Season 10 Early Thread?

[Gandalf]

I actually did *not* suggest we play each other more than once. I merely meant it as an example of how our seasons aren't hyper-serious or anything, so we might as well relax it even more if the fun gained strongly outweighs the consistency lost.

Apologies for not reading properly Abom. I agree with most of what you say. However cup seedings are based on a random statistic, they don't always make the "best" teams the top teams and the worst team the bottom seeds. (OK so this season the top 2 league teams are the top 2 cup teams... but this is not always the case)

I'd rather have shorter seasons as too many games with the same team can get tedious, eg Rav's halflings, my ogres, this season Idanmel has been saying he doesn't really like the Amazons... if you aren't enjoying it you shouldn't feel obligated to play another 20 games with them

Ah, we only need one rule: Don't Be A Dick.

I think of it as more of a principle than a rule. Apologies if I bug people by asking if things violate the principle or not. I think we've all learnt that sometimes what I think doesn't fit in with what others do... so I'd rather find out before the event than after.

[Abomination]

Whoops, I keep forgetting our cups are based off of random statistics In that case, more games played is neither necessary beneficial nor detrimental for Cup status, as I'd say many teams often don't even bother aiming for the Cup qualification statistic until they know they're out of the running for a top seasonal place, or close to not qualifying for the Cup. Still though, more games would mean that a season champ is truly a season champ.

Some more musings:

One weakness of longer seasons I forgot to mention was a higher barrier of entry for newcomers. Longer implies less casual, they'd probably be trying out a new team (who they don't necessarily like), and they wouldn't be used to losing. I'd definitely say if we ever try a longer season, it never be one where we have any newcomers.

A strength I didn't mention lies in player development: The longer a season, the more interesting levelups become. Not by much, but a tad bit. This is because you can develop your players more to counter and to target other teams. You'd get to play a team at least once before facing them again. This could let you realize that one weakness of your team against them ("if only I'd had tackle!") and then you can tool against that specific team. It encourages rivalries and stories, too (I'm 100% win rate... except for that one damned game against the vampires! I'd better take tackle!)

You can still tool and hard counter in a shorter season if the scheduling works out and you're given time to get the experience but it's less pronounced and theorycrafting isn't as much fun as the experience of playing a team and knowing what needs doing.

Of course, the % of games where a taken 'counter' skill is useful vs non-useful wouldn't change... but it'd feel more impactful, given that should you choose to play that same team in the next season you have no idea whether said taken skill (like tackle) will be useful or useless. Countering specific teams becomes less of a crapshoot.


-------

I'm firmly in support of a longer season, but despite all my wondering words it's not too important to me. My theory is that if most of us are still playing in say, two years, we'll have tried out a decent variety of teams and each have a small catalogue of developed teams to pull from. Then, if we do try out a longer season, we can each bring out a team we know we love playing.

Besides, shorter seasons just means the goblins have a higher chance of taking home a trophy.

[Red Lion Three]

I think that, after 9 straight losses, the Undead are going to be shelved for the moment. Their play style is proving too difficult for me to master. Taking a survey from the other pages on this thread, I think that currently the teams for next season are-

Rav - elves or chorfs

Id - underworld

G - norse or human

La - vamps or skaven

Abom - goblins

RL3 - ?

Is that everyone / all correct?

[id3nt1ty]

I certainly want to continue Underworld.

It does look like everyone. It's going to be a short league.

[Red Lion Three]

Perhaps - if that's all of us - the contentious "play everyone twice" should be revisited?

[lawastooshort]

Perhaps - if that's all of us - the contentious "play everyone twice" should be revisited?

I would be in favour.

I'm probably more skaven/human/vampires at the moment.

[Raveen]

RL, it might be good to pick a team that's a bit more one dimensional. Undead are great because they can do so much but it means that you have to know exactly which play to pick each time.

I suggest you consider Dwarves. Partly because we haven't had a Dwarf team for a while. They can be seen as boring (skill ups in particular are going to be Guard on everyone then MB then Stand Firm) and they really only play one style. Get the ball with a runner. Cage around them and plod up the field slowly hitting things on the way.

Get this working well and you have a solid skill base as a coach to build on. I think this would be a good way to get to the next level. Then you'll be adeally placed to play the best team in all of Blood Bowl, the Khemri.

I hope that comes across the right way and not as me being a patronising jerk.

[lawastooshort]

I asked elsewhere about whether I should consider coaching dwarves for a bit to help me progress as a coach. These are some of the responses I received.

Spam guard and high armour is not helping me develop any awareness whatsoever and I'm not finding myself looking forward to the match each week. I strongly reccommend NOT coaching dwarves.

Dont play dwarves - you'll hate yourself for it

at low level they win and are boring and at high TV they lose and are boring. Lack of MV means they're ridiculously one dimensional.

I wouldn't say they're boring to play, more frustrating than anything else. They can't get anywhere.

I`m coaching Dwarf`s seriously for the first time this season, already i`m doubting my decision, one dimensional just doesn`t appeal to me.

I'd advise against Dorfs. I'm a great supporter of the 2-1 grind but Dwarves even bored me to tears.

Do not listen to them! If you really want to increase your tolerance to boredom, dwarves are the only team for you

That said, Rav is right that they will probably teach you hard how to do a particularly style.

[id3nt1ty]

Dwarves were a delight to play against with high mobility teams. Get a couple of werewolves past them and Phwoar!

[Raveen]

La, if you want to learn that style of play then Khemri is a great training team.

[lawastooshort]

La, if you want to learn that style of play then Khemri is a great training team.

I didn't include that in the above reply, but yes, I was reliably informed that this is the case. In the end I balanced "wanting to have a fun game" against "suffering boredom to improve so that in the long run my W/L ratio gets better" and the fun won.

I partly jest, of course.

[Gandalf]

+1 for play each other twice.... 5 games is just too short. If 10 games feels too long, how about this for an alternative? Play each other once (so 5 games total) this determines who the top 3 and the bottom 3 are, then the top 3 play each other while the bottom 3 play each other, this makes 7 games over 8 weeks. The Scottish football Premiership works like this.

For me though I think 10 games is OK.

Rav I like your advice. Dwarves are as one-dimensional as they get (unless you want to do crazy passing attempts like a previous coach did :p). Learning how to use Guard is no bad thing too. Eeegads can you imagine a Nurgle-Dwarf game? Stodgetastic. And if they are super-dull as la suggests, you can drop them after a season. Nurgle are way more interesting than dwarves, due to mutations and interesting positionals, but Dwarves are better at TV1000.

[Raveen]

Dwrves are the shallow end of the positional game. If they get out of shape they're horrible so there's real skill in ensuring that you play your game and force your opponent to play it too.

For a more passionate defence of Dwarf play listen to the most recent (or second most recent?) Double Skulls podcast - http://doubleskulls.libsyn.com/

[Red Lion Three]

Thanks Rav, it did come across the right way. I appreciate the logic. I'm a bit concerned that the lack of dwarf mobility will mean y'all will run laps around me though. I'll have a think about it.

[Gandalf]

Well, having a slower team teaches you good positional play, you can aim for the 2-1 grind against faster teams, and having tackle everywhere makes it hard for the more agile teams. The Dwarves do have a couple of slightly-less-slow players too.