Lament of a Sarmatian Player

[The Celtic Viking]

Again, recall that Prodromoi had a secondary weapon that was better vs the Epos than the old AP lance.

A 13 attack .165 lethality sword is not as good against LEs as a 9 attack .4 lethality lance, and the improvement is much more than just +2 attack. I was speaking more in general anyway, the Prodromoi were just an example that flew to mind since I was counting it as a +5 and I knew the Prods have 10 armour, and though it's not as bad as I thought, they've still suffered.

Of course, this is all off topic. Apologies for driving it away with what was initially meant as an innocent joke.

[vartan]

I don't know yet what to think about non-ap underhand lances. That changes a lot...

Regarding Sauromatae, here's an idea. How about you add several units which you might consider reasonable and 'in-reach' for the faction, and I make a factional unit page split. The Sauro player can then choose between two factional sets, much as SPQR has four sets to choose from. Now, what I am considering is that if we have this Steppe-Bosphoran distinction, or whatever you'd like to call it, that the more 'settled'/Bosphoran set be restricted to 6 mercs much like all other civilized factions in the game.

EDIT: For those who don't know, gamegeek2 is keeping his current wins and losses for EBOT 2012 June and switching to Saka Rauka.

[gamegeek2]

I would need to make extensive DMB edits to do this but I'm up to it.

[vartan]

I would need to make extensive DMB edits to do this but I'm up to it.

Would this have effects on single player?

Whatever your feelings are on the change, it wasn't wise to change it so shortly before a tournament before it was properly tested by players. I have no idea why this was done.

That's what I have in mind. I said in the chat room that I do not know when this was done as I wasn't personally told. Usually gg2 sends me a Facebook message if he's going to do something which I might consider a significant change. Lethalities and other such values I trust him with, and he has threads for these. But if a global toggle such as a widely-used weapon's ap switch is to be turned off, I need to be informed. In the chat room I said I didn't know when it was switched, 3.3, 3.2, or when. If this is indeed specific to 3.4, then I'm really sorry. If it's from 3.3, then I could say that there was around a week in which we had a clue (unless there was no mention of this switch in the 3.3 thread). At this point we're just keeping on playing with it. The only thing we can do is revert this change in a 3.5 fix for next month, but for sure we have to discuss this in its own thread (in its own right).

[Lazy O]

Would this have effects on single player?

Should not . As its only adding skins to a certain faction .

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I don't know yet what to think about non-ap underhand lances. That changes a lot...

Whatever your feelings are on the change, it wasn't wise to change it so shortly before a tournament before it was properly tested by players. I have no idea why this was done.

[gamegeek2]

Whatever your feelings are on the change, it wasn't wise to change it so shortly before a tournament before it was properly tested by players. I have no idea why this was done.

Well its effect on the effectiveness of charges has been minimal.

[vartan]

Well its effect on the effectiveness of charges has been minimal.

But I'm certain it's had effects on melee.

[Lazy O]

Who uses lances in melee???

[vartan]

Who uses lances in melee???

I do. Who are you to tell me not to use it anyway? Just curious.

[Kival]

Who uses lances in melee???

Lances probably are noW better in melee then secondaries (again).

[Kival]

A 13 attack .165 lethality sword is not as good against LEs as a 9 attack .4 lethality lance

Just to nitpick: It was better because lances had that "recharge" value and have slower animations.