LMS - Last Man Standing Mode

(iwound) #1

Coming from Counterstrike a LMS game i can understand the enjoyment of having one precious life through-out the round.
it obviously encourages a completely different way of playing, usually at a much reduced speed.

one thing about normal objective play is the removal of comparing kills. as a lot agree it encourages the wrong type of gameplay.
but in an LMS game those who want that killing competition could have it.
Allowing a mode that gives a full k/d ratio comparison on the main scoreboard.

the problem being that i see is popularity. which is why to gather supporters it needs
to be introduced at release. so new players can see it has the option rather than a what if, maybe, later so not bother.
with the possibility of bringing in new players.

(SockDog) #2

I say if modes work within the scope of the majority of the existing assets then go for it. It can be refined further down the line if necessary. LMS would certainly give a dramatic change of pace for the game, this might be something that brings appeal to DB from an entirely different audience.

(Samurai.) #3

I mean i do like the idea of LMS but how it’s implemented in CS is basically the way to do it, where the entire design of the game from the ground upwards is around this game mode - you don’t see them implementing SW gameplay in CS or have i missed something?

This is something which DB has not done from the start (i.e it’s designed for Obj/SW gameplay with the TTK/Movement/Map design/Class system/Abilities to revive etc) and therefore i feel if you just try to dump a LMS game mode (or any others like domination being discussed elsewhere) on top of this design base it will not work well enough compared to these games designed entirely for these modes. Really this game should stick to it’s strengths of what it’s designed for from the beginning and perfect SW/Obj game-play.

If people after release are so desperate for something like this then let SD release mod tools whereby the community can design game modes and it won’t be at the expense of SD’s reputation whether these modified gamemodes pasted on top of the DB base will be a success or complete failure.

(iwound) #4

it would be more fun than TDM just randomly spawning kill or die and repeat.
it would require its own maps or modification of existing official maps like TDM with single or twin objectives imo.

there is no reason existing mechanics wont work with LMS i dont buy the point that it should be designed around 1 mode and will not work with others.
and that it wont work for lms because its not been designed for it. there is nothing in the core design to suggest it wouldn’t.

xp would be turned off (and possibly gadgets) and it would be just about gunplay and not upgrades.
because in a shorter game like LMS there is no time for upgrades so just have it off.
the purists around should enjoy something like that. where one wrong tactical decision means a lost round.

i think its important for a new game to have extra modes of play.
but on top of that they need to be current modes that are popular today.

if SD create more modes without having to put in a lot more work, they can double, triple the options and actual size of the game.

these extra modes may well be not that popular. but then one might be.

(RasteRayzeR) #5

I believe this goes against the principle of DB as this terribly slows down the game’s peace … this is boring after a couple of rounds.

(spookify) #6

I was acutally thinking about this, this morning!

OLTL was pretty fun in RTCW.

This game has a long way to go with Medic Rev’s and Gibbing before this is possible.

(Bangtastic) #7

unfortunately mod tools destroys SD’s agenda and doesnt work for F2P model. I dont see any problem when SD is developing new game modes in future and implements post-release.

(INF3RN0) #8

Do you mean SnD or elimination FFA/TDM?

(Bangtastic) #9

Only one that makes sense to me is LMS in TDM setting which is different to the main game mode. SnD or some kind of rush mode could be quite the same as Obj/assault(basically it is). No need for rather equal game modes, ppl who prefer one of them, will probably find the non-favourite one as redundant and needless.

Some game modes can be built upon the nuclear radiation setting -> some save areas, some areas where you suffer from dmg slowly not as fast as we know it. Infection-mode, mutation mode, decay-mode, half-life period - mode etc… its a good basic setting where good stuff can built around it :slight_smile: im sure to see similar things in the future

(potty200) #10

I have to be honest, I hate LMS. Not saying everyone should write it off straight away but I cannot see Dirtybomb competing with CS + COD when it comes to this. They have both done it… and done it well. So imo leave it for those type of players in those type of games! :slight_smile:

(SockDog) #11

The whole point is that it’s not standard DB OBJ mode. Saying it’s for other gamers, is boring or is already done well elsewhere doesn’t answer the point that it could be popular on DB, bring players to DB and so make SD much monies. I honestly don’t understand this knee jerk reaction to make SD’s games locked into what’s been done in the past and only that, heaven forbid they should offer a mode that appeals to other players.

DB being a massive success benefits everyone, appealing to different audiences via different modes means more concurrent players. Better SD have 2-3 modes that pull 5k-10k players each than they have a single mode that pulls 5k. It’s not like SD would just drop OBJ because another becomes more popular. If anything it means they could continue to collectively support DB across all modes by assigning more people to work on it.

(Protekt1) #12

LMS is good. Was good in RTCW too.

(INF3RN0) #13

SnD or a LMS team oriented mode could be more popular among those from other games. I doubt it would be more popular than obj/sw mode, but it might be something worth testing if there’s a demand for more game modes post release. Not sure how it would work tbh.

(iwound) #14

what is snd?

(Violator) #15

Not a particular fan of this gamemode but why not :). The more modes the better.

(iwound) #16

Legend.

snd, search n destroy, cod

de_, defuse, counterstrike

lms + 2 obj, dirty bomb

im talking about an LMS ruleset within the framework of DB.
so that could be 1 life or 5 lives, obj or no objs or other variant.
as long as its a restriction on the amount of lives per match.

whether its bombs, building, capture or steal is irrelevant.
but the fact that DB has more options will maybe make it a better choice for an LMS gametype.

my suggestion was for the same type as CS which has been copied by Cod.
so its not about the name (DB can have its own name for it).
but what rules that will make the best, fun game.

(Mustang) #17

I hate any gametype that takes you out of the action for too long just for dying.

(Raviolay) #18

Mode

Objective LMS.

With a set amount of respawns per-objective, secondary objectives boost your teams respawn pool, at the expense other the other teams respawns. Both sides have equal set number of respawns, however defenders gain respawns overtime at set intervals per objective. If the attackers pass the objective before the defenders set integer the defenders loose those additional respawns. Attackers get more respawns for finishing objectives, & for holding onto secondary objectives.

Mode

Extraction.

Game changer.
You can pick up fallen team members classes RE equipment and change your role. Albeit if you pick up the solders kit you don’t get the extra health, and if as a Soilder you pick up a another class you loose the extra health.

Two rival merc teams with set 5 man squads using all 5 classes in a 5v5 setting, there are three random Intel locations and only one transport out of London before the bombs go off. Whoever holds two or more Intel can via the support class, toss a beacon for extraction that is on a set timer, and extract who is left FTW with the Intel in toe. Players can hold all three pieces of Intel on their own if the so choose, or spread it around the team.

The 3 pieces of Intel will require one class to access, some base examples (with anything that one could dream up) are:

Solider class
Uses C4 to blow up a safe, Intel is inside.

Engineer
Repairs a hardwired internet cable to get files sent to a PDA.

Medic
Administers a truth serum, to a NPC .

Covert OP’s (sniper)
Has to climb into vents and bypass booby traps, as to open a door to a room with said Intel.

Support
Uses a drone strike on a target, to clear a path to one of the above objectives.

The other team can ambush in the time it takes for the extraction chopper to arrive, and take all the Intel and extract instead, first to 9 pieces of Intel wins, over 4 rounds. Whoever is closet to 9 after 4 rounds wins, if the magic number is not met. In the case of a tie on the 4th round, the total number of survivors your team has had, is totaled & who has had the most extracted teammates over the entire match wins. If that is a tie also, it’s overtime, with a single piece of Intel in place of three & a shorter extraction timer.

The only reason I can fathom why anyone is against having more modes of play, is that something else may become more popular. To what is considered pro by many on these forums.

(iwound) #19

interesting obj lms mode youve set out. if i understand it right.
the teams fight over extra spawns for their team?

extraction. your saying collect 3 items then go to pick up point. also interesting. is more of a map design. under lms rules. with the pick up mechanic you mentioned.

i should really do this ie set out a complete rule set for my idea.

i think as long as there is an LMS rule mode implemented. lots of variations can be implemented via map design.
whether its a sniping map, steal, destroy, rescue etc as i said before.

but i like the idea of fighting over spare spawns. where they are a reward for winning an objective. big, big incentive.

(Raviolay) #20

Yep iwound designing maps for that extraction mode would require 5 static objectives, of which two would not be in play per round. As for making areas suitable on the map for an air extraction. If the objectives holding the Intel themselves had that suitably built in. Or on around them, that could speed up the flow of the map. Lending also to quicker map knowledge uptake by those who playing it for the first time.

Also, yes the standard objective game with LMS would involve both sides fighting over a secondary objective, for extra spawns that are taken from the other sides pool.