Killstreaks and Halo

[coIdFUSI0N]

Rewarding players on an individual basis, killstreak rewards, as well as a team basis, team score, is an interesting concept.

 

Halo 2 had many ways to interact with the maps in the form of gates, bridges, stalactites and more.

 

By marrying these two concepts, rewarding individual players for killing AND interacting with the map to gain an advantage, Halo can embrace its own version of killstreak style rewards.

 

Killing enemies builds up a personal score that is used as currency. Maps contain items like gates, light bridges, shield doors, mancannons, teleporters, turrets, laser arrays, electromagnetic land mines and more. These items are powered down until a player spends currency to activate them for a finite time period. A strategically located turret can give the player an advantage in Slayer games. An extendable bridge can give the flag carrier an advantage in CTF. Closing a gate can aide defenders in Assault.

 

Map control is enhanced by this relationship, killing then choosing a reward by going to a specific location on the map, because it allows players to choose how they want to position themselves in regard to their objective (slaying, attacking, defending, etc), their current amount of currency (how many enemies they've killed), and their plan for that currency (which Interactive Map Item they will purchase and when).

 

What do you think? Any ideas for your own Interactive Map Item?

[SatanicBagels]

No. Custom classes are honestly enough killstreaks would make Halo 4 not a Halo game.

 

Killstreaks in Halo = Thousands of people lose interest in Halo forever.

[skummgummigubbe]

that sounds like an interesting idea... maybe not in the whole game just like in reach u have invasion

[Mr Biggles]

Nope, don't like it, we don't need more people saying it looks like CoD.

[RedStarRocket91]

I don't like the idea of it working off some sort of persistant 'currency' that's earned between games. However, this could be a very interesting idea for Objective games if each team is given a set amount of currency at the start of each round - say $5. Perhaps it could cost $1 to build a turret for the defensive team, and another $1 to upgrade it to a slightly better turret, or whatever, while the attacking team can spend $1 to unlock a gate or $3 to upgrade a Mongoose to a Warthog or whatever. That keeps the teams balanced and makes the game a little more interesting, as the maps will vary just a little every time they're played, enhancing replay value.

 

The idea of rewarding individual players for their efforts is also something interesting. If someone gets a killing spree, they get an extra $0.50 for the next round, or an extra $0.10 for a Sniper kill. So a team where one player gets a killing spree from five Sniper kills ends up with $6 to spend on the next round of a match instead. That's also an incentive not to camp, as you can only get bonuses by actually getting out into the map and taking part in the fighting.

 

What it should not be is based on some sort of currency that exists outside of individual games. That rewards players who've put a lot of time into the game rather than those who are good at the game, or who have good individual talents. A team of people with huge amounts of experience but little in the way of actual ability would simply be able to build up impenetrable fortresses each game, while players who were extremely capable would struggle purely because they hadn't played as often.