[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

**Lazy O** · 09-03-2011, 03:57

It was bumped to 10 in june, why has it been reverted?

**vartan** · 09-03-2011, 04:57

Originally Posted by Lazy O

It was bumped to 10 in june, why has it been reverted?

June was the first tournament this year. It was also the debut of EBO MP EDU Series 2. This is why certain rules were altered. July saw the use of 2.1, and enter 2.1.1 in August. Rules were changed more than a few times in order to complement the EDU changes. Regardless, it is all irrelevant now as Series 2, like Series 1, is now obsolete. Thanks for asking though.

**Lazy O** · 09-03-2011, 07:31

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

**antisocialmunky** · 09-03-2011, 13:47

Random question, how is the density stuff working out? I have some ideas that could make infantry infantry charges actually work.

**The Celtic Viking** · 09-03-2011, 14:10

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

The reason why the Sauros got 10 was because at the time they didn't have any non-archer cav, and that put them at max 8 cav (which would also have meant no foot archers). As this has changed and they have Scythian Nobles now, they should no longer receive this special rule.

**vartan** · 09-03-2011, 16:45

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

Sauros do not get ten. They get anything they want now. Stop asking questions that are completely irrelevant. Thank you.

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Random question, how is the density stuff working out? I have some ideas that could make infantry infantry charges actually work.

GG2 hasn't informed me about any work on density. What are you offering? And do we really want infantry charges to work? I know I wouldn't, because as it is, cavalry charges are messed up half the time with lances not lowered. Would you want that with infantry?

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

The reason why the Sauros got 10 was because at the time they didn't have any non-archer cav, and that put them at max 8 cav (which would also have meant no foot archers). As this has changed and they have Scythian Nobles now, they should no longer receive this special rule.

Thank you.

**Brave Brave Sir Robin** · 09-03-2011, 16:54

Originally Posted by vartan

Sauros do not get ten. They get anything they want now. Stop asking questions that are completely irrelevant. Thank you.

GG2 hasn't informed me about any work on density. What are you offering? And do we really want infantry charges to work? I know I wouldn't, because as it is, cavalry charges are messed up half the time with lances not lowered. Would you want that with infantry?

Thank you.

Cavalry only don't lower their lances if you don't position them properly before the charge. Its all about understanding the quirks of the engine.

**vartan** · 09-03-2011, 17:11

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Cavalry only don't lower their lances if you don't position them properly before the charge. Its all about understanding the quirks of the engine.

Clearly. But I'd like to fight for players who can't exploit the engine as much as some other players can. What I mean is something like this. If one of my cavalry if fighting one of yours, and you have one on standby nearby, one thing you can do to take advantage is to withdraw your fighting cavalry and charge with your standby. What this does is it makes my cavalry automatically pursue your fleeing cavalry and get charged like a car accident in which one car hits the side of another. What's more, even if I told my cavalry to attack the incoming cavalry, it would be highly unlikely for my cavalry to couch their lances due to the proximity of your charging cavalry. A similar case would arise with infantry if they work anything like cavalry do. By this I mean if they have to be executed at a certain distance, in a certain way, then there could be opened a whole can of worms, Pandora's Box, if you will, since there would be a whole chunk of online gaming technique which would be solely devoted to exploiting these (highly unfortunate) nuances of the engine in order to win.

EDIT: I really hope that makes sense. Let me know if I am mistaken in my reasoning. It's just what comes to mind when I think about this, and I've thought about this plenty and have been slightly disappointed that it's never been at the forefront of our decision making, with the EDU taking the lead role in that regard.