It is annoying when a player repeatedly does not take a shot. Each time you have to wait for the clock to run down. Also, you cannot leave the room to play a different game until it is over because this is recorded on your profile and i think you lose rankings. (?).

An idea being, to disqualify the opponent after 3 random shots allowing you to leave the room.

Many thanks.

Already exists though i's for five. I think 3 would be better (40second games thats 2.5 minutes-almost another game)

So great idea, welcome to the forum.

Ah but for those of us who like sensible time limits, that would only be 30 seconds..

(15 if we get a quick game option!)



Edit - Martin suggested a time accumulator as a fits-all solution, basically time wasted counts up, and if you're gone for a total of, say, 60 secs, then you're DQ'd. That way its fair no matter how quick or slow you want the game to be.

Edited at 17:29 Mon 5/02/07 (GMT)

Yep, i'#ve been banging on about this for a while. The worse thing is when you've been playing, they've done 3 maybe 4 random shot time penalties, and because you've lost all interest and concentration you lose!


PLEASE NICK PLEASE

Being idle for a certain amount of time? is that what you mean spinner?

If the player is inactive for say 2-3 mins they lost the game by default. If it is then nice idea.

Problem is, if the opponent was purposely trying to time out to irritate you then the can wait until time is nearly up, then shoot.

Apart from that, i like.

No, it was accumulated time over the whole match. I think I first put it forward for tournament game time-outs.

So, as the counter ticks down, it automatically records the time taken over each shot.

Player one might be 5secs + 10secs etc, while the slower player 17secs + random shot(20secs) etc.

So in a tourny game that times-out, the system would then only disqualify the player who'd taken the most time, instead of both players.

I'm not exactly sure how this could be applied to random shots though, and a system comprising all 3 methods would be best for me:

The system above for tournies and also.
3 random shots in any game (regardless of whether consecutive) and you're disqualified, and 2mins idle and you're disqualified.

That would cover the lot.

Edited at 22:31 Mon 5/02/07 (GMT)

Yeah good idea.

yeah thats a great idea

this is the only part i am wary of, although i agree with the 3 random shots and an automatic DQ. i do not agree with the idea where even if they arent consecutive.

i know many people on here who play from school and are forced to minimise the game they are playing when a teacher looks. the reason for the random shot limit being there is to give the opponent the chance to gain some form of advantage when this occurs. hence there is no need for an automatic disqualification.

on the plus side of martin's suggestion the total shot time being taken into account on who gets disqualified if the game runs over the round limit is in my opinion a great idea.

there are many problems enforcing these rules though if they were to be put into place.

such as players taking quick snookers to drag the game out until the other player gets DQ'ed at the end

Ah, but as i said above, that is unfair on those who dont like to play granny-paced games

3 random shots is only 30 seconds for those of us who play 10 second games.

The accumulation idea would work just fine in any game. Leave the more reasonoble 5 shots that we have now, but have a maximum time limit of 60 seconds.

This way you get DQ'd for being away from the table for an equal amount of time regardless of the type of game played.

(also remember random shots can be incurred because of lag, so having it apply to non-consecutive shots would be rather unfair)

Edited at 23:03 Mon 5/02/07 (GMT)

spinner your a genius!

Edited by forum moderator pool_life, at 10:54 Tue 6/02/07 (GMT)

Sheddon your posting abilities are revoked. You've been nothing but trouble since you began participating on our forums and you haven't contibuted one remotely useful peice of information.

Goodbye!

I know your comments are half hearted at times about this topic, but I dont see why a user should have to change their entire playing style just to play their opponant.

I understand that there is still a choice available when you join a game, but I believe people constantly degrading other people styles does not help new players to the site choose their own path as such.

For example in tennis,(lets not use football as the example for once) would one expect a world class rally player to chance there style to a short fast volley game just as that is his opponants preferance, therefore giving the upper hand to the opponant? Am assuming most would agree and say the answer is no.

Therefore lets allow people to choose their own styles of play rather than us, somewhat, shoehorning people into choosing the styles we would like them to play in instead.

ok rant over sorry

Agreed 100%

I enjoy the faster paced games better, but I have no obligation if a player would like to play at a slower speed.

However, what I do not like is when the opponent has left their computer; and you are seemingly playing against a computer that is hitting the balls anywhere randomly.

I think that should clear any confusion.

I think i'm getting the hang of this forum thing - by the way, that should be a quote at the top (not sure what it'll look like!)

Yes I completely agree. I too like slightly quicker games. The only thing I have a problem with is the fact that these thread usually end up going off topic and start the "abolish the 40second game" my post was an attempt to stop this, as I do not think it is either worth while, or appropriate to tell everyone that they should follow rules that one or two set thinking they would be better for the world and his pet dog (just incase 1_eyes best friend decides to start playing).

Just to back up what sweetest_sin says, although i usually play 10 sec games, i fully appreciate that there are many who prefer to play longer, up to 180 second games, so they can play when it suits them in between working with other things.

On reflection, the time accumulation system wont work for them.

However sweetest_sin was also 100% right that players who like quicker games shouldnt have to change thier playing style just to suit others.

Perhaps a stepped system? Under 20 seconds = 5 missed shots. 20-40 secs, 4, then 3 for 40 secs and over before being DQ'd?

As mentioned before, remember that quite often (almost always in my case) missed shots are due to lag.

Edited at 21:43 Tue 6/02/07 (GMT)

The time-accumulation can only work for tournies, to act as the coin-flip between two timed out players.

I also think that sweetest-sin put things back into perspective reference personal preferences and, bearing that in mind, spinner's stepped system works really well for ranked games.

But, also bringing in Mr.Dudey's school/work minimising issues, I think the 5 random shot rule isn't too bad as it stands.