Data on overtime

[DixonCider]

I lost with Dark Elves http://bbloc.calgarygamers.net/index.ph ... obj_id=162 against Undead http://bbloc.calgarygamers.net/index.ph ... obj_id=170 in overtime, I kicked to my opponent. Game sheet here http://bbloc.calgarygamers.net/index.ph ... rt&mid=743

Thinking that the rules reward the team receiving the ball in OT too much, but I don't know what could be done to change it.

Well, as they used to say when discussing the NFL's previous overtime rules, defense is part of the game, too.

This is obviously anecdotal, but I've just won two overtime games in a row despite losing the OT coin toss (and thus starting on defense). It's daunting, but the allure of the quick score to win tends to force the offense into pushing a bit too hard and making mistakes. There's also the fact that teams tend (unsubstantiated) to be out of rerolls by then. That can hurt a defense, too, but I believe that moving the ball generally involves a few more die rolls.

3 results, 2 wins on defense one loss on offense. only a few thousand more results to go :p

[VoodooMike]

You could say the same thing about real football (any sort), basketball, baseball, hockey, all the way down to lacrosse. Those are all lengthy games that require some level of endurance on the part of the participants and spectators. Yet somehow no one wants the Super Bowl to be decided by comparing the starting quarterbacks' completion percentages (or points via touchdown, fewest turnovers, etc.).

The superbowl also doesn't give one team handicaps for being the underdog, and isn't heavily influenced by dice rolls. What we're talking about is a board game that is already quite long for a 1 vs 1 match... since the only time tied games really require someone be declared the winner is during knockout tournaments there is almost always a time constraint on each round's completion - solving a given round by extending the game by up to 50% (or more) seems exhausting, to me... though hey, as tournament director you can do anything you want. Have the winner be whichever coach can do more pushups before throwing up if you like! That, at least, would be closer to the "endurance" aspect of real sports games, right?

I would assume (apologies in advance for not having any data to back this up), that most people playing in a Blood Bowl league enjoy playing Blood Bowl. When they've done well enough to earn their way into a game that can't end in a tie, and then play through 16 turns that fail to produce a victor, they won't (or shouldn't) be satisfied with flipping a coin to determine who won.

Most blood bowl players enjoy playing blood bowl, but as we've seen from many discussions even the people who enjoy the game as a whole do not always enjoy each match individually, and not everyone wants to play a single match for three straight hours. The only time I can imagine, even based on the arbitrary methods I gave as an example above, things are determined by a flip of the coin is if both teams were identical and had never played a game before... otherwise the victory would be going to the person who took more successful risks during the match, or alternately, to the team that was the underdog but managed to fight the other team to a standstill.

Sudden-death overtime can typically be played in twenty minutes. But those games that go on for another hour or two, those are the ones that the participants and their league-mates will be talking about for years to come.

To each their own, of course.. so long as I'm allowed to just concede in that case so I don't have to sit through two hours of OT! I think the difficulty in determining a "fair" method that doesn't result in games that don't end before your grandchildren's university graduation is a huge point in favour of not running knockout style tournaments in the first place. Plenty of ways to run a tournament in which ties are not an issue.. and you can apply your game-that-goes-forever to a single championship match that allows everyone else to go home if they're bored to tears, without having to quit the tournament as a whole.

[Jimmy Fantastic]

I have seen loads OT on fumbbl, played quite a few myself. I don't think I have ever seen the team that lost the toss win the match in the 8 turns, but a few do go to the penalty shootout.

[mzukerman]

Our league only goes to overtime in the playoffs only so the fact that it is in OT applies even more import to the game. I haven't seen any of our players have an issue that a certain game is too long. We had one semifinal match a few seasons ago last into the third OT period and a bunch of us were huddled around the table watching intently. Yes it was long and because of that the final was played on a different day (which we adopted as a standard because it allowed for much trash talking and speculation for the week leading up to the match), but I agree with gaixo, this is the stuff legends are made of and isn't the fluff the reason we really play Blood Bowl (ok, that'll probably start a rant unto itself...)?

[Gaixo]

To each their own, of course.. so long as I'm allowed to just concede in that case so I don't have to sit through two hours of OT! I think the difficulty in determining a "fair" method that doesn't result in games that don't end before your grandchildren's university graduation is a huge point in favour of not running knockout style tournaments in the first place. Plenty of ways to run a tournament in which ties are not an issue.. and you can apply your game-that-goes-forever to a single championship match that allows everyone else to go home if they're bored to tears, without having to quit the tournament as a whole.

I've never encountered a tabletop tournament that uses OT (although I'm sure that at least one must exist). I think we're mostly talking about league playoffs in this thread. Of course, the playoffs are technically a "postseason tournament," but the games aren't typically played concurrently.

I don't think there's any reason to disallow ties in a tournament environment, unless maybe it's one of those tournaments that has the two top teams from the last round locked into 1st and 2nd place regardless of what happens on the tables below them.

[Darkson]

I've never encountered a tabletop tournament that uses OT (although I'm sure that at least one must exist).

The BB GT used to, but only for the final between the top two coaches after 5 rounds (for the Blood Bowl). I remember us all being bundled into Bugmans to watch the OT on the big screen. Only time I can remember it happening though.
I'm not sure if the NAFC does now.

[neverworking]

If you do use some extra criteria to determine a winner after an extended period of play without a score, as has been suggested, I think its important to consider if its fair that one party knows it doesn't need to score in OT to essentially win. For example while suggesting the underdog wins in such a match resolves the problem that a winner must be determined, and helps the already handicapped it will also influence tactics during the game for underdog. One of the biggest problems with the cyanide system is that there is no pressure to score for the side that has the ball since they have unlimited turns to score. Knowing that logging in 8 turns without a score will result in a win for your team will make a huge difference in how you approached the OT.

[mightyg]

In our TT league we use the 4 min turn rule rather strictly. One possible way to make OT more interesting (and shorter) could be to shorten the time allowed for a turn to perhaps just 2 min. Not really any time to think then, just roll dice and act fast. Might give the kicking team more of a chance as well. More down to luck perhaps compared to regular turns, but much less so compared to a coin toss.