While I've no problem with a game that isn't all about winning, this idea doesn't really work. If I'm understanding it correctly, a player that dies on his own machine get to play on, but with the computer artificially increasing their chances to die? However, their original chance to die is based on lag? That's two mechanisms for killing a player off, neither of which are really under his control.
Doesn't really sound like fun. I think creative team games are a more worthy path than trying to make everyone a winner. Plus, people would then just think back through the game to work out who was the "real" winner. If the game had more team objectives, or a specific thing to do that didn't include beating other players, then there's merit in allowing everyone to shine. Putting players in a "kill the other players" situation and then not really delivering on that premise is a pointless exercise.
Unless the idea is for the player to feel like he's won, but for the victory to have no meaning. In which case, why not just play against bots? As you said, the social aspect is nullified as everyone is playing a different game.
Also, in a low lag environment wouldn't it would play fairly normally?
Doesn't really sound like fun. I think creative team games are a more worthy path than trying to make everyone a winner. Plus, people would then just think back through the game to work out who was the "real" winner. If the game had more team objectives, or a specific thing to do that didn't include beating other players, then there's merit in allowing everyone to shine. Putting players in a "kill the other players" situation and then not really delivering on that premise is a pointless exercise.
Unless the idea is for the player to feel like he's won, but for the victory to have no meaning. In which case, why not just play against bots? As you said, the social aspect is nullified as everyone is playing a different game.
Also, in a low lag environment wouldn't it would play fairly normally?