Jump to content

Maelstrom Vortex

Members
  • Content Count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-35 Joffrey

1 Follower

About Maelstrom Vortex

  • Rank
    Dragon of War

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Devouring worlds, nation by nation. Setting entire armies on nuclear fire. Making anyone regret being my enemy.
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Maelstrom Vortex
  • Nation Name
    Dragonisia
  • Nation ID
    110499
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Maelstrom Vortex#8549

Recent Profile Visitors

932 profile views
  1. Unnnttillll their nukes vanish... o/ Alyster
  2. I think it's a sure sign they're broke.. *laughs*.
  3. #Notices 2 million dollar bounty on his head# FINALLY.. someone realizes the threat i pose.. Took them long enough. I think my spies pissed someone off when I detonated their nukes.
  4. Not permissible.. it'd narrow my dining options.
  5. .... I smell something familiar.....
  6. I suspect they subscribe to the thucydides trap theory and are applying it to Orbis.
  7. Sounds like you've already given up on the situation improving.
  8. Oh, I'm quite sincere with my suggestions. It just appears you have a pattern of contradiction and even claim I'm not paying attention to what I'm reacting to. The solution I have suggested addresses a very specific concern, it was part of the conversation I had mentioned, but the problem is broader than what sparked the initial conversation. That problem is block solidification. The complaint is that alliances having such trust in each other that the dynamic of the game never changes because the same parties are perpetually allied. The best way to remedy that is to provide a means of undermining trust between allies, a means that currently does not really exist in any dynamic.
  9. I think you're not giving genuine criticism. The suggestion is a plausible method of increasing the stress between block relations. I'll wait to see what others think.
  10. I appreciate your feed back..but there are those that disagree with you and seem to believe the game has become too static and is at risk of, well, "fading, dieing, being unfun" other doomsday predictions. Below is conversation which inspired this suggestion: Espionage is frequently the means by which relations fall apart in the real world. False flags, accusations, etc.. degrading established trust. If the problem is an excessive state of trustworthy blocks, this is a plausible wedge to help break them.
  11. How is it to complicated? I just explained how it worked. It's relatively simple to program, just a check mark box, a text field.. Silly is a matter of opinion. There are people openly lamenting the lack of dynamism in the game, this could add to the chaos. If you have better ideas, I'm sure folks would love to hear them.
  12. I think I have a way to make black flags plausible. What if there was a possibility of giving a nation id to blame when an espionage operation is conducted? It'd have to fall in line with the current espionage messages to be believable, which means that if you're chosing to do a "black flag" you'd have to choose to voluntarily fail the mission. Success would be failing in a way that is convincing to the enemy, failing at failure would be the nation successfully identifying you as the source of the operation. To make it convincing, every mission type would have to be available for selection on a "false flag" maybe, use a tick box to toggle between objectives. IE: I want to blame my enemy's ally, Russia, for an attack on their nuclear stockpile. I put in Russia's nation ID. I click the black flag check box. I assign spies for the mission, I select success grade desired, then I select the nuclear sabotage option as the mission to fabricate. I send the spy. If critical successful, I may sabotage a nuke, but the operatives get caught.. but it gives Russia's name as the origin, not Dragonisia's. 90% of the time.. these events will not be believable in the context of world geopolitics.. but there will be situations when tensions are high between allies where this could spark a fracture and may make the game a bit more interesting. This is something I just sort of threw together in my head, so it's not at all a polished proposal, just something for thought.
  13. And there's a right way and a wrong way to make such maneuvers. People collaborate with who they trust, it's only nature and I doubt you're going to convince anyone to go against the grains of their felt companionship with their allies among various groups. And you are pretty much correct, not finding a solution to the latter dilemma of blocks being so solidified.. and absolute trust so easily abounding.. is the very reason many such worlds as this have faltered and fallen. It is my personal belief.. that if you want a more dynamic environment, it is going to have to be addressed by design. Take a hint from reality, the world falls apart on espionage. The spying engine in this game is so rudimentary that it has no significant impact on relationships. But what if.. successful spy ops could result in false reports, "black flags?" The problem is not the community. It is not the dynamic.. it is the problem of far too much information, more than even real world leaders have access to. If you want to sew discord and dynamism without asking people to stop competing, then make the world more blind and reward creative skullduggery. How to do that without causing imbalance or upsetting folks to much is the real question. The other problem is in a game like this.. making black-flags even remotely believable.
  14. I have a better question.. how do you not try to win.. without ruining it? Consider the objectives. What happens with excessive collaboration other than the lack of drama, conflict, and warfare that people literally come to this world for? That's the grand contradiction. It all comes down to balance, and that is up for the designers and/or community to keep in check. No one should be able to "win"... but everyone should be trying their hardest to do it. Do we really want a world built on hum-drum half-efforts?
  15. The reason we maintain that idea is a legacy of experience with human nature within worlds such as these. You might be able to let hold of a grudge.. but try getting everyone else you are attached to, to also do so in a sincere fashion. Doesn't always work out. That said, a little paranoia is healthy.. requiring a little more effort to earn trust is a survival technique in worlds such as this. To pretend it is otherwise.. or to genuinely believe it is otherwise, is to open your group to vulnerability, exploitation, even disassembly. Roq knows what he's doing. Consistency and reliability in allies.. is currency. Claiming strategy shifts as a justification for breaking trust is a demonstration of questionable character. Are you genuinely trying to claim you are not playing to win? What motivates you then? I am curious in that regard.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.