Hey Nick and all, here's my idea. If two balls go in, perhaps it can be possible to check if the ball that was hit first was one of the two balls. This would validate the vast majority of shots in which two or more balls go in, which mostly happen when you pot your intended ball and the white goes along and knocks another ball in.

What do the rest of the FP'ers think about this change, and what does Nick think about being able to implement this in code?

I think that's a pretty good idea.

It's a good idea, but I'd still think there's almost no shot where you mean to pot 2 balls in 1 shot.

Therefore, potting the second ball is almost certainly accidental and it would be right to discontinue the break.

Remember the game's more similar to snooker in the rules than pool. Potting multiple balls would be the same as potting a red and a colour in 1 shot.

Changing it to a complete call pocket game is the fairest way, but it probably wont help much improving our breaks as (1) it's unlikely people attempt to pot 2 balls in 1 shot and (2) it will prevent fluke shots continuing the break. In any case, a goal with funkypool is not to slow the gameplay down by nominating.

Its a very good idea, however my personal view is that it would take something away from the game.

Certainly, if the rules were that you could pot another ball so long as you pot the intended one, it would work perfectly, but one of my favourite things about straight pool is the one-ball per shot rule. It adds a lot to the skill required to build a good break, and therefore to the fun of the game.

I agree, that for normal shots, only one ball should be allowed to be potted. What it is that plagues me about the 2 ball rule is when the new rack starts, and in order to continue a break, the (ideal) way to do that is to cannon into the new rack, sometimes resulting in a stray ball going into the pocket, which you have little control over.

That's why i think (answering the problem above) that when there is 1 ball on the table and it racks the other 14, that should be the only time you are allowed to pot 2 balls in 1 shot. Wouldn't take any skill away because on the other shots you can only pot 1 and not 2 or more, but then it also gives you the breathing space that you can risk going into them without potting one.

but thats where the luck factor comes in.

I have always thourght that a soulution (or compromise) to the situation in the war between 2 potters and one potters (you know what I mean) should be that if you pot two balls, you get one point, yet you lose the run.

because you never try to pot two balls in straight; but you have obviously (in most cases) tried to pot one and succeded. So the extra pot should come like a foul in 8 ball, but you are still awarded the orginal point.

it may be hard for nick to do, but im just throwing in my idea in again.

Edited at 21:16 Mon 12/01/09 (GMT)

I think real life Straight Pool players would argue that the skill is knowing how to break the pack open off the last ball without accidentally potting a second - ie you are in complete control over all aspects of the shot.

I guess it comes down to how realistic you want the game to be on here - realism vs fun/playability is always going to be a matter of opinion and choice

sorry mate but wouldn't work with combination shots
If you played a combination shot and then potted a second ball the chances are the ball you hit first wouldnt be one of the two potted.

At the end of the day, it has to be remembered that whats being suggested is a change to the standard rules.

Sure, some of the rules in all game types have been ommited/altered to suit the online game, but this is one that I really can't see a problem with.

As Nick said, its no other than potting a color at the same time as a red when playing snooker. Could you ever see that being considered ok?

Yip, that had come to mind while I was writing it...



My take on the rules is that the additional ball(s) is/are irrelevant; maybe I'm wrong.

Rule 4.7 at http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_141 states:



I don't think the condition of calling a ball applies to the additional balls. What does everything think?

I see what you mean from that cloone however the game cannot differentiate between a first ball being made intentionally with subsequent ones being a bonus - or simply just an outright fluke that pots two completely different balls

ab has stated why you cant do it based on the 'first ball contacted' suggestion so you come back to 1) bringing in nominating (which isnt going to happen), 2) allowing multiple balls to be potted no matter how (which is not in the spirit of Straight Pool) or 3) leaving it as it is. I think you have to accept that option 3 is the likely winner.

Edited at 00:56 Tue 13/01/09 (GMT)

Question: within the real rules of straight pool, if the called ball goes into the called pocket and another ball incidentally/accidentally/luckily gets potted, does(n't) the run continue?

i like it as it is, as its just like building a break in snooker!

you rarely see pro snooker players smashing the pack open, they just free a few balls at a time!

This game is ment to reward players with close control of the white ball, and if a player has that control, it will be very rare 2 balls go down in the same shot!

It is annoying when it happens, but it just has to be seen as a mistake on the players part for not controling the cue ball; not a fault of the game rules!

I believe so - plus you score a point for each additional ball potted.

However on the reverse side in funkypool if you happen to fluke one ball you get the point and the right to play on whereas in the real game you wouldnt as you hadnt called the shot correctly.

Swings and roundabouts I guess.


I still believe that (within the funkypool version of the game) from the opening break if you pot just one ball then that should score and you can then continue from there on. I dont see how that scenario differs in anyway from at the point of re-rack you choosing to shoot directly into the pack and managing to pot just one ball to continue your run.

Swings and roundabouts it is so... I suppose that, much as I support the idea of second point and continuation of run for the second ball potted, the rules as they are at the moment for FP are as close as they can be to the real thing; and where they aren't, compromises/adjustments are in place. Ah well, I did my best!



No. Can't agree, sorry.



I think I've made known my views on pack-smashers in straight pool on another thread somewhere!

the fact is though the game allows it - so how can you allow it in one instance and not another?

if you wish to risk opening them up for the opponent on the chance that you might be lucky and pot just one ball then thats up to you.

i believe in the interest of simplicity the only overriding rule you need on any shot is that anything less or more than one ball potted ends your turn

Nothing to do with my argument!



And sorry, I just noticed something I couldn't let go...





Ahem... what about two reds in the one shot?

Pretty good idea for the Us games at least

btw who is the banned user?

It was yorkie_87 . On a separate note (can't be bothered to start a new thread), could we not have a list somewhere of people who have been recently banned, I for one would be entertained and interested to see if anyone I know of has been banned.