Killstreak Rewards

[KILGAZOR]

I'm talking specifically about competitive shooters where you get X number of kills without dying and then you get something that gives you an advantage in-game. I think CoD 4 was the first game to implement these things, but I could be wrong. Now I see them popping up everywhere. Medal of Honor has them, and the upcoming Crysis 2, Killzone 3, and of course Homefront. Homefront seems to change up the equation a bit but its still giving awards for something really arbitrary. Killstreaks in Call of Duty annoy me because they generally require no skill and mean a good minute or so of frustratingly being slaughtered for the other team. The Killzone 3 killstreaks are the ones that really sicken me because they outright boost things like your damage and quicken your reload time.

I get how killstreaks for in FFA because FFA battles are already illogical scenarios that would never happen in real life and it gives a real incentive to staying alive because in FFA you can be killed and not neccessarily have any effect on the game because the person who killed you might be way behind in score and have no chance at winning. But in team games it tends to make games unbalanced and the only thing that matters in the first couple of kills and the rest of the game is just one team slaughtering the other. And in objecgive game modes it makes even less sense because it motivates the team to camp and kill instead of going for the objectives.

I wouldn't mind this as much if it weren't for the fact that killstreaks always seem to be implemented in games with some emphasis on realism instead of arcade shooters like Halo. No army, present or future, is going to be constantly monitoring and wait for you to start racking up kills before they start using their assets. It's just so illogical, so I must ask, how did this idea of killstreak rewards come into existence and why would anyone think they're a good idea?

 

[Floppertje]

it came into existence because cod4 did it and it made money, which is totally justified cause it was awesome. and how does getting kills and not dying take no skill? sure, you'll get lucky once or twice, but so will everyone else, it balances out. other than that... are you seriously crying about killstreaks in multiplayer games not being realistic?? getting shot in the face and respawning is no problem at all, but when you get a perk for it suddenly it's 'unrealistic'?
other than that, kill streaks aren't so powerful that they let you slaughter the other team all the time. sure, some of them are overpowered, but usually they can be overcome by just going indoors. when one team slaughters the other, it's usually BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER. yes, they'll get killstreak rewards but they would've won anyway. and next time, you'll be on the better team. and they're a good idea because they add another element to multiplayer games, which would otherwise become boring much faster. and don't tell me you didn't enjoy killing people with predator missiles.

 

[Ouroboros0977]

It was meant to be a reward for playing well, I do believe them to be an okay idea, not the ideal option but the idea is a lot better when you can easily counter the rewards by changing your game style a little bit. E.G. Keeping mobile and gunning down attack dogs or staying on top of a ladder to avoid them in CoD world at war or black ops.

 

[Rednog]

Meh, I like the incentive that if you stay alive and do something you're actually rewarded. It prevents everyone from grabbing an smg and being rambo. I mean look at BOps vs MW2, in my experience with BOPs a high number of people just grab the AK47-u and just run around and hip fire a ton because the kill streak rewards really aren't that great/powerful in comparison to the MW2 ones. Whereas in MW2 where killstreaks can actually change the game greatly people tend to play somewhat cautiously and actually try some tactics and makes it somewhat fun.
I prefer a game where people don't jam sprint every second its up and just spam F when they die to instantly respawn and rush headlong into battle.

 

[KILGAZOR]

don't tell me you didn't enjoy killing people with predator missiles.

I don't. It's really mindless and it does not satisfy me at all.

And I'm not saying that attaining killstreaks takes no skill, I'm saying that using it takes no skill. In Black Ops, while using the choppter gunner, there's friggin red triangles that shows where everyone is, all you gotta do is point and click. How does that take skill?

The other point I forgot to address was that killstreaks remove tension from a multiplayer game. The outcome of a Call of Duty game is usually decided within the first minute based on which team gets the most killstreaks. The rest of the game is basically just the killstreaks playing out and seeing the other team get dominated with little chance of making a comeback. In other games like Battlefield the tension is always there because there's always a chance that the other team will make a comeback, so the winning team must stay on their A-game the whole game to make sure they win.

 

[KILGAZOR]

Tisk tisk tisk, someone just got killed by a chopper-gunner

God I hate those things. Nuketown + Chopper gunner = get ready to rage.

 

[The Rookie Gamer]

There kinda satisfying to use, but they seem to just give out kills for camping most of the time.

 

[Floppertje]

don't tell me you didn't enjoy killing people with predator missiles.

I don't. It's really mindless and it does not satisfy me at all.

And I'm not saying that attaining killstreaks takes no skill, I'm saying that using it takes no skill. In Black Ops, while using the choppter gunner, there's friggin red triangles that shows where everyone is, all you gotta do is point and click. How does that take skill?

The other point I forgot to address was that killstreaks remove tension from a multiplayer game. The outcome of a Call of Duty game is usually decided within the first minute based on which team gets the most killstreaks. The rest of the game is basically just the killstreaks playing out and seeing the other team get dominated with little chance of making a comeback. In other games like Battlefield the tension is always there because there's always a chance that the other team will make a comeback, so the winning team must stay on their A-game the whole game to make sure they win.

I've seen tons of matches turn around, both my way and the other way. saying the match is decided in the first minute is total nonsense.

 

[KILGAZOR]

Meh, I like the incentive that if you stay alive and do something you're actually rewarded. It prevents everyone from grabbing an smg and being rambo. I mean look at BOps vs MW2, in my experience with BOPs a high number of people just grab the AK47-u and just run around and hip fire a ton because the kill streak rewards really aren't that great/powerful in comparison to the MW2 ones. Whereas in MW2 where killstreaks can actually change the game greatly people tend to play somewhat cautiously and actually try some tactics and makes it somewhat fun.
I prefer a game where people don't jam sprint every second its up and just spam F when they die to instantly respawn and rush headlong into battle.

Only that Call of Duty seems to be built around rushing around and getting kills, and it's really easy to be successful doing that. The people I see getting the most killstreaks are always the ones rushing around with the AK and luckily not dying.

There kinda satisfying to use, but they seem to just give out kills for camping most of the time.

This. No one likes campers and killstreaks reward camping.

 

[KILGAZOR]

don't tell me you didn't enjoy killing people with predator missiles.

I don't. It's really mindless and it does not satisfy me at all.

And I'm not saying that attaining killstreaks takes no skill, I'm saying that using it takes no skill. In Black Ops, while using the choppter gunner, there's friggin red triangles that shows where everyone is, all you gotta do is point and click. How does that take skill?

The other point I forgot to address was that killstreaks remove tension from a multiplayer game. The outcome of a Call of Duty game is usually decided within the first minute based on which team gets the most killstreaks. The rest of the game is basically just the killstreaks playing out and seeing the other team get dominated with little chance of making a comeback. In other games like Battlefield the tension is always there because there's always a chance that the other team will make a comeback, so the winning team must stay on their A-game the whole game to make sure they win.

I've seen tons of matches turn around, both my way and the other way. saying the match is decided in the first minute is total nonsense.

In Black Ops, since killstreaks don't stack so yes, matches do turn around frequently. But in MW2 one killstreak leads to the next until someone gets a nuke and then the game is over no matter what. It's ridiculous.

 

[Aur0ra145]

I think killstreaks make the game more realistic. Let's face it, if you're a dissident fighting a modern (or post-modern) military, you will be harassed by air assets, counter-battery fire, cruise missiles, predator drones, armored infantry, A-10's, the works.

In other words, if you wanted games to be super realistic, you would most likely die before you ever engage enemy infantry. And even if you did engage enemy infantry, the US military has a 3:1 ratio rule. Meaning we don't fight unless we have a 3:1 ration of men over the attacker. So even if you do have more troops, we'll pull back and call for fires from whatever assets we have allocated for that mission.

What I'm getting at, is that the post-modern military's out there are VERY GOOD at killing, being from a non-super power, you would have little to no chance of fighting effectively at all.

So, if you want an argument for killstreaks, I'd say that they can throw off the balance of a game. If I had it my way, we wouldn't have killstreak rewards (well lethal killstreak rewards) to help facilitate a faster action with guns blazing rather than getting zapped by some AC-130 or predator missile.

-my .02

 

[KILGAZOR]

I think killstreaks make the game more realistic. Let's face it, if you're a dissident fighting a modern (or post-modern) military, you will be harassed by air assets, counter-battery fire, cruise missiles, predator drones, armored infantry, A-10's, the works.

In other words, if you wanted games to be super realistic, you would most likely die before you ever engage enemy infantry. And even if you did engage enemy infantry, the US military has a 3:1 ratio rule. Meaning we don't fight unless we have a 3:1 ration of men over the attacker. So even if you do have more troops, we'll pull back and call for fires from whatever assets we have allocated for that mission.

What I'm getting at, is that the post-modern military's out there are VERY GOOD at killing, being from a non-super power, you would have little to no chance of fighting effectively at all.

So, if you want an argument for killstreaks, I'd say that they can throw off the balance of a game. If I had it my way, we wouldn't have killstreak rewards (well lethal killstreak rewards) to help facilitate a faster action with guns blazing rather than getting zapped by some AC-130 or predator missile.

-my .02

Well the rewards themselves in Black Opsare cool and realistic (except for the chopper gunner) but the system for getting them is dumb. Why not have it like Star Wars Battlefront 2 where every minute or so the player that is doing the best gets to call in artillery or pilot a helicopter or whatever?

 

[Defense]

I really don't like killstreaks, at least when they're too overpowered. I'd prefer if they removed killstreaks but still rewarded the players who managed to survive for a long time. Maybe an experience multiplayer.

other than that, kill streaks aren't so powerful that they let you slaughter the other team all the time. sure, some of them are overpowered, but usually they can be overcome by just going indoors.

It doesn't really work whenever you always spawn outside in Nuketown and the chopper gunner is right above your head killing you every second you spawn so you never get the chance to counter or hide.

when one team slaughters the other, it's usually BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER. yes, they'll get killstreak rewards but they would've won anyway.

Yeah, maybe when the other team is slaughtered, but not when both teams are equally matched and another member on the team just manages to camp long enough to get a chopper gunner.

 

[Aur0ra145]

I think killstreaks make the game more realistic. Let's face it, if you're a dissident fighting a modern (or post-modern) military, you will be harassed by air assets, counter-battery fire, cruise missiles, predator drones, armored infantry, A-10's, the works.

In other words, if you wanted games to be super realistic, you would most likely die before you ever engage enemy infantry. And even if you did engage enemy infantry, the US military has a 3:1 ratio rule. Meaning we don't fight unless we have a 3:1 ration of men over the attacker. So even if you do have more troops, we'll pull back and call for fires from whatever assets we have allocated for that mission.

What I'm getting at, is that the post-modern military's out there are VERY GOOD at killing, being from a non-super power, you would have little to no chance of fighting effectively at all.

So, if you want an argument for killstreaks, I'd say that they can throw off the balance of a game. If I had it my way, we wouldn't have killstreak rewards (well lethal killstreak rewards) to help facilitate a faster action with guns blazing rather than getting zapped by some AC-130 or predator missile.

-my .02

Well the rewards themselves in Black Opsare cool and realistic (except for the chopper gunner) but the system for getting them is dumb. Why not have it like Star Wars Battlefront 2 where every minute or so the player that is doing the best gets to call in artillery or pilot a helicopter or whatever?

If you want to go that route then look at Battlefield 2 and the side commander role. You have one player who directs the fireteams, allocates resupply drops, calls in artillery to trouble spots, looks at satellite scans, calls in UAV drones and can even paradrop a car.

All of these things are on a timer and the enemy team can destroy stuff on the ground to negate the asset (i.e. blow up the artillery pieces and the enemy won't be able to use arty until they fix them.)

This I believe was a very good way to use assets and really made a team work together. Though that was Battlefield 2 and COD:MW players would not even understand the concept of teamwork (from my personal experience at least.)

See BF2 at its heart is a PC game. It assumes that everyone will be working together, that everyone will have a mic, and that the players will regulate themselves out across the 7 or so class kits to band together and win a map.

I don't think console games will ever get to this point. Namely because consoles are more marketed towards instant action with little to no complex thinking. Additionally consoles lack the control interface to effectively play large scale games (like RTS's.)

I'm not a PC elitist or anything, I just think that a PC is a better platform to play certain games on. Actually I believe it to be better at all games, but I do see where consoles fit into the picture and why they have been wildly successful.

The whole PC v. Console debate really isn't about which platform is better to game on, it's an argument about personal preference. I personally enjoy the accuracy of my 2000dpi mouse and the ease of you that a keyboard offers me. I would play more console games if they allowed me to use my mouse and keyboard, namely because a 2000dpi mouse is incredibly more accurate than a xbox or ps3 controller (at least in my hands.)

anyways, I think I just made a wall of text.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Meh, I like the incentive that if you stay alive and do something you're actually rewarded. It prevents everyone from grabbing an smg and being rambo. I mean look at BOps vs MW2, in my experience with BOPs a high number of people just grab the AK47-u and just run around and hip fire a ton because the kill streak rewards really aren't that great/powerful in comparison to the MW2 ones. Whereas in MW2 where killstreaks can actually change the game greatly people tend to play somewhat cautiously and actually try some tactics and makes it somewhat fun.
I prefer a game where people don't jam sprint every second its up and just spam F when they die to instantly respawn and rush headlong into battle.

Only that Call of Duty seems to be built around rushing around and getting kills, and it's really easy to be successful doing that. The people I see getting the most killstreaks are always the ones rushing around with the AK and luckily not dying.

There kinda satisfying to use, but they seem to just give out kills for camping most of the time.

This. No one likes campers and killstreaks reward camping.

Actually no, if someones racking up killstreaks because they are camping then obviously other players arent that good, if you know where someone is then that means that all you have to do is throw a grenade in his direction and shoot his ass off when he moves, and if hes moving from spot to spot so you cant use this tactic, then they arent camping
Although Spawn campings something else entirely however in COD thats more due to the shitty spawn system not the players

 

[Geekosaurus]

I'm not sure how Homefront are going about killstreak rewards in a different way. The way I see it, they're just taking killstreaks and objective-streaks and combining them using a points based system. From what I've read, it doesn't sound all too different from what we have already. We'll have to see how it works.