mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
I love HMP on them too, but I wouldn't mind having to skill to get it. With 2 you could then develop a hoofer (HMP) alongside a more traditional precision kicker (Pass, Accurate etc) |
_________________ "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
  Posted:
Sep 02, 2014 - 12:37 |
|
mister__joshua wrote: | I love HMP on them too, but I wouldn't mind having to skill to get it. With 2 you could then develop a hoofer (HMP) alongside a more traditional precision kicker (Pass, Accurate etc) |
True enough. As it is, proflings are very out-of-the-box, with no P or G access. Giving the punter P would give you someone who skills well on normal rolls. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Well they already have P access, but stunty limits its usefulness which is why harvestmouse suggested removing it. I like players skilling well on normal rolls, especially when the team's linemen don't |
_________________ "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Also I agree with what you're saying about them being out-of-box. I think that's why the best changes to make will be giving them better development paths. |
Last edited by mister__joshua on %b %02, %2014 - %16:%Sep; edited 1 time in total |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 02, 2014 - 15:31 |
|
Ok, 3 blocks should have been '3 block dice'. Discounting players is definitely not the way to go. This makes them better at a lower TV, and means their TV is artificially low at the higher end, which doesn't solve the problem at all.
The rugby theme was something that was thought about at the start of the design and was rather loose. I think that was eroded with more 'trait' positionals based on 2 concepts. 1. These are a pretty professional bunch of players (more professional than any other team anyway). 2. Archetypal Halflings (the Borrowers as an example). The Punter is the 'thrower' of the team. However as they're small, they cannot throw. So they 'kick' it instead. This isn't especially accurate, however the ball can travel, with their big hairy feet!
At the end of the day, it's up to Whatball. However I'll certainly be in the 'bump the punter' camp. I think though, they should be small changes at first, and if they don't work, larger changes. I also don't see a problem with adding 1-2 more Moot Guards, as common opinion is there is a problem with higher end teams.
Castleman's team is pretty good though. I think I lost to them, so they can't be too bad against high TV teams. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Yeah, I agree making players cheaper isn't the answer. I'm not sure adding Moot Guards is the best thing either though cos while it would help the team PFlings already have a large number of positionals and adding more could see (with stars) a situation where 1 or even 0 traditional Halflings are fielded.
Skill access by it's very nature helps at higher TVs more than lower, as the more skills the players have the more effective it is. It could maybe in some circumstances be 'gamed' into creating a good low TV team but I think this is a minor issue in Leeg. It's not something people generally do in that format, and the destructive nature of the leeg in general means minmaxing tends to explode/get stabbed etc.
Giving the tree G access makes it much more useful, and giving the punters KoR gives them a skill that would have been a double in place of one that is normal for them, and they can develop stronger.
For more radical changes (that I wouldn't imagine would be considered at this time) I'd like to see how the Borrowers would play if they swapped their Dump-off/NoS for Big Hand or Extra Arms or Surehands or some combination like that, so they can perform tricky blitz-strip-pick-escape moves. |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
  Posted:
Sep 02, 2014 - 17:14 |
|
I'd definitely be in favour of small changes, if any. Despite the talk of them being bad at high TV, teams like the Greenfield Rumblers & East West Flying Opposums have been as high as 2k TV and still won most of their matches at that level.
And bear in mind that even after 6 months, there have been only ~700 games with Pflings, of which ~100 were at a TV above 1600, and they were almost all played by only 5 teams. A very small sample size to base any decisions on. |
_________________ Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
m0gw41
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
|
  Posted:
Sep 02, 2014 - 18:12 |
|
I remember us having a huge debate about G access on trees, I am not really in favour. With G access most players would just turn it into a stunty killing machine rather than giving it some some of the interesting player lobbing skills that make Pro Flings a giggle to play.
I like the idea of giving some lesser chosen general access skills as base skills though (like KoR). |
_________________
|
|
Azure
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 02, 2014 - 19:07 |
|
Why is the debate around the punters instead of the borrowers?
Looking at Castleman's team - his choice of positionals mirror mine:
1 Tree, 2 Mootguard, 2 Catchers, 1 Punter, 0 Borrower
The Borrowers seem cool...but in practice I did not end up using them very much. The Punter (one of them) is just fine as it gives you kick, then leader on regular skill (so a RR for 20k instead of 60k).
My suggestion would be to change the Borrower:
- Dump-off & - Nerves of Steel (Neither of these skills are really ever used)
+ Wrestle (fits perfectly with stripball, and helps at higher TV when ballcarrier has block + surehands)
Increase their cost to 70 TV - but now they have 2 skills both dedicated to sacking.
There is enough sure hands (due to G access) on teams, that stripball by itself gets outdated. Really the current Borrower needs dauntless/wrestle/tackle (three doubles) to shine...so giving them Wrestle makes it more likely that they will be a valuable player on the team.
Perhaps I am wrong - are their pro halfling coaches that really find Borrowers to be a huge asset to their team? |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2014 - 02:40 |
|
There is no G access on the team. Edit Ahhh ok misread the G access comment. Is there a lot of sure hands in stunty though??
Also the borrower mimics the halfling nature of 'borrowing' things off of other people, and then handing them off to another (therefore they cannot be accused of any crime). If you took the dump off away and replaced it with wrestle, you are removing the fluff aspect.
I can't see why any team wouldn't want a strip ball, stunty. It seems that some pro halfling coaches are trying extremely hard to keep their TV as low as possible. |
Last edited by harvestmouse on %b %03, %2014 - %04:%Sep; edited 1 time in total |
|
Azure
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2014 - 02:53 |
|
harvestmouse wrote: | There is no G access on the team. Also the borrower mimics the halfling nature of 'borrowing' things off of other people, and then handing them off to another (therefore they cannot be accused of any crime). If you took the dump off away and replaced it with wrestle, you are removing the fluff aspect.
I can't see why any team wouldn't want a strip ball, stunty. It seems that some pro halfling coaches are trying extremely hard to keep their TV as low as possible. |
I understand - there is always a fluff vs gameplay tradeoff. Do not need to take away the NoS and DO if want them for fluff reasons. However, I just think adding Wrestle (for a small bump in price) would make them a much more played positional.
Just my thought on what would make pro halflings a better team at higher TV. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2014 - 03:43 |
|
Obviously your opinion needs to be valued and respected. However I'm not really seeing how changing a borrower has any sort of effect on their durability......well I guess yes, 2 wrestles would have some effect on meeting blockle mb. But you could add it to the moot guard just as easily.
Regarding him (the borrower), Well the whole positional was based off of thieving and thieving's association with flings. This is to say, they steal in, pop the ball out and dispose of it. NoS was just a skill added to aid this. If the positional had to be drastically altered, then he may as well be removed. I.e. he no longer fits the role/reason he was added.
Personally, I don't see a problem with him. He's probably a little expensive for what he does, however I really can't see why you'd turn down having a stunty stripball. You could, I guess remove the superfluous skills (or bring his price down). However making the roster cheaper isn't really an answer.
Again I'll point out, there's not much really going wrong with this roster. It was never going to be one of the high end, big TV rosters. At low-mid TV they're doing pretty well, and coaches are enjoying them; they're different. |
Last edited by harvestmouse on %b %03, %2014 - %15:%Sep; edited 1 time in total |
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2014 - 04:46 |
|
I like the idea of giving the Punter KoR (ideally for 0 cost). BTW, I run two of them, but I'm hardly min/maxing. I have them for the fluff, and KoR would help make them worth taking by more people who aren't fluff obsessed.
G access on the tree is a fair idea (and it's desperately needed if they're 0-1), but honestly I'd probably rather just see a 2nd Tree with P access.
Wrestle fits best on the Mootguards, but that would almost be a nerf, since they Rock the Block so much! (Nuffle willing).
Despite not originally wanting the Borrower, I've come to like them. If for nothing than the potential chaos of a TTM'd Strip-Baller (They're often my One-Turners as well after +MA).
Putting aside my less than stellar record (which almost anyone who's played me can tell you is more due to my infatuation with unforced TTMs than any deficiency in the team itself), I actually enjoy playing them more than any other stunty team (even Horrors!). |
|
|
Sigmar1
Joined: Aug 13, 2008
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2014 - 04:54 |
|
It's not the strip ball that's the problem, its the NOS and Dump-off. If they came with P access that would be one thing. But as it is, doubles are better spent elsewhere than developing a reliable dump-off runner.
I think we all get the fluff, it doesn't mean it combines into a very usable player. Personally I always try to have one Borrower just for the options it presents defensively, but I have yet to have two on the Rumblers.
I did have one good Borrower, but what stunty isn't awesome with +ST/ +AG (for as long as they last anyway)? |
_________________ Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges! |
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2014 - 05:10 |
|
Well if NoS helped with pickups too Borrowers would be even more fun! Maybe adding Big Hand/Sure Hands (Sticky Fingers?) also could be considered...
I'll agree that the NoS+Dump Off are somewhat "artifacts from a previous iteration"...i.e. The Rugby style running game. I can't remember without digging, but I thought I wanted those skills on the Catchers. Four Ag 4, NoS, Dump-Off, Dodge players makes it tough to get the ball away from them (until you crumple a few). But the team went a bit of a different direction... |
|
|
|
| |