title explains its self

1. What if beside all of the players names, there was the number of lives they had left.

eg:

_flumpy_ (2)
nick (1)
squeezy (3)
spinner (out)

(sorry spinner!!!)

it would be better in the larger games, but I still think that would be a good innovation

2. What if we had 2 player killer. Sometimes you struggle to get even 3 to your table. So if it was just you and your friend, or someone else, it could be 5 lives and in someways more fun!! more stratergy against only one person and faster games!!


ok...better run...just got 0 out of 3 on killer....better focus on the next game!

Edited at 04:44 Mon 30/06/08 (BST)

The first one has been suggested before (among the tons of suggestions in the other killer threads on this sub-forum), but I think Nick's response was that it would take a lot of changes to make possible.

I assume the displayed text is what's used as id for the list entries (like when you click a name to open a PM window), so just adding a "(2)" to the name before displaying it may have other consequences.

I'm sure Nick will elaborate on that. It would been a great idea if possible tho.

MY suggestion on the similar would be to put the names and remaining lives on the top rail (the brown area above the green cushion), but no idea if that is any easier to do, nor am I sure whether it would look ok or be distracting.

As for the second suggestion, I see no problem lowering the limit to two.

1) Difficult for the reasons given above
2) Dont see any reason why not

Leading on from the reasons you want to lower the number of players to 2 ie to make it easier to find games how about these two ideas.....

1) You cannot create a new game of killer (unless its a private game) if there is already another game waiting for players. This would cut waiting times for games. I realise that there could be disadvantages for example if the game waiting was 10 players and you only wanted to play a 3 player game but you could still make your own game and invite or else you wait for what you want.

2) Games autostart as soon as the number of required players is reached as they do in tournament games. Nothing more frustrating than waiting for players to join - you finally get them and then they either dont click the rack to start or they disappear again

Neither idea is essential but might help - open to brainstorming - janmb?

Lol yeah I gave my suggestion of idea 1 on the other thread, but i thought about having player's names and lives on the top and bottom cushion.

The 2nd idea, I was arguing for on the other thread too. Nobody seemed to like it

is it possible 2 have a game start automatically every 10 minutes or so(same idea as the hourly tournys) with however many players are in the room. this could be limited 2 10 players, start automatically then another room opens(unless of course there is just 1 player waiting)

but some people (like me) only like to have 3 or 4 player games....

but i would love it better if it was 2 player killer (like idea #2)

lol, here goes

1 is problematic for the reason you already covered yourself. In essence, forcing people to join a single, waiting game would definitely be good in terms of cutting waiting times, but the obvious downside is the way it limits people's choice in the type of game (size/shot time) they want to play.

2 - Love it, especially since it would not only completely kill the "sleeper" problems of getting new games going, but it would also prevent players from deliberately avoiding specific opponents. In other game types, the latter isn't an issue since the rankings are weighted, but in killer - where you gain the same points whether playing a top player or a complete newbie - avoiding good opponents is a bad trait.

That's an interesting concept too

Having 2 players would be a good and i guess easy addition, also having more options when making a room, for example, Choosing the amount of lives.

There are many ideas that COULD be implemented.