This thread is for discussion and opinions on FFA objective gametypes, their merits, their imperfections, and what you think their place in matchmaking should be. I suppose posts on FFA in general are interesting, too. Does anyone like King of the Hill FFA? The gametype was prevalent even in H3 ranked lone wolves, but I don't see what could be fun about it. The best strategy was to wait on the edge of the hill, not firing, hoping that no one would find you. Only scoring points when one player is in the hill is an improvement, I suppose, but the chances that a player will control is heavily dependent on how many enemies happen to converge on the hill at the time you reach it, leaving it up to a large element of chance. Do you think that this gametype has any competitive value? How many grenades should players start with? What about Oddball? I think that knowing where to go should you get it is a skill-based mechanic that Koth lacks. What are your favorite tactics for oddball? Does the inabilty to do anything but melee once you get it turn you off to the gametype or deprive the game of a skill factor? Is dropping the ball to fire back for a second ever a wise idea? Does being able to stand near the edge of an abyss to deny the ball temporarily help or hurt the game? Do you think that 2 oddballs for a 6 or 8 player game would be better? There are things that apply to both of the above gametypes. The most glaring problem would be the likelihood that a player would be shot in the back while approaching the objective, rendering them pretty much helpless to survive. Are there any solutions to this? Are the maps that work well with these gametypes too few in number or sufficient? Notice that these gametypes are usually played with ARs, and almost never with DMRs. The kill zone around the objective would be as large as the room/area it is in, and players would die even more frequently. Does this restriction to the spray/pray AR, which is unpaceable, and too random to reward precise aim, immediately rule out these gametypes from being somewhat competitive? Does it keep them from being fun for you? These gametypes cause a lot of carnage for a little progress, and it is very easy to rack up kills if one ignores the objective. I've heard a lot of players that care about K/D and use it to determine the skill of a player, and when considered with other dislikes about obj, do not play FFA with a lot of objective, and, if they do, decide to rack up kills when obj is picked. So, do you think that FFA objective should be a seperate playlist from slayer? Would it have the population? Are their team-based counterparts better? Why/why not? What about Juggernaut? This is by far my favorite FFA non-slayer (I know that it's not technically objective) gametype. Players are always mobile, and are always able to fight with full capabilities. Getting a decent weapon is important in Oddball and Koth, but it is even moreso in Juggernaut. Positioning is also important. A player has more control over how they become the objective to score points, they don't have to rush into the middle of a few ARs. I think that DMRs work well with this gametype. What about Headhunter? I never thought that this contributed much to the slayer gametype. And I'll mention FFA slayer too- Do you think that it is a good alternative if you feel that teammates let you down? I found that in FFA the chances that you would be surrounded more or less often than another player throughout the game, as well as how relatively little control you had over such circumstances, kept it from being a perfectly competitive game. It definitely will sort out players by performance to a good extent, though. I noticed that when a opponent escaped barely alive behind a corner, the opponent could keep me at bay with grenades while another player cleaned one of us up. Many kills in FFA are clean-ups, where the other damage was done by a seperate, non-cooperating entity. Did anyone else find this happening often in their games?