Retarded. Playing a 3 vs 3 tournament in a little circular box with teams based more on friendships/clan associations than skill, and where killing an enemy horse got you automatically eliminated from that round isn't exactly a proper representation. None of the EU teams was entirely composed of "good" cav. I guess the ridiculous Smoothrich propaganda has become a matter of faith for NA. Not surprising, anything that even suggests NA>everyone else is desperately latched on and milked for all it's worth. Just like RL really.
Although given his K/D as lancer and xbow Rohypnol is probably one of the best cav player in cRPG, no way of really knowing until chadz builds his mid atlantic ocean lair. And seems more like a Chase type guy who is good at any class. Is Rohypnol any good at melee?
EU players are always saying EU is so much better than NA and that claim is completely unjustified. In regards to cav players, the only comparison has been that torunment, which NA won despite there being like 7 EU teams and 1 NA team. Therefore that being the only thing to go on, if you had to say, NA has better cav. And the NA team that won was also comprised of friends not the best cav players on NA, Roh was not on the team. And from what i see when im on EU occasionally, whenever Byz is on they roll the server unlike any clan ive seen.
On NA no clan is that dominate, and it can always atleast be a winnable fight for either side. Byzantine had a team, which i would have to assume given their dominacnee was comprised of some of the best if not the beset cav on EU, and that would be true given Byz beat the other EU teams and got to the finals, but they lost to the USA team, for the second time in the tourney as they lost in the first or second round to them i think. So your best players from your best clan losing twice to team USA, sounds convincing to me.
And i dont see how the setup was stupid, if you get dehorsed, and then manage to dehorse and kill your opponent on foot, how does that make you the better cav player?
