I have an idea as to how tie games could be settled; by means of a “shootout” halo style.
So if a game ends and the score is all tied up, the teams are taken to a small arena, like the octagon. Each team has one member randomly selected and is paired against an opposing foe chosen in the same manner. The two shoot it out and the winner earns a point for his team. Another member is then selected and paired, however the one who just went cannot be chosen.
First team to 5 points breaks the tie and takes the game!
Weapon choices include BR, DMR, carbine, lightrifle, and assault rifle. No grenades, armor abilities, secondaries, or perks.
So what do you think of this as a way to settle ties?
We already have this for objective matches, but with Slayer, it doesn’t exist but it wouldn’t hurt to add.
If this were to exist, instead of randomly picking someone from each team, it should just have an elimination match limited to one life. Also, I think that the player should be restricted to one weapon, not a choice between others.
However, the fact that ties are so disturbingly rare makes me think that a Sudden Death in slayer isn’t necessary and would ultimately be a wasted potential.
It’s a nice idea, I’ll give you that. I’ve never thought of this as a tie-breaking solution.
However, this raw state of your idea doesn’t sound too fair. Randomly selecting teammates to battle other randomly selected teammates could give the victory to the team who had the guy with the best luck. I think a better way to go about this would be to disable respawning in a “shootout”, and the team who has the last man standing wins.
> We already have this for objective matches, but with Slayer, it doesn’t exist but it wouldn’t hurt to add.
>
> If this were to exist, instead of randomly picking someone from each team, it should just have an elimination match limited to one life. Also, I think that the player should be restricted to one weapon, not a choice between others.
>
> However, the fact that ties are so disturbingly rare makes me think that a Sudden Death in slayer isn’t necessary and would ultimately be a wasted potential.
This is in place for objective already? hmm why I never noticed that is so weird. Is it exactly the same as I wrote it?
I would like to hear your arguments for players only being allowed to select one weapon. To me that would be very limiting to certain players who are more skilled with the ones not allowed. For instance I am considerably better with the assault rifle than the battle rifle and would prefer to take that gun to the arena if I could.
> > We already have this for objective matches, but with Slayer, it doesn’t exist but it wouldn’t hurt to add.
>
> This is in place for objective already? hmm why I never noticed that is so weird. Is it exactly the same as I wrote it?
Ties aren’t really possible in gametypes like Slayer, Ricochet, 2-Flag CTF, etc. The only times it’s possible to tie are round-based objective games in which teams alternate offense and defense, like 1-Flag CTF. And even then, ties are already settled by having the teams just play one more round.
It’s a neat idea, but it just doesn’t really feel all that Halo to me. Not only that, but it seems to me like it would take the thrill out of not wanting to get in a tie. All of a sudden it wouldn’t be all that stressful of a situation because you’d know that you could clutch the win in the next ‘round’ (or whatever you’d call it).
Not only that, but the idea of choosing weapons is a concept that I hope 343i abandons all together. It felt weird for me to do it in Halo Reach, but it felt genuinely wrong for me to do it in Halo 4. I hope things go back to how they were in Halo 2 and Halo 3: everyone spawns with the same weapons, same grenades, same everything and must pick weapons up off the map if they want something new. No Loadouts, no Armor Abilities, no Ordnance, no Support Upgrade, no Tactical Package, no quick spawning and no kill cams. Hell, I’d even settle for Equipment coming back if it replaced all of what I just listed. I want to see the old Halo play style make a triumphant return!
> > > We already have this for objective matches, but with Slayer, it doesn’t exist but it wouldn’t hurt to add.
> >
> > This is in place for objective already? hmm why I never noticed that is so weird. Is it exactly the same as I wrote it?
>
> Ties aren’t really possible in gametypes like Slayer, Ricochet, 2-Flag CTF, etc. The only times it’s possible to tie are round-based objective games in which teams alternate offense and defense, like 1-Flag CTF. And even then, ties are already settled by having the teams just play one more round.
How is ties not possible in Gametypes like slayer and 2-flag CTF? I have had games ending 0-0, 42-42, and so on in Slayer and 1-1, 2-2 in CTF.
When someone holds the flag in a CTF match and the time is running out, it gives you more time. That’s the tiebreaker in 2-Flag CTF.
> > How is ties not possible in Gametypes like slayer and 2-flag CTF? I have had games ending 0-0, 42-42, and so on in Slayer and 1-1, 2-2 in CTF.
>
> You’re right. I completely forgot about time running out. facepalm
>
> I think I would rather the game end in a tie than do a shootout.
It happens rarely so it’s easy to forget that it actually happens.
I guess it happens more in 50-high than in anything else though.
> To be honest, i dont see a reason for this.
>
> A tie is a tie, nothing else.
>
> If a tie bothers you so much, then dont get a tie, and try to win. Or lose.
Oh I don’t know it just seems like an exciting conclusion to a tie game that’s all. Not that there is anything wrong with tying.
Welcome back Sammy. Been a while since I last saw you post.
I don’t think this is the best solution. I’m not going to lose the game because a random I carried the whole game can’t get a kill in an Octagon.
To be honest i never saw ties as a problem. In fact it’s pretty interesting when it does happen. Seen as it isn’t a problem, I see no reason to try fix it.
> > To be honest, i dont see a reason for this.
> >
> > A tie is a tie, nothing else.
> >
> > If a tie bothers you so much, then dont get a tie, and try to win. Or lose.
>
> Oh I don’t know it just seems like an exciting conclusion to a tie game that’s all. Not that there is anything wrong with tying.
But, how is this better than, you know, sudden death?