I have finally read through the whole of this thread (not as boring as I had originally thought ). In my own personal experience I don't think anything needs to be changed with regards random shots. I can't remember one incident in all my time playing the game where someone has timed out and got a major advantage because of it. Of course there will be instances of this happening, but not enough so that a change in the game should be introduced.

The main problem I have is with the amount of time on the shot clock in itself. Tournament play and most ranked and friendly games are set at the default of 20 seconds. However, if I'm having a conversation in a PM window or debating which shot to play in a certain situation I generally run out of time, and the random shot screws me over. That's why I predominantly play 30 second games to cover all eventualities in ranked games. I understand however that to move the game forward for most users increasing the default time limit is a bad idea.

However back to the subject of the thread. I have read the debate between spinner/chris and jan and agree with both sides in principle. However, I'd have to side with spinner/chris since I think the random shot is a penalty in 99.9% of cases. If you are lining up a shot and are 0.1 seconds over time before you push the mouse through (or stroke the touchpad) I don't think you should completely hand control over to the other guy.

I completely agree that it should be part of the game rules and constitute a foul. I'd like that to be the case for all games though, the timer is essential in all games, not just speed games.

I don't see how it would be unfair to anyone either - perfectly equal for all, even over the time perspective of a single game.

Whereas for the random shot system to treat all equally, you need a massive number of games to average out the freak results.

As for reflecting real life rules I think that's going to be hard, since (as far as I know) most serious events use the referee's discretion when it comes to stalling the game. In a computer world, we need a concrete, technical limit, we don't have anyone to make rulings on that like in real life.

Unless of course you'd like some more material for next year's April's

I agree - and this is why I'd like a system that enforces an average shot time, not necessarily the same time for each shot.

The perfect example is curling, where you can spend 30 minutes debating a single stone if you wish, but that leaves extremely little time for all the other 79 stones of the match.

Problem with adapting that to pool is that the total shots per game is unknown and somewhat unpredictable.

A possible solution would be to have the clock as it is, but allow a 10 or 20 second over-time a certain number of times per game (for example 5). In short, you'd have to play within the normal 20 seconds on most shot, but be allowed to spend a little more on a few occasions.

except it wouldnt be perfectly equal to all because everyone would no longer be subject to exactly the same playing conditions - which is the case at the moment.

Whether players have the same playing conditions depends on their own system as well as their connection. Neither of which are funkypool's problem, nor is it anything we can really do a whole lot about. The time-outs are already very generous, precisely for this reason.

Automatic foul vs. random shot makes virtually no difference in terms of having a level playing field. We all agree that in 99% of the time, the random shot is negative for the slow player. So if you are playing on a bad system or connection, you are at a disadvantage - period.

What some of us would like, and what some of us find even more fair, would be for this to be the case 100% of the time, rather than just 99%.

Don't get me wrong: Just because I'm debating this vigorously doesn't mean it's a big deal or a big difference. The outcome is almost the same. I would just welcome a more predictable system and most of all one that never ever helps a newbie make a better decision than he/she could have done themselves.

Spinner's site foul vs game foul contrast sums it up perfectly. If you exceed the 20 seconds or whatever, the site says "Sorry, you've taken too long, and now you will be assigned a shot with random power and direction, completely outside of your control." Then, when the shot is complete, whether or not it is a game foul depends on the facts of the shot, as Chris pointed out: which ball was hit first? did the white go down? was the wrong ball potted? etc.

More...

...continued

That's not to say that I disagree with Jan. There's something upsetting to see someone fluke an outrageous pot or a snooker when more than likely it would never have happened had they taken their own shot. Killer especially is a good argument for a bit of diversity; a ball, maybe even the black, might be perfectly set up, but then the player times out and incurs a random shot penalty, and then either a/the ball gets potted, or he/she leaves it safe. As there is no such foul as hitting the wrong ball, a random shot gives a player a decent chance of potting a ball (I should know; I once potted the black on a random shot, and shot I should have been ). Therefore, I'd like to see the following player have the choice of either 1) playing the table as the balls lie, effectively causing the late player to skip his turn, or 2) random shot, just in case all balls happens to be safe already.

This is particularly a problem when a player stops responding or slow-plays three times in a row in killer and exits the game, cos then the next player inherits a horrible table due to inaction by the previous player. But that's a different topic, perhaps...

Edging back a little to the original topic, how about if a player flukes the 9 on a random shot in 9 ball, the 9 is respotted and the game continues (maybe with the other player having the option to take the next shot or hand the cue back to the slow player).

When you mention killer, that is in fact one of the few games in which I think an automatic foul would be a bad idea...

Simply because ball-in-hand is too powerful in that game as it is (a player fouling hurts the second next player badly and undeserved).

That game sorely needs a weaker foul mechanic, but that's a different discussion I guess.

I've aid it before and I've said it again; the most important players in killer are the player before you and the player before that again. But ya, that is a different discussion. Which reminds me, there's a 2-player killer thread somewhere that I championed a lot, I wonder where it is...

It would be unfair if the timer was fixed, but it isn't and the players decide these. And even if they are not the game owner/creator then they are still warned of the time limit and have the choice not to play on that basis.

This seems to be a good idea as random shots can sometimes benefit the player whose time has run out.

But on the other hand this is a bad idea as people who have slow internet or computer and a lot of lag may mean they miss shots and a foul would be unfair

Even if you miss a shot because of things out of your control, it's still not unfair that you have to deal with the consequences. Simply because even if it's not your fault or an active rule violation on your part, it's even more definitely not something that the opponent can be blamed for either. In short, it should never ever benefit you more than your opponent - which is the simple and fundamental flaw of the random shot.

The benefit though is that its a completely fair system that provides an equal playing condition and environment to absolutely all.

Any other change to the rules no longer produces that situation in its entirety - and that is a simple and fundamental flaw with that.

Thats not to say, obviously, that the above has to stop any change happening - but it is a fact and not an opinion.

The problem is that is doesn't.

Although it once in a blue moon fails to punish a player failing to make his shot for reasons out of their control, normally it DOES punish the slow player.

If you feel bad about players on poor connections etc playing under worse conditions than others, that's a problem random shot does very little to solve.

Nothing to do with poor connections - as I have said previously in this thread.

At present EVERY player is guaranteed that at the end of their time a shot WILL be played - whether it being by themselves (usually of course), someone else sitting next to them, or near them, or within calling distance or failing that by the PC in the form of random shot.

You take away the random shot by the PC and now everybody will NOT be guaranteed that a shot will be made when the clock runs down - in fact anyone playing on their own, with no one else to call on if they are indisposed, is in fact GUARANTEED to be called for a foul rather than having a chance that the random might play a valid and legal shot on their behalf.

That means that everybody is no longer playing to the same playing conditions simply because of their personal circumstances that they might find themselves in. Its a minor point but it is a factual point.

I know you can distinguish when the random shot is played rather than the player him/herself whilst you cant distinguish when someone else other than the player concerned plays a shot. But because you can I dont believe that morally you should because you are now disadvantaging one group of people 100% of the time over another group.

But anyway - this has been going on for a few weeks now and still no closer to a decision.

why should a player who isn't actively playing be granted even a remote chance of getting away with it?

if you leave your seat mid- game, the computer shouldnt cover for you. This is supposed to be a PvP game after all.

i'm not saying he should be necessarily - but the fact is if he has someone else with him he can get away with leaving his seat and that, whether you like it or not, gives him a 100% advantage over someone that has no one else with them and no random to ensure, if all else fails, a shot is played.

I know you disagree with that, and obviously nothing wrong with that, so I will leave it there - but it is a fact.

The advantage in having others take over we can do nothing about, nor has it ever been the purpose of RS to even that difference. Its sole purpose is moving the game forward. (ask Nick if you don't want to believe me)

Something a foul does equally well, only more fair.

i said we disagree - maybe i have seen something in it that others havent before - but it is still a fact

i got a random shot today on straight, i was thinking of a ball i could pot. my mind went blank coz nothing was open. the random shot potted for me and i carried on the run. that aint fair? i would be angry if it was against me lol.

i think random shot and a fail on any game is good. least that way they get punished and game continues swiftly.