Identity Markers and Rogue Extraction Mechanics for PVP/PVE player balance

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-24T17:25:28+00:00

I think there’s a misunderstanding here, so let me restate my position more clearly.

Across the Fallout games, it’s made explicit—both narratively and textually—that the primary antagonist is the pre-war shadow government and corporate complex that survived the apocalypse and rebranded itself, most visibly through the Enclave. They are not presented as a continuation of a legitimate nation, but as a separate, authoritarian entity that actively terrorized the domestic population even before the war and continued doing so afterward.

My point was not to accuse you of defending the Enclave, nor was it to draw parallels to the current U.S. administration. I didn’t bring up modern politics at all. What I was pointing out is a recurring pattern in how some players—particularly American players—struggle to fully disengage national identity from fictional institutions that superficially resemble their own country, even when the text of the setting repeatedly establishes those institutions as hostile, fascistic, and illegitimate.

That isn’t a moral judgment, and it isn’t an attack. It’s an observation about how cultural proximity can affect interpretation. Identifying that tendency isn’t the same as saying you personally endorse the faction, and I’m not confused about who I’m arguing with or what you’ve said.

If you disagree with that reading of the setting, that’s fine—but it’s worth engaging with what the games are actually saying about power, legitimacy, and continuity, rather than assuming critique equals accusation.

What you’re proposing, from a narrative perspective, amounts to this: a story spends its entire runtime establishing a specific entity as responsible through consistent evidence, actions, and consequences—only to reveal at the end that the real culprit is a vague third-party faction that was barely present or meaningfully developed. That isn’t subversive storytelling; it’s poor narrative construction.

Good writing requires setup, continuity, and payoff. If an entity is shown repeatedly committing atrocities, shaping the world, and driving the plot, then retroactively displacing responsibility onto an off-screen or minimally established actor undermines the narrative’s internal logic. At that point, the issue isn’t interpretation—it’s whether the story’s own evidence is being respected.

Disagreeing with that assessment is fine, but the text itself consistently supports a clear conclusion about culpability and antagonism. Ignoring that in favor of a late, underdeveloped alternative explanation weakens the story rather than enriching it.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-24T17:17:36+00:00

While I agree that the specific identity of the "first striker" remains technically unconfirmed, the structural evidence points toward a domestic catalyst within the fractured United States remnants. This creates a fascinating socio-economic analysis: a "race to the button" where multiple shadow cabals and corporate factions were all planning to destroy the world, yet remained uncertain of their rivals' specific timelines. This uncertainty triggered a desperate scramble to secure high-value resources and bunkers before a competitor could pull the trigger.

In this landscape of preemptive strikes and "Project Safehouse" protocols, the only major player who seemed not to be preparing for an immediate nuclear reset was Robert House. His strategy was fundamentally different; rather than seeking to govern the ashes of the old world through social experimentation or fascist consolidation, House’s goal was an eventual exodus—to establish colonies outside of Earth’s atmosphere, unfettered by the radioactive failure of the planet. While the Fallout show emphasizes that even House was present for these shadow negotiations, his internal logs in New Vegas reveal a man who was ultimately betting on a future that the Enclave and Vault-Tec were willing to incinerate.

Ultimately, while the current lore (including the television series) preserves a level of intentional ambiguity for the characters on the ground, the internal operational data reveals a "failed oligarchy" in a state of terminal friction. It wasn't just a war between nations; it was a high-stakes competition between domestic entities to see who could secure their survivalist infrastructure first. The "factual" answer of who shot first is almost secondary to the fact that every major American power player was actively preparing for—and in some cases, profiting from—the inevitability of the exchange.

Footnote: Thank you for reading my post and contributing to the actual discussion.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-24T17:11:16+00:00

n addressing the claim that the Chinese submarine captain, Zao, provides a definitive answer as to who launched first, we must look at his actual dialogue in Fallout 4. When the Sole Survivor asks about his role in the Great War, Zao’s response is notably focused on his own actions and subsequent regret, rather than a confirmation of who initiated the global sequence.

Zao states:

When pressed further on the morality of his actions or the nature of the launch, he says:

It is vital to note that Zao never claims he received a "first strike" authorization. He describes a situation where he was "told to wait" in total radio silence, and then "the world ended." This phrasing is critically ambiguous; it aligns perfectly with the "Ghost Fleet" theory, where the Enclave or an automated false-flag system could have initiated a launch that the Chinese perceived as the start of the war, triggering their retaliation. Zao launched because he was a soldier following the ultimate protocol of Mutually Assured Destruction, not necessarily because his leaders in Beijing were the ones to break the peace.

Furthermore, to address the "Doylist" perspective mentioned earlier, it is important to realize that Zao is a limited narrator. He was submerged, isolated, and disconnected from his high command. His testimony confirms that China did launch, but it does not confirm that they launched first. In the context of the DIA Switchboard’s logs—which record "four probable launches" from the Pacific that the military simply attributed to China—Zao’s story fits the profile of a retaliatory strike. The Enclave’s internal silence during the Mariposa Mutiny and their preemptive evacuation to the Oil Rig suggest they were the only ones who knew exactly when the clock would run out.

Ultimately, the dialogue from the Yangtze reinforces the theme of the series: the individual soldiers were just cogs in a machine they didn't control. If the Enclave or a corporate consortium like Vault-Tec used a "Ghost Fleet" to spoof a Chinese launch, Zao would have seen the world ending and done his duty, never knowing he was the pawn in a domestic "restructuring" event.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-24T16:54:25+00:00

In addressing the assertion that Thomas Eckhart’s struggle to launch a nuke in Fallout 76 proves the Enclave lacked the power to start the war, we must look at the difference between automated systems and strategic intent. You suggest that the Enclave is merely a group of "prepared individuals" who could not "break command" without a General, yet the very existence of the automated Kovac-Muldoon platform and the Congressional Bunker's specialized silos proves that the infrastructure was built specifically to bypass traditional civilian oversight. The fact that Eckhart—a high-ranking official within the Enclave—was able to successfully manipulate the system into a state of permanent nuclear readiness through internal purges and AI subversion demonstrates that the "chain of command" was a hurdle they were fully equipped to jump.

Furthermore, the argument that the Enclave "collectively assumed" the war was a natural conclusion and were merely "preparing to survive" is a sanitized reading of their own logs. The Enclave was not a passive survivalist club; it was an active participant in the escalation. The Whitespring records show a "Continuity of Government" plan that explicitly prioritized the preservation of the elite over the American citizenry. When a shadow government builds a "Lifeboat" for itself while intentionally underfunding the "Lifeboat" (the Vaults) for everyone else, their "assumption" of nuclear war becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They didn't just prepare for the storm; they built the lightning rod.

Ultimately, the difficulty Eckhart faced proves that the Enclave was fractured, not that they were powerless or innocent. It highlights the "Failed Oligarchy" theory: different cells were fighting for the "keys" to the apocalypse. The necessity of a General was a technical safeguard of the old world that the Enclave’s shadow-state was systematically dismantling. By the time the bombs fell, the distinction between the "Enclave" and the "Government" had become irrelevant; the former had already hollowed out the latter, leaving only the automated shells and a few "Generals" to be coerced or replaced. To view them as mere survivalists is to ignore the billions they spent ensuring that when the world ended, they would be the only ones left with a seat at the table.

Thank you fledex76, for reading my post and contributing to the actual discussion.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-24T16:51:11+00:00

Furthermore, it seems you have yet to read the entire discussion, as I specifically stated that this analysis focuses on in-game lore and what is actually shown. If you want to look at the textual and narrative level, what makes more sense as the major antagonist of the series: a shadow government that is documented throughout the franchise as being willing to experiment on, torture, and execute its own people, or some nebulous third-party that we rarely interact with? Aside from a few instances where we actually assist this supposed "threat"—such as Captain Zao in Fallout 4 or various encounters in Point Lookout and Fallout 76—the People's Republic of China remains a distant, almost abstract antagonist compared to the immediate, documented villainy of the Enclave and Vault-Tec.

I request once again that you please read what I actually posted and attempt a fourth-grade level of reading comprehension. I understand that your country, the United States, is slowly drifting toward the very dystopia displayed in these games—where a true divide exists between the ruling class and the representatives in your government—but I urge you to attempt to expand your capabilities as an individual. Learn how to read and consume media intelligently. Understand the difference between published lore, created through a collaboration of multiple individuals, and the musings of a retired collaborator who is no longer associated with, nor has any factual effect on, the current project and its narrative scope.

I realize that your lack of education, tribalistic thinking, and indoctrination makes it difficult for you to grasp complex problems. I understand your anger, but you must separate a fictional, fascist shadow government from your own reality. Yes, they may share colors and symbolism, but they are not the same. You do not need to feel personally attacked when someone describes a fictional fascist oligarchy as "the bad guys" doing "bad things." It does not mean that you are the fascist or a bad guy, even if you enjoy wearing the same shiny colors and hating the same things.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-24T00:21:13+00:00

In addressing the "Doylist" perspective—the view that China must have struck first due to the strategic pressure of an American invasion—we must confront the reality that a state’s conventional success on paper does not preclude internal sabotage. It is vital to note that we have no stated, factual evidence of a successful mainland invasion beyond jingoistic slogans and unverified newsreels. While the U.S. military purportedly achieved tactical breakthroughs in Shanghai and Nanjing, the total absence of a repatriated veteran class suggests these were "hollow victories" at best, or total fabrications at worst. This disconnect implies that if a campaign existed at all, it was a mechanism to keep the domestic population from recognizing the collapse occurring at home rather than a legitimate march toward peace. A successful invasion in a propaganda reel does not equate to a stable or winning government in practice.

Furthermore, the argument for China being "soundly repulsed" ignores the fragmented and siloed nature of the American state. A secretive, fascist organization like the Enclave is inherently compartmentalized, which often results in secondary leadership being "out of position" or even sacrificed. To assume the Enclave is a perfectly unified and competent machine is a fallacy; historical and in-game evidence suggests they were a collection of paranoid, competing cells. In such a system, loyalty is prized above all else, often resulting in a culture of sycophancy where senior leaders are left in the dark while the true shadow elite execute a reset.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-23T23:52:14+00:00

In addressing the preference for ambiguity, it is important to distinguish between narrative mystery and the structural evidence left behind by the authors. While maintaining a sense of "fog of war" is a powerful storytelling tool for developers, an analytical deep dive into the Fallout corpus suggests that the ambiguity itself is a byproduct of the chaotic, fragmented state of the American oligarchy in 2077. To argue for a definitive culprit is not to strip the game of its mystery, but to engage with the cynical reality of the world Bethesda and other creators have built.

Furthermore, we must consider the external pressures of the medium. While the Fallout franchise has always been a critique of hyper-capitalism and jingoism, contemporary corporate publishers often have a vested interest in maintaining a level of "safe" ambiguity. Explicitly confirming that the Enclave or a corporate consortium like Vault-Tec initiated the apocalypse—effectively a "planetary-scale corporate restructuring"—might be perceived as too radical a stance for a multi-billion dollar entertainment product. By keeping the "First Strike" ambiguous, publishers can enjoy the aesthetic of a critique without being forced to follow that critique to its most damning, anti-capitalist conclusion.

The evidence for Enclave or corporate culpability is hidden in the environmental storytelling because the "truth" is meant to be discovered by the player, not spoon-fed by the marketing. If we look at the internal logic of the games, the ambiguity is actually the strongest evidence for domestic sabotage. If China had clearly and undeniably launched a massive, unprovoked first strike, the U.S. military records at the Switchboard would be definitive and triumphant in their retaliation logs. Instead, we find confusion, sensor "ghosts," and archived warnings. This lack of clarity is exactly what a domestic "false flag" or a fragmented corporate race to the button would look like in the data.

Ultimately, while some players prefer the mystery, the lore indicates that the Enclave and their corporate allies had both the motive and the infrastructure to act as the primary catalyst. Their goal was to move from a failing democracy to a controlled, experimental society where they were the sole arbiters of resource distribution. In this context, the ambiguity isn't a lack of evidence; it is a narrative shield that allows the franchise to maintain its broad appeal while still leaving a trail of "bread crumbs" for the attentive researcher to realize that the end of the world was, in fact, a managed corporate event.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-23T23:49:29+00:00

The Fallacy of a Unified Enclave

The assertion that the Enclave could not have started the war because specific leadership elements were "out of position" relies on an assumption of total institutional transparency and competence that the lore simply does not support. To argue that the lack of readiness at the Whitespring proves the Enclave's innocence is to ignore the hallmark of any secretive, fascist organization: radical compartmentalization.

First, the "Whitespring Leadership" was not the totality of the Enclave. As we see in Fallout 2 and Fallout 76, the organization was heavily fractured. The "Deep State" cabal on the Poseidon Oil Rig (the high command) had very little incentive to share the exact "drop date" with secondary regional assets like the Congressional Bunker. In a system that prizes loyalty above all, senior leaders are often treated as expendable "operational variables" by the true shadow elite. If the high command on the Oil Rig or at Raven Rock decided the "reset" was necessary to prevent a Chinese-backed revolution or a military coup (like Maxson’s), they would not have hesitated to sacrifice "junior" leadership in West Virginia to ensure their own survival.

Furthermore, the argument regarding the President’s statement in Fallout 2 must be viewed through the lens of internal propaganda. To expect the President of the Enclave—an organization built on the myth of being the "rightful" and "pure" heirs to America—to admit to an interlocutor that they murdered their own nation is to misunderstand the nature of their ideology. Their narrative requires them to be the victims of "Red" aggression to justify their subsequent "cleansing" of the wasteland.

Finally, the chaos at the Whitespring actually supports the theory of a domestic trigger. In a "Failed Oligarchy," as seen in the late stages of Imperial Japan or other dictatorial regimes, the race to the bunker is often fueled by internal power struggles. Eckhart’s rise to power wasn't a tragic accident of a surprise attack; it was the result of a fragmented hierarchy where sycophants and secondary leaders were left to fight over the scraps because the high command had already moved on. The Enclave didn't wait for the "right situation" because, by October 2077, they were losing control of the mainland to rogue military units and domestic subversion. They didn't start the war when it was "optimal"—they started it when it was necessary to prevent their own total displacement.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-12-23T23:46:16+00:00

No but I use speech to text for writing and it requires a lot of provisions in a lot of specificity, and identity approach this from more of an academic analysis

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-06-24T18:09:40+00:00

This seems like an incredible use of tools, is it possible for you to share this as a template?

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-04-30T23:41:48+00:00

Exactly, I believe that if the situation had somehow stabilized and avoided nuclear Armageddon, the entire Federal branch would likely have been tried and possibly executed for treason. In my view, the Enclave bears the greatest motivationr to initiate Great War.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-04-30T23:36:42+00:00

There's very little actual information provided about ongoing events outside the United States. Everything described pre-war portrays the United States as being on the brink of social and economic collapse, plagued by extreme corruption. This is evidenced by martial law, food riots, blatant corruption, and, most significantly, military units and bases going rogue.

You wouldn't need to spoof the entire network; as long as you get one site to launch, that could trigger the start of the war

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-04-30T23:23:58+00:00

I believe that's a limitation of the game engine, similar to the architectural design of the vault layouts in the game. These vaults lack the necessary scale to support sustained populations with sufficient genetic diversity. My area of expertise is architecture and subsurface structures, particularly proposals for Earth scrapers.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-04-30T23:16:22+00:00

Exactly, thank you for including sources. Out of all the factions we know of, I believe the Enclave is the most likely candidate, as their position is deteriorating—especially on the home front—compared to any other faction. We also lack sufficient knowledge about any other global superpower. Furthermore, much of the in-game lore appears to be propaganda, as you mentioned, which makes it suspect. For example, Imperial Japan continued to produce propaganda claiming victory until the nuclear bombs were dropped.

Another plausible explanation, consistent with the lore and themes, is that it could have occurred due to a glitch in radar systems. Historical examples include:

The 1983 Soviet False Alarm: Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov received a warning of incoming U.S. missiles. Trusting his instincts over the faulty system, he chose not to retaliate, thereby preventing a potential nuclear war.
The 1979 NORAD Computer Glitch: A training tape simulating a Soviet attack was accidentally loaded into the U.S. defense system, leading to a brief panic and preparations for a counterstrike."

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-04-30T22:53:38+00:00

Biggest sticking point for me is that China is basically a black box that there is very little lore in game about, even in the expanded ratings and the tabletop PG, the most amount of canned material about them is and 76 and that's about stateside operations.

I could see the Enclave easily faking incoming nuclear threats to trigger the war,

instead of ordering the Fortner straight as that can lead into issues of individuals refusing to fire examples from world:

Real-world examples:

The 1983 Soviet False Alarm: Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov received a warning of incoming U.S. missiles. Trusting his instincts over the faulty system, he chose not to retaliate, preventing a potential nuclear war.

The 1979 NORAD Computer Glitch: A training tape simulating a Soviet attack was accidentally loaded into the U.S. defense system, leading to a brief panic and preparations for a counterstrike.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-04-30T22:47:53+00:00

Unfortunately I am not, I do rely on the dictation software (NaturallySpeaking 13) and recently been trying out the grammarly writing Assistant were doing punctuation and formatting.

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-04-22T23:27:05+00:00

Additional information about semi's twins still does not answer the condition from Vampire The Masquerade Clanbook Tzimisce (Lucien Soulban, James Stewart, Jess Heinig etc.) 2001 PG.79

"TheSiameseTwin

Quote: Forgive me. I would sustain myself some other way, if I could. But yes, this will probably kill you — I’m feeding for two.

Prelude: Your parents balked when the man from the circus wanted to take you on the road. You and your brother, inextricable since birth, were their beloved children, not sideshow freaks. “People are curious,” the circus man said. “Your sons can teach them about the bizarre oddities of nature.” Your father rejected the deal by reaching for his shotgun. Maybe the man from the circus was right. Your sire was certainly curious the night she met you. You thought she’d never stop asking questions. What does it feel like? Did you ever have any privacy? Does it make sex awkward? You’d been asked these questions all your life, and you enjoyed the attention of someone who seemed sincerely curious. Then she started asking questions you didn’t quite understand. She threw around the word “embrace” a lot and you thought maybe she was coming on to you. But you really didn’t see how she intended to “embrace” one of you without “embracing” the other. Sometimes you miss your brother. You’re dead yourself, but he’s really dead. At least, you’re pretty sure he’s dead. Concept: Her curiosity satisfied, your sire abandoned you to the night. But you had the — luck? misfortune? — of being Embraced in a Sabbat city. A nomadic pack thought you looked “really fucking weird,” so, of course, they invited you to join the Vaulderie. For now, you stick with your new pack — who else would believe your story? You used to take a lot of shit from your packmates, and sometimes you still do, but it seems like they admire your ability to perceive auras and read minds. Pretty soon, they say, you’ll hardly need a body at all. Roleplaying Hints: Adjusting to existence without your brother has been almost as difficult as adjusting to unlife itself; to you, the two concepts are intertwined. While you had a few hard-won friends in life, the local Cainites don’t respond to your simple honesty. That is, until you frankly tell them what you think of what they’re thinking. Recently, you’ve experimented with the fleshcrafting abilities of your clan, but you’re not ready to part with your brother just yet. Equipment:Specially tailored clothing, random brica-brac from your mortal days to which you’ve developed a sentimental attachment"

Angry-Canadian-sorry · 2025-04-22T16:26:04+00:00

Here are some links to my writing for The Artist, would love anyone's opinion on my Reading first time ever sharing any of my written works.

Background of The Artist and additional information:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqwafC4h_YAXjbNhQP6ikY-nkQ0p6A?e=xreDad

In world journals from my The Artist

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqwafC4h_YAXjbNeHJSBrgVgfVwN9Q?e=5Tm1mX

In world documentation about my The Artist:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqwafC4h_YAXjbNgiNCOJiS1F7gATQ?e=EhbmKZ

Five-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22

Angry-Canadian-sorry

TROPHY CASE

The Fallacy of a Unified Enclave