The game starts everyone off with the ‘worst’ weapon, the disruptor. (Which I don’t think would be as bad if it actually worked more than 20% of the time as intended.) As you make kills, you get access to better weapons, until you finally have one of the most powerful weapon combinations in the game. The reason this idea works, hypothetically, is because you have a limited number of lives, and the design is supposed to make it so people who get kills and might have fewer lives than campers will still be able to easily take on whoever wasn’t doing anything earlier in the match.
On paper, it’s good, but in practice, it means the only people who see the end of the game are the ones with the most skill. This game mode would be far more fun if those who died could be zombies or something. Would it make it harder for the people who survived? Yes, but it’d still be more fun.
Part of the problem comes down to the fact that skill is rewarded by making it less necessary per kill. In an attrition based match, that’s understandable, but it’d be way more fun if it wasn’t attrition based.
First person to get a kill with a disruptor wins. Players start with a rocket launcher and a sword. Get a kill, automatically level down to a sword and a cindershot. Get another kill, level down to a cindershot and a gravity hammer. Get another kill, level down to a gravity hammer and a sniper rifle. Etc.
Last spartan standing is fun for those who like it, but i have no reason to believe that those who like it are a majority, or even a significant plurality. Give us a different free for all mode that exploits the design conceits of the game type, not one that has design flaws so significant you have to figure out how to code the game such that players who leave still get credit.
What if picking up an AI orb knocked you back up a weapon level?
I would be pissed if I got a kill and then died during the ‘level down’ animation because it’s automatic. Maybe you get ten seconds before it levels you down.
I will say, in LSS you can’t get to the sword without picking some orbs.
I disagree. This isn’t a race to max level like gun game, it is survival. I have no doubt that the “downgrade” system you propose was tested. Could you imagine this mode encouraging you even more than it already does to avoid engagement?
Ive made it to a showdown with just the commando and a bulldog. I just played to my strenths with those two guns. The other guy had a sword and BR and I almost won, but missed a shot with the shotgun. I agree, the Disruptor is aggravating, but its Lone Wolf. Basically got kicked out the back of a Pelican and told, “Good Luck, Spartan”.
LSS is heart pumping action from start to finish. No halo game has ever gotten my HR up like this game mode. Yes if you lose your first engagement you’re at a heavy disadvantage. But that’s what makes every engagement as thrilling as it is. Every time you lose you’re set back in both the sense that you have fewer lives and the person who killed you is that much closer to their next weapon.
You must use knowledge of initial spawns to take calculated advantage at the start then choose every follow up engagement wisely. Take shots at everyone you see on the map because assists count for half a kill.
The only thing I’d change about the game as it is - is to have it on more maps. The current four get stale after so much.
Isn’t that the intended goal for a gametype that eliminates players? Survival of the fittest/smartest/sneakiest?
This just sounds like FFA infection… I can rock that.
And this paragraph just sounds like gun game… also not a bad game type to implement, but 343 would probably just tack that on as a new mode and LSS would still suck.
Aren’t the game modes that start you off with good weapons and downgrade everytime you get a kill focused on getting a set amount of kills ( like 20 to 25 typically ) and everyone generally can respawn as much as they want?
They sometimes also have a way to force people back to better weapons if they swap to a melee and get a melee kill instead of using the gun they’re currently assigned too.
I’ve lost plenty of games to guys with half the kills as me, because they were hiding with an AR/shotty.
On the other hand, that’s also how the mode was designed, “Only the strongest will surviiiiive” - BB
I had a game earlier today where I got killed 3 or 4 times before I even got my first kill, but still ended up winning 18-5. The last dude had been poaching orbs and ended up with a BR with only 9 kills. Found him crouch walking in the middle of the zone and cleaned him up and bagged him for his heresy.
I’m no fan of LSS myself, and only ever play it for the weekly reward challenges, just so you don’t think I’m biased or something.
It sounds like you just described CoD’s “Gun Game” or “Escalation Slayer” from MCC. Both modes have gut 1 kill with every gun in the sandbox, but the types and qualities of the guns are staggered so players that are ahead “get nerfed” temporarily by being forced to use a weaker gun for a while.
Ex: I think the Focus Rifle comes ofter the DMR and Needle Rifle (both arguably better guns).
The final weapon is a melee weapon or something incredibly hard to use.
Also melee kills (assassinations in MCC) set a player back 1 level/gun. Maybe this is something that Last Spartan Standing could make use of.
It plays great for a mode with a “first to finish” motivation. With LSS the goal is to be the last alive; players already have a strong motivation to avoid fights, punishing players for winning engagements make that motivation significantly stronger.
Sure, I’d give it a try as well, but I can only imagine it being extremely boring and unsatisfying.
I guess the big thing is, it doesn’t reward skill per se so much as camping and scavenging. It’s a great game mode if you don’t mind sitting in a corner for a period of time.
I partially agree. The early popularity of BRs wasn’t because it heavily leaned on skill, but rather prioritized the decisions players made to end up being the winner. Anybody could win. You could lay low and loot to upgrade your gear without “earning” it. Fast ttk allowed for a bad player to catch a good player off guard and come out on top.
In Halo that can’t really happen and doesn’t really feel welcoming for a new or casual player. That’s what makes me worried for Tatanka’s success.
Now I don’t think LSS should start from most OP weapon to least because that actively works against the player and getting kills would be a bad thing.
That’s not true. I pretty much suck at this game but I’ve won a few time or come close to winning a lot of times. If I die early than I stick around until the last player is eliminated. Plus, not all game modes should carter to the lowest common denominator.
You know how in normal FAA you get run and gun while being shot by 6 other players at the same time. Can’t do that with 5 lives and expect to win.
“I’m OP. I don’t like it. Most people are on my side. Trust me bro”
Sure. Why not.
Unpopular opinion: you should not get credit for rage quitting after being eliminated.