Only way is if you delete posts for 24 hours. Otherwise someone's always going to have to stick their oar in (like this
).
[Recruitment] EMERGENCE - Multi-Game Sandbox Alliance
- Thread starter RaynMaykr
- Start date
- Status
Only way is if you delete posts for 24 hours. Otherwise someone's always going to have to stick their oar in (like this
).Problem is that "ruining your game" is very broad definition, I have talked about this about using word "griefing" as describing in-game rules. I would avoid it at any cost, because frankly lot of things will "ruin" your game. While ED not PVP oriented, it's also not entirely PvE oriented. It stands somewhere in the middle, but leaning forever towards PvE, as sandbox game, and it has big list of challenges for player to overcome.
All of those challenges could "ruin" your experience, including valid game play like pirating or taking part in combat. If ignore is just plain ignore, it opens up massive abuse option. And knowing that for FD it is all about checks and balances, I doubt it's their intent.
Back to topic
At one point, around page 21 I think, we were reaching a concession. Apparently that dissolved while I was sleeping.
A quick Recap then...
Hello fellow Elite Commanders.
Emergence, a new multi-game sandbox alliance, is now recruiting like-minded players participating in the Elite: Dangerous beta or ArcheAge alpha (see Other Supported Games below). We are looking for PVP/combat centric players that have a wide array of secondary interests in open world sandboxes. Disclaimer: 18+, must use TS3, website coming soon.
Recruitment Process –
Step 1: PM RaynMaykr on the Frontier forums and let me know why you would like to join EMERGENCE.
Step 2: Leave a friendly message in the thread below if you care to.
Step 3: I will follow up with you and set time to speak with you on our TS3.
The Founding of Emergence –
RaynMaykr, Moonlitshadows, and Onlyme395, former EVE pilots and leaders of a 1,200 pilot sovereignty holding alliance for 2+ years, are searching for the next great sandbox adventure. We are looking to meet and game with other players that share the same affinity for sandbox gameplay, the freedom it allows, and the emergent gameplay that ultimately comes. We’re looking for new experiences after spending so much time in EVE. We’re drawn to Elite: Dangerous because of the rich universe and promise the game has shown.
Other Supported Games –
Current Games:
Players are welcome to play both, but it is not required.
Elite: Dangerous
ArcheAge - F2P Sandbox PVP on the open ocean with ships, subs, and gliders, Themepark-style questing and dungeons with some sandbox thrown in, player created factions and battle for control of land and castles. Currently in Alpha phase of a western localization. Released in Korea for 1+years.
Formerly: EVE Online
Side Games/Changing it up:
Civilization 5 / Beyond Earth (on release)
Sins of a Solar Empire
World of Tanks
War Thunder
Minecraft
Starbound
And other similar games
If the interest is there we would like to do competitions/tournaments in games like Sins & Civ so that players between ArcheAge and Elite can get to know each other.
EDIT: My response after 20+ pages or so....
So it’s time for a real response to the wide range of themes, topics, and emotions in this thread now that I’m home from work. I would urge everyone to remember that the whole point of this thread was to find other players that enjoy playing games like we do. Nothing more.
I like the cut of his jib. It's always gratifiying to see someone who has taken the time to thouroughly research the topic they're posting on.
That isn't how ignore works. Just saying.
Sigh...because one users posts and confirms your suspicions (obvious troll is obvious) doesn't mean that's how the rest of us think.
That being said, I think the OP's stated goal of attempting to impact the background simulation is exactly what DB has in mind. In fact, I KNOW it is because I just listened to him describe this EXACT scenario in his panel interview at Lavecon. Maybe I need to relisten to it so that I can quote word for word at how spot on the OP's goals are with DB's vision.
Unless you know better than DB himself, why not let this rest, the OP did nothing wrong with starting this thread.
Can you link that? Are you referring to this year or last years Lavecon? Listened to this years... Maybe I missed it in there.
David and other devs indeed have said they want large group of players trying to change persistent universe. Keyword is "to change", not "to dominate"
No qualms with the OP, or the OP's stated goals. Not got any issues with people wanting to form grouos outside of the game, or in, provided there are no subsequent calls for the devs to generate content for them. Agree wholeheartedly with the whole "groups of players attempting to influence the background sim" vibe.
Just because i have a gentle poke at a troll, don't go jumping to conclusions about my opinions. Jumping to conclusions about other peoples opinions and motives, ON BOTH SIDES, has resulted in this bad tempered little thread and all the bad feeling that will doubtless continue.
As you say...sigh.
Edit- phone related SAG
Last edited:
David and other devs indeed have said they want large group of players trying to change persistent universe. Keyword is "to change", not "to dominate"
Exactly.
Goonswarm took most of my EVE career to get where they currently are ( some 5-6 years ) and they lucked out a few times but the point is domination is achieved via gradual changes so balance must be tweaked both ways so solo players can form up their own ad-hoc groups to take on toxic behavior regardless if it is a guild guided one or the case of a gestalt type movement born from multiple groups and alliances.
This isn't a discussion about single player v multiplayer (SPvMP - you heard it here first!
). Instead it's been hijacked a bit and the discussion ended up being about guilds and how they fit in with ED.The people not keen on guilds are not necessarily against multiplayer.
That all said, I will be interested to see if this one recruits a decent amount of players and how it sets out it's goals.
If guilds are formed, a la EVE, then ED will be worse for it. I'm sure that some players will band together but, imho, if ED turns out to be guild war after guild war, then single player for me.
Thank you, but my mind was already made up to be a solo trader in a pvp ED universe when I paid for PB long before you spammed the forum with this nonsense!
Thank you, but my mind was already made up to be a solo trader in a pvp ED universe when I paid for PB long before you spammed the forum with this nonsense!
Amongst some of the more hyperbolic comments, this thread has been kind of interesting around the level of influence that players can actually have on the background simulation.
It's worth having a read if you haven't about what the DDA has to say about it.
Players can certainly influence the background simulation; that is made clear from what DBOBE has stated, ISTR that it was stated very early on in the KS pitches.
But reading the DDA points out that there is definately human input and decisions will be made by FD and the DDF.
The way I read this is that at times; our intervention may not achieve what we want simply because it is felt that it might not be good for the game or the story.
So a group of players may try to blockade a system; perhaps trying cause it to change faction or just because...this might trigger missions to try to reduce the pirate activities...I wonder also if increased pirate activity by players may also increase pirate activity by NPCs. This would mean that group impact would impact the solo player, not actually an entirely bad thing in my view.
If pirate activity is not reduced/curtailed; the controlling faction may send a task force to deal with the pirates. This type of response can be triggered by FD...perhaps this task force will be of overwhelming force; perhaps it'll trigger a local government change from democracy to a military dictatorship.
The results might not be exactly what the original intention of the player group aimed for.
FD will be steering this universe...
However, I think that it is inevitable and almost desirable that groups of players do organise to try to cause such events. It is probably also inevitable that this sort of organisation is going to be done out of game in some form of meta-game.
But if FD are steering the universe trying to keep it from descending into chaos and anarchy..the meta-game is heavily mitigated. What we have to trust in is FD and DBOBE's vision and faithfulness to their vision. Their intercessions should be infrequent, subtle and entirely neutral...favouring only the story.
It's worth having a read if you haven't about what the DDA has to say about it.
Players can certainly influence the background simulation; that is made clear from what DBOBE has stated, ISTR that it was stated very early on in the KS pitches.
But reading the DDA points out that there is definately human input and decisions will be made by FD and the DDF.
The way I read this is that at times; our intervention may not achieve what we want simply because it is felt that it might not be good for the game or the story.
So a group of players may try to blockade a system; perhaps trying cause it to change faction or just because...this might trigger missions to try to reduce the pirate activities...I wonder also if increased pirate activity by players may also increase pirate activity by NPCs. This would mean that group impact would impact the solo player, not actually an entirely bad thing in my view.
If pirate activity is not reduced/curtailed; the controlling faction may send a task force to deal with the pirates. This type of response can be triggered by FD...perhaps this task force will be of overwhelming force; perhaps it'll trigger a local government change from democracy to a military dictatorship.
The results might not be exactly what the original intention of the player group aimed for.
FD will be steering this universe...
However, I think that it is inevitable and almost desirable that groups of players do organise to try to cause such events. It is probably also inevitable that this sort of organisation is going to be done out of game in some form of meta-game.
But if FD are steering the universe trying to keep it from descending into chaos and anarchy..the meta-game is heavily mitigated. What we have to trust in is FD and DBOBE's vision and faithfulness to their vision. Their intercessions should be infrequent, subtle and entirely neutral...favouring only the story.
They will try to steer it at the begining, but long term goal afaik is increasingly independent background sim.
A very good try at getting the thread back on topic Psykokow, but it looks like it has derailed itself
Everyone will think that the other poster is at fault and try to have the last word...Old mod instincts kick in: split the thread and lock both for 24 hours to allow some reflection from all participants?
Last edited:
That's a very long term goal I suspect...
Depending on what the expansions bring; they themselves will impact the background simulation; changing the conditions of the game etc..
So I suspect that there will be a subtle hand on the tiller for a long time.
And perhaps at times a not so subtle hand on the tiller...if they see the game becoming toxic for a group of players. Any group of players, not just our/your chosen gang.
A very good try at getting the thread back on topic Psykokow, but it looks like it has derailed itself
Old mod instincts kick in: split the thread and lock both for 24 hours to allow some reflection from all participants?
Hold your horses, imho guilds/large groups of players impacting persistent universe is ontopic, as OP plans to create guild with aim to push things around in big way.
- Status