Insurgent tweak update - comments and suggestions

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

    • Insurgent tweak update - comments and suggestions

      Gentleman,



      I have never written here before, although I’ve been visiting this forum quite often, looking for clarifications and tips - and I’ve done it, as an anonymous user, well before registering this account.



      A few days ago, however, while talking to my coalition companions, in the last match I played, about the news regarding the possibility of rebels appearing at different times of the day, I shared with them, quite unpretentiously, an insight I had; my ally Pavel_t_5 said he liked the idea and encouraged me to introduce it to the administrators - and this is what I'm doing now.



      First, I will deal with this specific aspect of the game's dynamics - the rise of the rebels - based on the way it works today, since that update; then, I’ll explain how different it could be.



      = = = = = = = = = = = = =



      At first glance, the modification implemented on January 21 could even look like a gold trap, something intended only to make impatient players spend their money to guarantee an immediate and artificial elevation of the morale of the newly occupied cities, thus allowing the continuation of more aggressive invasion campaigns.



      In my opinion, however, this change has made the game a little closer to reality: for those who do not intend to spend gold, it makes sense that the nation that just conquered a city needs to keep there for some time - at least until the dissatisfaction of the local population is dissipated, to some extent - an occupying force.



      We, the players, should rather thank God the same care does not need to be observed in the other provinces of the occupied territory, but only in the cities.



      Therefore, within the current conditions, it would perhaps be interesting to just send a notification to the players, informing them of the moment when each revolt could have broken out - if none of the cities it runs were the scene of an insurgency, in which case such notification would, of course, be unnecessary...



      Of course, anyone can find out about the occurrence of the uprisings, if they have not been personally affected by any of them, by consulting the CoN News... but perhaps it would cost little to send such an alert, letting each player know that, at least that one moment on, and until the next midnight, they can move even their occupation troops without the risk of an insurgency in the city.



      = = = = = = = = = = = = =



      Anyway, in my opinion, the establishment of a single time of the day - however random - for possible revolts in occupied cities, of another single time for possible revolts in annexed cities and of one more single time for possible revolts in homeland cities is not quite what we would see in the real world... we are in a better position than we were before (“midnight or nothing”), that's for sure; even so, it seems natural to me that, as long as morale is below 35, a revolt could break out (or not) at any time, in any city, no matter what happens or not in the other cities.



      In other words: if player number 1 has occupied cities X, Y and Z, a revolt could happen in city X at 07:42, another in city Y at 18:20, and none in city Z. That would be way closer to reality than two revolts breaking out at exactly the same time, don't you agree?



      It should also be noted that, in any case – if the game stays as it is right now, or if you add the possibility of revolts in occupied cities (which are, by far, the most likely ones) at different times, midnights remain important moments - that's when every city morale gets updated, after all.



      = = = = = = = = = = = = =



      From now on, I will present the most “radical” suggestion - the one that would certainly impact the game in a more significant way.



      I must say that I have absolutely no idea how hard it would be to implement it… so, if you tell me that would be simply impossible to adopt, I’ll take it. I can only hope it’s not… ;)



      Straight to the point: I think it would be way more interesting (and also realistic) if, instead of these random rebels, cities with good morale before the invasion could create some resistance from its own civilians to fight the new occupants ... and maybe have them turned into national guard after two or three days, if not destroyed before.



      We have to agree: in the real world, there is very little in common between the inhabitants of Paris occupied by the Germans and those of Seoul invaded by the Japanese that could justify the eventual appearance, in these cities, of troops that were neither French nor Korean, but belonging to a “single rebel nation”, as is currently the case in the game.



      The natural thing, in my humble opinion, is that civilians want to go back to what/where they were before - and not to make the city nobody's land.



      In a similar way, if the same Paris had been occupied by the Germans for several days, already with a reasonably high morale, and were invaded by the British, the troops that should appear, from the popular uprising, would be German - not French, nor “rebels”.



      Such "resistance members", without prior military training, could have very reduced mobility, very little attack and defense capabilities... and would not be controlled by the player who commands that nation while they remain in those conditions, but only after the "conversion" - if they were able to survive that much, of course.



      In this respect, there would be nothing so specially new to the game: after all, there are units produced by the players themselves that, under certain circumstances, they are already not able to control (it happens during certain flights, am I right?).



      The way the game is, all that civilians are allowed to do is, basically, to die ... and that’s kinda sad. They should be able to play a role in defining their own destinies, don’t you think?



      = = = = = = = = = = = = =



      Rebels could still keep coming from homeland or annexed cities… maybe even from occupied provinces with extremely low morale - under 10, 15 or 20, right after the capital of the invading nation falls, for example.



      If the morale of homeland or annexed cities gets too low, perhaps they could generate “resistance members” supporting the enemy, instead of rebels… civilians who might prefer to join an opposing army, if current conditions were particularly bad. That would also be more real than the appearance of insurgents of a “single rebel nation”.



      Maybe widespread dissent should have some bigger impact, too… not only increasing the possibility of rebellions, because of the effects of civilian losses in the morale of each city, but also making AI players more prone to attack you, perhaps?



      Guess I’ve taken too much of your time, already... some of these last ideas may become the topics of future posts, ok?



      Thanks in advance for your attention! (And I’m sorry for the quality of this translation!)

    • WSBJUNIOR wrote:

      Therefore, within the current conditions, it would perhaps be interesting to just send a notification to the players, informing them of the moment when each revolt could have broken out - if none of the cities it runs were the scene of an insurgency, in which case such notification would, of course, be unnecessary...
      That would be good.

      WSBJUNIOR wrote:

      In other words: if player number 1 has occupied cities X, Y and Z, a revolt could happen in city X at 07:42, another in city Y at 18:20, and none in city Z. That would be way closer to reality than two revolts breaking out at exactly the same time, don't you agree?
      I don't. That would require even more units to be left in occupied cities. I mean, if you are in a war with a strong opponent, you can hardly leave so many units behind, so people are even more incentivised to not care about those until the war is over and then clean up, which is less realistic.
    • Jemandanderes wrote:

      I don't. That would require even more units to be left in occupied cities. I mean, if you are in a war with a strong opponent, you can hardly leave so many units behind, so people are even more incentivised to not care about those until the war is over and then clean up, which is less realistic.
      Well... I do respect your opinion, of course, but I still believe we should be able to differentiate "more realistic" from "easier".

      Occupying a city AND KEEPING IT is not supposed to be that easy.

      And come on: one or two infantry units are more than enough, already, to prevent an insurection - or putting it to rest. If you can't assure even that, maybe yoy shouldn't even consider to invade another nation.

      Only saying that revolts happening exactly at the same time in a huge territory isn't something quite realistic.

    • I hate all your ideas.

      Bear with me, I don't hate YOU.

      I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you understand where you are.

      You are in a game. By necessity, it is going to have to take liberties with realism, yet bow to the reality that this game is also a business. Meaning, the motivation behind the current change wasn't really to provide realism, but to spare the servers the strain of all games calculating all cities insurgency proclivities at the same time, and to spread that strain out.

      So, first of all, what would be Dorado's benefit of all that work to provide "more realism" when they've already accomplished their goal of server strain spreading? Just because YOU like these particular realism changes doesn't mean everyone does, and in fact might alienate more people than like those changes, meaning less players, meaning less potential money for Dorado.

      Secondly, why should "your" wishes for realism be favored over other realism changes that could be made?
      Where is the realism in troops which need no ammunition, or replacement boots, or logistical supply lines? I would say that all of those are more germane to day to day running of a war than the possibility of insurgent uprisings, which occur LESS in real life than they already do in game, at least to the extent to threaten military units and take cities. How about planes that can patrol forever, then rebase to almost twice their normal range AFTER they've been on that forever patrol?

      Third, this game isn't supposed to be about player vs computer, and that's the aspect you are arguing to increase. Most people want player vs player and I would think that the majority would vastly prefer changes that increase that possibility over ANY changes that are for realism.

      SO, ... nice detail, but you aren't thinking big picture enough on this.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Man... considering how "popular" and "reasonable" most of your oppinions are, the fact you hated all of my ideas actually feels like a compliment.

      "Just because YOU like these particular realism changes doesn't mean everyone does" - since when everyone has to like what each player wants to suggest?

      "why should "your" wishes for realism be favored over other realism changes that could be made?" - when did I say that? I can't make a suggestion about one aspect of the game because there are a million other aspects of the game? Come on...

      "this game isn't supposed to be about player vs computer", "Most people want player vs player"... well, then something should be done to stop players from disappearing by day 3. These people have no idea what this game is about and simply give up when the maps are still full of human players... then, the survivors keep on fighting AI 90% of the time.

      What exactly does it have to do with my suggestions? And how keeping insurgents as they are could be of any help?

      This was the first time I came here to write anything, and you're such a pain in the ass for almost everybody, almost everyday... what about giving some room to other people? Believe me: there's no need to leave your comments everytime, everywhere.

      Thank God you have nothing to do with Dorado and the developers.

    • Well... that seems a bit uncalled for. This post is veering off the suggestions post it was intended to be (and I'm definitely not helping either), but I do want to get my two cents in before a mod inevitably closes the thread.

      DoD (Dealer of Death... not Department of Defense) was a bit rough around the edges, but he did try try to be nicer in his post. Have you seen a few of the other suggestions posts? A few were shot down far quicker and far less gently than your suggestion(s).

      Now, I'm not saying DoD was right to say what he did in that way... maybe he could've been a bit nicer. But c'mon... Americans will be Americans (I'm an American say I can say this :) ).

      All I'm asking for is a bit more leniency and understanding between both sides... before another war erupts between threads and wall-comments.
      "Dealer of Death is really awesome!"
      -Dealer of Death
    • Second Cannae wrote:

      Well... that seems a bit uncalled for. This post is veering off the suggestions post it was intended to be (and I'm definitely not helping either), but I do want to get my two cents in before a mod inevitably closes the thread.

      DoD (Dealer of Death... not Department of Defense) was a bit rough around the edges, but he did try try to be nicer in his post. Have you seen a few of the other suggestions posts? A few were shot down far quicker and far less gently than your suggestion(s).

      Now, I'm not saying DoD was right to say what he did in that way... maybe he could've been a bit nicer. But c'mon... Americans will be Americans (I'm an American say I can say this :) ).

      All I'm asking for is a bit more leniency and understanding between both sides... before another war erupts between threads and wall-comments.
      Oh, i understand his views perfectly, I said as much in the very beginning. I also went out of my way to let him know that this wasn't a personal attack, an angle he did not reciprocate with his Ad Hominem closing remarks. Fortunately, I still am not taking it personal, despite the personally directed remarks, and I challenge anyone to show where I was unreasonable or non-lenient in my critique. The only point I was trying to make is that the changes made were far from universally approved of, and focusing on more such changes is living in a little bubble and ignoring much more pertinent concerns. Such as the build queue for example. Sure, I don't sugar coat what I say, but I believe in precision over babality. And yes, I meant babality.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • WSBJUNIOR wrote:

      Man... considering how "popular" and "reasonable" most of your oppinions are, the fact you hated all of my ideas actually feels like a compliment.

      "Just because YOU like these particular realism changes doesn't mean everyone does" - since when everyone has to like what each player wants to suggest?

      "why should "your" wishes for realism be favored over other realism changes that could be made?" - when did I say that? I can't make a suggestion about one aspect of the game because there are a million other aspects of the game? Come on...

      "this game isn't supposed to be about player vs computer", "Most people want player vs player"... well, then something should be done to stop players from disappearing by day 3. These people have no idea what this game is about and simply give up when the maps are still full of human players... then, the survivors keep on fighting AI 90% of the time.

      What exactly does it have to do with my suggestions? And how keeping insurgents as they are could be of any help?

      This was the first time I came here to write anything, and you're such a pain in the ass for almost everybody, almost everyday... what about giving some room to other people? Believe me: there's no need to leave your comments everytime, everywhere.

      Thank God you have nothing to do with Dorado and the developers.

      OK, let's address this rude reply with the summation Ad Hominem attack, shall I?

      Good, I made you happy at least on one point.

      Not the point I was making, that everyone has to like it, my point was more along the lines of your suggestion doesn't seem to even be cognizant of the prevailing opposite opinion.

      I didn't say, you said that, I was merely expounding on the point that your ideas are contrary to the majority opinion.

      I most heartily agree, in fact I suggested that improvements that address that fact would be preferred by the vast majority of players over any "realism" changes.

      As I explained, changes that increase PvP are by far more important to the player base than your ideas, and THAT is what it has to do with your suggestions, even you seem to acknowledge the importance of PvP improvements. tldr: PvP improvements are more important than your suggestions.

      I am not going to stoop to the Ad Hominem attacks to yours, make more if you wish, I can make my point without them. AND I encourage you to make more suggestions, just try to remember that just because they came out of your favorite brain, not everyone will be dazzled by them. Sorry that you didn't want to hear an opposing opinion, but as I said, it isn't personal.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • hey? it work, don’t fix what already work.
      regarding of realism. idk, sometimes realism will break the game or can’t be implement (legacy codddde) and sometimes it can go along each other.

      regarding to the suggestion, i.e. you want to have timer back, which i believed rooted at ‘i can not control this unpredictable action, i want it to be controllable’ so no
      no meta, I do what meta don't do and YEET them with ridiculous tactic. - IT YEET OR BE YEETED
    • playbabe wrote:

      hey? it work, don’t fix what already work.
      regarding of realism. idk, sometimes realism will break the game or can’t be implement (legacy codddde) and sometimes it can go along each other.

      regarding to the suggestion, i.e. you want to have timer back, which i believed rooted at ‘i can not control this unpredictable action, i want it to be controllable’ so no
      Well… I wasn’t reporting a bug, I was just making a suggestion. This whole area of the forum would be kinda pointless, actually, if we couldn’t propose changes to the game, even those related to aspects of it that are working. If you believe something – even something that is working – can be improved, why not?



      Now, come on… “you want to have timer back”? Really? Where did I say that? Did you even read what I wrote?



      One of my suggestions – not the main one, but one of them – was: instead of making every occupied city of every nation suffer (or not) insurgent attacks exactly at the same time (even if it’s no longer midnight), why not change it, to make possible that different cities face insurgent attacks at different times?



      I would like these things to be MORE unpredictable… that, in a given day, occupied city A could face a revolt at 09:00, and occupied city B, hit by an insurgent attack at 16:45. Got it?

    • Second Cannae wrote:

      Well... that seems a bit uncalled for. This post is veering off the suggestions post it was intended to be (and I'm definitely not helping either), but I do want to get my two cents in before a mod inevitably closes the thread.

      DoD (Dealer of Death... not Department of Defense) was a bit rough around the edges, but he did try try to be nicer in his post. Have you seen a few of the other suggestions posts? A few were shot down far quicker and far less gently than your suggestion(s).

      Now, I'm not saying DoD was right to say what he did in that way... maybe he could've been a bit nicer. But c'mon... Americans will be Americans (I'm an American say I can say this ).

      All I'm asking for is a bit more leniency and understanding between both sides... before another war erupts between threads and wall-comments.
      So… should I feel grateful, flattered, honoured, just because he wasn’t as rude as he usually is? Not as rude as he could have been? Really?

      I’m sorry, birthplaces cannot “justify” anyone’s pathetic behaviour. This kind of thing simply indicates, to the rest of the world, that some places, unfortunately, have a disproportionate amount of morons. Not breaking news, anyway.

      And please, enlighten me: how could you like my post, and then like his reply, starting with “I hate all your ideas”? Is there any logical possibility of this here?

      No need to answer, actually. Never mind. Let’s pretend I never asked this.

    • WSBJUNIOR wrote:

      Second Cannae wrote:

      Well... that seems a bit uncalled for. This post is veering off the suggestions post it was intended to be (and I'm definitely not helping either), but I do want to get my two cents in before a mod inevitably closes the thread.

      DoD (Dealer of Death... not Department of Defense) was a bit rough around the edges, but he did try try to be nicer in his post. Have you seen a few of the other suggestions posts? A few were shot down far quicker and far less gently than your suggestion(s).

      Now, I'm not saying DoD was right to say what he did in that way... maybe he could've been a bit nicer. But c'mon... Americans will be Americans (I'm an American say I can say this ).

      All I'm asking for is a bit more leniency and understanding between both sides... before another war erupts between threads and wall-comments.
      So… should I feel grateful, flattered, honoured, just because he wasn’t as rude as he usually is? Not as rude as he could have been? Really?
      I’m sorry, birthplaces cannot “justify” anyone’s pathetic behaviour. This kind of thing simply indicates, to the rest of the world, that some places, unfortunately, have a disproportionate amount of morons. Not breaking news, anyway.

      And please, enlighten me: how could you like my post, and then like his reply, starting with “I hate all your ideas”? Is there any logical possibility of this here?

      No need to answer, actually. Never mind. Let’s pretend I never asked this.
      Yes.

      Somewhat agree.

      Yes, I was trying to present myself as a neutral third party, while respecting both opinions.

      If you want to... sure.
      "Dealer of Death is really awesome!"
      -Dealer of Death
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      WSBJUNIOR wrote:

      Man... considering how "popular" and "reasonable" most of your oppinions are, the fact you hated all of my ideas actually feels like a compliment.

      "Just because YOU like these particular realism changes doesn't mean everyone does" - since when everyone has to like what each player wants to suggest?

      "why should "your" wishes for realism be favored over other realism changes that could be made?" - when did I say that? I can't make a suggestion about one aspect of the game because there are a million other aspects of the game? Come on...

      "this game isn't supposed to be about player vs computer", "Most people want player vs player"... well, then something should be done to stop players from disappearing by day 3. These people have no idea what this game is about and simply give up when the maps are still full of human players... then, the survivors keep on fighting AI 90% of the time.

      What exactly does it have to do with my suggestions? And how keeping insurgents as they are could be of any help?

      This was the first time I came here to write anything, and you're such a pain in the ass for almost everybody, almost everyday... what about giving some room to other people? Believe me: there's no need to leave your comments everytime, everywhere.

      Thank God you have nothing to do with Dorado and the developers.

      OK, let's address this rude reply with the summation Ad Hominem attack, shall I?
      Good, I made you happy at least on one point.

      Not the point I was making, that everyone has to like it, my point was more along the lines of your suggestion doesn't seem to even be cognizant of the prevailing opposite opinion.

      I didn't say, you said that, I was merely expounding on the point that your ideas are contrary to the majority opinion.

      I most heartily agree, in fact I suggested that improvements that address that fact would be preferred by the vast majority of players over any "realism" changes.

      As I explained, changes that increase PvP are by far more important to the player base than your ideas, and THAT is what it has to do with your suggestions, even you seem to acknowledge the importance of PvP improvements. tldr: PvP improvements are more important than your suggestions.

      I am not going to stoop to the Ad Hominem attacks to yours, make more if you wish, I can make my point without them. AND I encourage you to make more suggestions, just try to remember that just because they came out of your favorite brain, not everyone will be dazzled by them. Sorry that you didn't want to hear an opposing opinion, but as I said, it isn't personal.
      Really? Did the kind gentleman feel I was rude? So sorry… I just think clueless people must be treated accordingly.

      “Fortunately, I still am not taking it personal”… lol What if you were? What difference would it make, man?

      Come on… “the prevailing opposite opinion”? “the majority opinion”? “the vast majority of players”? “the player base”? Where is such majority? Are YOU the majority? Who do you think you are to know what the majority wants or not?

      This game has tens of thousands of players… and half a dozen of them believe to be “the majority” – just because they apparently have nothing better to do than to keep responding to what anyone else tries to point out.

      Even if any of us knew what the “majority” wants: do you really believe the developers of this game would act solely on the basis of it? You said yourself: “the changes made were far from universally approved of”… do you think anyone who exercises any power, who has any kind of authority, acts this way – only according to what the “majority” wants? Do you really believe this is how this world works? Jesus…

      I never said my ideas were the most important things the developers should think about… of course they are not; but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a look – BY THEM, not by you, right? Maybe they, too, don’t give a damn to what you think, just like me! Who knows?

      The next time (well… it would be the first, actually) I think about something AND I’m truly interested in your opinion, seeking your approval, I promise I’ll let you know.

      No one can stop you from presenting your own ideas about the “more important” things! Go on, be my guest! Go write something elsewhere! There’s plenty of space in this forum for this. You just don’t have to keep bothering everyone, all the time.

      About “favorite brains”: of course I like mine, a lot… but few things make me happier than reading, or listening to what smarter people have to say. I’m always glad to change my mind when I come across with better ideas and opinions. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been the case, here, so far.

      Believe me: I don’t “hate” you. I don’t even know you. I just don’t like, at all, the only thing I can see: you attitude towards other people around here, towards pretty much everything that everyone else writes. It’s just ludicrous. Even you would be able to agree, if you weren’t… well, you. And if you really are a “war veteran”, as you wrote… then it just makes things worse. This attitude of yours is an utter disgrace.

    • WSBJUNIOR wrote:

      Really? Did the kind gentleman feel I was rude? So sorry… I just think clueless people must be treated accordingly.
      “Fortunately, I still am not taking it personal”… lol What if you were? What difference would it make, man?

      Come on… “the prevailing opposite opinion”? “the majority opinion”? “the vast majority of players”? “the player base”? Where is such majority? Are YOU the majority? Who do you think you are to know what the majority wants or not?

      This game has tens of thousands of players… and half a dozen of them believe to be “the majority” – just because they apparently have nothing better to do than to keep responding to what anyone else tries to point out.


      Even if any of us knew what the “majority” wants: do you really believe the developers of this game would act solely on the basis of it? You said yourself: “the changes made were far from universally approved of”… do you think anyone who exercises any power, who has any kind of authority, acts this way – only according to what the “majority” wants? Do you really believe this is how this world works? Jesus…

      I never said my ideas were the most important things the developers should think about… of course they are not; but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a look – BY THEM, not by you, right? Maybe they, too, don’t give a damn to what you think, just like me! Who knows?

      The next time (well… it would be the first, actually) I think about something AND I’m truly interested in your opinion, seeking your approval, I promise I’ll let you know.

      No one can stop you from presenting your own ideas about the “more important” things! Go on, be my guest! Go write something elsewhere! There’s plenty of space in this forum for this. You just don’t have to keep bothering everyone, all the time.

      About “favorite brains”: of course I like mine, a lot… but few things make me happier than reading, or listening to what smarter people have to say. I’m always glad to change my mind when I come across with better ideas and opinions. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been the case, here, so far.

      Believe me: I don’t “hate” you. I don’t even know you. I just don’t like, at all, the only thing I can see: you attitude towards other people around here, towards pretty much everything that everyone else writes. It’s just ludicrous. Even you would be able to agree, if you weren’t… well, you. And if you really are a “war veteran”, as you wrote… then it just makes things worse. This attitude of yours is an utter disgrace.

      Yes, I did, and before you attempt to try to shovel some offended perspective on the forum of "you were rude first" I remind you, I did not attack you but your ideas. I went out of my way to point that out. but BOTH your replies have been packed full of Ad Hominem attacks on me, as opposed solely to my responses. Shall we revisit some?-

      Man... considering how "popular" and "reasonable" most of your oppinions are, the fact you hated all of my ideas actually feels like a compliment.

      This was the first time I came here to write anything, and you're such a pain in the ass for almost everybody, almost everyday... what about giving some room to other people? Believe me: there's no need to leave your comments everytime, everywhere

      I just think clueless people must be treated accordingly.

      This attitude of yours is an utter disgrace.


      Of course, you not having access to my knowledge, just as I have not access to yours, might lead you to believe that I pull ideas out of wherever you pull yours out of. However, my comments concerning this were not as limited as you think, and reflected as well the vocal majority of responses on the CoN Discord Channel as well, even those realizing the necessity for Dorado to spare load on their servers. Again tho, since there is no way to quantify this - I withdrawal any such claims to quantity and rely on quality of the opinion against your ideas. (End note: no need for blasphemy.)

      -No point in addressing these rants
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Gee. I have to say Second Cannae was right about DoD.
      Now, let's get back to the original topic, before...
      "CLOSED."
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • What this really boils down to is this: A proposal to further increase Player VS A.I.
      A game change that not only many players have been vocal against, vastly preferring Player VS Player aspects, but something Dorado Representatives have expressed repeatedly that they are trying to avoid. (That being increased Player VS A.I.)
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD