The issue isn't really about the lucky GB's, or even a reasonable amount of GB's, it's about those that have won literally hundreds of games with that one shot.

And it is a cheap shot - if it isn't then explain how it was (as mentioned in 2 identical threads) I trained a six year old to do it with relative consistancy within 20 mins. She couldn't work out angles or anything else, so could rarely pot another ball...but she could do GB's. Very skillful shot :p

It is like any computer game 'cheat'. You find out were to put your ball, where to put your cursor and then apply power. And you just keep doing it. Little skill, no pool tactics or ability whatsoever - just smacking one ball and taking ranking points off much better players cos they don't get the chance to play a game against you.

I was tempted to mention you're trainee before Martin but resisted it 'cause it seems to upset people!

Seriously, i hope Martin's detailed explaination proves why the shot shouldn't affect rank..

Another point worth mentioning is that in all the previous thread, not one GB'er (Even Rangers_fc!) had any problem with the shot being made a re-rack..

a Golden break should be counted as a loss. At the end of the day, if the eight ball goes in the hole before any of the other balls, you've lost by a foul.

This is the obvious reaction due to it being the real-life rule, however Admin has often stated that this is a "FunkyPool Rule", so therefore is unlikely to be brought into line, hence why the re-rack compromise has been suggested.

Well, it's Nick's decision how he wants to have it. The above post was only my opinion.

Changing the racking could work aswell.

In UK 8-ball rules, its just a re-rack which would be fine on here. In US 8-ball the same rule applies, so the same situation. But ultimately its down to nick to decide, though i dont think changing the rack will help - people will find out how to golden break no matter the lay out of the balls

I'd have to agree with nicknax on this one. Golden breaks, in my experience, are very rare if you don't make a break specifically to get one (only happened twice to me, and once the cue ball went with it, meaning an instant loss!). Either what nicknax said or a re-rack is needed. But I severely doubt that it will be changed because, as I've said before, it would make many users who don't like to play the game properly unhappy.

How about if the user to get a golden break gets like 2.0 rank points (Or something similar, this is just an example) and the game restarts.

This way, the opponent wouldn't get punished and the person who got the golden break would be happy. There'd be no win or loss, the game would simply start again. The golden break would be added to the user's profile.

Edited at 20:21 Wed 20/09/06 (BST)

I understand what you mean by that nicknax, but I don't think they should be rewarded with something they don't deserve. Also, I've just realised something. In tournament matches (apart from finals) there are a maximum of 3 games. This means that the person who breaks first has more opportunities for golden breaks and therefore gains an unfair advantage.

Edited at 20:28 Wed 20/09/06 (BST)

Both these subjects have been debated many times as you know, and as i mentioned before, most of the "golden breakers" would be quite happy with a re-rack, and not one ever stated they did it for rank, just that they didnt see why not since it was possible!

Even those who regularly went for GB's agreed they shouldn't "be allowed" in tournament matches.

To respond to nicknax 2.0rank suggestion - dont forget they already get rewarded by having a GB added to their stats, thats all that is deserved.

Remember the real-life rules are not a re-rack, but a re-spot. The code for this is already there for the US game so should be fairly easy to impliment.

That way, the break still stands, the player gets thier GB stat, and also gets to play for the rank points..

Win-Win!

I've mentioned it before on a thread somewhere probs this one (cant be bothered to read back ) about the winner of a GB frame should get the points. Having the winner get a set amount would work and so would having the losing player lose a reduced amount.

Getting rid of the rating aspect off things seems pointless to me when something different could be done that would help the site in another way.

People are always moaning about those who 'camp out' on 850 rating and hog the top 50 leaderboard. Having a set amount of rating to the winner and 0 deduction to the loser would mean that the total amount of rating flying around would go up. This allows the players that are playing to get higher ratings and therefore the top 50 will overtake these sitters.

This way losing player gets nothing taken away and will win/lose more/less in the following frame(s) the winner gets rating increase and a GB on their profile and it helps to solve the leaderboard problem over time.

Win-Win-Win Three of a kind, beats ur pair spinner

Also if there was a set increase then would this apply for tourny games aswell? (I do see the problem of getting to 1000.0 with being immune to losses, but still) There could be a cut off point or something. Players with less than 50 get +2, player with up to 200 get +1, player with 200-1000 get +0.5 players with over 1000 get +0.1

This would mean it would apply for at least 2 years before anything would need to be changed about it.

How can anything be fair about getting double recognition for a GB though?

The biggest part of the issue is that the frame shouldn't be over after one simple shot.

Hence why people, including GB'ers, would like to see it a re-rack or re-spot, so you can still get your GB, still enjoy a game of pool, and still get your full (earned) points..

Even better, why not make a seperate GB game, where players are only allowed one shot or they loose the frame. That way the people who like that will be happy and leave us pool players to play pool

Thats it spinner, without the need for the separate shot ther can be people without GB (earned) that still harness the biggest part.

If you take hoops off the happy ones, then you will get frames and frames of applied one point zeros etc without so much opportunities for a flanking move on either idea of extremes.

So the answer has to be in (both thorogh top spins) of one delirious lookalike - so that theres no confusion at all.

PS: 100 team points to anybody who understood that last post

Apart from to spinner...who speaks gobaldigook as a second language.

PS I AM kidding spinner m8

Edited at 00:09 Thu 21/09/06 (BST)

Most sensible idea so far Martin...

P.S. - what were you kidding about?

But anyways, lets keep this on-topic (in case any Mods read this )

I'm sure Nick will be bearing things in mind when the next big update rolls around. After all, we can speculate all we want, but he can see the figures and determine to what extent it really is a problem..

spinner we get it! we know you think that its not fair and that there should be a re-rack, every1 is saying there should be a re-rack, even myself now! and you still go on and say 'its not fair there should be a re-rack!!!!!'

ok rant over...what nicknax is proposing is that the person who performs the 'unfair, cheap and nasty' shot gets a certain increase. I've explained the benefits of this in my previous post but i'll repeat myself aswell. The person who wins gets the rating but as they need to win rating by doing golden breaks it allows lower players to win this rating off them in future, therefore increasing the amount that players win accross the site and therefore getting rid of other problems. This means that the more golden breaks there are the higher people's ratings will go This is will eventually even out due to more players getting rating reductions for being over 850 and also edge modification. But by then the top 50 will contain 50 players that are ranked over 850.

Having a compromise with the golden breaks will mean that the site would benefit more in other ways. It will be more competitive at the top and players can acheive new heights to feel good about themselves.

It's not double recognition, it's helping the site in a subtle way that won't be argued about by players (apart from spinner).

I'm not meaning to have a go spinner if it's coming across that way, just you keep going back to the same thing when there are suggestions that justify some other course of action to be taken instead.

P.S. Don't like the seperate game idea, i'd become addicted and still never win at it.

Edited at 00:18 Thu 21/09/06 (BST)

For god sakes lads I can't read all that!

lol thats what i was thinking

I was enjoying decently lenghty posts for a change!

Squeezy - that post was sarcastic making fun of what had been said in an attemt to lighten the mood!

However, recieveing a GB stat AND rank for one shot IS double recognition. Thats not my opinion, its a simple fact!

However, as i have been saying (if you read back, but i'll repeat myself since it seems to be th in-thing!) is nothing to do with rank, its the fact that the game shouldn't finish after only one shot.

Remember win percentage is the statistic that really matters, how would letting GB's carry on as wins help that?

not like GB

No.