10 replies to this topic

[Mattbat]

I've been seeing some decent suggestions and some awful suggestions steeped in ignorance.

There was already a game that executed a persistent online map near flawlessly. That game is Chromehounds. I've suggested some solutions from CH but I've been getting a lot of blank stares; it's surprising to me that MWO fans don't know about CH. Much of the information about this game has been lost or forgotten, so I'd like to share how PGI could learn from the successes and failures of this game. The main reason why this game was not very successful was their flawed economic model (PGI implementing MWO with a F2P model is WAY better imo). Here is a short video review which highlights the features of the "Neroimus War", Chromehound's FW.





I'd like to point out a few key features described in this video:

• @ 4:20 - World map UI and map selection. Each "territory" has 4 maps within it that you fight over to capture for your faction.
  
• @ 4:35 - Lobby map to plan your strategy with markers, waypoints, etc.
  
• @ 4:50 - Multiple win conditions

Other features in the game not highlighted in the video:

• Units had a member cap. Chromehounds was 20 - MWO should be something like 100. This makes leaderboard racing and other influences more balanced.
  
  • "But a unit will just split into 2, 3, 4 separate units and be controlled by one! How do you keep this from happening?"
    
  • Below incentive: Be #1
• If a member leaves or is kicked from a unit, all of the points accumulated during that member's time with the unit should be wiped from the unit.
  
  • What do I mean by points? This should be integrated in phase 3. Every time you win a match, you get a flat rate capture points, lose and you lose them, etc. If your unit is tagged on the planet, you get a capture point bonus. This not only has an affect on the micro-sphere, but macro as well (leaderboards) etc.
    
  • You also get overall points, call them Renown Points, for playing a match. Something like triple the points for winning. Also a separate leaderboard. Renown will reflect activity of sorts, Capture Points will reflect win% impact.
    
  • Merc units would be tough to balance here. Main point to take away is only 100 members can contribute to the unit's leaderboard total.
• Map resets. Either by in-game mechanics or time. Ideally, come up with a mechanic that "ends" the map "war" every 2-4 months. One of the factions "win".
  
  • Once a faction has lost enough territory, they "surrender" to the occupying faction and can only launch matches from one planet, their capital, as more of a "rebel" unit.
    
  • There are leaderboards for each time period, or war, which reset. Those who are, say top 3, for each war get some kind of bonus (c-bill or MC, unique cockpit flags, etc). This is top 3 or so for all factions combined, not top 3 for each faction.
    
  • The overall winning faction gets awards, obviously lesser than top 3 rewards, but still something to be proud about like a cockpit flag.
• In-Game News Flashes
  
  • If a major unit defects to another faction, there should be an in-game notification.
    
  • If a major territory falls to another faction, there should be an in-game notification.
    
  • News reports and etc will help with visibility and stir the pot.

[HeavyEcho]

ChromeHounds can never be copied. That is all.

[Cyberdogs7]

HeavyEcho, on 09 April 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

ChromeHounds can never be copied. That is all.

I don't know about that. Have you seen MAV by bombdogstudios? It's a pretty dedicated re-imagining of Chromehounds. Lots of old chromehound groups have joined in to it also.

[AssaultPig]

it's too bad chromehounds didn't come out like, a couple years later; I feel like at the time people weren't quite ready for the whole 'persistent online pvp world' idea (or at least, not enough people.) Also too bad it wasn't on PC.

woulda been a genius F2P game too, with all the customization options

Agree with the OP though; it's 'faction warfare' wasn't anything deep or complicated (and was pretty much as vulnerable to population issues as MWO) but it worked well.

Edited by AssaultPig, 11 April 2016 - 10:32 AM.

[Mattbat]

Cyberdogs7, on 10 April 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

I don't know about that. Have you seen MAV by bombdogstudios? It's a pretty dedicated re-imagining of Chromehounds. Lots of old chromehound groups have joined in to it also.

MAV is a cool concept but the gameplay is lacking compared to Chromehounds itself (a 10+ year old game). I know it's a one-guy dev team but it's just not there yet. I did the kickstarter; I'm really rooting for it.

MWO has one important thing down: the gameplay. Hit detection is really good 1v1 in a bubble. They just need to fix some map clipping and nearly everything about FW.

[Anjian]

I played this for a while, usually in the side of Morskoj. Every Hound in the game no matter what kind, has a strong distinction and plays a major role, from scouting to artillery.

Too bad the publisher was SEGA, which had no spine to continue it, that it was an X-Box 360 exclusive which meant no PC support or cross platform interaction, and the developers discovered that making the Dark Souls franchise was much more financially rewarding. Yup, from the makers of Dark Souls and Armored Core.

The CW model on Chromehounds was brought to Armored Core V and Verdict Day in a more simplified form, with added mercenary support. So squads lacking members can temporarily hire mercs off the merc queue. And it was doable for a while, but again, lack of proper F2P ecosystem and having the player base, which is already small to begin with, divided between Xbox 360 and PS3 platforms, which means they can't play each other, was also a killer. Then when the developers hit gold with Dark Souls, that was it for Armored Core also, since their publishers kept insisting they have to make DS or similar games like Bloodbourne.

Many of the parts you see in ACV and ACVD resemble those in Chromehounds like the quadlegs and the tracks.

I believe a key developer in From that did Chromehounds, ACV and ACVD has left for Square Enix to work on SE's Front Mission series, as Square Enix has plans to revive that franchise. This sort of community warfare fits Front Mission perfectly.

[Mattbat]

Anjian, on 11 April 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

I haven't played Front Mission but it looks interesting.
It seems like the key devs that worked on Chromehounds actually know how to create a game-type that has somewhat balanced multi-level win conditions that promote variety.

[nimdabew]

1:50 to 2:50 stood out for me. "if you don't have any friends that play... If you join a random group, they won't be as reliable as a group that COMMUNICATES WITH EACH OTHER... Etc."

[Mattbat]

nimdabew, on 03 May 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

1:50 to 2:50 stood out for me. "if you don't have any friends that play... If you join a random group, they won't be as reliable as a group that COMMUNICATES WITH EACH OTHER... Etc."

Yup, but in CH the game types were 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, 6v6 with a unit cap of 20 members. This made it so you could usually find games as a team or split up into smaller groups if necessary.

[Lord0fHats]

I really liked the CW of Chromehounds (I just hated the rest of the game by the end XD). I'd definitely prefer the CW map to become smaller. If I'd been a dev, I'd have proposed Campaign seasons. Like start a season with "the Battle for Butt Hold" where players can join Davion, Steiner, FRR, or Clan Wolf and Clan Jade Falcon. The Clans and IS factions are allied, but can also fight one another during the campaign. Once one side has won, or a certain amount of time has passed, the campaign ends and a new one begins with new factions to join. The campaigns could be stringed together to tell the story of MWO's version of the Clan Invasion.

The above is an example, and not intended to be lore accurate

[Starbomber109]

Mechwarrior6188, on 09 April 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

There was already a game that executed a persistent online map near flawlessly. That game is Chromehounds.

Ha, hahaha, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA.

That's a great joke, haha. Listen, I played CH, and while I did enjoy the game there were numerous flaws in N. War. One of which was a regional economy, in order to get the best parts, you had to nation hop. The best stability computer was in Mroscovia, the best gunnery computer was in...I'll call them France. Then there were the "best" parts for each part class. Units would jump around to get their membership the best parts. The format for matches was also quite different.

I'd say, MWO has actually done a BETTER job than CH did. Our FP, while it has issues, is not plauged by issues of bot rigging and hacking that N. War had. Some may say that MS is kinda doing that, but MS is actually playing the map looking for fights, and the hacking is non-exsistant (there's no way to bring a bugged mech into a game)

So in shot, as much as I loved CH, I think MWO is actually better in a lot of ways.