Better than the alternative.

Would've play

That is last man standing gameplay, not battle royale. So it really doesn't have that much in common other than 1 winner, so you can't call it a Royale.

modes like this need a mechanic that makes taking a fight worth the risk. ffa with lives is a horrible idea on its own

lol

good point
as you mentioned pupg and fortnite below, those games have mechanics exactly like this

each kill gets you a life

Lower the starting amount of lives. Each kill gets you an extra life or just replenishes some HP/AP or upgrades your weapon somehow. Like you run out of ammo and there's nothing on the map and you can only loot ammo on kills.

There is a vast place for creativity and ideas.

1 life in pubg and fortnite, we have 20(!)

its survival

and will work

+1

This is still not a reason to take fights. The driver needs to be external to the players to a degree to make them take action.

another solid post by wwwAnyBoy

We give 5 lives to last 2 players.

We give 9 lives to last player

Meow.
Meow Meow.

the idea is not that bad itself
the only thing i've changed right away is:
we give...ZERO fucks to last player!

give each champ WWF moves and put em in the ring.

still better than sacrifies or slipgate

Just play FFA...

Reading this made me need to poop

Battle Royale is usually about 100 players on the same map.

Now imagine the FPS you'd have on QC with 100 players on the same map.

100 players, but map size like 100 Quake maps

Like that would make your FPS any better, especially on an open map.

let's call it Quake Champions: TEAM ARENA.

25 is all you need, thats how fast your eye is.

People who say your eyes are only fast enough for 60 FPS or less are idiots.

The eye can see about 1000 FPS. This has been proven in many reaction test reports.

So there should be 1000 players on a Battle Royale :)

“I think typically, once you get up above 200 fps it just looks like regular, real-life motion,” DeLong says. But in more regular terms he feels that the drop-off in people being able to detect changes in smoothness in a screen lies at around 90Hz.

conclusion: human eye can only see 90fps, but console peasants are OK with 15-24fps on their 50ms TV's

Not true, the human eye has the ability to see up to 500 Hz and more. There have been several studies to show that.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861