I was just thinking...

what if you could set the target score for a game of 14.1??

set it so the target score is say 15, 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and 100.

I only put in 100 becaue I think that a few people wold actually do that!

just an idea, would it be hard to implement??

Hmmmm... that would make it the first of all the FP games in which the objective is variable (minigolf is a race over 9 holes, killer is a scrap to the death in any case, the 8 ball are both pot your balls and then nail the black, and 9 ball is... pot the 9 ball!). Dunno whether this would be a good or bad thing, but then you'd have a lot of people playing first to 10 and that would lead for a very distorted set of ranking changes; a poor player could get a run of 5 and miss, a good player may have an accidental miss or be snookered, and then another run of 5 for the poor player secures the win. Would love to hear other players' inputs on this...

Maybe if you did this the rank calculation (won and lost) could be proportionate to the length of the game?

Nothing wrong with options as far as I am concerned

definitely a minimum of a race to 15 in my opinion, thats equiilent of one rack.

as for rankings...maybe games as a race to 35 and below can be classified as 'short games' and everything else 'long games' and have two different tables??

Edited at 14:05 Wed 22/10/08 (BST)

Well if you could choose the winning score then the rank should change. If you are playing a game to reach a score less than 35 than the rank you gain should depend on you current reank and the winning score. As for games to 50-75 maybe you could get a litle boost say 3 points more mostly because it's a long game and poeple will tend to leave so the loser won't lose as much, unless you are like a professional, then you are more likely to win so you would get a boost of 1.5. Just my opinions.

But not so sure this would actually happen...

I think its a brilliant idea! as Chris said





Don'T see how it would be hard to implement,then again i cant write java script

Or Java?

nick does (or knows someone who can) lol

I was saying i wouldnt know how hard it would be

i dont fink it should be much less than it is tbh, otherwise people would start winning off one visit which would ruin it a bit, also if you have it to long it would get a bit boring possibly especially if it's mismatched players.

thats why there are the options.

some people can only be online for 10 minutes, so they can only play say 9 ball. but if you had a first to 15 in straight, well then they can get in and out and then on their way.

and if it was to go to 100, then I could only see that being used for friends playing each other; or virtuso's playing virtuso's

you can select how long for the shot clock (between 10 and 90 seconds), so then why not here?

I think it would be fine to have the option of longer games, but 35 is a realistic minimum as it requires at least 2 new racks before the game is over.

Edit - there would be no harm in lower numbers for friendlies though

Edited at 18:22 Mon 27/10/08 (GMT)

oh, forgot about the firendly options!!

well then on that note, I think that your idea spinner is the best.

so....anything more we can do to improve it though. im sure there is, i just cant put my finger on it!