Fairer Penalties Rule

Got some ideas for rules? Maybe a skill change or something completely different!!! Tell us here.

Moderator: TFF Mods

User avatar
harroguk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by harroguk »

Mango wrote:why not just use a countback system?
Not sure what you mean by this.
Mango wrote:the team that wins will be the team that won by the greatest margin in the previous game

or maybe the team who scored more casualties in the game as they were more crowd pleasing
Mango wrote:how about the team with more cheerleaders win as the crowd prefers that team?
Both of these seem to work however what happens on a tie of either of the predetermined criteria?
Mango wrote:I really dont think there is any advantage in creating some sort of 'mini game' to decide the result as long as all players are well aware of the criteria before hand they can plan ahead for it
I agree but the problem is trying to find that criteria and make it not massively unbalanced in favor of AG or ST teams. The fairest, quickest way so far seems to be the above "Mini-Game" as you put it.

Reason: ''
Commisioner (Retired) of - DBBL in Daventry
User avatar
Mango
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:57 am

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by Mango »

I agree but the problem is trying to find that criteria and make it not massively unbalanced in favor of AG or ST teams. The fairest, quickest way so far seems to be the above "Mini-Game" as you put it.
As long as all players are informed well before the event of the way a tie is worked out then it doesnt have to be balanced or fair.

As long as everyone knows the rule, then they choose the team they play based knowing full well that in the case of a tie their team maybe advantaged or disdvantaged then so be it.

As long as this advantage isnt overwhelming then there shouldnt be any massive change in team demographic especially since it only kicks in if there is a draw.

If you are concerned about balancing str/ag teams then maybe base it on something that all teams have access to. Add up total RR + Asst Coaches + Cheerleaders + D6 or similar. This will also mean that instead of just throwing a spare 10k at a cheerleader you might find people dropping a skill to have 3 cheerleaders. This could be a good way of making the players think about their team list and if they are willing to sacrifice performance to have an advantage in the case of a draw :)

Reason: ''
User avatar
harroguk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by harroguk »

Mango wrote:As long as all players are informed well before the event of the way a tie is worked out then it doesn't have to be balanced or fair.
I think this statement is inherently wrong. If I take it to its logical conclusions then breaking ties based on Alphabetical Order of the Coaches Name is a Valid method as long as everyone is told before hand. A valid method it might be however it definitely shouldn't be used to break ties as its not fair on the coaches.
Mango wrote:As long as everyone knows the rule, then they choose the team they play based knowing full well that in the case of a tie their team maybe advantaged or disadvantaged then so be it.
I partially agree with this but as I have stated before the method should at least give a disadvantaged team a chance of winning.
Mango wrote:As long as this advantage isn't overwhelming then there shouldn't be any massive change in team demographic especially since it only kicks in if there is a draw.
Its irrelevant that it "Only kicks in if there is a draw" it still needs to be fair. As I stated before I am after a system that doesn't massively favor the extreme AG or ST teams, takes a few minutes to play out and doesn't boil down to "Roll a D6 to see who wins" as it invalidates the match just played.
Mango wrote:If you are concerned about balancing str/ag teams then maybe base it on something that all teams have access to. Add up total RR + Asst Coaches + Cheerleaders + D6 or similar. This will also mean that instead of just throwing a spare 10k at a cheerleader you might find people dropping a skill to have 3 cheerleaders. This could be a good way of making the players think about their team list and if they are willing to sacrifice performance to have an advantage in the case of a draw :)
The system you have just stated here essentially boils down to "Roll a D6" nobody will drop a skill to take the extra Cheerleaders.Coaches etc in a tournament as they will be playing to Win matches, not draw them.

Reason: ''
Commisioner (Retired) of - DBBL in Daventry
User avatar
Cracol
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 6:14 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by Cracol »

OK I've put a bit of thought into it and decided that if you want a fair totally unbiased system to decide the outcome then you cannot use any team or player stats as this will inherently favour one team over another, it's unavoidable. I know you are keen to avoid the 'dice decides game' principle but when all is said and done that is what a game will usually come down to. A gfi, dodge or a block dice can be the difference between a win, draw, or loss. So does the penalty rule really need to deviate from rolling dice and it basically coming down to luck? Let's be fair if after 16 turns the game is tied then there isnt that much difference skill wise between the 2 coaches so it probably would be a bit of luck that swings it one way or another anyway.

So here is my penalty suggestion based purely on rolling dice and no outside influences that would favour one team or another. I do have a few idea's to make this more complicated or incorporate player skills/stats but the basic idea is this:
There are rounds of 5 penalties each. During each round each coach rolls 3 block dice at the same time - a pow means you score, a skull means you save an opposing pow and nothing else counts. No dice 'roll over' to the next round and the person who scores the most after 5 rounds wins. in the case of a draw after 5 rounds then sudden death comes into play.
Example
Coach A rolls, push back,both down and pow - Coach B rolls, 2 push backs and a defender down. Score after round 1 is Coach A 1 and Coach B 0.
Coach A rolls, skull,both down and pow - Coach B rolls, 3 push backs. Score after round 2 is Coach A 2 and Coach B 0.
Coach A rolls, 2 both downs and pow - Coach B rolls, 1 skull and 2 pows. Score after round 3 is Coach A 2 and Coach B 2.
Coach A rolls, 3 pows - Coach B rolls, 3 skulls. Score after round 4 is Coach A 2 and Coach B 2.
Coach A rolls, 1 skull and 2 defender down - Coach B rolls, 2 pow and a defender down. Score after round 5 is Coach A 2 and Coach B 3.
Coach B is the winner in this example.

I know it still seems like a bit of a dice roll of but I think it might work and add a bit of excitement into the penalty shoot outs. If you relly wanted to include players then you could make it that you nominate your 5 penalty takers/keepers and their skills may impact on the dice: eg. kick skill allows you to reroll the dice, tackle converts defender down to a pow, wrestle converts both down to a skull. Block does nothing otherwise dwarf longbeards would become to good at taking penalties.

Hope I've explained myself OK and feel free to let the trashing of my idea begin :D

Reason: ''
"No guy with pride ever relied on no guide sucka!" Mr T
User avatar
harroguk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by harroguk »

Cracol wrote:Hope I've explained myself OK and feel free to let the trashing of my idea begin :D
As you said at the beginning of your post it basically comes down to a roll off. There is nothing wrong with the idea that I can see other than that.

I like the usage of block dice rather than D6, it makes it feel more BloodBowley if that makes sense. The only question really is if you lost to this system (as opposed to the "Face -Off" system for instance) do you think that you feel less like it was in your control?

One other thing that just occurred to me is breaking ties on Seed Position. As my tournaments are seeded and the league I run is persistent (and so can be seeded based on past performance) it would be fairly simple to say that the person who is seeded better gets through on a draw with the lower seed needing to win to get through?

Reason: ''
Commisioner (Retired) of - DBBL in Daventry
hpb
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:16 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by hpb »

idea 2 sounds nice. But I still have one question:
Do you refresh your rerolls with this method? I mean do you get your starting number of rerolls? Or just the ones you had left after half 2 of the regular match? Or is it simply not allowed to use any?

Reason: ''
User avatar
harroguk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by harroguk »

If you have rerolls left after 2nd half then use them, if not then you dont get any new ones.

Reason: ''
Commisioner (Retired) of - DBBL in Daventry
hpb
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:16 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by hpb »

ok, thanks.

and do you play the normal 8 turns per drive? or unrestricted?

and with Special Play Cards and Wizards, I guess they are not allowed as they´d be just too powerfull..

Reason: ''
User avatar
harroguk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by harroguk »

I dont have any turn limit on each drive, play until someone scores or doesnt, it doesnt take long when you only have 2 players to move as your decisions are so limited. Half the point of the system was to try and keep it quick enough to use in tournaments.

If someone has saved their wizard for overtime then I would allow it.

We don't use special play cards so you would have to make your own ruling on that :)

Reason: ''
Commisioner (Retired) of - DBBL in Daventry
User avatar
yggdrasil
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:24 am

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by yggdrasil »

I really like idea 2 myself. I'm not sure if it is possible to play two drives through to touchdown in ten minutes, even with only two players per side, but that would have to be tested. It should certainly take less time than real overtime.

In fact I like the idea so much that now I really want to try and play a few face-off mini-games, just to see how long it would take and how fun it would be. :wink:

If you wanted it to be a bit more "dangerous", you could say that the coaches have to choose the players for the face-off randomly, rather than getting to pick them. That way you wouldn't always get the strongest remaining players facing off, but I guess it would make it a bit more of a coin toss, in case one player gets two linemen and the other gets two blitzers.

Reason: ''
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by plasmoid »

For something that fast, how about a field goal mini game.

Coin flip to see who goes first.
That coach picks a range to kick a field goal.
If he fails, he loses. If he succeeds, his opponent must try to kick a longer field goal.
Repeat until somebody blows it.

AG for precision, ST for range.

You'll take it from here? :wink:

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
User avatar
harroguk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by harroguk »

plasmoid wrote:For something that fast, how about a field goal mini game.

Coin flip to see who goes first.
That coach picks a range to kick a field goal.
If he fails, he loses. If he succeeds, his opponent must try to kick a longer field goal.
Repeat until somebody blows it.

AG for precision, ST for range.

You'll take it from here? :wink:
The intial plan was to try and take some of the random out of the penalties system as having a roll off was anti climactic and really sucked if it was the reason you went out of a KO competition based on it.

I did think, like you, that a field goal system would be good and my first idea was based around that (Idea 1 in post 1) but after I looked at it in more detail it started to fall down because of the way the stats are distributed across teams. Essentially because Elvels are ST3 AG4 and most other teams are ST3 AG3 it unbalances in elves favour A LOT.

I felt that if you were using your players (in the Face Off system) then if it went wrong you could at least feel like you are making more choices rather than simply rolling a dice to decide the winner.

Please do give the face off system a go, I have play tested it with unskilled virgin teams (Its fairly unbalanced if your opponent fields two wardancers) and skilled teams taken from our league (TV180-220), it seems to come more in line when you are bringing on your skilled players as you suddenly need to try and find combinations of two players taht can both score and defend (Its all well and good scoring with two mummies from an undead team but you try and defend against a gutter runner with them....)

This is the system I will be using to tiebreak matches in the KO Cup that runs along side my league next season.

Reason: ''
Commisioner (Retired) of - DBBL in Daventry
User avatar
garion
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by garion »

Out of the OP ideas i like the 2nd one more. I also quite like the penalty shoot outs document - http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/58kefah.pdf

Just to throw this out there-

When writing my rules document in the other thread I was thinking about this for long time and the best I came up with was this, Obviously I didnt include them as it is far from perfect, but I prefer this and most of the suggestions over the current overtime rule -

Both teams set up in their own end-zone and the next row of squares up (like in 1st edition). Then each coach rolls 1D6 adding their teams remaining number of re-rolls to the dice roll. The winner gets to move first. Once this has been decided place the ball in the central square of the pitch on the opposite side of the LoS to the team that moves first. Then play begins.

At the end of each teams turn the Squig ball moves 1D6 squares using the D8 scatter template. If the squig hits any player he stops moving and rolls a 1 dice block against them, the squig is never knocked prone and results of a skull or both down are treated as push back. Both Down is treated as a POW if the player being blocked doesn't have the block skill. If he knocks the player over roll for av and Inj as normal. Once the squig has been picked up; at the end of each turn you roll 1 D6 for the squig, if you roll a 6 the squig bites the hands of the player carrying him and he runs free, roll again using a D6 for movement and the D8 template to see which way he moves. If the squig runs into the crowd at any point they throw him back on in the same way as the ball. The first team to scores wins.

Passing and catching with the squigball has a -1 modifier to the roll for both.

Reason: ''
User avatar
harroguk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by harroguk »

Whilst being an effective tie breaker garrion it looks like it could take another hour or so to play out which is no good for tournaments. This is mostly due i feel to the large number of players on the pitch.

Part of my thought process for the face off system was...
Limit the players to limit the potential choices to limit the turn time to limit the over time length.

Reason: ''
Commisioner (Retired) of - DBBL in Daventry
User avatar
garion
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: Fairer Penalties Rule

Post by garion »

yup, i quite agree, as you say for tourneys it would take too long, was just throwing it out there.

Reason: ''
Post Reply