The "Press Button for Rocket Launcher" Mentality

I'm so glad you brought this up Noooooch. Yes, I sometimes get tired of players sprinting away being "one shot" and getting away from being killed. Let's understand one thing here about Halo. Halo has always been about evading battles with the application of shields. It's simple, you find yourself in a situation where you can choose to fight or run and having those added shields allow you to escape alive from a situation that would of been sure death in other games like CoD. CoD is all about cat and mouse and who finds who first (I hate playing peek a boo). CoD style encourages camping, big time! (You just sit and hide in a corner, wait for player to run by, and bam you got a kill b/c you opened up first - NOT VERY COMPETITIVE) Halo encourages movement and player skill. That's why I think it is more competitive over just being a camp fest.

Yes, I know shitty players use sprint a lot to escape your wraith but they can on;y run away for so long and sprint doesn't allow them to play better, it just allows them to delay the inevitable for a bit longer.

Sprint was NOT designed for that and we both know it. It allows you to flank an enemy much easier and move across the map quicker. Say you're in a 1v1 battle and you kill an enemy, and afterward you have barely any health left (very common) and his teammate shows up (very common). The addition of sprint allows you to evade long enough for your shields to recharge and return to that player and make it an even fight over rather you just being a "clean up" kill.

Sprint does not make you play better, instead it opens up more options. If you don't want your players to evade and living on the "I saw you first so you should be dead" mentality then go play CoD. The most used time I see where players use sprint to evade is when they are spotted and fired upon when they know if they turn and fight they will not be able to recover and "out-shoot" the opponent. Like I said, Halo is about evading battles and not playing peek-a-boo. Think of it like a game of chess.

 

This is a post from The Sanctuary over at The Halo Council by a member named Redhat4. Here is the link to the actual thread for anyone who wants to read comments about it.

Some of his points are opinionated but they are shared by many Halo players. I particularly agree with his point about Sprint destroying (destroy is too harsh a word but it definitely influenced map design) maps.

Take Shutout in MM for example. The middle platform was made MUCH bigger than the original Lockout to compensate for the implementation of Sprint. As a result, the map suffers in gameplay because players now HAVE TO SPRINT to get across the middle of the map. This makes the middle area more of a deathtrap than it already was, creating standoffs between the towers.

You can't say that Sprint was not designed for running away. By implementing Sprint, developer's must have known, BY COMMON SENSE, that players will be able to Sprint TO AND FROM battle. So I argue that it actually WAS designed for running away, but of course it was also to get players into combat quicker (which wouldn't be necessary if we had a quicker base player speed).

You even said that it slows down gameplay yourself by saying "it just allows them to delay the inevitable." It would speed up gameplay if the player just died when they lost the fight instead of running away for 10-30 seconds.

The hypothetical scenario you described only shows that teamwork was involved so in my opinion that clean up kill was deserved.

Also, you can't compare sprinting in Halo to sprinting in CoD. The games are totally different and it's also a weak argument to say that if I don't like it then to go play CoD.

 

I was going off your point about it being natural for FPS games, rather than talking about Halo specifically. If I misinterpreted then sorry. My main concern is whether it justifies itself in terms of Halo, not whether it is a natural FPS mechanic in general.

My issue with this is that so does pain feedback. So does not being able to see in a windy desert environment. These things add neither to the fun, nor to the competitive value. Each element of realism should be able to justify itself in specific balance terms, not rest solely on being realistic. Being realistic is not inherently of any merit.

I'm sorry for being rude. That genuinely wasn't my intention, and I could have done more to ensure that my post communicated that, apologies. My intention was not to attack you, I was just saying that the realism point is ridiculous. A point which, despite regretting that I offended you, I stand by.

Just to defend my post, you're now misinterpreting me. Rude perhaps, but how was it ignorant? And I don't think that anyone who considers sprint should be belittled and talked down to at all. As I said, I think the realism argument is ridiculous. I'm perfectly willing to have sprint arguments based on balance, and it justifying itself in those terms. You're kind of jumping to the conclusion that just because I disagree with the way you approached the sprint argument, that I won't even consider it at all. That's not the case.

You make my point for me here. Halo mixes realism and arena style. Therefore you can't simply use the logic that realism justifies itself, otherwise it would follow that every aspect should enhance the realism of the game, getting rid of all arena elements. Why isn't this the case? Because it would totally undermine the basis of Halo.

Each element, be it realistic or arena style, should have to justify itself in balance terms. When we get here, my argument is that sprint does not justify itself. I see that you moved in to this discussion later on, so I'll address that afterwards.

With all due respect, that's kinda what I was saying about your realism argument, a complaint which you've still failed to address. Realism in itself is not an argument, sorry. Mechanics need to justify themselves, or you might as well argue that the most fun or competitive experience is actual war.

---

Now, to address sprint in balance terms.

As a mechanic whereby you can move faster, but lose the ability to shoot, it is inherently more rewarding for escaping than it is for pushing. It aids pushing to a degree, but only for crossing non combat areas. This is why it works so well in games like Battlefield, since when you respawn you often have to traverse larger areas in which the combat isn't focused. This is largely untrue for Halo, and whilst these areas exist, it is in more minimal and changeable terms, so the benefit for sprint in aggressive terms is minimal.

Conversely, it is incredibly useful for running away. You're generally not shooting when running away in Halo even without sprint, since moving backwards is slower than moving forwards so backing off and shooting is only an effective escape tactic over very, very short distances. Sprint enhances standard running away massively, not just because of the speed, but because of what it forces your opponent to do to counteract it: sprint as well. Thus, they lose the ability to shoot whilst pursuing you, giving you a massive boost up to retreating.

You'll be seriously hard pushed to find informed competitive voices, such as on what remains of MLG and on THC, who actually support sprint in competitive terms and can truly address these arguments. The only real arguments for leaving sprint in competitive gametypes right now are A) familiarity to increase appeal to the wider community, and prevent stagnation by having too big a divide between competitive and vanilla gametypes and B) because no sprint isn't possible without mods, so relying on it too heavily is bad for the competitive community, especially in MM terms.

As for your point about it not helping bad players stay alive for a whole game, true, but that's an extreme example. So extreme as to be almost meaningless. What it will do is help players come back from bad decisions. It's not about turning awful players in to amazing, or even decent ones, simply through running away. No one is making that claim. In competitive terms, it helps players who show a deficiency in a given situation a leg up, and hurts the idea of players being able to sufficiently punish players who make poor decisions. This is fundamental to competitive play, and why sprint was really bad on the pro circuit. It didn't help awful players, because there aren't really any awful players in the top 16. What it did was help good players turn bad decisions (in terms of positioning or awareness) around and turn it in to an advantage. Staying alive even for a few seconds can be huge, especially in games like CTF. The other team then has to focus on you, or risk you popping back out and pushing their objective etc.

This is highly demonstrative of where I think your argument falls down:

Delaying the inevitable can be of massive advantage. The extra time that this delay gives your team, and takes away from your opponent by demanding their focus on you to ensure a proper push, can be huge in a coordinated team game. It often is. It's this delay which makes sprint detrimental a lot of the time.

I was watching MLG Halo 3 from '09 only last night, and one of the most important things was how players like Pistola were able to stay alive and force the enemy to focus on him, either to protect their own side or ensure a 4 down so they could push. Sprint means that you can put yourself in situations where your awareness, positioning or even shot on their own can't ensure that you stay alive, situations where you should be an easy kill, but use sprint to retreat faster than they can chase and shoot, and thus often turn it around in to an advantage. An advantage that you didn't earn by doing anything other than running faster than the enemy can whilst retaining the ability to actually shoot.

Pistola is good at staying alive because he has fantastic movement skill even on the level playing field of a single movement skill for all players and all circumstances, because he has great awareness and judgement, and because he's a sneaky-ass beaver. Sprint gives you the advantage that he has by being awesome, just because you can run faster than they can run and shoot.

It helps retreat (which doesn't have to mean getting back to your side of the map, in competitive terms it more often means just simply staying alive on theirs, even doing so for an extra few seconds and still dying means the rest of your team can respawn and stop a push from the enemy. Sprint can literally save you from a flag cap by dint of it being so retreat friendly) much more than it helps attack.

 

He groups Reach and Halo 4's sprint in the same context assuming "Everyone always has=Choosing to use/not use"

Yea sprint has all the same effects if everyone choose sprint (like they did in MLG in reach but MLG=/=Halo) so its true of sprint but just annoying how he groups Reach sprint=Halo 4 sprint

True, I'm sure you will agree Sniper's(and other power weapons) are "Hard/er" to use.

But because rockets are so easy to use for kills means there more valuable and all power weapons have different values when deciding to rush/map control them. (Rockets aren't like a super over powered power weapon though, There good but not like a be all end all)

Small maps value Shotguns/swords>Snipers and vise versa, Except with rockets there generally one most sought after power weapons because its ease of use meaning most players value it more on any map when deciding what to rush/map control.

Your right there is little "Twitch Skills" (what I call pentagon map style skills like strafing 4shotting aim etc) involved in the rocket launcher. But there amount of strategic skills involved by having rockets on the map(that is suited for rockets)is huge.
Like Are you gonna rush/map control rockets and if not gonna rush/map control rockets what are you gonna rush/map control to make sure it's not a problem they have rockets and how many players are gonna rush/mapcontrol which power weapons giving each teams better and worse Odds at getting certain power weapons.
(BTB open map like hemorrhage if They get rockets you get sniper and avoid the rockets and get more kills the rocket guy gets) Deciding what to rush/control considering all weapons have different values to different people.

Giving players tons of strategic options about acquiring and avoiding rockets which are designed to be easy to use as a Obvious Reward.
(by reward I mean You did the hard part of strategically planning to fight for and rush and control the rockets now you get the "easy part" of using it for few "easy" kills, But you still have tons of strategic choice to save them for getting or protecting objectives or counter other power weapons/vehicles or just use them for "easy kills" which would be a poor option in a objective game)

Which halo 4 removes for "Get some kills get a potential powerful rocket that you can't know when to counter or control" So Halo 4 rockets are a problem because they removed all strategic elements of the rockets aka the skilled/hard parts about it.

 

WWWilliam:

He addresses it as if everyone had sprint because he's talking about MLG specifically, so it's a valid assumption for the purposes of an argument about MLG/full on competitive gametypes. If it was a general Halo MM discussion then yeah it'd be a bit more of a leap, but sprint was still used by the vast majority in Reach MM so it wouldn't be that unreasonable.

 

His OP makes no mention of MLG and title of the thread is "Sprint and how it single handily killed halo"

His intentionally saying Sprint killed Halo (not MLG) But he obviously means MLG because his a MLG try hard

And the reason for doing that is because he hates Reach and Halo 4

and intentionally trying to boycott the games as a hole. By saying Sprint killed Halo, Because Sprint Killed MLG and MLG is Halo and then he can continue to say "Sprint killed Halo" (which is wrong on so many levels it's disingenuous, Logical fallacy, spreading hate and not wanting to have legit discussion, His goal is to prove his absolute fact not find the truth in the issue)

But that's not my issue with it, I can ignore trolls but had to point out Reach sprint=/=Halo 4 sprint in any sense.

-Halo 4 sprint=always on=Forced MLG setting.
-Reach=Long thought out choice to be put in by MLG themselves if they wanted sprint or not(if MLG didn't think sprint was good for there gametype they wouldn't of used it)
-Default Reach gametypes=Choice to use sprint or other AA's(Then the issue is a Loadout/AA one not a sprint one)
-Default Halo 4=Sprint always on(all maps have to assume everyone has sprint and possibly AA's)
-Reach Forge/custom games=Anything you want no sprint requirement
-Halo 4 Forge/custom games=Forced to use sprint so any games/maps/minigames you play have to accommodate for sprint.

Only way Halo 4 (in regards to sprint) is the same is in a gametype in Reach where everyone spawns with Sprint as the only choice(without AA pickups on map) then you have a problem with that gametype not Reach or sprint(You could still want sprint in game just not as a default spawn for everyone)

 

This post was made in a forum discussing MLG/MLG style competitive gametypes. It is out of context here, and that was actually stated when he was quoted.

He obviously means MLG because he was talking in a context where it was obvious. You jumping to "try hard" criticisms shows that you're just as prejudiced as you're accusing him of being. Tone down on the high and mighty there, dude.

Again, he was posting in a context where it is implied that he's talking about MLG halo specifically. In this context, the idea that Sprint killed MLG Halo has more weight. I may not agree with it, but he's not making the assumptions you accuse him of at all. You're just, once again, completely failing to account for the context in which he posted and acting as if his post was made here. That's your failing, not his.

His point about vanilla Halo was simply him making the argument that watering down competitive gametypes for the sake of keeping it closer to vanilla (an argument made by those who want to maintain the appeal of MLG gametypes to the wider audience) isn't a worthwhile angle. I don't fully agree with him there, though I think his point does hold some serious weight when it comes to something as fundamental as sprint. Nor would I have chosen his phrasing by any means. But, once again, you're totally misinterpreting his comments by ignoring context, then going on a tirade.

Just to address this. You assume that people in the MLG community took KC's (the guy who did gametypes in Reach) word as law, and that if MLG put it in then the community must agree that it's competitive. This is not the case. Not the case at all.

His decision to put sprint in the MLG gametypes for V2 was far from well received. In fact, the final MLG Reach gametypes had removed it. So, even by your logic, MLG's decision to take it out MUST have indicated that they'd changed their minds and decided it didn't suit the competitive approach.

Again, vanilla is literally irrelevant. If you refuse to account for the fact that this post was made on an MLG-centric website, in the context of MLG Halo and sprint's effect on it, then be my guest. Don't expect anyone to listen to the wild rants you go off on based on this misinterpretation of his post, though. I'm not even fully in support of him, either in all of his opinions, and most definitely not in the way he frames them, with aggressive language and such, but your criticisms here are absolutely senseless and you've clearly got some kind of axe to grind.

AAs on map doesn't counteract everyone starting with Sprint, it just means they can swap it out for an alternative. I literally don't know how I can make this any clearer: his comments were made in the context of MLG, a context where (when sprint was included) it was default start for everyone. This was not well received, either by the community or plenty of pros, so I can kinda see where he's coming from with the whole "killed [MLG] Halo," even if I think it is ovedramatic.

 

Halo killed Halo

 

I could really care less about what people talk about at the Halo Council. "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one."

You seem to have shut your doors down to look at it from my view b/c you have joined the cult of sprint haters so I'm not going to waste my time talking anymore after this b/c you're simply not listening.

Halo 4 was not designed to play well on any remake of lockout or any remake at that. Plus, remakes lack creativity and originality. Why do you think 343 didn't bring any back (besides valhalla). Plus Halo never featured intentional tactical jumps into a map. That was something unintentionally added into lockout and guardian and now there is a following for something founded by the fans, not halo. I am frick'n sick of all the remakes and I complained about how remakes didn't work and that everyone and their mother was making them the first 3 months or so on here.

SPRINT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO RUN AWAY. Where are you getting this??? Bungie had a plan to implement sprint into Halo 2. They announced it through OXM when they talked about all the new changes being made to Halo 2 during production. It was designed to quickly flank the enemy to increase your combat effectiveness. Using it to run away is obviously some of the benefits that come with it. But Sprint (and many other abilities) was always apart of halo, they just finally got around to adding it in reach.

Like I said if you're sick of people escaping your wraith either make players move slow as hell or make weapons quicker at killing. Both are not halo in my opinion. And I'm not going to lose a game to a player that is not as good as me b/c he keeps "running away" and I'm certainly not going to blame sprint for my lack of ability to kill them.

 

I hate to make another worthless post, but it's "I couldn't care less".

 

It's actually "Halo killed Halo."

You also made the same mistake with the period in your failed attempt to correct me. The period goes inside the quotes.

Edit: And this is why I'm done here.

 

Idk if the halo council is a offical MLG website or something? but it was in a forum section

1. The Halo Council
2. → Halo
3. → The Sanctuary
   

and the sencturary is defined as "Discuss Halo in-depth, get help, and find/post guides and resources." Nothing indicates obviously MLG to me.

That was my entire point of first part, If he made his points then explained them and discussed them it would be fine But his aggression and the way he comprised his posts shows something (I'm not very good at explaining complicated physiological and logical systems and often comes off as high and mighty which is annoying) But I even agree with some of his points that sprint ruins competitive games in Halo 4 (my issue when he brings Reach into it)

Agreed and irrelevant.
If KC makes the MLG gametype your issue is with KC decision not Reach or Sprint.
-MLG uses sprint in Reach=Sprint is used in a balanced competitive way(with spawning with it or as a pickup whatever they want,)=No issue.
-MLG doesn't use sprint in Reach=They where given choice to use sprint if they wanted and decided it wasn't the best choice to do so=No issue.
-KC puts sprint in Reach even though its uncompetitive and unbalanced=KC is silly.
-Halo 4 forces sprint=issue

well I don't follow or view or even know what Halo council is if it's a MLG website and "The sanctuary" forum section (which technically says"Discuss Halo in-depth, get help, and find/post guides and resources." not specifically MLG) if its wildly known amongst members and people who view website its for discussing primarily MLG then that's my bad for assuming when he talks about Halo it is inherently implied because of the forum that his talking about MLG Halo.
But IMO it's just as possible(even if its a MLG forum) he could maybe, possibly, pretend hypothetically his personal opinion is "MLG is all that matters in Halo, Sprint kills MLG, Halo is Dead" (which i actually believe is pretty close to his opinion)

I'm fine with him personally hating Reach but if his going around saying that objectively
"Halo:Reach Modern **** Up" is horrible game because KC chose to put sprint in the MLG gametype"
Maybe your right I have a axe to grind with that. Because I believe objectively
"Reach was a decent game and Reach as a hole definitely wasn't killed by the choice of one person about one gametype"
Both our opinions can't objectively be true.

If it's in the context of MLG Reach has complete control over sprint so issue is with KC not sprint. Which I agree I would rather not have sprint in MLG.

Then I would reinstate my primary 99% problem with the post is that Halo 4 sprint=/=Halo Reach sprint. and he groups Reach and Halo 4 together like KC's choice to use sprint which was revoked later, and before making his thread so his issue can't be with Reach's MLG settings atm so there is a flaw in his logic, If Reach killed MLG then how did Halo 4 kill MLG? If MLG was killed in Reach then KC did it not Reach. If MLG wasn't killed in Reach then Halo 4 killed MLG.

TL;DR Reach sprint=/=Halo 4 sprint in 99% of situations

 

I don't really know what to tell you. You're right, it isn't stated, but I genuinely can't think of anyone else who hasn't understood the context in which these discussions happen. I don't want to put the onus on you to take the time to get used to the website and the nature of discussion there before even venturing an opinion on a post made there, but all I can say is that, to users of the site (who his post was obviously aimed at) the context is clear. It's not a source of confusion over there. Perhaps that's something the site admins could address, but for his part he's well within the bounds of normality there and I don't think it's fair to expect him to account for people who are unfamiliar with the website when composing his post.

Yeah, his aggression is unnecessary. My point with the Reach thing, though, is that, for the purposes of what he's discussing (MLG), everyone having sprint is a fair thing to assume because it was the case in MLG gametypes. In this sense I think it's fair to group Reach and MLG, and actually he specifically needs to address Reach because it was the game that saw the "death" of MLG Halo, regardless of what caused it.

No, because it's not about finding a person to blame. It's about working out which mechanics did the most damage to competitive Halo, because this discussion arose in the context of an ongoing debate about how we (the competitive community) should approach settings. If you phrase it as "the inclusion of sprint killed [MLG] Halo" then would you still disagree?

Yeah, totally, but that doesn't stop his criticism of sprint being true at all. Who did it isn't really the problem, it's what they did and the effect it had.

Well yeah, but to someone who plays competitive Halo and only competitive Halo, that's all the matters. Again, he's talking on a website where this context is (for users, who the post was meant for) pretty clear. It's not like he's going over to Waypoint and laying in to all the casuals. He certainly strikes me as someone who might, I'll admit, but I don't like to criticise people for what they might do based on what I think of them.

And anyway, how many people over here prioritise forge when talking about what's important to them in Halo? Basically the same thing.

Again, I think you're taking this too personally, and assuming he's talking about the wider game. If we assume he's talking solely about the competitive game, then he's saying that Reach was a horrible competitive game. Yes, maybe he should have accounted more for KC's role in it, but that doesn't stop the core of what he's criticising being sprint itself.

That's like saying that the holocaust/genocide isn't bad, just Hitler for doing it. In that context, both the action and the person who did it are the issue. In this case, the issue is both KC and his implementation of sprint. Sprint's inclusion damaged competitive Halo. I don't think it single handedly killed it by any means, but drawing all criticism away from the mechanic and on to the person who implemented it is missing the point.

MLG Halo was effectively killed in Reach because the game was dropped after one 2012 event, despite the season not being over. I think you're still reading way too much in to his wording. Reach killed MLG Halo, sprint killed MLG Halo, KC killed MLG Halo. All can be true in their own ways, they're not mutually exclusive.

Woah, how did you get that as a TL;DR? I get your above points, but even when comparing the vanilla game they're pretty much the same. Like I said above, most people ended up choosing sprint in Reach anyway, even in MM when they had the wider choice. I'd actually say that Reach sprint = Halo 4 sprint like 70%. Overall the games play pretty similarly in terms of sprint.

 

Did the inclusion of sprint in the MLG gametype kill MLG Halo? Yes,
Did the inclusion of sprint in Reach kill MLG Halo? No,
Did the inclusion of sprint in Reach or MLG Reach kill Halo? No.

Quotes from thread:
-ITS A ****ING SERIES WHERE THE LAST TWO GAMES ARE NOTHING LIKE THE FIRST 3!
-whatever is going on now and will happen in the future will always pale in comparison with old halos.
-Sprint doesn't belong in halo and I won't be back until there's a playlist I'm not forced to use it in. (Funny how that defines Reach)
-that the developers before reach were sitting around thinking, which way should we go that will be good for halo? No, it was simply a straight road to selling more games with adding bullshit like sprint and AA's in the trailer that they knew would sell more games to stupid ****ing casuals who would play for 3 weeks. Halo has been COD halo for 2 games now
-Obviously Halo Reach: Modern **** Up wasn't bad enough so they had to **** on their base a little more with Call of Halo: Space Ops

That's enough for me to form a educated judgement of his opinion. Meaning if I was asked to say YES or NO to, Is this his opinion(over 50% closer to his actual opinion then not) "KC put sprint in MLG in Reach>Sprint killed MLG>MLG is heart and soul of Halo>Reach is bad game." I was say yes. All posts point towards and gut feeling.

And in saying yes to that question makes the thread seem not so much "This is how unfortunately MLG got ruined by the inclusion of sprint in MLG" and more "Halo as a hole was ruined by Reach because Bungie put sprint in the game"(because if died in Reach it cant redie in halo 4)

If his solely talking about MLG, Sprint in MLG in Reach contributed to its death, agreed.

-Forced sprint helps kill MLG in Halo 4? Yes. (he agrees with me on this)
-Does that make Halo 4 a bad game for competitive and MLG gametypes? Yes (he agrees)
-Sprint in reach helps kill MLG in reach? yes (he agrees)
-Does that make Halo Reach a bad game for competitive and MLG gametypes? No (this is where we disagree)

We both think Halo 4 is a bad game as a hole for MLG and competitive gametypes(because of forced sprint) But only he thinks Halo Reach is a bad game as a hole for MLG and competitive gametypes BECAUSE KC put sprint in MLG.

Yes that made it a poor gametype, Doesn't make Reach bad for competitive MLG gametypes (I remember you saying once Reach had most competitive MLG gametype out of any Halo game)

62% of statistics are made up.
Also Sprint is forced in Halo 4 if only 30% of gametypes and maps benefit from sprint in the game(including all minigames forge creations etc) meaning In halo Reach (if creators made the right choices) sprint will be used in 30% of games meaning sprint is 100% of the time (assuming made right choices) 100% there is no issue with sprint because it compliments the gametype
Halo 4 30% of games its fine, 70% of the game is broken.

From those two statistic's the conclusion is:
-In Reach 100% of people have issues with sprint in 0% of the games issues with sprint
-In halo 4 100% of people have issues with sprint in 70% of the games.
(obviously hypothetical situation to explain my point

 

Punctuation smunctuation.
Getting phrases wrong to mean the complete opposite, now that's a crime.

 

This is what started that, maybe you should target the source.

 

Look, I feel like this has gotten off topic here. You originally complained that he grouped Reach and Halo 4 in terms of sprint. I explained the context which lends that assumption more weight. I'm not gonna try and defend the guy's serious hate for Reach.

Hell, even if we ignore the MLG context, can you really disagree that much? You say that Reach was different because there were alternative choices to sprint. But the vast majority of people went with sprint, therefore any negative effects are still affecting the majority of situations. Hell, if we actually look at the sprint mechanics themselves, I'd actually argue that Reach sprint was worse in basic terms. Halo 4 at least has the slowdown mechanic when you're being shot, and the basic kill times are faster than they were in Reach (even with the 85% DMR). Both of those things make it a bit more bearable.

OK, don't misquote there. First, I only ever said it was better 4v4. CE has the most competitive mechanics in the basic sense, I just think it plays better 2v2. Also, that opinion was based on A) a very modified gametype, which relied on the TU to enable zero bloom, and B) me preferring the DMR for it being a single shot weapon. The tail end of Halo Reach, and particularly Halo 4, has actually turned my opinion on the DMR right around. I'd rather put up with a burst weapon, even a spread weapon, if it avoids the infinite range, easy to use utility weapon that is the DMR. The single shot nature of the DMR was really what pushed me towards Reach over Halo 2 for MLG gametypes at their best, and my change in opinion on that front puts Halo 2 firmly back in front (even though I think both still have a whole host of issues in terms of competitive play).

I'm not even sure I understand that, but if I do:

How do you figure that sprint was only picked 30% of the time in Reach? Did you play Reach MM? It was closer to 70%.

You can't just say "30% of maps/gametypes benefit from it." That's so simple an approach as to basically make no sense. You can't just reduce it to a percentage of gametypes which benefit or suffer, it's much more complex than that.

What about all the gametypes in Reach which did force sprint? All the Pro gametypes (which were reasonably common in parts of MM), SWAT. What about those?

I'd seriously brush up on your statistics, dude. Even assuming your skewed facts there, saying that something is picked 30% of the time, and works 30% of the time, thus is fine, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how statistics work. What if every time sprint is chosen isn't in those 30% of games which work with it? The way you've approached stats there is waaaaaaaaaay off.

 

Reach sprint=/=Halo 4 sprint was basically meaning Halo 4 sprint is forced making it bad, Reach sprint was entirely a choice/option making it good. (for competitive map and gametypes)

The gametype makers and map creators choices Not the players in game choices, 30% of all maps/gametypes/mini game/Forge creations/etc and I said "Assume the creators made the right choice" meaning creators put sprint in when it was a good idea to and took sprint out when it was a bad idea to.

-In Reach 100% of people have issues with sprint in 0% of the games. (because every game that benefits from sprint has sprint, and every game that sprint would be detrimental to doesn't have sprint there is no issues.)
-In halo 4 100% of people have issues with sprint in 70% of the games. (Every game has sprint even ones that it is detrimental to making 4v4 maps huge ruining minigames all problems listed with sprint etc)
If that makes it any clearer?

Lego=Reach,Creation=gametype,*****=sprint,Vulgar=uncompetitive MLG
If you give someone Lego and you make a ***** out of it,
Does that make lego vulgar? No.
Does that make you vulgar? perhaps but irrelevant (just like blaming KC for it)
Does that make your creation vulgar? Yes

Meaning Reach is only as uncompetitive as you make it, Gametypes people create can be uncompetitive and the blame rests on the creator, That doesn't make Reach uncompetitive.

Same thing but Lego=Halo 4
If you give someone lego to make anything but it has to involve a *****
Does that make lego vulgar? Yes
Does that make you vulgar? Unknown
Does that make your creation vulgar? Yes

Meaning Halo 4 is at its core uncompetitive. And saying Reach is just as uncompetitive because someone(KC) choose to put sprint in gametype is wrong.(Yes the gametype could of been just as uncompetitive but Reach wasn't because you can copy paste that ruleset and play without sprint and be competitive)
Like saying didn't matter which lego you used your just as vulgar if it was your choice to make a ***** as someone who was forced to.