person attacking him was given ample oppurtunity to chase down, kill, or prevent the retreat but simply wasn't skilled/lucky enough to do so due to yet another set of factors

- The person who failed at killing his adversary blames it on the fact that his enemy had the ability to escape while he didn't utilize his ability to chase at all.

You're still ignoring the dynamic I talked about where sprint is one-sided in its benefits. It doesn't matter that the chasing player has the option to chase, what matters is that the fleeing player is given a free button which replaces the skill and decision making he would otherwise have had to exert in order to gain the rightful place of being back on top. You continue to ignore this, but I'd like you to address this point directly.

We could argue for any feature in the same manner. Armour Lock is good and balanced because the attacking player still has the option to kill the Armour Lock player when he comes out of it.

SO WHAT! That's not the point!

The point is the Armour Lock player was given a free defensive ability which takes away from the necessity to exert a similar amount of skill and decision making to put themselves back on top in that situation. Where in older Halo's that person would have to fight their way out in the face of being at a disadvantage by using similar skills that their opponent had to use to put them in a disadvantageous position.

 

Except gameplay still revolves around the skill in players combining their movement and shooting simultaneously. They simply have a new choice to make, one that could be a deciding factor in many engagements.

It doesn't revolve around the combination of top movement speed and shooting. Top movement speed now comes with the draw-back of having to lower weapons and choosing travel over combat. By claiming this isn't true, you're claiming sand is green.

 

"And yes, the inevitable response is that this is your opinion - and it is."

I actually wrote down your inevitable response for you so that I could cut right to my counter-argument in the hopes taht your counter would be in response to that counter. Instead you've opted for repeating the original argument which has already been countered. All I can do here is ask politely that you read and respond to the counter-argument.

 

"Sprint has changed up the gameplay, in a unique way that has changed the way Halo 4/Reach plays with non-sprint Halo. Whether or not you find enjoyment in this new playstyle is completely subjective."

I don't see why that's relevant. It should be obvious by now that whether or not sprint is enjoyable is subjective - I mean, I've gone to enough detail to make it clear that I think that.

 

"Your argument entirely is that you want Halo 1, 2 and 3 styled gameplay being the style of gameplay in future Halo games and for that reason sprint shouldn't be in the game. However, it's clear that you can build sprint into the game even if you build off your so called 'core' of Halo games, as evidenced by Halo 4."

All you've done here is asserted that it is clear, but that does nothing in itself to demonstrate that it is. Tell me directly how sprint actually does fit with the fundamental ways that the original games played, and in doing so, counter the things I've said ind defense of the idea that sprint does not.

 

"Any further feelings you have that implies sprint goes against said core gameplay has been subjective opinion, and most of them based off of/referencing situations where a player isn't skilled enough to win an encounter and places the blame on a game mechanic that he, too, can utilize."

Again, whether or not sprint impacts the game in a certain objective way does not relate to feelings or subjectivity. What's subjective is whether or not  that impact is actually enjoyable. I'm here to debunk the objective claims about the way sprint impacts gameplay. Simple as that.

"This thread is still going?"

It's a thread. It doesn't have a deadline.

 

"Buddy, it's pretty clear that you aren't here to debate, but rather have already made up your own mind."

Firstly, the two are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, if by having made up my own mind you mean that I've countered people's arguments and continue to be unconvinced by them, then yes. But why is that worth mentioning? It should be self-evident in my posts that I'm yet to be convinced of my opposition's views.

 

"You're claiming your opinion is absolute fact, being generally obnoxious, and"

No, and good job on contributing yet another straw-man argument which puts words in my mouth rather unfairly.

I'm claiming that:

1) Whether or not I or anyone else personally enjoys sprint is subjective. Not fact based.

2) Whether or not sprint has a certain objective impact on gameplay is not subjective. There is a right or wrong and therefore more discussion is needed. It could be that I'm wrong and it could be that I'm right, but the actual answer is not opinion based.

[Coldfreeze]

I think I finally understand what you mean.

 

As I am discussing sprint as an extra feature falling in the category of jumping and crouching.

 

While you think it is useless, because it's basically an increase in speed for 5 seconds without any ways to attack or defend and it gives the oposition a chance to chicken out forcing you to sacrifice attack and you say that rather treating it is an extra movement option like jumping or crouching, it should be removed, since it basically is just a increasement in base movent with severe lmitations.

 

We differ on these subjects a lot, but I can see sprint implemented on a different way. not lowering the weapons at all, but for instance decreasing accuracy for speed, allowing you to attack, with a minor difference, instead of sacrificing anything at all. 

 

If I look from your side, sprint is silly, useless and pretty dumb, no attackin or defending only speed, while giving you an "illusion" of sprinting, while increasing base speed, has the same effect of speed, but keeps its funcitonality.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

[Buns]

This thread is still going?

 

Buddy, it's pretty clear that you aren't here to debate, but rather have already made up your own mind. You're claiming your opinion is absolute fact, being generally obnoxious, and

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Jazzii Man]

I think I finally understand what you mean.

 

As I am discussing sprint as an extra feature falling in the category of jumping and crouching.

 

While you think it is useless, because it's basically an increase in speed for 5 seconds without any ways to attack or defend and it gives the oposition a chance to chicken out forcing you to sacrifice attack and you say that rather treating it is an extra movement option like jumping or crouching, it should be removed, since it basically is just a increasement in base movent with severe lmitations.

 

We differ on these subjects a lot, but I can see sprint implemented on a different way. not lowering the weapons at all, but for instance decreasing accuracy for speed, allowing you to attack, with a minor difference, instead of sacrificing anything at all. 

 

If I look from your side, sprint is silly, useless and pretty dumb, no attackin or defending only speed, while giving you an "illusion" of sprinting, while increasing base speed, has the same effect of speed, but keeps its funcitonality.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Yeah exactly, and that's partly why I'm all for a fast base speed. I'm not against an increase in the feeling of speed - whether it's through increasing base speed or by increasing FOV - I'm against the change in the actual gameplay that sprint causes due to Halo no longer being fully about movement and shooting all at the same time, but instead being about a trade-off.

 

You say that you could see it being implemented in a different way where instead of weapons being lowered, accuracy is lowered, but I'm still against this because it creates the same problem - full movement and shooting ability are traded as opposed to combined.

Out of curiosity, why is it that you think there needs to even be a minor difference when a player moves at top speed? I can't help but wonder what was "broken" and needed to be fixed about the ability to move and shoot fully without one of them being hindered in order to allow for the full use of the other.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I responded to everything said in that post. It was completely unfounded.

[Surveillance]

Please, let us just be done with this.

 

Jazz, you have stated your points.

 

Let us move on.

[Axilus Prime]

I responded to everything said in that post. It was completely unfounded.

Your problem is that you act as though once you state why you disagree with something someone says to you, any statements of the same kind are invalid. You aren't God.

[Jazzii Man]

Please, let us just be done with this.

 

Jazz, you have stated your points.

 

Let us move on.

If you don't want to be a part of the discussion, that's fine, but there's no point in trying to end a discussion that you don't want to be a part of.

 

I have stated my points, but that doesn't mean that I can't counter the arguments people make. It's not necessary to say 'let's move on'. It's a thread, it's a debate, and if you personally want to move on then feel free.

Your problem is that you act as though once you state why you disagree with something someone says to you, any statements of the same kind are invalid. You aren't God.

Nope. My point is that once I counter something someone says, and you agree with what that person said, then the way to do things is to counter the things I said in response to that person. There's no point in people quoting things I've already countered.

 

It has nothing to do with me being "God", and everything to do with keeping all posts up to date with the latest counter-arguments that have been made. That's how things move forward and stay relevant.

[Axilus Prime]

You don't seem to ever consider the possibility of your counters failing.

[Jazzii Man]

You don't seem to ever consider the possibility of your counters failing.

That's a non-statement. I counter any counter-arguments people make in response to my counters, and when they don't counter directly, I make sure to point it out.

You're doing absolutely nothing by saying that I don't seem to consider the possibility of my counters being wrong. Asking people to actually respond to my counter-arguments doesn't equate to me not considering the possibility of being wrong, it equates to me wanting the discussion to actually revolve around those arguments.

[Axilus Prime]

If what you just said is true, your statements wouldn't be so repetitive. You seem to believe that by sheer repetitive pressure, you can force your opinion to become fact. You, in fact, cannot.

[Is not JL]

That's a non-statement. I counter any counter-arguments people make in response to my counters, and when they don't counter directly, I make sure to point it out.

You're doing absolutely nothing by saying that I don't seem to consider the possibility of my counters being wrong. Asking people to actually respond to my counter-arguments doesn't equate to me not considering the possibility of being wrong, it equates to me wanting the discussion to actually revolve around those arguments.

Except each time you attempt to 'revolve discussion around those arguments' it involves a lot of verbal gymnastics that generally results in your opinion being said in an objective manner while you flaunt that other people either don't understand your points and should read it again (Or, in other terms, you simply ignore certain points raised by opposing participants of the discussion) or you simply say something weird about how our opinions is equivalent to us thinking that sand is green or something equally as stupid as what is suggested. 

 

In the end, your argument goes back to giving us a fair situation that you judge as unfair simply because a good player wasn't as good as he thought and wasn't able to successfully finish his enemy.

 

I hate sprint......but that's an opinion based heavily around how I feel sprint impacts the game - or at least, Halo 4. There are times where it feels like you are flaunting your opinion as to how bad sprint is as though it is from an objective standpoint and thus factual, and you use that to counter our points which you call subjective. That, or, as said above, you simply ignore opposing points by referring them to another 'objective factual counter-argument' already posted before. Thus, you are simply not letting our words reach you in a state that even lets you consider them - after all, you have the facts while we just have feels, right? - and that's probably why there's a general feeling that you aren't here to debate or discuss, but rather as though you're repeating a pre-rehearsed script that has opinions being repeated consistently like it's a fact in hopes of SJ points while martyr syndrome is in full effect.

 

Sorry, but that's just how it feels.

 

I have no intention in seeing a discussion continue if it feels one sided not due to facts but due to opinion being claimed as fact and my points are either ignored and are either repeatedly stated to be because 'oh man you don't understand something please read it again or I don't know what to do' or equated to the utterly retarded sentence 'Sand is green' - because in my eyes, that isn't a discussion.

 

.......

 

The only thing I have left to say is that you shouldn't blame the game for your inability to play. There are times when the game truly **** blocks you, but the personal experiences I've seen you raise are always situations where (X is not good enough to kill Y before Y retreats, X blames his inability to kill Y on the fact that Y has something that X also has).

[Jazzii Man]

If what you just said is true, your statements wouldn't be so repetitive. You seem to believe that by sheer repetitive pressure, you can force your opinion to become fact. You, in fact, cannot.

You mean about having to constantly ask people to be direct in countering my arguments about sprint? Doesn't it make sense that I would have to repeat such a thing when such a thing continues to be relevant in response to the things people are saying?

 

You've done absolutely nothing here to counter the idea that:

Asking people to actually respond to my counter-arguments doesn't equate to me not considering the possibility of being wrong

Except each time you attempt to 'revolve discussion around those arguments' it involves a lot of verbal gymnastics that generally results in your opinion being said in an objective manner while you flaunt that other people either don't understand your points and should read it again

You're doing nothing by calling it 'verbal gymnastics'. You're still just making assertions without quoting specific points I've made and explaining why I'm wrong.

Which of my 'opinions' are being stated in an 'objective manner'? And how are they not objective? I want specifics here, please.

 

If I'm wrong for pointing out instances where people misread what I was saying and then telling them what I was actually saying, then you should point to specific examples and counter the arguments I made to demonstrate that what I was saying wasn't read correctly.

If you can actually directly tell me what's wrong with that, as opposed to just pointing out that I've been doing it, then that would be greatly appreciated.

 

(Or, in other terms, you simply ignore certain points raised by opposing participants of the discussion) or you simply say something weird about how our opinions is equivalent to us thinking that sand is green or something equally as stupid as what is suggested.

If I've ignored certain points, then you'll be able to give specific examples.

 

If my explanation of the difference between a subjective opinion (enjoyment of something) and objective opinions (opinions on things that do indeed have a right or wrong answer) is indeed wrong, then you'll be able to dissect it directly and point out why I'm wrong. Referring to it as 'weird' does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I'm wrong.

 

In the end, your argument goes back to giving us a fair situation that you judge as unfair simply because a good player wasn't as good as he thought and wasn't able to successfully finish his enemy.

Yet more claims that side-step the responsibility of actually countering the points I made in my arguments about why it's "unfair". If I'm wrong, address those arguments specifically. I'm not going to stop requesting if it continues not to happen.

 

I hate sprint......but that's an opinion based heavily around how I feel sprint impacts the game - or at least, Halo 4.

I hate sprint is the subjective part; the way sprint impacts the gameplay and interacts with other features is the objective part.

 

There are times where it feels like you are flaunting your opinion as to how bad sprint is as though it is from an objective standpoint and thus factual,

And here we are again, with the continued straw-man argument that has already been countered many many times. My opinion on how "bad" sprint is is my subjective opinion, and pointing that out does nothing to stay consistent with this thread, which is about objective claims made about sprint. I don't know how many times the repetition of this point will make it clear.

[Axilus Prime]

We don't have to respond to a repeated statement that you haven't convinced us of any truth in.

 

What you are asking of us is to subject ourselves to a fancy version of

 

"Yes!"

"No!"

"Yes!"

"No!"

"YES!"

"NO!"

[Is not JL]

 

You mean about having to constantly ask people to be direct in countering my arguments about sprint? Doesn't it make sense that I would have to repeat such a thing when such a thing continues to be relevant in response to the things people are saying?

 

You've done absolutely nothing here to counter the idea that:

Asking people to actually respond to my counter-arguments doesn't equate to me not considering the possibility of being wrong

You're doing nothing by calling it 'verbal gymnastics'. You're still just making assertions without quoting specific points I've made and explaining why I'm wrong.

Which of my 'opinions' are being stated in an 'objective manner'? And how are they not objective? I want specifics here, please.

 

If I'm wrong for pointing out instances where people misread what I was saying and then telling them what I was actually saying, then you should point to specific examples and counter the arguments I made to demonstrate that what I was saying wasn't read correctly.

If you can actually directly tell me what's wrong with that, as opposed to just pointing out that I've been doing it, then that would be greatly appreciated.

 

If I've ignored certain points, then you'll be able to give specific examples.

 

If my explanation of the difference between a subjective opinion (enjoyment of something) and objective opinions (opinions on things that do indeed have a right or wrong answer) is indeed wrong, then you'll be able to dissect it directly and point out why I'm wrong. Referring to it as 'weird' does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I'm wrong.

 

Yet more claims that side-step the responsibility of actually countering the points I made in my arguments about why it's "unfair". If I'm wrong, address those arguments specifically. I'm not going to stop requesting if it continues not to happen.

 

I hate sprint is the subjective part; the way sprint impacts the gameplay and interacts with other features is the objective part.

 

And here we are again, with the continued straw-man argument that has already been countered many many times. My opinion on how "bad" sprint is is my subjective opinion, and pointing that out does nothing to stay consistent with this thread, which is about objective claims made about sprint. I don't know how many times the repetition of this point will make it clear.

 

For me, this is my point proven and also cue to leave this thread. Sorry for the....mess.

[Jazzii Man]

We don't have to respond to a repeated statement that you haven't convinced us of any truth in.

What? No. Please read very very very very carefully. I really mean that. Don't skim over this.

 

If I make an argument and you want to disagree with it, then a direct counter would be something that demonstrates the lack of truth or logic in the argument itself.

 

For example, if I say that a game with lowered weapons while sprinting makes it easier to escape encounters/bad situations than a lack of lowered weapons, and then go into detail as to why that is, then a direct counter-argument would be one that quotes the part of my argument which is wrong and then goes on to explain the specific flaws. An indirect argument would be one that simply states that it's 'just my opinion'.

 

If I say that there is absolutely no logical pathway from seeing someone dislikes a certain change to assuming they're against or scared of all change, then a direct counter-argument would be one that explains why it actually is logical to draw such a conclusion. An indirect argument would be one that says 'but you are scared of change'.

 

If I say that maps have been made larger to compensate for a lack of sprint, quoting a multiplayer designer who confirms such a thing, then a direct counter-argument would be one which demonstrates that the quote is unreliable, or the designer was lying or on drugs when making the statement. An indirect argument would be to ignore the evidence I just provided and continue saying 'but Pitsfall isn't big'.

 

If I point out that Pitsfall is an isolated example and does not speak for the average map size in Halo 4, then a direct counter-argument would be to demonstrate that Pitfall is in fact not an isolated example as it is the only map in Halo 4, or to demonstrate that Pitfall does in fact speak for the average map size (without simply asserting that is does).

An indirect counter-argument would be to simply ignore the point I made and to continue to claim that Pitfall is proof that map sizes haven't been changed to accommodate sprint.

 

If I make an argument that spartans can actually sprint and shoot accurately at the same time, pointing to examples in the canon, then a direct counter-argument would be to demonstrate the lack of truth in the examples I've given, proving that they are in fact incorrect. An indirect argument would be one that states I'm 'simply not listening to what people are saying'.

 

If I explain that there are two types of opinions - those which are truly subjective and unique to each person, and those that are necessarily right or wrong - and I use an example of where this is also true by pointing out that if the subject was the colour green, then a subjective opinion would be that green is a nice/enjoyable/horrible/disgusting colour, whereas whether or not sand is green is not a subjective opinion. It isn't based on personal taste, but rather on a reality that is either true or simply not true.

And then I go on to point out that our personal enjoyment of the colour green is similar to that of our personal enjoyment of sprint in Halo - it's subjective and unique to each person, and therefore truly is opinion based. Whereas whether or not sand is green is the same as whether or not sprint impacts the game in certain objective ways - such as the question of whether or not maps have been changed to compensate for sprint - as it either is right or wrong, and even though we can have our opinions on it, we are either right or we are wrong. And therefore it is completely unnecessary to argue by saying 'well that's just your opinion'. Of course it's my opinion, but it is either right or wrong, and therefore you will need to counter my arguments directly to actually demonstrate that I'm wrong.

So when I explain that, a direct counter-argument would be to demonstrate that there actually is no such thing as a subjective opinion, or even that there is no such thing as an opinion on a claim which either has to be right or wrong. An indirect counter-argument would be one that refers to my explanation as "weird" and goes on to repeat that it is all just my opinion.

 

If someone claims I'm not here to debate, but rather have already made up my mind, and then I respond with a counter argument which explains that:

1) the two are not mutually exclusive, and

2) you can't simply say I've made up my mind and I'm not here to debate simply because I'm unconvinced by the arguments I've seen so far

... then a direct counter-argument would be one which demonstrates that the two are indeed mutually exclusive, and which demonstrates that there is indeed a logical connection between seeing that I'm unconvinced by people's arguments and then assuming that I'm 'not here to debate'.

An indirect counter argument would be one which says: "your problem is that you act as though once you state why you disagree with something someone says to you, any statements of the same kind are invalid. You aren't God."

 

If I am forced to repeat the fact that people aren't countering my arguments directly, pointing to specific examples each time, then a direct counter-argument would be one that demonstrates that the arguments I'm responding to are indeed direct.

An indirect argument would be one which says: "if what you just said is true, your statements wouldn't be so repetitive."

 

That is the difference between a direct and an indirect counter-argument, and I would greatly appreciate it if some effort was made towards actually using direct-counter arguments in response to the things I've been saying.

For me, this is my point proven and also cue to leave this thread. Sorry for the....mess.

This is another indirect argument. You did nothing to demonstrate any flaws in my reasoning. You did nothing to point out specific places where I went wrong and how I went wrong. You simply asserted that what I said had "proven" your point.

 

From now on, I will no longer be responding to any non-sprint related posts or indirect arguments. This will include things such as:

- You're scared of change

- You need to learn to adapt

- You don't know what you're talking about

- That's all just your opinion

- You just don't know how to use sprint properly

- You're obnoxious

- Nothing ever gets through to you

- Your statements are so repetitive

- You don't consider that your opinions are wrong

- You aren't God

- You aren't here to debate

 

If anyone wishes to discuss sprint itself, and would like to raise points about the arguments that I make in the OP, explaining where I'm going wrong, then I'm happy to continue with those types of discussions. Follow Coldfreeze or Twinreaper's examples.

[Buns]

This is the most intense sprint discussion in forum history

 

gg

[Axilus Prime]

It is not up to you what arguments are valid and what arguments are not, no matter what the hell you supposedly back it up with.

 

We're done.

[Surveillance]

There is quite literally nothing left to debate here. It has all been argued, posted, debated, everything.

 

I've seen some good discussion, most of it coming from the counter arguments by other members.

 

You may continue this thread if anyone even bothers to try to have a civil conversation without fear of being incessantly denied of everything their opinion entails.

 

I'm done. Going with Axilus on this one.

[Jazzii Man]

It is not up to you what arguments are valid and what arguments are not, no matter what the hell you supposedly back it up with.

 

We're done.

That's also indirect.

 

If by "valid" you mean direct, then it's up to whether or not it is direct. If by "valid" you mean correct, then you're mentioning something that doesn't relate to what I've just been explaining.

There is quite literally nothing left to debate here. It has all been argued, posted, debated, everything.

There is sprint left to debate. That part of the debate has barely been touched upon yet in comparison to the wealth of other things that have been discussed.

 

I've seen some good discussion, most of it coming from the counter arguments by other members.

That indicates a bias on your part. My discussion has all been consistently direct, free of fallacious arguments and has attempted to steer things back in the direction of sprint and the things discussed in the OP. Most of the other stuff has been an attempt to steer the discussion away from sprint, instead opting for straw-man arguments and other fallacious arguments.

An honest review of the posts in this thread would notice that I was in fact the most consistent person in trying to encourage 'good' discussion.

 

You may continue this thread if anyone even bothers to try to have a civil conversation without fear of being incessantly denied of everything their opinion entails.

There's a slight implication there that I haven't been civil. I believe I countered a similar argument earlier on in this thread. If the claim is that I haven't been civil, then quote the parts of my posts which demonstrate this and perhaps bring it to the attention of a moderator.

There's also a claim there that I have 'incessantly denied' every person's opinion. If I've denied an opinion, then I've given my reasoning for doing so. And so the thing to do in a debate is to continue those lines of discussion by directly addressing the counter-arguments I offered in response to those "opinions". Simply saying that I've denied everything is meaningless if you haven't shown specific examples of where I was wrong to deny certain claims.

 

Seeing as you guys are now leaving the discussion, I thought I'd offer those thoughts.

 

As mentioned earlier, anyone wishing to discuss sprint itself should feel absolutely free to do so. A few words to those who do:

1) If you disagree with anything in particular that I've said in the OP, then please be direct in offering a counter-argument. This means actually demonstrating flaws in my line of reasoning, as opposed to simply saying that I don't know what I'm talking about.

That is exactly what I want. I'm totally aware that not everyone agrees with me on sprint, but I should at least be granted direct discussion on the subject - I did put a lot of work into this thread, and I've worked hard to keep things 100% civil.

2) Please do not argue against things that I simply haven't said, or in other words, don't engage in straw-man arguments. For example, don't say things such as 'just because you dislike sprint doesn't mean everyone should', if I haven't made such a claim.

A good way to avoid this is to read everything I say very carefully, and try to see the actual points I'm making before replying. At this point you would have 3 options: option 1 would be to explain that you didn't understand the argument and would like further elaboration. Option 2 would be to understand the argument I'm trying to make, but then to actually quote and explain where I'm going wrong. Option 3 would be to understand the argument I'm trying to make, and then to agree with it and explain that you personally agree with me on that point. Option 4 would be to not put in the effort to see the point I'm making and then jump to claiming that my argument is simply 'weird', but option 4 is what I'm hoping we can all avoid here as it does nothing to further discussion. As you can see, we don't have to agree with each other in order for discussion to progress, we just simply need to be direct.

3) Don't be surprised when your own counter-arguments are met with more counter-arguments from myself. This is how debates work. If I continue to disagree with your reasoning, then I'll consistently go into detail as to why that is (which seems to be something quite unique to me in this thread), and therefore you shouldn't simply claim that I'm 'not listening' to your views, but instead find the flaws in my counter-arguments and address those. This is how civil debate works and it's the only way to keep things direct, straight to the point and on topic.

4) Don't get offended when you find that my views don't just suddenly change when reading your own arguments. If I don't seem to be changing my mind when you believe I should, then simply continue to point out the flaws in my reasoning. This continues from point number 3.

Follow my own style of debating for a perfect example of this, as you'll find that if I continue to disagree with something, then I'll simply continue to point out what I consider to be holes in your reasoning while quoting important parts of what you said, as opposed ignoring the points you just made and making a post claiming that you are stuck in your ways, or some other indirect argument.

5) Remember that just because I heavily disagree with you on a subject, doesn't mean I'm your enemy. I can easily disagree with my best friends on things far more controversial than sprint and yet still get along with them perfectly fine, and I think you'll find that it is quite easy to get along with me, unless of course you get easily offended and hostile in the face of consistent, direct counter-arguments, in which case you'll probably think I'm the worst person in the world.

Please, no matter how much you disagree with me, and no matter how much detail I go into to explain why I think you're wrong, just try to get along with me and know that it's all in the spirit of debate.

[Buns]

I give you props for being able to stand your around do well and encourage such a discussion over sprint. This has never happened before bravo, but I think were at a point where everyone knows where they stand and no one is going to change their mind on the issue. Lets all calm down and move onto to other topics that need discussing!

[rrhuntington]

by sheer repetitive pressure, you can force your opinion to become fact.

Welcome to the way the world runs.

[Emile A129]

this argument was dumb to begin with obviously with mobility and dexterity i can get anywhere faster then you can duh and reload faster then you or was that an illusion too?