Regardless of my opinion of the particular format or tone of Golem's or others threads, i generally welcome any discussions, ideas and opinions, as i believe devs do aswell.
I rather have alot of annoying threads amidst a few interresting ones to dwell on than the recent death silence ;)
Regarding mounts, I am certain, as it also has been discussed in the forums earlier, that devs have a huge interrest in doing mounts and to do it right; By postphoning decisions and the implementations for it to a time after the basic combat implementation to give it the apropriate space and time to be able to really focus on it.
I for one think that cRPG horses balance is not so bad - i actually think its really good (yes, i did and do play cav). Light cav was way to strong before recent patches and turned it into a pretty skill less gameplay - particularly against infantry classes.
Its important though, to differentiate the distinkt cav classes like light/heavy lancers,1h,HA and to understand that high costs are important in order to avoid everyone riding around elephants and one-hit everything and their grandma - or even be able to do all this on a donkey
Overall i think, it should be much more appreciated that cav works on an completely different tactical level than inf (which is mainly a local, slow charging blob, camping or ambushing crowd) ... as an overwatching, point striking or distractive and supporting force.
In my experiance, those cav players who best read the battlefield and cooperate with inf are the most successful ones ... as it should be. Unlike the invincible, devastating tanks they where at some point.
