If you’re like me, you’ve seen the melee for various objective items do different damage values at different points over the years throughout all the Halo games. Usually the objective item takes the holder 2 melees to get a kill just like any other time you melee someone. But there have also been times where the objective item is a one-hit-kill (OHK) to anyone without an OS. I have an idea for an approach to meleeing while holding an objective item that I think would fall into a perfect middle ground between one or two hit kills!
Edit: I don’t think this approach should replace OHK objective melees. I meant this instead of two hits to kill for objective items which H5 currently has, and Infinite could have.
Let the person holding the objective item always have the option to assassinate an enemy, even from the front. Regular melees with the objective item would still be two hits to kill, unless it’s a quick back smack.
So then the objective holder isn’t so OP they’re going to get triple kills and overkills just because they got within melee range of opponents. A fast melee hit would still be a two hit kill, giving enemy’s a chance to counter someone whose getting a little too frisky with the flag (for example).
And yet, you could still punish someone you catch within melee range. If they get too close, you can pull them into an assassination animation, giving their nearby team mates a chance to save them before the objective holder can finish the OHK. You still give the objective extra lethality in melee range, but with a little bit of counter balance as well. It would take longer to finish a OHK than previous titles, and yet still give objective holders a little extra defense when they have no firearm available.
Since the flagnum is a thing, perhaps this idea would only make sense for oddball and assault. I’m open to that thought 
.
What do you think? How would you approach the tools that objective holders are given to keep from being a complete sitting duck?
I think the premise behind OHKs on objective holders is that they’re left vulnerable. They sometimes walk slower and their ability to hold a weapon (sometimes a sidearm) has been removed. So to offset that, they make it to where if you get in melee range, you still feel useful. I think if you changed it, you would find a reluctance to carry the objective as it makes you more level with the other players. I understand and don’t disagree with that it forces you to play more as a team, and trust me, I hate the fact I can just get KO’d by a flag carrier in CQ, but it adds a dimension to the game.
> 2533274836669416;2:
> I think the premise behind OHKs on objective holders is that they’re left vulnerable. They sometimes walk slower and their ability to hold a weapon (sometimes a sidearm) has been removed. So to offset that, they make it to where if you get in melee range, you still feel useful. I think if you changed it, you would find a reluctance to carry the objective as it makes you more level with the other players. I understand and don’t disagree with that it forces you to play more as a team, and trust me, I hate the fact I can just get KO’d by a flag carrier in CQ, but it adds a dimension to the game.
Oh yea, I totally get that. I actually liked it way more when H5 had OHK enabled for objective items (it was enabled on the bomb and oddball for a while). My idea to let the objective carrier always have the ability to assassinate is under the assumption that objective items are two hit melee kills. If 343 has them OHK then it definitely wouldn’t be needed.
I’m also operating under the assumption that the objective items will be balanced similar to H5 settings, since most rumors I’ve heard have been that it will feel similar to H5, but balanced so long time Halo fans will like it more than they did with 5.
It could be closer to H3 though… I forget, does the bomb and oddball kill in one hit in H3 right now? I don’t think the flag does, but my matchmaking composer only drops me into objective games every once in a while, so I’m not certain either way.
I like your thinking, but I have to respectfully disagree. They get a OHK because they only have a melee weapon (excluding the flagnum). While being a menace at close ranges, they are completely useless outside of their range. This creates situations where both their team and the opposing team have to strategize in order to play their objective the best they can: One side is gaining points (or has the potential to) at the cost of one less ranged fighter, while the other has an advantage in the battle but could potentially lose the war if not careful. It’s a brilliant system that has worked for years now.
Maybe instead of it being 2HK and you can assassinate anywhere, you get a large shield boost from assassinating, as that can become a very risky but very rewarding play for the OBJ holder.
> 2533274937939153;4:
> Maybe instead of it being 2HK and you can assassinate anywhere, you get a large shield boost from assassinating, as that can become a very risky but very rewarding play for the OBJ holder.
I understand and respect your thoughts on the OHK objective items . I replied to someone else above, that this idea is more geared towards assuming a two hit kill for objective items (like H5 has).
In regards to this direct point though, I’ve tried to come up with ideas on how to make assassinations “worth it” enough to make it so players don’t turn off assassinations in their settings. I’ve heard the thought of giving toy a shield boost after an assassination, but something about that just doesn’t feel right to me. I don’t think you should get an advantage in your next 1-1 just because you assassinated someone, sp I dislike this idea.
But what about increasing the respawn timer for the person who gets assassinated? So you could assassinate a player, and instead of respawning in the usual time, they instead get the same elongated respawn timer as if they committed a betrayal or a suicide. This could have crazy implications in objective games where you can get your team set up with a longer 4v3 after getting an assassination on another player.
> 2533274937939153;4:
> I like your thinking, but I have to respectfully disagree. They get a OHK because they only have a melee weapon (excluding the flagnum). While being a menace at close ranges, they are completely useless outside of their range. This creates situations where both their team and the opposing team have to strategize in order to play their objective the best they can: One side is gaining points (or has the potential to) at the cost of one less ranged fighter, while the other has an advantage in the battle but could potentially lose the war if not careful. It’s a brilliant system that has worked for years now.
>
> Maybe instead of it being 2HK and you can assassinate anywhere, you get a large shield boost from assassinating, as that can become a very risky but very rewarding play for the OBJ holder.
Also worth noting that the objective holder becomes slower, so that’s another reason to justify OHK.