Fair(er) overtime

[Zombie]

Just do what most people do. In the regular season, don't do OT at all and just end the game in a tie. For playoffs, let the two coaches slug it out until a touchdown is scored, because the importance of the game warrants the extra time spent.

[Joaquim]

Sorry to bring this up front again, but...
I was reading this rule again - I liked it, but then I didn't have OT, just ties... and I remember reading something more fun to the shoot out...
Something about 5 players from each team making a roll....
If still tied the one player at a time - like soccer...

Anybody have any ideia where did I read that?!?!...



And.... how are the tests going, anyway? Any change, like any scattering?

[zeroalpha]

We have played a system that also gives both teams a chance, but it does take a little more time. At the end of the game when the result is a tie try this to resolve the problem :-

Like in soccer play two more reduced halves in overtime, we used D3 + 1 to determine the number extra downs the coaches (each gets the same), so each coach gets a chance to receive the ball. Again its important to reveive first but not as important. If both coaches manage to score then take it to a penalty shoot out.

[Hox-ii]

I don't know... I don't think a major change to the current overtime rules is really needed. Obviously, the team that receives will have the advantage, but a lot of things in Blood Bowl are just dumb luck anyway. Losing a game, in my opinion, is just as fun as winning one - it's the game I enjoy, not the win.

My league just doesn't have an overtime, because we realize it will take too long, and no one really cares if they win, lose, or tie, just so long as both coaches have fun.

Obviously, convention tournaments would be a little different story, but I still don't feel a drastic change needs to be made that would extend the game even longer than it currently is. Perhaps giving the teams no re-rolls for the overtime period would help even things out a bit... it would show the strengths and weaknesses of any type of team, and would allow the other team to take advantage of a missed roll.

[tchatter]

I was thinking of doing it like college football does here... Coin Toss. Team gets the ball and tries for the score. Then the next team gets the ball and goes for the score. Problem is that BB doesn't have downs.

So then I thought about reducing the number of turns, problem with that is that a Skaven team can score in 1 turn, but a Dwarf team can score in 8 So... that wouldn't be fair.

I just do what Zombie does, we let OT = Ties in the regular season, and then OT goes on until somone wins in the Finals. BUT that still is a problem as the final could come down to a coin toss... Hmmmm tough problem to fix.

[Skummy]

Why do you need to fix it? If neither team can win the game after 3 halves of play, they both get an even chance at winning it. The alternate overtime rules I've seen favor one team or another too much, and you can't deny that a coin flip is fair.

[Zombie]

BUT that still is a problem as the final could come down to a coin toss... Hmmmm tough problem to fix.

Just do what we do. In overtime, the kickoff result is automatically a Blitz! That evens things up a lot!

[plasmoid]

Hi Zombie,
coincidentally, that isn't all that far from what I suggested

[Munkey]

I do like this suggestion, definately more interesting than the current OT situation. The coin toss is 'fair' in that there is an equal chance of either team receiving but the problem is that there is no skill involved in who wins the toss.

I also think Zombies suggestion is a good practical way to go, especially as some of our games are fairly drawn out anyway. No OT in the regular season and unlimited OT for championship games.

[Smeborg]

The current OT rules are at least fair (in the sense of not being biased to either team). Perhaps you could say that the current rules favour the "bashy" teams (because these teams are more likely to outnumber the opposition in OT). But this seems to me to be a slim advantage, given that the high AG/high MA teams can score quite easily when below strength.

Without wishing to be a party pooper, it seems to me that the proposed rule team will favour the high MA/high AG teams (because these teams are best able, in my experience anyway, to exploit a "Blitz" or equivalent).

Of course, you could change all kick-offs (not just in OT) to give the defence an automatic "Blitz"...

Cheers

[Smeborg]

The current OT rules are at least fair (in the sense of not being biased to either team). Perhaps you could say that the current rules favour the "bashy" teams (because these teams are more likely to outnumber the opposition in OT). But this seems to me to be a slim advantage, given that the high AG/high MA teams can score quite easily when below strength.

Without wishing to be a party pooper, it seems to me that the proposed rule change will favour the high MA/high AG teams (because these teams are best able, in my experience anyway, to exploit a "Blitz" or equivalent).

Of course, you could always change all kick-offs (not just in OT) to give the defence an automatic "Blitz"...

Cheers