Cashing is back in business

Shadow I · Post by **Shadow I** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:27 pm

Sure, but if yo uwant casher to be a viable support alternative to mage, you need to make its output better than mage or else people will choose mages for their support roles since mages can also serve as attackers and net defenders while casher's cant.

ohmyjapan16 · Post by **ohmyjapan16** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:55 pm

Shadow I wrote: Sure, but if yo uwant casher to be a viable support alternative to mage, you need to make its output better than mage or else people will choose mages for their support roles since mages can also serve as attackers and net defenders while casher's cant.

Too true. If you are trying to defend networth, you would never have a casher or farmer or indy trying to protect it because they can all be easily beaten up by a mager.

I don't really see magers as being in a supporting position, either. I think do support in the fact that they can protect resources well, but magers can win a round playing solo at the same time.

Shadow I · Post by **Shadow I** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:32 pm

yeah, mages aren't made for support roles, but say yo uneed a casher, and you can either choose a mage or a casher, and they produce the same. Which do you pick? Mge, obviously.

Making casher produce about 30% more means that they get chosen for the role despite poor defense.

Post by **Devari** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:06 am

I sorta belong to the school of thought that dictates that the basic strategies (indy, mage, casher, farmer) should all be solo-able... This is hardly a RPG, so I don't know if I agree with the idea of shoehorning cashers into a "support" role and continuing to cripple their solo abilities.

Shadow I · Post by **Shadow I** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:26 am

making their output higher won't cripple their solo abilities

It'll just make them more attractive than mages for clan play. All the extra would do is help make up for poor defense.

Post by **Devari** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:52 am

I know. That wasn't directed at you, but rather at the proposed theory that cashers should exist as a "support class".

ohmyjapan16 · Post by **ohmyjapan16** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:38 am

Devari wrote: I sorta belong to the school of thought that dictates that the basic strategies (indy, mage, casher, farmer) should all be solo-able...

Ditto. All of them are solo-able IMO, but why would one pick the most tedious out of the four unless their extra effort is worth it?

Post by **Freenhult** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:06 pm

ohmyjapan16 wrote:
Devari wrote: I sorta belong to the school of thought that dictates that the basic strategies (indy, mage, casher, farmer) should all be solo-able...
Ditto. All of them are solo-able IMO, but why would one pick the most tedious out of the four unless their extra effort is worth it?

That's the thing. Its always going to be a pain to do. I understand the principals of having every class be solo-able. But lets look at it this way. We have clans. Why not have a strat that revolves around being in a clan and taking advantage of that dynamic?

In that regard, it makes sense.

Shadow I · Post by **Shadow I** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:33 pm

Because we don't want to force successful clans to have cashers any more than we want to force cashers into clans to be successful.

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:20 pm

We also don't want people to be forced to join clans to become successful. Clan play is probably under-utilized, but we don't want a situation to develop where the only way to do well in the game is to be in a clan. That has happened over at RWL. The way indy and clans are set up, you can't win a round solo anymore unless you get lucky and the top competing clans destroy each other. You also can't take emp solo anymore, like you can here.

Shadow I · Post by **Shadow I** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:49 pm

Taking emp solo should not be possible anywhere IMO. but the rest is valid. Forcing clan play to win is bad. Forcing clan play to emp is good, because emp should never be easy.

Bear in mind that casher's are no worse off than indiers as far as defense goes, so we should balance their net output against indy rather than mage. (Same for farmer). That way the two low defense strats are on par, and ideally we should have both of their net outputs 20-30% above mages.

That being siad, there are probably effetive casher/mage strats that are viable that we should take into account.

Post by **Freenhult** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:53 pm

Well, I understand the concern. But lets face it. Why would you ever play cashing if you had no intent to team up anyway?

Post by **Devari** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:04 pm

Freenhult wrote: Well, I understand the concern. But lets face it. Why would you ever play farming if you had no intent to team up anyway?

Shadow I · Post by **Shadow I** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:23 pm

To learn how? For the fun? Because it produces more than mage?

For the same reasons people play indy solo. At FAF, all strats are exactly the same in the end - big army- just different ways of getting there. Which is another reason why we need to take sacking down by like 1000%, to introduce some strat diversity.

Post by **Devari** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:31 pm

Did my sack/shield changes not make it over from /newdev?

Frost And Flame Forums

Cashing is back in business

Members connected in real time