Then it's pretty much down to players like me and husky wanting games with sportsmanship

Not a tactic many people like though

I am watching him play now, and did last night, he is nothing special just consistant... I would spend less time moaning, and more time practicing.

I never said you shouldn't or couldn't discuss any of those things. I am STILL talking about something else entirely: What you should do to bring the least possible frustration to yourself in the everyday experience in this game.

We have a very similar aspect in killer... if you end up in a heads-up fight with someone when you are down 1 to 3 lives, the opponent will very often snooker you instead of even trying to pot at all. That's cheap as hell, utterly lame, and something I never ever do, but there's absolutely no point what so ever for me to let it frustrate me or moan about it - because it's 100% within the rules of that game, nor do I think the rules in that case should be changed to accomodate my opinions.

Completely off topic, just illustrating the point I'm trying to get across to you.

Again, "get over it" is just good advise. Nothing more.




If we were talking about an experimental game type, sure. But we are talking about UK 8 ball - a game with clearly defined rules. I don't want this site to start messing with the rules just because some players have the wits to exploit the rules to win. In a game that even gives you carry on a foul, if it STILL pays to deliberately foul - KUDOS for realizing that and taking advantage of it. And sorry, but if you in two attempts still can't snooker back to provoke another foul, you should practice that more instead of making long, frustrated forum posts

Sorry, this is on the edge of being rude, but it's an important point to get across, and with the only intention being to teach people to take care of their own fun. In a multiplayer context you will NEVER experience all players being "nice" or behaving the way you'd prefer them to - so it's both misguided and very counter-productive to even try to do such a shaping. No matter what set of rules you have, you will STILL have people applying tactics within those rules that some players will not like.

As long as the rules apply equally to both players, the game is perfectly fair, and a rule change would not make it any more or any less so.

A rule change could make it more like what you "want", but "fair" is not the word you are looking for here.

There is no point in me repeating myself really.

You're are trying to say to forget about it an move one, which is fair because he is not at any dis-advantage.
But I'm trying to say that if there are certain rules than can be used to frustrate players, basically spoil the game and be uteerly lame, should they not be looked into? They will not be changed to accomodate your opinions, they will be changed to bring a new style, and maybe take the game forward.

The last paragraph of your post I understand and agree. But what I'm saying has nothing to do with that, we all know not everyone has it in them to be nice.

Of course they should mate.

Yes, we are mostly talking about different things here sporting.

As for rule changes, you can't change the rules for a standard pool game every time a smart player makes an opponent frustrated, sorry. Custom games like killer is entirely different, but adding more custom rules to a standard game like UK 8 is very undesirable. Also, the point remains - you can never have rules that prevent frustrating play.

when poeple choose to be sporting, take it as a positive surprise and a bonus - not anything you should expect or take for granted.

Its no good saying that UK8 is a game with clearly defined rules because those rules relate to the 'real' game of pool played on a 'real' table. For example 'real' games are not generally governed by time limits which is where negative play clearly can influence the outcome of a match.

This being a computer game means that, while keeping the rules as realistic as possible, if they can be altered in any way to make the game better and more enjoyable for the majority then they need to be given due consideration and discussion - as sporting has been trying to say here. I am not saying that the game could, or could not, be improved by bringing in new rules but there should never be any blanket acceptance that because something is how it is, and how it has always been, then that is how it should be forever more.

woooooooooooooooooo

chris v jan ROUND 4014

*DING DING*

Shush you - arent there any low 600's you should be playing?!!!!

Not until i get a new wireless connection picker upper thingy i keep losing connection

I've been itching to comment on this thread for days now, but with computer problems followed by connection problems it's been impossible. Till now.

Tactics are allowed in pool. Indeed they are allowed in almost all sports, and they can be classified as positive (those which promote attacking play by the opponent) and negative (those which are designed to frustrate and stifle the opponent, i.e. playing defensively). That's the way it's been for years, and defence-minded play is present in all but a few sports such as athletics and darts. And... possibly Ludo. But seriously, the rules define which type of shots are admissible and which aren't (more often the latter than the former), and once it's in the rules, it's fair. And it's a tactic that is open to both opponents equally.

The point was made that the player concerned, when snookered, rolled the white into the pocket. Fair enough, it seems the player is trying to gain advantage from fouling. I played and won a UK 8 ball speed final that was tied at 1-1. In the final frame, if I remember right, a ball of mine was blocking a ball of his. Knowing that, if I potted his ball into the pocket, all he could do was take one shot from anywhere on the table, that's just what I did. Call it negative, but it meant that the pocket was now clear for me. And what did he do on his shot immediately afterwards? The same. He potted my ball that was blocking his. But it's within the rules, ...

Edited at 19:50 Wed 15/10/08 (BST)

...and we knew the risks we were taking. Each of us had a few balls left on the table, so we knew the opponent had to be very good to clear up. Rest assured that if either man has just one ball to go before the black, that particular tactic would not even have been entertained, never mind attempted. A deliberate foul shot was taken, but not before the risks were weighed up.

Rolled the white into the pocket in UK 8 ball, at any stage of the frame, is almost madness. The reasons (not that I should have to spell them out) are that the opponent gets the ball in hand in the kitchen, shots carry, and for the first shot of the visit he/she gets to hit any ball on the table and, bar the black, pot any balls(s) on the table. This is a mammoth, monumental advantage. He/she can pot a few balls and gain position; and if position is not gained, he can set himself/herself up and have another crack at it. So, the question is "is it fair, or in the spirit of the game, to deliberately foul over and over again?" Fair, yes, more than fair. In the spirit of the game? Emmm... yes and no; it's not really but by God it's legal and it's risky. Attempt it at your peril.

"Also, at the start of the frames, however favourable the balls are placed, he makes no attempt to pot anything at all but waits as long as it takes, until you clear the table for him." Again, absolutely nothing wrong with that. Again, it's risky, because every shot taken that deliberately fails to pot ...

Edited at 19:48 Wed 15/10/08 (BST)

...is an invitation to the opponent to clear up. I should know. I've done it... against him! Two 6-ballings if I remember in a 3-1 defeat... ahem! And I still go on about it, and that's a measure of the player, not a willingness by me to rub it in. He has dominated the UK 8 ball marathon tournament lately (and the other ones every evening, so he must be doing something right.

"Win at all costs pool" was another phrase used. Emmm... Absolutely! Apart from PM'ing the opponent during shots, that's a shooting offence in my books. A moron did that to me over in snooker when I was on the black and almost got away with it. Good for him that he did not. But aye, a tourney is a tourney and the stats show how many you have won, not how positively you played in your 2-0 defeats. If you play positively and always lose, then you're not a good player. If you are a good player and lose to a negative player, you need to improve. That's not directed at you, alhusky, that's just a general observation.

Running down the clock: nasty, nasty action. Losing 5-4 and generating a DQ-DQ still means you lose; only the 5-4 defeat is honourable. The exception is if you're trailing 4-3 with 2 minutes to go and you mount a late comeback and time runs out at 4-4 when you're one ball away from being on the black. But that's a different argument (i.e. playing on when you're never gonna win 5 frames within the time). The chess clock system would work a treat though.

...

Edited at 19:49 Wed 15/10/08 (BST)

...

Parading oneself as the finalist in front of the two remaining semi-finalists - pointless activity, but the good, steely players will ignore that sort of guff.

Leaving the final in frame 4 - you lose. No excuses. Playing on against a negative player gives you the chance to manage a victory somehow through the frustration. Walking out always hands victory to the opponent, and if an opponent leaves in the final of a tourney I'm in, I'll take it, and I would take it any day of the week. As above, the stats say how many tourneys you've won, and not how you won them.

And finally... to agree with Janmb when he says "you can never have rules that prevent frustrating play". The only alternative is that every game of pool on this website be monitored by a team of analysts (complete with monocles, top hats and walking canes) who sit and judge every shot according to its merits, and if they don.t like it, they can pipe up and say:

"I say, I deem that shot to be below the modicum of sportsmanship as ascribed to my highly refined sense of sporting play, wouldn't you agree, gentlemen?"
"I agree, old boy."
"And I, old chap."
"Yes, agreed."
"There you have it, the verdict is unanimous, we the committee hereby call a foul against the player in question and award the incoming player two visits and a free table on his first shot, hrrrrumph."

Not gonna happen...

Edited at 19:47 Wed 15/10/08 (BST)

To be honest guys hes not that bad

Ive met him in tournaments a few times now and he seems to be made out as the one that doesnt pot a single ball untill you do and then persists with snookers.

Infact he pots when neccesary and plays it safe in the same way. I dont think he would have over 200 plus tournament wins if he couldnt pot

Again comment passed above "nothing special". When you get 200 + tournament wins in that amount of games you can make comments but untill then i think however much you dont like his tactics are jealous or think hes boring.

He is the guy to beat

I don't disagree particularly with anything you have said cloone or alex but the point that sporting and myself were trying to make is that if there are rules that could be brought in to improve a game they ought to be considered.

That does happen in nearly all sports cloone. Rule changes are brought in and experimented with. Some work and stay whilst others dont and are discarded. That is the nature of evolution to improve things (if its possible to).

Just for example, say, in UK8 when you play a deliberate foul you know that your opponent is limited to where he can place the white. That might mean that you know there is no shot on for the first of the carry and so makes a deliberate foul (a negative shot) acceptable. If the incoming player had ball in hand you might not be able to do that.

I'm not putting that forward as a rule change I am just pointing out that there may be things that could be tried which might improve the game and the experience and the enjoyment for the majority. Wherever and whenever that can be done (in anything in life really) it should be, and not just disregarded because it changes how something has always been.

Yup following on from earlier in the thread, I managed to play the guy in question in a UK final a few days ago. Was an interesting experience. The first frame I had a few balls that were pottable and a couple tied up so I went for the clearance as I had a few chances to get the cannon. I failed and lost the frame. The second game I decided I would try to sit back a bit and deliberately pushed one of my balls in the middle of the table. He had a few balls on but decided to pot one of my balls which really threw me. I bashed the balls about, got a bit lucky and should have cleared but missed a really easy one. Needless to say I lost 3-0.

I'm guessing he's one of the only people that tries these tactics so they must be hard to implement. I was scratching my head at some of his shots but I guess that is to his advantage as I was always second guessing him. Fair play to him, I could learn something from the guy, kinda like a grand chess master or something.

Oh and clooneman do you have anything published? - cracking read

Edited at 21:11 Wed 15/10/08 (BST)

Deliberately potting opponent balls or otherwise fouling is just as much a normal part of pool games as deliberately blocking pockets with your own ball is (you can even do THAT as a deliberate, but 100% warranted foul too).

The rules definining a foul are very clear and completely in line with "real" versions of these pool games. The same are the consequences. If at any time it actually pays off to play in a way that qualifies as a foul, that is perfectly ok.

There's really nothing more to it than that.

I strongly disagree that the rules should, at all cost, make it impossible for a foul to ever be a tactically sound move. Nor is that really possible, without at the same time making foul consequences so harsh that it devastates any game where a player fouls by accident.

Edited at 21:28 Wed 15/10/08 (BST)