It all comes down to gameplay, do u want it to be faster or slower scale will make that difference, like in my remake of damnation (blamnation) its about 2xs the scale but its because I wanted to slow down the gameplay a bit because scale was to fast. Its all how the forger in visioned it. Remember its all a work of art, and remakes dont need to be scale they just have to give u a sense of satisfaction.
I think scaling is entirely situational - but I think Thrusters and Clamber have impacted scaling decisions WAY more than Sprint. Our maps are getting "wider" in spots, and "taller" overall - but are pretty similar in the "forward" scale of things. The main use case for Thrusters is "OH **** A GRENADE" - and as such, players expect to be able to dart one thruster pack length away in any direction whenever they're running down a path or hanging out on a larger dancefloor. Now, as map designers, we can use the narrowness of our paths as yet another risk vs reward tool - make faster paths narrower because of grenade danger; make slower paths wider to mitigate grenade danger. Thus, the scale of paths/corridors/hallways/bridges/etc. becomes very important in this context, but the scale of major combat areas - not so much. Clamber has completely changed the way we scale for verticality. In previous Halo games, there was a major emphasis on path continuity when looking at our maps, and the dominant principle of the day was that "if you can go there, you should be able to get there without jumping." Breaks in continuity, like jump-ups or gaps across bridges, were a major tool in the map designer's arsenal. But in Halo 5, the expectation that players can and should be able to fluidly move everywhere has changed that. People are way more keen to jump and climb than ever before. We thus have to be extraordinarily careful when designing vertically separated spaces - because certain jumps can "look" clamberable when actually not being so, so we have to separate spaces vertically even more than we did traditionally if we want to maintain separate paths. This leads to a net stretching in vertical scale - or very vertical maps that still "play flat" because they're dignified jungle gyms.
This is just my 2 cents: Sprint assists in creating sightlines. It basically enhances a map which would otherwise suffer in map flow. Along with Sprint, Clamber, Thrust, and Hover/Crouch jumps lets you space out architecture to create open battle areas while not limiting movement and evasive dynamics. There are some maps, which were never designed that well in the past, that would be enhanced by these movement abilities, and there are some that don't need it, like Wizard for example. Therefore, in my opinion, the maps don't need to be scaled larger as the abilities will only enhance them. If you do scale it larger, you are basically forcing the sightlines to require Sprint and that isn't a good thing for gameplay. I would also point out that Clamber smooths out movement; you do not need to focus jumps around it. I feel like 343 put effort into making every jump a Clamber jump. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing since it lets them space out areas giving you options to move around, it lowers the diversity a bit in making the jump with or without Clamber.
I don't believe maps need to scaled up "forward" as Debo described above because, as others have stated, sprint itself has less of an impact on the scale of the map. The abilities of Thrust and Clamber are what complicates map design, especially when different movement options are introduced. For example, a sprint > slide > jump > boost > hover yields a long horizontal jump that can bridge large gaps using Clamber while a sprint > jump > crouch can increase the vertical Clamber distance. If a Forger isn't aware of these tricks while designing their spaces the intended vertical or horizontal integrity of the map could be compromised as new routes around the map open up. This is further complicated by the physics glitches in the game that enable players to take unintended movement options, like the "Super Slide." Conversely these options also enable Forgers to create unique movement options that reward skilled and coordinated gameplay. For example, when designing a vertical map the Forger could purposefully create a gap that can be spanned only using one of these tricks while keeping the area very exposed making it a high risk play with a possibly high reward (e.g. getting to a power weapon faster). The issue here arises when attempting to Forge spaces that maintain the sight lines and routes the Forger intended while preventing players from making unintended jumps. In my experience, either the line of sight has to be changed or the map gets reworked to include that route in the design by balancing the rest of the map around its addition (e.g. make the player really vulnerable to player attack, make it so the jump can access only a specific part of the destination ledge, etc.). As for making a ledge not clamber-able through invisible blockers or other tricks, I would not recommend it as it would frustrate players. I know as a player I can clamber ledges so if I see a ledge in jumping distance that looks like I can clamber onto it, I want to be able to clamber onto it. If I find that I cannot clamber to that ledge I'll be confused, attempt it a few more times to fail, and then get frustrated asking myself "It is clearly in my reach, why can't I grab that ledge?!?!"
The problem is not with the engagement distances, but rather the movement. The unlimited, high-sprint means the maps need to be bigger to keep engagements paced out and separate and give people time to recover. If you try going with old-school say, Midship, Guardian, Snowbound, Anchor 9 etc. you'd find that you're getting into combat way to quickly and basically can almost never fully recover your shields. A map like Citadel, which was already quite large in Halo 3, doesn't suffer as much from this.
I disagree with sprint as a reason for increasing travel distances. Scaling up your map with that in mind will boil down to forcing sprint in certain situations. It will also lead to more linear areas when actual engagements happen. Halo has always been been about movement with gunplay together. When maps are designed around sprint they seperate the map to a point where certain areas feel nearly devoted to travel while other are more devoted to combat. I prefer the whole map to be devoted to combat, making player more hesitant to drop their guns. Encouraging walking speed is a better solution than allowing sprint to alter maps.
I personally believe that up-scaling a remake kind of breaks what made the original map special. Sure, you can compensate and retain lines of sight and relative travel times, but a bloated-looking Guardian is just that. I like to believe that Spartan Abilities merely facilitate faster flow and more intense gameplay than "breaking" maps.
While upscaling is a pretty surface level approach, the range of the utility weapon in this game completely contradicts the movement speed. You have an extremely short RRR with the pistol and fairly forgiving and quick movement options, these make for a weird combo. The only upscaling something needs is in relation to thrust and not Sprint. Otherwise it's more likely design changes, not scaling that's the issue.
I agree big time. Disabling clambering is definitely a viable option, but I would try to make it obvious that clambering won't work just from the look of it. As for slowing players down... Lots of pigs scattered everywhere with short respawns when disturbed. There's NO possible downsides to this! Also moving sidewalks, per the Jetsons. Halo occurs in the future and its ridiculous that any maps were ever created without them.