Because you are assuming a safety is only intended for the one person that was immediately following and absolutely nothing else. Any game is not one shot in isolation, it is about how it builds in to the development of the overall game as a whole.

As for your comments about my posts, you are again showing a disregard for the logical arguments being forwarded and ignoring the questions pushed back in your own direction.

If a safety is played, I am either the person playing the safety, the incumbent player or another player that is in line to be the incumbent player. There are only those options.

Currently whatever happens the person playing the safety is likely to be rewarded for his shot, the incumbent player has a difficult shot, and everyone else's position depends on what happens subsequently. That is the logical progression of the game. If the incumbent player leaves then someone else becomes the incumbent player and everyone else's position still depends on what happens subsequently. That is still the logical progression of the game. Nothing material has changed no matter what you try and come back with next.

Now with your change, the person playing the safety sees the incumbent player originally following them disappear from the game. Don't forget that may or may not have happened no matter what shot was played or whatever situation was left. The position created by the person playing the safety is then almost certainly lost, maybe even to his own detriment if the position he is building towards gets totally destroyed by the Random shot. The newly incumbent player potentially benefits simply from an improved position or even worse from an warranted bonus 'life' from a black, and every other player regardless of the outcome is suddenly playing a completely different game situation to that which existed before the Random shot and probably unfairly hindered compared to what the position would have been otherwise. That is not a logical progression of the game.

How you can even think to favour a non logical and random progression of a game over a logical one is beyond me. But I guess each to their own.

its not an assumption
again, noone makes a shot with the intention of taking lives from 2 different opponents.

If I disregard an argument, it's because I believe it to be illogical, and often I point out why.
You're the one, who then ignores what I've pointed out, and often repeats yourself again later as if there's never been a dispute about it.

responding to your last paragraph,
the position created is lost, but it's intent hasn't been, they made the shot to kill the next player, and the next player has died
You said don't forget it may happen no matter the shot, (meaning it could have been an easy one, or on the 8ball) The newly incumbent player could also potentially suffer because of the random shot. It's random, like the situation already is, except when someone leaves out of malice.
and about the game completely changing for everyone, that already happened when someone left the game.
I don't think this option is illogical at all, some of your questions have been.

Edited at 17:24 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

Edited at 17:25 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

Totally disregarded the point I made again.

On that basis, I am done. Remember though, to request a change it needs to be an improvement or a resolution to a problem. This is neither based on your posts.

I did disregard it, but first I responded, and pointed out something wrong with it. I think that's a lot better than simply ignoring it, the way you do a lot of my points/answers.

About this not being an improvement, that's only your opinion. Just as many people seem to agree with me.

Edited at 17:41 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

So where are we?

3 in favor, 5 if you count fran, who was in the game, but muted, although someone (tipster I think) said they had him on the phone and he agrees, and poolbird, although she hasn't posted here, it was her idea for the random shot.

3 against, 4 if you count hippesville, who I don't believe is for no change, but would do something different than a random shot

How was this bit addressed in your answer since you are seeking to remove it from the game with your solution...



Anyway that's just one example of many but it doesn't matter now.

The snooker was of course intended for that one person next, it was played to take a life off of the next player, when they quit without playing then the shot has achieved its goal. No one shot should be able to take two lives which essentially what's happening. Once one shot has taken one life a random should be next so that the very same shot isn't directly accountable for two lives.

that part, I thought was too vague, too weak to warrant a response. The shot referred to shouldn't happen, and wouldn't happen if someone didnt leave without making their shot.

thanks onevisit, maybe chris won't ignore that fact if it comes from someone other than me.

4 in favor, 6 if you count fran, who was in the game, but muted, although someone (tipster I think) said they had him on the phone and he agrees, and poolbird, although she hasn't posted here, it was her idea for the random shot.

3 against, 4 if you count hippesville, who I don't believe is for no change, but would do something different than a random shot

That part is the underlying and underpinning principle of the game, let alone most other types of games or sports, and you are seeking to remove it. Surprised you consider it such a weak point.

You have approached this from the point of view of being the supposed 'wronged party' and tried to build your argument from there. Always better to start from a neutral view.

I'm not asking to remove that principle from the game.
I'm asking to remove a circumstance that sometimes happens, a circumstance that everyone (everyone that's commented on this specifically) but you agrees can be unfair. The principle you refer to would remain.

I posted this as a possibly wronged party, wasn't sure, only suspected. Also pointed out that I've seen it happen to many others. Also, it wasn't my idea exactly, it's an improvement on an idea I had. Maybe my view isn't completely neutral, being a possible victim, but it isn't like it's selfish either. It's something I think will increase the enjoyment for most (when something unfair happens to someone, it cuts down on their enjoyment).

i normally hate random shot especially on snooker where if opponent runs out of time instead of random shot the white stays and you get 4 points (ball in hand on pool) but in killer i may make an exception as it is Player C (Been) has a disadvantage but a Ball in Hand would be an advantage for him and a disadvantage for Player D so a random shot would be in the middle. In other types the next Player should always have the advantage but in Killer it is difficult to say. I would look at the official rules and thats your answer.

regarding safeties if...

3 players remain i try and get Player C out as soon as possible so i may have less trouble later so i set up Player B so hopefully they can play a better safety shot.

4 or more i do Free for all as normal

If i cannot get the Black then i try and give it to an opponent on 3 lives as then the Blacks potential damage is nullified.

However if i feel i would be in trouble next shot then i try and keep balls away from the cushion so i have a better chance of survival.

I'm gonna take that as an 'in favor'. Correct me if I'm wrong.

5 in favor, 7 if you count fran, who was in the game, but muted, although someone (tipster I think) said they had him on the phone and he agrees, and poolbird, although she hasn't posted here, it was her idea for the random shot.

3 against, 4 if you count hippesville, who I don't believe is for no change, but would do something different than a random shot

The one thing I still don't understand, because you have not answered it, is why you want to bring in a less accurate element to the game.

If you were seeking to remove the Random shot element completely, from Killer as well as the other games, then I could understand that as it would make the game more realistic and in keeping with the real life games, and lead to more accurate outcomes.

From a gameplay and realism aspect, there is no reason for any random shot in Killer. If each timed out shot is treated as a foul then the position can pass to the next player in line. The player playing the safety shot is rewarded, and any player then subsequently not playing a valid pot also loses a life. Opting to time out without playing a shot and leaving the position for the next player in turn should be a perfectly valid tactic albeit obviously a deliberate foul and incurring a lost life. This is absolutely no different at all to the same player instead simply opting to touch the white ball in a shot in such a way as for it to be a foul without altering the position of the balls, again a deliberate foul, for the following player to then inherit.

This change keeps the game realistic without some Random smack of the balls materially changing the shape or progression of the game.

I dont' think accuracy applies to this, unless talking about how accurately this reflects reality.
As far as accurate outcomes, that depends on whether you agree its unfair the way it currently is. (and you're still the only one that disagrees it can be)

I disagree that choosing not to shoot should be a valid tactic, its not a means to victory in this circumstance, its just unsporting. The random shots that take place when someone runs out of time show me that someone agrees with me. They set it up so that you have to shoot (so that it can't be used as a means to victory), or the system will shoot for you (and if you fail to shoot 3 times in a row, you lose).
I think the only reason a random shot isn't already done the 3rd time (or when they leave the room) is because they considered the game over (no point, as is the case in 2 player games), and when they added killer, this difference from other game types was probably overlooked.

Edited at 19:34 Tue 06/05/14 (BST)

in reference to refusing to shoot you said:
"This is absolutely no different at all to the same player instead simply opting to touch the white ball in a shot in such a way as for it to be a foul without altering the position of the balls, again a deliberate foul, for the following player to then inherit."

Not true, if you foul it results in ball-in-hand. You must be thinking of a safety (not a foul though), and in killer (8ball and 9ball also) it's very different than refusing to shoot. You have to hit a ball with the white, and touch rail, this at least requires skill, to land safe.

Maybe if you weren't so sure of yourself, if you were willing to question your own belief instead of mine, you'd stop becoming confused so often, and basing arguements on mis-information.

Edited at 19:46 Tue 06/05/14 (BST)

Yes you're right there, sorry. And therefore, on the basis that by failing to take a shot within the time (or shot clock) ought to constitute a foul, then the punishment should be ball in hand for the following player. I realise that was your other option at the start but if you really want a change then I would prefer it to be a wholesale removal of random shots now across the board and a move towards games being as realistic as they can be in a 2d environment.

That obviously can potentially be a good result for the next player in Killer but is no different to the good result you can get anyway by following a player that scratches the white or doesn't connect with the cushion.

There is always a chance that could happen anyway with some random shot so why not introduce something that is consistent rather than random.

That's something to consider, not sure what my own opinion is, would have to think about it. Maybe you should make a thread, see what people think. That's a much bigger change than what I'm suggesting too.

ballinhand is a big deal in killer though, normally results in playerD getting snookered when playerC gets one, not to mention 8balls (ballinhand would make that more likely than a random would too). That wouldn't remove the thing that's unfair, it would just move it to another victim (why should playerD suffer because playerB left the game), so it wouldn't really address my concern. Hence the reason I sided with the random option at the start.

I'm impressed with your willingness to reconsider your stance.
Gonna move you into hippesville's category

5 in favor, 7 if you count fran, who was in the game, but muted, although someone (tipster I think) said they had him on the phone and he agrees, and poolbird, although she hasn't posted here, it was her idea for the random shot.

2 against, 4 if you count hippesville and chris, who aren't against change, but would do something different than a random shot

Depends on the general view of what should constitute a foul shot. Not playing a shot within the time frame (in other words making it a shot clock) should constitute a foul in all game types now in my own opinion.

The game has moved on from how it was a long time ago and removal of the random shot would ensure a consistent result in common with real game scenarios.

I always admit when I have made a mistake - unlike a few. I did think that in Killer the only penalty for a foul was a loss of life - unless the white was scratched whereby it was also ball in hand. Confused that element with Straight.