Second Sphere

Wargames => Warhammer 40k => Topic started by: Sorck on July 09, 2012, 10:50:43 pm

Title: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Sorck on July 09, 2012, 10:50:43 pm
Well... I'm coming to find the opinions of our Enclavites on having a forum-wide Second Sphere 'campaign' of sorts.

Below is a general overview of the idea. Your feedback on the idea would be invaluable. :)

How many people are still visiting the forum? If we sent an all-member email and asked everyone to come on and post so we know they're still interested in the forum, it would be easier to get everyone to make a concerted effort - a big push - to get the show back on the road.

The idea is something similar to the Ork vs Imperial Guard campaign that I believe was running before the crash. I think I may have written this up before but everything from the last six months is gone from my PM box and the committee board, so I'll try again. Essentially, we want to - if you'll excuse the business terminology - gamify the forum.

Basically, we get everyone on the forum to sign up for one of two teams. Not sure what - maybe something like Order (Imperium, Tau, Eldar) vs Disorder (DE, Chaos, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons). Everyone who signs up for one of the teams gets something for their profile/avatar/signature that immediately identifies them as being a part of it every time they post. If we're going to do this, we need to go the whole way - everything on the forum should reflect these two teams. We're looking for friendly competitive rivalry between them. I'm thinking a new secret HQ board for each team - this will a) encourage people to sign up, b) build camaraderie within the team and c) give a place to discuss tactics. A board which both teams should be there too, called something appropriate like No-Man's Land.
Each member earns points for their team for carrying out certain specified activities. These could include:
-Joining the team
-Writing an article or tactica
-Writing a piece of fluff
-Writing a battle report
-Placing in an official contest
-Reaching post landmarks (e.g. 1000 posts)
-Referring a new member to the forum and your team (this would earn lots of points - 'recruiting' should be a big deal as we want to encourage this more than anything and is vital if this is going to work)
-Winning a game against a player on the other team
-Winning a 'Duel' - some kind of two-person monthly hobby vow-type thing where each player is striving towards a similar goal. Either the first person to reach the goal, or the one who is judged the best (need to make sure it's impartial somehow)
-Special forum events

etc etc

People can earn ranks based on how many points they've earned for their team (to replace forum ranks). There should be a team leader - maybe a Champion? - who should probably only serve for a set length of time, at which point the next champion could be decided either by points scored or by election. Maybe other set roles in the team as well. Recuitment officer, treasurer (keeps track of points), someone to write for the newsletter, etc etc.

At the end of a period - maybe three months? - a team is declared a winner for the quarter/season/whatever. Not sure what the prizes can be other than bragging rights. Maybe sponsored prizes for the highest few earners that season? Some kind of forum-based perk, like a new emoticon for their team, or something? Maybe the winning team can pick the next contest or set a challenge for the other team or something?
Don't know if we'd need to reset points at the end of the season. Maybe have a 'total points' tally and a 'seasonal points' tally?

The scores should maybe be displayed fairly prominently at the top of the main page if possible.


Unsure about what we should do regarding moderators, admins and referees/organisers. Maybe have a group of neutral 'Peacekeepers' ? I think the only mods would need to be the globals, as we moved towards with the committees, and then the 'Board Leaders' could still lead boards, but do so as part of their team.

This whole thing would take a hell of a lot of organisation. If we're going to do this, we'd need to get as many people on board with the organising as possible.

It's often been said that we need to have a defining point as a forum to distinguish ourselves from others. If we did this right, this could be it.

So, do you think that you would be interested in participating in such an event and/or organising it?

Also, what ideas along the lines of this idea do you have?
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: InsaneTD on July 10, 2012, 12:55:55 am
That sounds awesome and I'd love to help. I can't think of anything to add at this point but I'm sure someone will have so more suggestions.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: El ShasOcho on July 10, 2012, 02:58:41 am
Definitely interested. Something similar to the Whaagh campaign we had going before the crash, but instead of two factions all the factions right? I would certainly join in, although I doubt I would be able to play any games unless it starts quite soon as I will be gone for college in a month and a half, would still help out, write fluff/tactica, etc.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Rej on July 10, 2012, 05:15:05 am
I love the idea of this and am very keen. I'm happy to help anyway I can to get this going!

Could we also have a broad storyline/setting for the campaign to take place? And the season winners can choose a plot point/device to advance or develop?

But yes, I am all about Gamifying this place.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Sorck on July 10, 2012, 10:27:37 am
Definitely interested. Something similar to the Whaagh campaign we had going before the crash, but instead of two factions all the factions right?
That is the sort of thing that this has been likened to.

It's currently been suggested to follow what is essentially the Forces and Allies of the Imperium vs their Enemies.

I love the idea of this and am very keen. I'm happy to help anyway I can to get this going!

Could we also have a broad storyline/setting for the campaign to take place? And the season winners can choose a plot point/device to advance or develop?
I like the idea of having such a contest. :)

I might have to mention this to the already-busy contests committee. :P

There is a committee for this campaign but, for the moment, I think we need a more accessible board to organise it in - maybe we could use a dedicated 'No Man's Land' Board? (not that I created this a while back... :shifty:)
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: InsaneTD on July 10, 2012, 10:50:46 am
I'd be willing to give some time towards this. I'm getting pretty excited about this actually. :P
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 10, 2012, 12:42:47 pm
Schev and I had plans to run another warhammer 40k campaign before the crash. I'll have to get in touch if we wanted to continue what we had (kinda) planned, or expand it so the whole forum can join.

Zen and I were pencilling in a Fantasy one too, but idk where that'll go.

Open for ideas though, willing to help where I can.

Zambia
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Sorck on July 10, 2012, 01:45:33 pm
I've moved this to the general campaign discussion board. :)

We're going to need some members to spearhead this campaign.

Does the general idea of the campaign being, essentially, forces of order vs forces of disorder sound appealing? If so we could begin work on this premise and offer 6th edition article writing, campaign fluff writing and other such contests.

Also, does attaching forum 'ranks' to this system sound interesting?
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: InsaneTD on July 10, 2012, 02:00:30 pm
Yes, yes and yes. :P
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 10, 2012, 02:45:38 pm
Yes, yes and yes. :P

This

Sorck you make good points.

However I'd suggest to make it more emphasised on victories in battles/games rather than defeating the opposition - because so much fighting goes on within the races in the "order" category. Let alone the disorder category :P
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Sorck on July 10, 2012, 03:13:27 pm
Yes, yes and yes. :P

This

Sorck you make good points.

However I'd suggest to make it more emphasised on victories in battles/games rather than defeating the opposition - because so much fighting goes on within the races in the "order" category. Let alone the disorder category :P
I see no problem with such a thing.

We need to decide how many points should be awarded for different things.

One thing though, bringing people (especially those who become active) to 2S will get you rather lovely numbers of points. ;)
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: crisis_vyper on July 10, 2012, 08:04:40 pm
Definitely interested. And it will be a good incentive for me to play with 6th
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 11, 2012, 12:15:37 am
One thing though, bringing people (especially those who become active) to 2S will get you rather lovely numbers of points. ;)

This depends on how many/what time the pointsmasters (or whatever we decide to call them) are prepared to put in to calculating such points.

What we could do is say if you bring a new member to the forum, you get a certain %age of points they get added to yours as commission, in addition to the points bonus for a new member. So if he writes 5 articles for, say, 50 points - then you yourself get 5 points (10% commission) because you're the reason they are here. This %age of commission isn't deducted from the rightful person that scored them, more added in addition for the player who roped them in.

Therefore it's more rewarding for a current member to get a few players with a real buzz for the hobby in, then it is for them to just force all their facebook friends to sign up with a profile and never view the site again :P



Another idea could be to host smaller campaigns within campaigns every 3 or 4 months or so. Say for example, the past guard vs ork campaign. Points in the sub-campaign (perhaps come up with a better word for it in future :P) will be tallied in the subcampaign (for relevant articles about the campaign, etc) while also claiming the regular global points. Then, the winning side (order or disorder) would get a large amount of points towards the global campaign for winning a sub campain.  If that makes sense.



Another idea I had is why not limit it to order and disorder. I know, especially with disorder races - they'd like to see where they sit on the ladder of disorder, who to bully on and who to look for allies with, etc. I'm sure the Order factions would also compare for their own cocky and ego gains. So aside from the main global Order v Disorder scores, each board/race/faction could have a subscore - used more with campaigns that involve multiple parties, etc etc.



We could also look to include some vassa......erm...online games.....with the forum members. This could allow some games to feel like community games for a change - could prove epic in terms of campaigns, etc etc.

Just a few ideas

Zambia
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Rej on July 11, 2012, 06:10:30 am
I'm liking everything I'm hearing and am all about supporting this.

One thing Tom and I thought of though was what happens when a player have multiple armies? For example, I have a large Dark Eldar force that I would love to use in this campaign, which would place me as disorder. Is it possible to also use my Space Marines though? Who would be order?

Or is which army your using slightly less relevant to which side you sign up for? So I sign up for Disorder, but play games with both DE and SM, would my DE games/articles just be worth more?
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: crisis_vyper on July 11, 2012, 06:39:58 am
What about an allied force? How would that count? Allies are part of 6th ed and we could not deny it.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Sorck on July 11, 2012, 12:02:20 pm
Your points would go to the team that you signed up for I think. :)

One thing though, bringing people (especially those who become active) to 2S will get you rather lovely numbers of points. ;)

This depends on how many/what time the pointsmasters (or whatever we decide to call them) are prepared to put in to calculating such points.

What we could do is say if you bring a new member to the forum, you get a certain %age of points they get added to yours as commission, in addition to the points bonus for a new member. So if he writes 5 articles for, say, 50 points - then you yourself get 5 points (10% commission) because you're the reason they are here. This %age of commission isn't deducted from the rightful person that scored them, more added in addition for the player who roped them in.

Therefore it's more rewarding for a current member to get a few players with a real buzz for the hobby in, then it is for them to just force all their facebook friends to sign up with a profile and never view the site again :P
Don't worry... the points calculations could be done by some server-side code. :P


Another idea could be to host smaller campaigns within campaigns every 3 or 4 months or so. Say for example, the past guard vs ork campaign. Points in the sub-campaign (perhaps come up with a better word for it in future :P) will be tallied in the subcampaign (for relevant articles about the campaign, etc) while also claiming the regular global points. Then, the winning side (order or disorder) would get a large amount of points towards the global campaign for winning a sub campain.  If that makes sense.



Another idea I had is why not limit it to order and disorder. I know, especially with disorder races - they'd like to see where they sit on the ladder of disorder, who to bully on and who to look for allies with, etc. I'm sure the Order factions would also compare for their own cocky and ego gains. So aside from the main global Order v Disorder scores, each board/race/faction could have a subscore - used more with campaigns that involve multiple parties, etc etc.
We could have a secondary system in which we compare the victories of different armies vs each other? Therefore we could come up with a 'score' for the Tyranids, IG etc that shows their relative ranking. We could also rank 2S members in the same ordering system?
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 11, 2012, 02:55:02 pm
Instead of ranking the members by their points, what about giving each member a score for every army they earn points for.

So my DE might be 4th on the forum, my Orks 7th. Something like that.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Sorck on July 11, 2012, 03:09:45 pm
Instead of ranking the members by their points, what about giving each member a score for every army they earn points for.

So my DE might be 4th on the forum, my Orks 7th. Something like that.
With regards to which team the points go towards shouldn't every member have a single-team allegiance rather than points being distributed according to the armies? (e.g. my Orks and IG would both contribute to the team I signed up for rather than the disorder and order teams respectively)

Ranking your individual armies has flaws in that your army list can change over time? I can see the logic though of army-based ordering as long as points go through the same way...
oint

BTW, I'm thinking of using chess-ranking algorithms to rank the power of members/their armies whilst using plain old points for the two teams (i.e. points for wins, points for bat reps, points for contests etc)
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: InsaneTD on July 11, 2012, 03:50:12 pm
I think the points for every game you play should only go to the side you signed up for.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Hive Lord on July 11, 2012, 06:46:43 pm
Regarding people who collect multiple armies - you should pick a side to join, but that shouldn't necessarily mean you can't earn points by playing with the other army, or e.g. writing articles for races on the other side. Maybe you'd earn less points for doing this though? I guess for articles, you're essentially stopping someone on the other side writing about the same thing, so essentially 'stealing' points. Possibly a viable tactic...
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 11, 2012, 11:45:02 pm
Regarding people who collect multiple armies - you should pick a side to join, but that shouldn't necessarily mean you can't earn points by playing with the other army, or e.g. writing articles for races on the other side. Maybe you'd earn less points for doing this though? I guess for articles, you're essentially stopping someone on the other side writing about the same thing, so essentially 'stealing' points. Possibly a viable tactic...

Articles written by a member of order about a unit in Disorder could easily qualify as "Intel" so that they know what they're up against. So as far as article writing is concerned, either side could write for either side with ease.

However when it comes to playing games, that's where it gets messy. :P
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: InsaneTD on July 12, 2012, 12:18:30 am
Articles written by a member of order about a unit in Disorder could easily qualify as "Intel" so that they know what they're up against. So as far as article writing is concerned, either side could write for either side with ease.
I love that idea.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: loeldrad on July 12, 2012, 01:51:42 pm
This sounds awesome! I haven't been active lately but I'll keep checking to see when this gets going.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Scout Sergeant Mkoll on July 12, 2012, 02:00:20 pm
I'm game for this. Hopefully I'll be able to be a bit more active on the gaming front and now that 6th is out I can start writing articles/shiny new lists. :)

Probably going to sign up as Disorder.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: BigToof on July 12, 2012, 08:52:32 pm
I agree as well!

Maybe Imperium and Friends vs. Everyone else?

The boards are nicely separated as is, and Imperium w/Eldar and Tau vs. all others sounds like a good divide.

Best,
-BT
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: loeldrad on July 16, 2012, 03:56:06 pm
Should we ball Eldar and Tau in with the Imperium? If that's what the majority wants to do I'm for it I just think you might get a more even split with Imperium vs all as there are a ton of space marine players in general.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: crisis_vyper on July 18, 2012, 02:37:31 am
Should we ball Eldar and Tau in with the Imperium? If that's what the majority wants to do I'm for it I just think you might get a more even split with Imperium vs all as there are a ton of space marine players in general.

Personally, I prefer the Forces of Neutrality. :P
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Sorck on July 18, 2012, 06:20:04 pm
Should we ball Eldar and Tau in with the Imperium? If that's what the majority wants to do I'm for it I just think you might get a more even split with Imperium vs all as there are a ton of space marine players in general.

Personally, I prefer the Forces of Neutrality. :P
IMHO that's just complicating things. :P

Anyhow, I'll be putting a poll up momentarily. :)
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Wargamer on July 18, 2012, 08:12:15 pm
Well let's see...

Imperial Armies:
Space Marines.
Imperial Guard.
Sisters of Battle.
No others worth speaking of.

"Evil" Armies:
Chaos Space Marines.
Chaos Daemons.
Orks.
Dark Eldar.

We now have four armies left to assign; Eldar, Tau, Necrons and Tyranids. I'd suggest putting the former two with the Imperium and the latter two with Evil.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 18, 2012, 11:06:16 pm
Should have an option in the poll for the 3 faction choices. I have a few brainstorming ideas about this, but as long as it a) Makes more logical sense, and b) Is fairly evenish, or we have a way to balanced even teams, then I'll be happy.

Thoughts/Ideas on the factions:
Option A:
Imperium - Marines, Guard, Sisters
Neutral - Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Tyranids
Evil - Chaos SM, Chaos Daemons, Orks, Dark Eldar

Option B:
Imperium - Marines, Guard, Sisters
Uniform - Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Chaos SM/Daemons
Chaotic - Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar

I mean, three houses can only make it more compeditive right? :P

Also, while I dont really want to think of, or new players at the forum to think that the Tau and/or Eldar are Allies of the Imperium. But Stacking them up with all the other teams would make it far too imbalanced IMO. We have enough able-bodied forum users who can be trustworthy and consistent to manage three houses I bet.

Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: InsaneTD on July 19, 2012, 12:05:33 am
I liked the current split. It follows the Allies matrix nicely. It will always be unbalanced as there will always be more marine players.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Matt1785 on July 19, 2012, 01:24:11 am
Hrm,

I am thinking this seems like a really fun idea.  I will have to keep an eye here to see when things would start to get going.  I've never been part of a thing like this in a forum before and it could be cool, something to keep me involved with the community.  Sounds cool.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Masked Thespian on July 19, 2012, 03:58:32 am
Looking at all of this, my only worry is that it's getting too big.  Trying to incorporate all of the armies is what led to GW's global campaigns fizzling and the awfulness (in terms of story) that Dawn of War: Soulstorm was.

The last campaign we did was Orks vs. Imperial Guard and the one before that was Circus's Eldar vs....  uh...  well, I forgot, but I believe it was Eldar vs. one other army.

I was of the understanding that this campaign was going to be short-lived and narrow focussed; by having only a handful of armies in it, but running it for only 2 or 3 months means that we can have a new campaign, with different participants in it, before the end of the year.  It allows for tighter plot control, allows the players involved to get deeper into their roles, and doesn't have the chance of burnout due to the short time frame.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 19, 2012, 04:49:55 am
Looking at all of this, my only worry is that it's getting too big.  Trying to incorporate all of the armies is what led to GW's global campaigns fizzling and the awfulness (in terms of story) that Dawn of War: Soulstorm was.

The last campaign we did was Orks vs. Imperial Guard and the one before that was Circus's Eldar vs....  uh...  well, I forgot, but I believe it was Eldar vs. one other army.

I was of the understanding that this campaign was going to be short-lived and narrow focussed; by having only a handful of armies in it, but running it for only 2 or 3 months means that we can have a new campaign, with different participants in it, before the end of the year.  It allows for tighter plot control, allows the players involved to get deeper into their roles, and doesn't have the chance of burnout due to the short time frame.

Rather than having one global campaign, all that's being tallied is things that people post on their own anyway. We're planning on having sub-campaigns (or something similarly named) which will be much like the IG vs Orks and Eldar/Dark Eldar campaigns that have been run in the past. Points will go towards the sub-campaign plus the actual one, and perhaps a "winning" amount of bonus points to the winning side.



Of course, there is another option.

Second Sphere could have 2 (or 3 or whatever) clans. Everyone signs up for a particular clan (or house) - with all their races that they play. They earn points for their clan.

This has a few positives
 - Very easy to get an even number of players per clan
 - Having lots of players on a particular race won't give that race the edge specifically (unless they happen to be in the same clan too)
 - Campaigns could include Tau vs Marines, and the winner might not be a certain side (If we go imperium vs others, Imperium would win that campaign anyway. This means we'd either have to deal with it, or limit confrontations or campaigns between Tau and Eldar, etc etc)
 - Players only have to worry about a certain clan even if they have multiple armies
 - Since each person can only be in one clan, it can be added as a profile tag, and hence much easier to work out

There are a few drawbacks
 - May feel funny if Dark Eldar are in a campaign on the same clan as a Slaanesh Chaos Army, for example
 - Sub-Campaigns may or may not be specifically clan vs clan (Though perhaps representatives from each clan step up or something?
 - Doesn't have a lot of in-universe connection - can lead to unrealistic or implausible alliances or campaign situations.
 - More drawbacks probably exist that I haven't realised yet.

Just an idea.

Zambia
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Masked Thespian on July 19, 2012, 07:02:29 am
The issue with clan-based campaigns, as far as I'm concerned, is that it doesn't have a lot of in-universe connection.  As you say, having a Dark Eldar army alongside a Slaanesh army doesn't make a lot of sense.  If we were just talking about playing games, such as in a tournament or league, then it's a fine idea, but for something as story-driven as a campaign I don't think it would work.

My main concern, as noted before, is that of burnout and apathy over time.  Short campaigns shouldn't allow that to happen.

The other benefit of having separate mini-campaigns that aren't linked by an overall campaign is that there's no need to consider the ramifications of armies and where they belong.  None of this "Forces of Neutrality" business that's been discussed.  No need to decide where Tau are "Allies of" or "Enemies of" the Imperium. You simply have, for example, "Imperial Guard and Eldar versus Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons."  You can even tailor allowed allies per campaign, preventing players from sneaking things in through the back door or giving them a little access to an army that you don't want as a main protagonist in the campaign.  And, the best part is, in the next campaign, some armies that were helping the Imperium might be AGAINST the Imperium.  So, given the above example, in the next campaign, it might be "Imperial Guard and Space Wolves versus Eldar and Orks."
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 19, 2012, 09:47:11 am
The issue with clan-based campaigns, as far as I'm concerned, is that it doesn't have a lot of in-universe connection.  As you say, having a Dark Eldar army alongside a Slaanesh army doesn't make a lot of sense.  If we were just talking about playing games, such as in a tournament or league, then it's a fine idea, but for something as story-driven as a campaign I don't think it would work.

I see this MT, will add it to the drawbacks in my previous post ;)

Quote
My main concern, as noted before, is that of burnout and apathy over time.  Short campaigns shouldn't allow that to happen.

Also a good thing. But if Sorck sets it up right it wont take much more effort for organisers and participants to have this constantly happening. We wont have a "Everyone vs everyone constantly giving fluff fluff fluff background background" etc etc. It'll be the sub-campaigns (or short campaigns) that are the focus - chipping in towards the overall goal.

Quote
The other benefit of having separate mini-campaigns that aren't linked by an overall campaign is that there's no need to consider the ramifications of armies and where they belong.  None of this "Forces of Neutrality" business that's been discussed.  No need to decide where Tau are "Allies of" or "Enemies of" the Imperium. You simply have, for example, "Imperial Guard and Eldar versus Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons."  You can even tailor allowed allies per campaign, preventing players from sneaking things in through the back door or giving them a little access to an army that you don't want as a main protagonist in the campaign.  And, the best part is, in the next campaign, some armies that were helping the Imperium might be AGAINST the Imperium.  So, given the above example, in the next campaign, it might be "Imperial Guard and Space Wolves versus Eldar and Orks."

In the last example however, you have Guard (Imperium) + Wolves (Imperium) vs Eldar (Imperium) + Orks (Evil). Eldar players will have signed on as an Imperium player, and all points they earn will hence go towards the Imperium. If their participation in the campaign instead helps the team they aren't signed up for instead of their efforts being awarded by getting points to their team - there's little point participating since you're becoming a burden on your team. And if the Eldar player's efforts do contribute to the Imperium team it means that if the Guard and Wolves lose the campaign, then technically, it's a draw (50% of the evil side's points going to the Imperium, other 50% to Evil) so it's a lose lose when teams are unbalanced.

Again, I wouldn't be against running a short campaign every 2-3 months with no global forum tally. It would make problems like this fewer.

Zambia
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: crisis_vyper on July 19, 2012, 11:54:27 am
Personally, I say run two to three campaigns at once. Each campaign will allow certain restrictions and stuff that would make sense, and would not suffer from burnout. In addition it would not alienate everyone who wants to play in one lone campaign as a result of just focusing on one or two races.

If you guys still wan that one-campaign-at-a-time thing, I am thinking more into the Eye of Terror-like campaign would be much nicer;

Battle for System XXX (Main Campaign)
Sub-Campaigns
1) Battle for the Webway routes of System XXX
2) Battle for Core System of System XXX
3) Battle for Outer System of System XXX

Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: InsaneTD on July 19, 2012, 12:05:02 pm
Eye of terror was the reason GW stopped running the Global Campgains.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: crisis_vyper on July 19, 2012, 12:15:34 pm
Eye of terror was the reason GW stopped running the Global Campgains.

I thought that was the Medusa campaign.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Masked Thespian on July 19, 2012, 12:43:17 pm
The other benefit of having separate mini-campaigns that aren't linked by an overall campaign is that there's no need to consider the ramifications of armies and where they belong.  None of this "Forces of Neutrality" business that's been discussed.  No need to decide where Tau are "Allies of" or "Enemies of" the Imperium. You simply have, for example, "Imperial Guard and Eldar versus Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons."  You can even tailor allowed allies per campaign, preventing players from sneaking things in through the back door or giving them a little access to an army that you don't want as a main protagonist in the campaign.  And, the best part is, in the next campaign, some armies that were helping the Imperium might be AGAINST the Imperium.  So, given the above example, in the next campaign, it might be "Imperial Guard and Space Wolves versus Eldar and Orks."

In the last example however, you have Guard (Imperium) + Wolves (Imperium) vs Eldar (Imperium) + Orks (Evil). Eldar players will have signed on as an Imperium player, and all points they earn will hence go towards the Imperium. If their participation in the campaign instead helps the team they aren't signed up for instead of their efforts being awarded by getting points to their team - there's little point participating since you're becoming a burden on your team. And if the Eldar player's efforts do contribute to the Imperium team it means that if the Guard and Wolves lose the campaign, then technically, it's a draw (50% of the evil side's points going to the Imperium, other 50% to Evil) so it's a lose lose when teams are unbalanced.

You are completely misunderstanding my point here.  There are no "Imperium" or "Evil" teams.  Not in the long run.  There is only "Team A" and " Team B".  And the "Team A" in one campaign can be (and probably will be) completely different from "Team A" in the next one, with absolutely no links or holdovers from one campaign to the next.  In my example, the first campaign could, conceivably, be called "Imperials vs. Chaos" and the second one "Imperials vs. Orks and Eldar", but there's no need to do so.

The way I proposed it, there would be no overall plot arc.  Each campaign would be set alone and self-sufficient.  If players wanted to include background to link campaigns (such as having the same armies fighting alongside each other, grudges held over from a previous campaign, or even specific former allies now fighting against each other) then that would be up to them.  There would be no need to categorize each army as "Imperial" or "Evil" since there is no carrying over of anything.  An army could be considered "Imperial" in one campaign and then "Evil" in the next, with no repercussions.

Take, for example, Imperial Guard.  What if I wanted to play with my rebel Imperial Guard?  Would their victories count for the "Imperial" team?  Under the existing system, they would, and there would be no point in playing "rebel" Guard.  But, under my system, then rebel Imperial Guard COULD be played, but potentially only in certain campaigns where, say for example, they were on a team of Imperial Guard and Chaos Space Marines.

Does that make sense?
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 19, 2012, 03:38:39 pm
(Text)

Does that make sense?

That makes sense I think, but let me prod a question to ensure that I'm understanding it right :P

Two example campaigns (Orks vs Guard and the Chaos vs Imperium)

Orks vs Guard Campaign

Team A (The Invaders)
Adam (Orks)
Bob (Orks)
Carl (Orks)

Team B (Imperium's Defense)
Dan (IG)
Elliot (IG)
Fred (SM)

Chaos Vs Imperium Campaign

Team A (Assaulters on a Chaos world)
Adam (Imperial Guard)
Bob (Blood Angels)
Carl (Grey Knights)

Team B (Chaos Defenders + Merceneries)
Dan (Imperial Guard)
Elliot (Chaos SM)
Fred (Orks)

The orks in the Chaos campaign are a large band of free-lance Blood Axe Merceneries. Dan's IG are Rebel Guard, corrupted by the power of Chaos.

But the more important things:
 - Each player is signing up to a particular global team, as mentioned in the OP.
 - Players on a certain team will almost be like a permanent line-up when a campaign starts (Same players vs same players, no swapping teams)
 - Team A and Team B are assigned "Roles" in the campaign, after which participating players nominate their army (and why/how it's in the campaign, eg. the Blood Axes in the Chaos Campaign)
 - Campaign Plays out for 2/3 months
 - Campaign sums up, new campaign starts
 - So in a way, the team's shouldn't be called Imperium vs Evil, or anything. Just 2 team names and people sign up for them. Because you stick with a team, but could be playing for the Imperium one campaign and for Chaos the next.

Did most of that for my own sake so that you can confirm that I am in fact on the right track now :P

Does that also mean that how we split Eldar/Tau is now irrelevant - we just sign up to a team then sort out the chicken business when the first "campaign event" starts?

Zambia

Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Masked Thespian on July 19, 2012, 04:28:58 pm
Nope that's not it in the slightest.  Try this on for size.

Orks vs Guard Campaign

Team A (The Invaders)
Adam (Orks)
Bob (Orks)
Carl (Orks)

Team B (Imperium's Defense)
Dan (IG)
Elliot (IG)
Fred (SM)

Chaos Vs Imperium Campaign

Team A (Assaulters on a Chaos world)
Dan (Imperial Guard)
Geoff (Blood Angels)
Carl (Grey Knights)

Team B (Chaos Defenders + Merceneries)
Harry (Imperial Guard)
Josh (Chaos SM)
Kevin (Orks)


Some of the players stay on the same team (e.g. Carl), some players change teams (e.g. Dan), some players are brand new (e.g. Geoff), and sometimes even entire teams are changed (Harry, Josh, and Kevin).

The key is that each campaign is separate.  There is no correlation between the OvIG and the CvI campaigns.  There is no 'loyalty' between the two campaigns (so the people you play with in one are not necessarily the people you play with in another).  Team A in one campaign are not necessarily the people in Team A in the next campaign.


But the more important things:
 - Each player is signing up to a particular global team, as mentioned in the OP.

Nope.  No global teams.  Your teammates are your teammates for the duration of this two-month campaign and that's it.


- Players on a certain team will almost be like a permanent line-up when a campaign starts (Same players vs same players, no swapping teams)

Nope.  Your team line up can, and almost certainly will, change between different campaigns.


- Team A and Team B are assigned "Roles" in the campaign, after which participating players nominate their army (and why/how it's in the campaign, eg. the Blood Axes in the Chaos Campaign)

Potentially.  At this point I'm not suggesting which way we do this, either picking campaign roles then assigning armies or picking armies first and those players, or an associated GM, choosing the basic plot to which roles are attached.  I'd prefer the latter, if I'm being honest.


- Campaign Plays out for 2/3 months
 - Campaign sums up, new campaign starts

Yep.


- So in a way, the team's shouldn't be called Imperium vs Evil, or anything. Just 2 team names and people sign up for them. Because you stick with a team, but could be playing for the Imperium one campaign and for Chaos the next.

Nope.  You're still thinking of the whole "sign up for a global team".  That's not what I'm proposing.  Each team in any given campaign may well have their own names.  Let's take the two examples above.  For the first, Orks vs. IG campaign, the Orks could be "BadDakka's Waaargh" and the Guard could be "The Defence of Straggler's Hope".  For the second, the Imperials could be "The Emperor's Fist" and the Chaos side could be "The Forsaken".


Does that also mean that how we split Eldar/Tau is now irrelevant - we just sign up to a team then sort out the chicken business when the first "campaign event" starts?

Essentially, yes.


My perfect situation would be for each campaign to have a limited focus, with a GM deciding the basic plot (such as an Ork Waaargh invading an Imperial Agri-World or the Imperium attempting to reconquer a renegade Forge World) and assigning particular army books to each side of the conflict, then having players sign up to either side to do battle and so forth, with a conclusion within 2 months so that a new campaign can spring forward, presumably with a different GM.

That is, in essence, what I am proposing.  But I am in no way suggesting that that is how it should be done.  It's only a proposal.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 19, 2012, 11:28:26 pm
Quote
Nope that's not it in the slightest.  Try this on for size.

I know why I'm so confused - you were talking about your own idea and I thought you were working with the OP's idea  :facepalm001: :P

So if we go down your track, and use your proposal - we'll probably organise some kind of Campaign Calendar (Much like the Competition Calendar or something similar) in order to at least have an idea where we're going. (TBH, even if we used Sorck's idea we'd still probs use a calendar.

But anyway, what do the other members think about MT's idea?

Perhaps our voting should be changed to the different people's proposals instead of whether Eldar and Tau will be bunking with whom?

Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: InsaneTD on July 20, 2012, 05:35:31 am
I do like MTs idea. Sorcks was a lot of work. Especially in the sites backend. At some point a group of campgains with an overarcing plot might be cool once we've done a couple. They don't have to be threr, one straight into another, but things from one effect what happens in another. For example, The first campgain might be a Tau expansion into a cluster of systems held by the imperials, The second might be a rebellion, and if the tau managed to hold some of the worlds in the region, they help on which everyside they think is most useful to them.  The last one maybe an invasion by Orks or Nids, if the rebellion wasn't squashed, then the Imps, Chaos and Tau are all 'allied' to defeat and drive back the invaders.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 20, 2012, 07:14:54 am
Well from what Schev and I had organised to start work on about a week before The Crash was a Tau vs Necrons vs Tyranids in a 3 way campaign.

Of course, since it's not global, it's quite plausible to have 3 sides instead of just two for some campaigns.

However, we'd have to put in a lot of work and thought into what the commencing campaign will be, what it'll consist of, so on and so forth. As Board Co-ordinator, I'll put in as much time and effort into the organising and collaboration into the project as I can. I'll have to chat with Schev, who without his help the Orks vs Guard campaign probably would've fallen down, and perhaps him and I will enslave some underlings ask for volunteers to join some kind of "Campaign Management Committee" or something.

Also, when it comes to what the next campaign should be - I reckon it'd be best if the Campaign Committee (or some Head of Operations meeting) were to narrow it down to 2 or 3 possibilities, then hold a vote where all site members can have a say in what campaigns are played. If only two people are interested in a Nids vs Space Marines campaign, but 25 people want a Dark Eldar vs Tau campaign then we would probably want to choose the Campaign that has the most interest, and hence, the most activity and potential for success.

Thoughts on that so far?

Zambia
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: crisis_vyper on July 20, 2012, 08:27:10 am
The Dark Eldar can be considered as a Mercenary faction. I am happy just being able to participate with my Dark Eldar.
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 20, 2012, 11:13:14 am
The Dark Eldar can be considered as a Mercenary faction.

Kinda and no - Dark Eldar worked somewhat like merceneries for the Tau...but they didn't take cash payment...they took slaves...pain...and the hability of the planet :P

However that doesn't mean that DE won't rear their head in any campaigns (Whether as a major or minor contributer). In fact, given the caverns of DE players we have on the site - we could expect to see a large amount of votes for a DE campaign, who knows ;)



Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: crisis_vyper on July 20, 2012, 11:43:04 am
The Dark Eldar can be considered as a Mercenary faction.

Kinda and no - Dark Eldar worked somewhat like merceneries for the Tau...but they didn't take cash payment...they took slaves...pain...and the hability of the planet :P

However that doesn't mean that DE won't rear their head in any campaigns (Whether as a major or minor contributer). In fact, given the caverns of DE players we have on the site - we could expect to see a large amount of votes for a DE campaign, who knows ;)

I mean for some Chaos or Renegade faction.

But nonetheless, us dark overlords of Commorragh would be pleased if we could get our realspace spoils....
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: DEF Knight on July 24, 2012, 05:09:41 am
Quote
My perfect situation would be for each campaign to have a limited focus, with a GM deciding the basic plot (such as an Ork Waaargh invading an Imperial Agri-World or the Imperium attempting to reconquer a renegade Forge World) and assigning particular army books to each side of the conflict, then having players sign up to either side to do battle and so forth, with a conclusion within 2 months so that a new campaign can spring forward, presumably with a different GM.

I don't really think I could contribute much to any campaigns, but in a perfect world I would personally want something like this, but actually taken EVEN FARTHER. Players have the option of picking one of several armies on either side of a conflict, each army having a selection of roles available which would limit their force org, add compulsory units, change what game types they can and cannot play, what objectives they need to maintain
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 24, 2012, 07:06:56 am
Quote
My perfect situation would be for each campaign to have a limited focus, with a GM deciding the basic plot (such as an Ork Waaargh invading an Imperial Agri-World or the Imperium attempting to reconquer a renegade Forge World) and assigning particular army books to each side of the conflict, then having players sign up to either side to do battle and so forth, with a conclusion within 2 months so that a new campaign can spring forward, presumably with a different GM.

I don't really think I could contribute much to any campaigns, but in a perfect world I would personally want something like this, but actually taken EVEN FARTHER. Players have the option of picking one of several armies on either side of a conflict, each army having a selection of roles available which would limit their force org, add compulsory units, change what game types they can and cannot play, what objectives they need to maintain
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: BigToof on July 24, 2012, 09:02:14 pm
I think my post got vacuumed up in the void a few days ago, but I still like the idea of two pre-determined sides with a leader that coordinates each side.  You can then join up as you wish.

We should TRY to keep each side as balanced as you can, but as fluffy as possible.

I wouldn't mind continuing the Ork side of the campaign from last time, with mercenaries (Eldar Corsairs, Dark Eldar Pirates, Kroot Mercs, CSM Renegades) under the greenskins' banner.

Everyone else could oppose them as they wish, but it might be a bit unbalanced unless we can somehow get the Tau to pony up on a side :)

I think our forum's biggest factions are Space Marines and Tau.  Orks and IG were quite popular.

Perhaps we could do a fourth sphere expansion?

Best,
-BT
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus on July 25, 2012, 12:23:50 am
Schev and I were ready to launch a Tyranids, Tau and Necrons Campaign (3 way) However that wouldn't really implement many of the other races.

That said, the purpose of a campaign shouldn't be to feature every single race (Otherwise we get Dawn of War Soulstorm's massive problem with their campaign :P)

When Schev gets back to me...or a week passes with no reply, a campaign committee may be organised where a few campaign ideas will be developed, before being placed in the public to be voted on for the one most people would be interested in. Seeing as there'll be a new campaign every 2 or 3 months, it'll be safe to say that most participants should be involved in a decent amount of campaigns a year.

Of course I'll keep everyone updated with the situation regarding the Campaign Committee.

As a quick-fire schedule off the top of my head - a week to sort out the plausibility of a Committee, 1 week to get the volunteers to create it, 1-2 weeks to flesh out ideas for campaigns and narrow them down to 3 or 4, then another week for the voting by the general public. First campaign should be ready to kick off in September :)

Zambia
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Narric on December 14, 2013, 03:58:12 pm
Making a bump to this thread.

I'll be honest, I don't think I could read through all four pages ^_^;; I have my posts/page set high.

One idea comes to mind is how GW often ran its own campaigns in the days of yester-year. Players have their games, and report back who the victors were. For the forum, it could run very similarly. Players say who they are fighting, what pts level, and so on. They can then Post up a Bat-rep as part of the Campaign.

This would potentially work better than my idea of using Vassal, as it doesn't require both parties knowing Vassal, only that at least one player is part of the forum.

To give the campaign more depth, we could ask our collection of writers to create a proper Narrative based on the Bat-Reps, and the whole thing can move like a large continuously unfolding story.

In terms of attracting new players, it gives them a sense that they are really part of the story, as each game they report back is included into the Growing Narrative, until we hit a pre-determiond point, where a Victor is declared.

As a mark of appreciation, all contributing members can recieve Karma and an Award Seal of sorts, whilst the Members who played the victorious Faction gain a Second seal saying as much.

Make sense?

Hopefully this bump works :P
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Mabbz on December 14, 2013, 07:48:21 pm
I believe your idea was tried before. I don't recall how it ended though.

How about this for a points system:

1 point for registering an army
1 point for posting a battle report with a registered army, 3 if you won
1 point for posting a story relating to the campaign (cumulative with battle reports, to encourage writing fluff for batreps)
1 point for any other interesting post relating to the campaign (such as an army showcase, pictures of campaign related models or house rules)

You'll notice that I've not added in points for simply saying "I've played a game, and I won". That approach doesn't really generate any interesting content for the forum and I was getting four points a week last campaign that way, so I think it should be left out. It doesn't take much to write a batrep after all.

As for prizes, I wonder if it'd be possible for Sorck to add some kind of counter (similar to karma) for number of campaigns a member was part of? I like the idea of award seals for the victors, but how about also getting an award seal for getting over 25 points, or getting the most points over all? Something like a "2S campaign MVP" seal, with gold silver and bronze for the top three.

The other questions are:
1) how do we determine teams (we don't want one side to be outnumbered, after all)
2) what can we do for a big finale?
Title: Re: A 2S Campaign?
Post by: Narric on December 14, 2013, 08:19:46 pm
OK, that system sounds better :P

If the UK Meetup was a bit more popular, and a majority of players with armies representing all "Registered" factions attended, then that could be good for the finale.

Going with a different approach, why not have someone on board to be the overall Narrative writer? We could then go by how many games have been written about, and when we get to a Certain number start calling the final results.

Obviously individual Pts wouldn't go into this, just the number of Bat-reps related to the campaign.