Some are wrong more often than others. 
The only problem I have with people being wrong is when they are too stuck up to admit it. Kinda like when you buffed agi for now reason, decided to ban allers for not trying hard enough, decided to keep HA and HX as viable classes in this mod... yeah I could go on, but I wouldn't want you to cry yourself to sleep too hard tonight.
This is specifically what I'm talking about, Jona. You go and do the very thing you complain about. You start out by saying "people being wrong... when they are too stuck up to admit it" and then follow up by passing your opinions off as fact "kinda like when..." Jona, I beseech you, you're too intelligent of a person to be doing this stuff, please reflect upon the ideas you have, before you go and publicize them.
Agi was buffed for several reasons, whether or not you agree is irrelevant, the truth of the matter is that nearly all of the skilled, long time players were in agreement that STR was far better than AGI. WM scaling was quite poor, so poor that only a very low percentage of melee players would actually cap their WM. You had free wpp that meant you didn't even have to get a single point in WM to be competitive. Then you had the fact that HP is tied to STR while AGI doesn't really have anything useful like that, but to go further still, IF and equipment requirement were also tied to str. This last point means that everything associated with both killing someone and surviving (aside from simply fleeing) was dictated by STR. What's more, is that all of these things had a stacking effect (Plate armor goes further with higher HP pools.)
I'm sure you don't actually mean to say
I banned allers, because I had nothing to do with that decision and haven't even taken the time to look at anything more than the logs San posted (which would seem to support the ban.)
I detest HA, HX and HT like anyone else, but trying to hold against me the fact that I haven't
removed three classes from this mod that are in fact, a core part of this series, is quite ridiculous. If Shik can be trusted, these games started out as a horse archer simulation game. Now, with that being said, I have just as recently as two days ago suggested that HA are likely deserving of a nerf.
Valour for archers who attack enemy archers? That's not actually rewarding those who do well and could potentially be less effective than actually shooting melee or horses. As stated in another thread recently, due to score functionality (which is relevant, because that's the ONLY thing valour is based on) a person who gets valour is actually accomplishing a fair bit in comparison to the rest of his team. Recognize that score is generated by the amount of health an opponent loses, modified by their score offset, which increases/decreases based upon how well they have done in previous rounds. Thus peasants are often worth much less than the "Pros".
Pause and think about this for a second. Next, for the sake of argument, assume my next two statements are true (the first of which can't actually be debated.) If valour is based on damage dealt, and HA get valour easier than anyone else, doesn't this mean HA are overpowered with respect to how much damage they deal in comparison to everyone else? The answer should be obviously, yes. Now why is this relevant? Because I'm trying to change the conversation into something more meaningful.
Not all classes are meant to have the same killing potential as the rest (this is partially where proximity bonus comes in), but it's certainly not the case that mounted ranged should be found as the most deadly.
Although you might find it a bit cryptic, I am in fact suggesting that they should be nerfed and that the conversation should shift its focus more towards that.
So again, I beseech you, please reflect upon your ideas prior to publication, it really is for
everyone's benefit.
Poll