See I remember them talking about it as well, but they were vague about it. I remember Miguel talking about how a faction could secure some sort of victory by taking a single major objective that would help them in the next campaign (his example was specifically a manufactorum with Titan Weaponry inside of it that the Eldar were particularly interested in).
I think it would be measured against the amount of resources accumulated throughout the campaign and for a certain thresh hold reached. As an example, using your idea Demetri on reseting resources before each campaign, then all Factions startr with nothing and they need to accumulate 10 000 points (pie in the sky figure no idea what is realistic number) OR Perhaps at the start of the campaign a certain objective is set as the target goal and the campaign is a success if the faction manages to seize, and keep, control of it by the end of the campaign. I actually had a lay out for how i think a campaign should run soup to nuts ... no idea where i posted it though lol. I am gonna go digging for it. IB
There shouldn't be a set "This is how you win a campaign". I feel it should change from campaign to campaign depending on the results and history of the previous campaigns. One campaign Chaos might want to take a location and raise a chaos shrine and open a warp gate or something while in the next they might want to destroy something from each of the 3 factions.
I remember this too and yeah it was pretty vague, Miguel didn't want to clearly say if there will be ONE decisive victor. It either means they have absolutely no idea themselves or they really don't want one clear victor not to frustrate the losers. I'm not sure myslef really but something tells me a traditional approach would be the most appropriate - one clear victor of a given campaign announced by the devs at the end of it.
Careful what you wish for. Main arguments against an overall winner were that it would naturally default to being the largest faction, or require major victory campaign balancing so that smaller factions received a handicap boost. It also bears a psychological risk - if SM win four times running, and gain benefits for doing so, there'll be hefty calls for SM nerfing by the other three factions. Speaking personally, I think Tornadium's asymmetric balancing suggestion is the right answer, with rewards going to a "winning faction" being about rewarding the current victory, not making the next easier. If anything, it should become progressively harder to "win" if there is an overall winner - we shouldn't boost the existing winners and screw up the underdogs further - trust me, that's not healthy game balancing!
Where did I say anything about boosting the existing winners ? The sole fact that they won means they need no more freaking boosts. I'd prefer just an official annoucement saying: Chaos Victorious ! only a symbolical reward. Then we start a new campaign and everybody has a chance to win too (except for Eldars ofc, but who would even consider them victorious ). But seriously, if we have different victory conditions for different factions they will have to be extrremely well thought out and balanced in its own way...I'm just picturing the voices of butthurt after the finished campaign: 'But they only needed to capture that damn temple and we had to do x times more, not fair, muaaaa.' . I wonder if any factions, not only the victorious will be able to keep their strongholds, outposts etc after a finished campaign?
I know you're not a raving lunatic, but most people have been suggesting significant rewards for achieving key objectives, including Miguel's suggestion of carrying a benefit into the next campaign. On its own, it's not necessarily a problem, but when tied to factions with vastly different populations and potential for achievement, it could become pretty toxic. Especially if two unbalanced factions share a common objective. And it would be worse if the devs were seen to congratulate them for winning the campaign if the rest of the player base feels there was no realistic chance of any other outcome. The "No fair! We had to achieve 15 objectives to get 1 million requisition, the Eldar only had to get one!" is actually the type of balancing I've proposed elsewhere, because I think it's either that, power boosts to underpopulated factions, or off-the-wall ideas like removing all benefit to achieving objectives (ie, what's the point in doing them), forcing population caps in certain areas (not great for player experience - see WAR's Keeps) or throwing artificial barriers at the population dominant side (e.g. Not just more tyranid activity, but constant swarms that force a large chunk of players to PvE to retain held territory and objectives). The alternative (which I really want EC to avoid) is the underdog spiral of doom that killed most of WAR's servers, where a faction repeatedly on the losing side had the double whammy of the winning side becoming more powerful and their own population bleeding away in droves as a significant number of players will get frustrated and go and do something else when they're presented with almost guaranteed defeats every time they log on. Or reroll to the winning side, making the problem worse.
