I created another thread similar to this topic, however this one focuses on my idea of a new playlist, rather than asking what others have in mind of their own.
Objective Slayer
Should be located under the Competitive playlist, this new gametype is called “Objective Slayer”, and it is pretty self-explanatory. Without trying to make this complicated as it sounds already (maybe), here is an example on how the gametype should work:
“Objective Slayer” is a team oriented gametype consisting the core mechanic of slayer variants within objective variants. Let’s say, for example, we modified the gametype to create “2Flag Slayer”. Each team will have their own flag at their base, as normal, however the game will have Slayer game traits.
The game will play exactly like any slayer variant: “Earn kills to win”, but because there are objectives that can be captured by the enemy team, players will have the choice of whether to slay, protect, take the objective, or do all of the above. While players kill to render 1 point towards their team, capturing an enemy flag could render 10 or 15 points, all depending on how you set the scoring.
This type of play can cause very fast-paced gameplay within a short amount of time. This doesn’t only apply to CTF, but I believe that the “Objective Slayer” gametype could consist of almost any objective game given, such as Oddball, KoTH, VIP, etc… This means that you can modify the settings to the objective you wish to choose, thus creating an objective slayer gametype.
“Objective Slayer” is 1 gametype in whole, meaning the settings can be modified to have specific objectives (because Slayer is built-in by default).
What do you think?
Someone created this gametype for Reach. It was like, 250 points, 50 points per flag capture.
It’s an interesting idea if people are openminded enough to try it out.
> Someone created this gametype for Reach. It was like, 250 points, 50 points per flag capture.
>
> It’s an interesting idea if people are openminded enough to try it out.
It’s similar to that, but the main point to the idea is that “kills” actually affect the scoring as well, instead of just the objectives themselves allowing us to score. This is because in Reach, there is no way to score with kills in objective games (unless specifically made for killing).
> > Someone created this gametype for Reach. It was like, 250 points, 50 points per flag capture.
> >
> > It’s an interesting idea if people are openminded enough to try it out.
>
> It’s similar to that, but the main point to the idea is that “kills” actually affect the scoring as well, instead of just the objectives themselves allowing us to score. This is because in Reach, there is no way to score with kills in objective games (unless specifically made for killing).
No, this is how the gametype works. You select how many points something does. In Objective, killing points are 0 while objectives are worth 1. Set the score to 250, kills = 1, flags = 50. You can even add points for assassinations, sprees, headshots, etc.
> > > Someone created this gametype for Reach. It was like, 250 points, 50 points per flag capture.
> > >
> > > It’s an interesting idea if people are openminded enough to try it out.
> >
> > It’s similar to that, but the main point to the idea is that “kills” actually affect the scoring as well, instead of just the objectives themselves allowing us to score. This is because in Reach, there is no way to score with kills in objective games (unless specifically made for killing).
>
> No, this is how the gametype works. You select how many points something does. In Objective, killing points are 0 while objectives are worth 1. Set the score to 250, kills = 1, flags = 50. You can even add points for assassinations, sprees, headshots, etc.
So are you saying that there is a way to set Kills = # in objective gametypes? I’m just saying because the last time I checked, there wasn’t an option to set the score for kills and such for CTF and etc… Instead, it only gave me the scoring for the flags and such.
> > > > Someone created this gametype for Reach. It was like, 250 points, 50 points per flag capture.
> > > >
> > > > It’s an interesting idea if people are openminded enough to try it out.
> > >
> > > It’s similar to that, but the main point to the idea is that “kills” actually affect the scoring as well, instead of just the objectives themselves allowing us to score. This is because in Reach, there is no way to score with kills in objective games (unless specifically made for killing).
> >
> > No, this is how the gametype works. You select how many points something does. In Objective, killing points are 0 while objectives are worth 1. Set the score to 250, kills = 1, flags = 50. You can even add points for assassinations, sprees, headshots, etc.
>
> So are you saying that there is a way to set Kills = # in objective gametypes? Does the gametype you shared above count kills, while a flag captures count as a high number?
>
> How does this work? Because if there was an option to set kills = # in Reach, then I wouldn’t be making this topic.
I can’t turn on the game right now and check, but if you go into the game options you can find a section to determine how many points something does. You can set kills earning 1 point, 3, 5, 15, etc. You can set bonus points for killing the “leader”, set points for flag captures, set points for headshots, etc. Flags can be worth 1, 5, 50, etc.
That was what I was talking about before. Someone made an “Objective Slayer” match with 250 points. Each kill was worth 1 point and flag captures was worth 50. So even if your team has a terrible K/D ratio you can still win with 4-5 flags.
Wasn’t Flag Slayer already tried?
Then again, it was introduced in Reach, so that might explain why it wasn’t that popular. I mean really, what was?
> Wasn’t Flag Slayer already tried?
>
> Then again, it was introduced in Reach, so that might explain why it wasn’t that popular. I mean really, what was?
Hmm…you’re right. It is called Flag Slayer.
I wonder why I never saw it before…and I wonder why it wasn’t popular…
> > Wasn’t Flag Slayer already tried?
> >
> > Then again, it was introduced in Reach, so that might explain why it wasn’t that popular. I mean really, what was?
>
> Hmm…you’re right. It is called Flag Slayer.
> I wonder why I never saw it before…and I wonder why it wasn’t popular…
People are pretty resistant to trying new ideas or change.