We just had a vote on campaign time. Miguel caron what is this heresy! of it being a week. I guess devs don't read forums caron come on and tell us why its a week campaign . I need my mind at ease ! I don't want 40k to fail! It didnt take Horus 7 days to fight for Terra. It took 55 days to fight for 1 imperial palace . which the loyalist won that fight.

I guess the devs want to have several campaign objectives every day for each faction, I don't see any other reason to make the campaigns that short, personaly I would rather have maybe 2-3 secondary objectives at week and 1-2 primary objectives, the rest of the time we could secure territory and supply lines, upgrade important bases and save some requisition points to be able to spawn elite and hero classes when it really matters.

But we still don't know how campaigns will work so I hope the devs can clarify that after E3 and we can have a discussion about it.

i've got to say, that that's kind of the point.
the game must be designed for the hardcore gamer, because that's the kind of player that plays an online only title.
talking about the cool stuff that a player missed is kind of what makes a game great. look at eve online.
i have a very hard time understanding how any person who plays a large-scale military game one day a week could benefit from a campaign system. from said players' perspective it doesn't matter if he's there for one day out of a week, or four days out of a month, he's still missing a HUGE part of the fight.

on a side note, i (of course) think that a week is too short, but i don't see why a week wouldn't be long enough for a beta-situation.

coming from eve online i think that a campaign lasting for a month is a pretty good idea. i also think that (off topic) advancement to the next 'rank' or 'skill' taking a month is a good idea.

i started reading the heresy series again just to get my game tight!
i've got fulgrim and whatever is after that at work, and i'm going to start afresh on book one here at home

Looking at the poll i linked here basically the smallest of the community's part is ok with a week, and this community surely isnt made out of only the casuals i described. Matter of fact im pretty sure its the other way around, myself also being a person who has enough time to spend playing games since im a student who does part time jobs here and there.

So neither side is content with this, whilst the "casual" side has an even bigger reason to be against it.
The fact that you cannot see it doesent make the phenomenon non-existant, as many here who voice themselves against it have shown. Actually working on something for a longer time makes you all the more dedicated to it imo, not having enough time to contribute to something due to how short a campaign is on the other hand frustrating.

Example in point, in GW2 "matches" last a week. I particularly enjoy fighting against a single server that my ex guild moved to, and smashing their face (not gonna go into reasons, long story). So when i see us matched up against them but i have work that week it pisses me off. Same way, since we were told we will be moving from continent to continent as campaign goes, someone cannot make it during the week the campaign is being fought on his favorite continent.

If the campaign lasts a week he wont get to enjoy his favorite continent, and the campaign will cycle back to that continent god knows when. If it lasts more than a week then he will indeed be able to have enough time to savor his fave continent before the campaign ends and the game shifts to another one.

Well, that's pretty much how I understand it. This reply isn't aimed at any one post btw.

• There'll be the macro Primary Campaign: e.g Build this super-relic device.
• Then pop-up secondaries that will either;
  1. Help you to achieve the Primary: Uncovering a rare resource pool located by Fleet scanners or,
  2. Hinder the enemy's progress: Acquire a weapon cache to battle the other guys.
• Finally WC missions that provide the strategies to achieve the primary/secondary goals or whether even to undertake any of them.

Not actually having to take part in any mission, being able to just say "hey the CSMs cheated us out of a victory last week, lets just screw with them all week instead of taking any secondaries" is deeply organic btw, my favorite part of that whole interview. And people said DEs would never feel at home here .

What I really think needs to be kept in perspective is that the Primary campaign isn't going to be just getting to one point, one big, must-see battle that will cause you to die a little inside if you're looking after the kids, getting drunk or doing homework and miss it (although I long for those ) . It's going to be a War of many Battles that each contribute to the faction's success. Anyone who logs on for their 3-hours a week and helps the faction a little has absolutely helped. Even if you spent the entire time defending a single resource point that contributes in a big way, especially when as they said in the interview, one of your Faction's key strategic assets gets toppled in another zone and you've lost any progress you just made being aggressive in another. It's just that they don't want to make holding territory as important as in other IPs. Well not unimportant, but mostly as a means to an end which ultimately serves the Primary campaign. The biggest territory WC doesn't win. The smartest does. It's not the size that counts

I'm waiting to see whether a campaign's end means that the instance of the world simply evaporates because that's a big deal if it is a persistent world. If that's the case then each weeklong-ish campaign is just a chapter of a larger story of months or years and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the repercussions of an earlier chapter/campaign have real effect on the game months after we've forgotten it. In that way it fulfills Miguel's promise of the average 'casual' player and the most 'elitest of the leet' (dumbass) being major contributors to Arkhona. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic.

well, maybe i misunderstand.

i'm all for a longer campaign time. i just spent 2.5 years in eve online taking over some small part of their world.

After reading that interview I am really hoping that these devs can follow through on these many fantastic ideas. Structurally its like a dream game for me. Realistically I will try and remain optimistic that all these systems get put into the game. Its like everything that planetside could have been along with left 4 dead pve all having orgiastic sex in the 41st cntury. Im fucking hyped out of my mind.

I think there are a lot of people looking at the campaign times in the wrong light. "Winning" a campaign doesn't reset the map, it advances the overall plot for the war. By keeping it short and focused you avoid having the metagame grow stagnant (such as having the same base change hands a hundred times with only the last one before the timeframe ends being meaningful) while also keeping the fighting localized and action packed.

Think of it in terms of real life military engagements. In World War II the final goal of the allies in the European theater was to take Berlin, but first they had to take the beaches at Normandy, capture towns leading to Paris, capture Paris, capture towns leading to the Rhine, etc, etc, etc. In EC terms, each of these steps is represented by a week-long campaign which will finally lead to the owning of Arkhona. So yeah, maybe you miss the week of the battle for the Titan Factory (Battle of the Bulge), but you were there for the Destruction of the Spaceport (D Day) and the Defence of the Bridge (Market Garden) so you still have bragging rights and great memories. By making each week count for more you make even the smallest contribution more meaningful.

As far as truly casual players are concerned, I daresay most of them are a lot more interested in logging in, killing some dudes, and logging back out than they are with campaign goals (beyond knowing that's were the fastest action will be at).

This will be off-point, but this particular example is another situation in which destructible environments would be good. Scorched earth policies, anyone?