Balancing Statement

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Balancing Statement

      Dear community members,

      With all the ruckus about balancing of units and mechanics we feel it necessary to release a statement of where Dorado stands on this as a company.

      In the latest airborne update we wanted to get top players away from depending on a mechanic never designed or intended to work in such a way. We know for a fact that several guys managed to take over all provinces of other nations besides cities in a matter of less than a handful of hours by chaining and spamming airborne. So doubling travel times as proposed several times by community members would make this only take insubstantially longer, due to the speed reduction simply being compensated by more airborne units. Comments in the line of: "Country gone between lunch and dinner? Oops - better learn how to play!" just don't cut it. Sorry, but not under our watch. After all, we have to look at all our players - and most aren't even on the forum...

      Thus, Dorado will never tolerate the abuse of a mechanic to the detriment of a majority, even if it is making money for us. That is simply not how we roll. We cincerely hope that top tier players will see the truth in what we are trying to achieve and read our extensive explanations, even providing time comparisons on conquer strategies.

      Dorado is an online games company driven by passionate gamers and creatives. Rebalancing certain mechanics is part of the meta - and top tier players should know this from other successful online games. We are not doing this to punish individuals or groups, but to prevent certain play styles of becoming rampant. Reducing the value of pay strategies may at first seem contraproductive from a business perspective, but the long term negative effects of pure pay to win balancing clearly outweigh any short term profits surge. We will continue balancing and improving, any pvp mmo games company stagnating and stopping to alter and add to their mechanics is a sure indicator of lacking support for their product. And that simply isn't us, and hopefully never will be.

      We make games out of a passion for making games.

      //Your folks at Dorado
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Thanks for the explanation Germanico.

      I applaud Dorando's efforts to make CON game play fun for all players, and I appreciate that it is a more challenging task than it first appears to be.
      It seems that the "bounce" ability from multiple "Add Targets" is inadvertently allowing single day takeovers of all provinces. Maybe that could be disabled for air-mobile and special forces.
      ( I know special forces can't claim land, but they sure are great at blowing stuff up )

      It was really nice having air-mobile and special forces as a rapid response division to throw at invading forces. They could frequently arrive and engage before my defending unit was exterminated. Removing the bounce would still allow for one (1) rapid deployment, without needing to extend load times to the point that air-mobile can't rescue other units in trouble.

      Still, neither my suggestion, nor hour long load times is going to prevent players with vaults of gold from building out hordes of air-mobile and swarming their neighbors. Extending the load times makes it more expensive, but doesn't eliminate that as an option. In reality, Airborne troops are supposed to be quick to deploy, it is the only reason for having such units in the service of a nation. Without the "Add Target" on airborne units, players will have to stay glued to their computers for hours and hours on end. Yes a few will still do that, but CON is a multi-day (multi-week) game. Sooner or later even those players will have to eat, sleep, and we hope shower. :)

      The airborne were the best of only a few units which allowed players to make progress in the course of one session at CON. I agree, they shouldn't be the only tool, or a zombie hoard.

      Thanks Again.

      p.s. thanks too for reducing the daily costs of FOBs so they don't act as economic land mines any more.
      I still believe there should be a way to demolish bases we don't want/need, but at least now the old bases don't beggar us.

      Having a blast here,

      Blast Radius
      "Gentlemen, When the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon"
      -- Admiral Horatio Nelson --

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Blastradius ().

    • If you want a realistic war game - units should be able to ferry across the pacific without going ship bound. I can buy a plane ticket from LA to Tokyo in real life but not for my ground troops.

      Subs should take longer than 24 hours to cross the pacific.

      And finally, airborne troops (in real life) do not have a 'cool down'. Maybe a 'cool up' for the choppers to get on site to get them out of there, but never a 'cool down'.

      This used to be a war simulation game.
    • Futureman99 wrote:

      If you want a realistic war game - units should be able to ferry across the pacific without going ship bound. I can buy a plane ticket from LA to Tokyo in real life but not for my ground troops.

      Subs should take longer than 24 hours to cross the pacific.

      And finally, airborne troops (in real life) do not have a 'cool down'. Maybe a 'cool up' for the choppers to get on site to get them out of there, but never a 'cool down'.

      This used to be a war simulation game.
      i dont think you can carry heavy military equipment , tanks , arms and stuff on a aircraft with a large army to cross the freakin pacific bro.
    • Blastradius wrote:

      Still, neither my suggestion, nor hour long load times is going to prevent players with vaults of gold from building out hordes of air-mobile and swarming their neighbors.
      This^^^ As long as pay to win is an option , people will pay to win , no matter what unit they choose to mass produce. That said , i understand this is Beta and they way the game is paid for is selling gold to the players , at some point i would like to see limited gold server option in addition to the existing unlimited servers , that way , people who can spend as much as they want can fight each other and let people who can't spend much fight each other.
    • Liqter wrote:

      Blastradius wrote:

      Still, neither my suggestion, nor hour long load times is going to prevent players with vaults of gold from building out hordes of air-mobile and swarming their neighbors.
      This^^^ As long as pay to win is an option , people will pay to win , no matter what unit they choose to mass produce. That said , i understand this is Beta and they way the game is paid for is selling gold to the players , at some point i would like to see limited gold server option in addition to the existing unlimited servers , that way , people who can spend as much as they want can fight each other and let people who can't spend much fight each other.
      Not a viable idea. might take a toll on the economy of the game. Who would purchase gold if people would not be allowed to use it against free to play players? Whenever you give a suggestion, think from a developer's mind instead of a player ones, you would understand how hard it is to manage a game and satisfy everyone's needs.
    • Liqter wrote:

      Blastradius wrote:

      Still, neither my suggestion, nor hour long load times is going to prevent players with vaults of gold from building out hordes of air-mobile and swarming their neighbors.
      This^^^ As long as pay to win is an option , people will pay to win , no matter what unit they choose to mass produce. That said , i understand this is Beta and they way the game is paid for is selling gold to the players , at some point i would like to see limited gold server option in addition to the existing unlimited servers , that way , people who can spend as much as they want can fight each other and let people who can't spend much fight each other.

      Liqter wrote:

      senancox wrote:

      Who would purchase gold if people would not be allowed to use it against free to play players?
      This is class discrimination , it gives a clear , unfair advantage to the wealthy.
      Please for the love of all that is holy and good, don't bring sandernista thinking into this.

      As far as gold limiting, I still think setting a gold limit per game would be fair. It would encourage people to buy gold still, but they would have to be strategic about it. If you want to blow it all by getting nukes by day 3 you can, but then you have nothing left for later when you may really want to see where an enemy units are. If you want to use it for hourly updates of troop movements you can, but when you need to insta build a unit to save your capital, you won't have it. This makes gold a strategic commodity, not an unlimited win tool.


      And I want to thank Germanico, and the rest of the Dorado team for not only their commitment, but also taking the time to explain to this community. Sometimes, we get frustrated by what we see as unfair actions, but Dorado has always been good about listening to it's players, and that is a big reason why I am financially supporting the game with gold purchases. I know I have blown my top at times, and I don't envy Germanico's position as public face to the forum as sometimes he gets heat he doesn't deserve.

      That all said, I have to say, as an air mobile addict, I never even thought to use the add target during that 30 second load up time to add extra provinces. I assumed that if i did they would walk there, and with their land speed being so slow, it was kind of pointless. I guess I missed that tactic, but i don't think i was the only one. It is a challenge how to stop the air mob spamming to take a country, and I can only think of either gold spending limits per game, or possibly limiting units. Something akin to increased upkeep costs the more you have of certain units, so if you have 50 tanks or 50 airborne, it costs you exponentially more than 5 tanks or 5 airborne. I really don't know the best solution, it will have to be a trial and error and see what works and doesn't.

      But again, sincerely, thank you Germanico for taking the time to explain to us, especially those of us that are not always the most patient.

      And for releasing LHD's in the next update. :D :whistling:
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • senancox wrote:

      Futureman99 wrote:

      If you want a realistic war game - units should be able to ferry across the pacific without going ship bound. I can buy a plane ticket from LA to Tokyo in real life but not for my ground troops.

      Subs should take longer than 24 hours to cross the pacific.

      And finally, airborne troops (in real life) do not have a 'cool down'. Maybe a 'cool up' for the choppers to get on site to get them out of there, but never a 'cool down'.

      This used to be a war simulation game.
      i dont think you can carry heavy military equipment , tanks , arms and stuff on a aircraft with a large army to cross the freakin pacific bro.
      They go in the back of a Starlifter and bigger. Sure you need need a few, but it has been done many times in real life.
    • War-spite wrote:

      That all said, I have to say, as an air mobile addict, I never even thought to use the add target during that 30 second load up time to add extra provinces. I assumed that if i did they would walk there, and with their land speed being so slow, it was kind of pointless. I guess I missed that tactic, but i don't think i was the only one.
      LOL, I thought the same thing, that it would make them walk and YES I have had them walk before since air assaulting did not get me to the center of the tootsie roll pop. Just to move not even an inch on the map took foooooooooreverrrrrrrrrrr!!!

      When I start campaigns I am literally at my desk directing. Last game I had two attempted invasions start right when I was about to go to bed. Both attempts were all nighters. So he may had sent his units on their way and went to bed but I was at my desk blowing his them up till my alarm went off to get up to go to work.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • You guys will be delighted to hear that we are working on improving AA to increase the "passive" defenses of a nation.

      @Devin: I once met a guy online @SubsimForum who played Silent Hunter 3 in realtime - meaning if his lookout spotted something at 3am he would get up and follow up until resolved. RP doesn't even come close to describe this level of commitment ;)
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • senancox wrote:

      Futureman99 wrote:

      If you want a realistic war game - units should be able to ferry across the pacific without going ship bound. I can buy a plane ticket from LA to Tokyo in real life but not for my ground troops.

      Subs should take longer than 24 hours to cross the pacific.

      And finally, airborne troops (in real life) do not have a 'cool down'. Maybe a 'cool up' for the choppers to get on site to get them out of there, but never a 'cool down'.

      This used to be a war simulation game.
      i dont think you can carry heavy military equipment , tanks , arms and stuff on a aircraft with a large army to cross the freakin pacific bro.
      Yeah you can bro, in "REAL LIFE" at least, maybe not in this game.
    • So folks... in RL US troops ship heavy units by... wait for it... ship! As can be seen in this recent incident where US forces deployed to Europe:

      independent.co.uk/news/world/e…-putin-nato-a7515066.html

      Considering that the Atlantic ocean is about half the size of the Pacific I believe we can quite clearly state that even in modern war naval supply lines are of major importance.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Same for Trade.

      Naval freight has been one of the biggest power vector of nations since pretty the first capitalist take-off in late 1400 in Western Europe (yep. We medievist talk of "proto-capitalism" when it comes to the establishment of trade line and dedicated intercontinental freight)


      Even Now, US are (in part) an overwhelming force over the planet because of their carefully placed naval groups, often protecting critic supply lines (which are too vectors of reinforcing allies, or invading)

      PS : I know very well that before 1400, great powers emerged through naval supremacy. It's just that before 1400 in Europe, and to the very notable exception of China, no global pattern emerged, Thalassocracy gaining edge due to disruptiveness and contextual aspect. (Scandinavians, Phenicians, Southern African Kingdoms, etc...)
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Damn, joining the discussion late


      While I do feel its a good policy, I personally feel that a number of these "game restrictions" are not really as effective as you believe. Regarding the hot topic of Airborne infantry. It is still possible to completely take over a nation in rapid time, without using the "Add target" feature. Simply by producing more airborne infantry this solves that problem.


      The same applies for the no resource trading. While Im all onboard with stopping multis, I do feel that this is not working as expected. It is still possible for Account 1 to make a buy order of a certain resource very cheap and account 2 will sell to that order.

      I dont mind that the resource trading is not there, I do wish however it could be enabled for non ranked, private games. For RPs and Alliance games etc. However general Game made rounds, I believe it is best kept away.



      As for the Air borne infantry, it is again like the cruise missiles. Waving the white flag to players who cannot apply logic to the game. And until you play a round or two you will suffer from a possible Airborne blitz.
      However that can all be over come once a player gets the grips of the game and learns how the game works and starts to apply strategic and tactics.

      (And adding Heli stats for mobile SAM's I still feel will help)


      Germanico wrote:

      So folks... in RL US troops ship heavy units by... wait for it... ship! As can be seen in this recent incident where US forces deployed to Europe:

      independent.co.uk/news/world/e…-putin-nato-a7515066.html

      Considering that the Atlantic ocean is about half the size of the Pacific I believe we can quite clearly state that even in modern war naval supply lines are of major importance.
      Very true ^^^^ I must say,
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Yes, i do agree that one can still take over a country quickly with MORE airborn, but at least, it's not taking a country in a few hours with just 3 or 4 of them. It asks more commitment, and in this regard, if there are passive buff to anti-helo capacities, then... airborn will look like more and more a "all-in" strategic bet, which is perfectly fine. If it's disruptive and not hard-countered, then yeah, victory deserved, active opponent or not. It wasn't disruptive when you could do that with minimum risk (3 or 4 units) and focus elsewhere for your defense. No sense of technological progress either, as there is no feeling of running behind "more HP" or "more damages" to "stay in the arm race".

      I still crush some players with missile spam, but at least it's not "because it's so easy and efficient", but more because the opponent research hole was just like that, with no passive ability to counter it. The research chain still feels a little lacking, and with the economic buff that allows us to make MUUUUUCH more infantry, i'm pro re-buffing a little against soft target the missiles, but they "are on it". I do not do 100% missile anymore, as they are not that great to kill players with agile units anymore (not cost effective), and saturation works much less. But still, against navies, isolated units, or generaly in the so called "no man's land" terrain between two superpowers, they have an utility that i qualify of "equivalent" to other units. Pro and Con, that depending of the tactical situation made me glad i researched it, and in other situations, made me think maybe i should have prefered "this unit". Design-speaking, it's the kind of tactical diversity that improves gradually the game
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Regarding anti air: fixes, overhaul & update coming this week

      Regarding resource trading: working on it (premium sub feature in future)

      Regarding Airborne: assault bonus incoming

      Regarding spec forces: stealth helis inbound

      Regarding missiles (and other units): requirements lifted - enjoy ICBMs and boomers

      Regarding VP: update coming this week
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • War-spite wrote:

      That all said, I have to say, as an air mobile addict, I never even thought to use the add target during that 30 second load up time to add extra provinces. I assumed that if i did they would walk there, and with their land speed being so slow, it was kind of pointless. I guess I missed that tactic, but i don't think i was the only one.
      Wait, what? So you can use "Add target" on Airmobile inf and they stay airborne? Oh, maaan...

      I feel kinda silly now.
    • Germanico wrote:

      You guys will be delighted to hear that we are working on improving AA to increase the "passive" defenses of a nation.

      @Devin: I once met a guy online @SubsimForum who played Silent Hunter 3 in realtime - meaning if his lookout spotted something at 3am he would get up and follow up until resolved. RP doesn't even come close to describe this level of commitment ;)
      I miss submarine games. I played them in real time as well. Sit there for hours and days just to get a kill. I had Aces of the Deep also. I played with the wave motion and in German. You could play a music turntable. My friend tried playing with the wave motion and got sick. If you go out on the deck the sub is moving up and down with the waves. You can hear the engine going blumb blumb blumb. With the wave motion it was harder to spot ships in the distance.

      I had the first Silent Hunter. I never survived. We always went down. The only time I ever used the time compression which is why I stopped was when the Japanese were invading the Philippines. I got too anxious but putting it back into real time put me right in the middle of their invasion fleet. All I could see through the scope was ships. No silhouette just the side of the ship which was a battleship. Photon torpedoes were overloaded that day. It was apparently a good day to die but I got a lot of tonnage.

      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!