Level 3
Great news! Although I have Yazz's song 'The Only Way Is Up' but with the lyrics 'The Only Way Is Down' going through my head...
Thought I'd throw my tuppence' worth in re. all the new ideas.
Aiming line: I'm still of the opinion that short line is best. Pockets are tighter and less forgiving than pool, and the table area is bigger, my worry is if we go a stage harder we'd end up with dreary drawn-out games with little or no break building. Awful to watch, awful to play in. And if anything, it would widen the gap between the guys who are coming back from last year and the newcomers. We want exciting, high-scoring games, as close as real-life as possible, and let's be honest, it's not like the better guys last year were nailing 147's every game, as I recall there wasn't even a 100 break in the whole of the last tournament.
Handicap system: Oooohh... Controversial. Could be a disaster I think. It would have to be tried & tested to work out a fair system, and even then I think there would be nothing but bad feelings if someone won a game fair & square only for the win to be given to someone else. There's potential for people exploiting it too, isn't there? Playing badly before a game with a strong player in order to gain a points advantage? I'm really not comfortable with it. And trying to work out a handicap based on last years results is far from fair either. There were 5 or 6 of us that were at the same level skill-wise and matches could have gone either way (and did!). I know I had to put some serious effort in to compete with that group of guys, and I'm sure they put effort in too. We pushed each other.
Bottom line for me? If you want to enter, put some practise in. We all did last time round, it's not like any of us had a god-given talent for Hustle Kings. Having a handicap system is too hard to impliment fairly, and in my opinion, just going to encourage laziness. I for one don't want to have one eye on the points while I play, knowing that the other guy has a 50-point head start.
But that's my input. We're a reasonable bunch of guys and I'm sure we'll come to an arrangement that suits as many of us as possible.
Let's get our balls on the table.
Level 3
Capbwfc wrote:i would do this again only if there is no aim line at least you are certain to have more shots using this then having an aim line on,most of the time for first season for me anyway whenever i did the first shot to start the frame then there looked an impossible pot on for next player they potted the first red which then followed a long time having another shot or having one at all because the frame was lost i know this can happen in real life snooker but its a game, i would get more enjoyment of having more shots than watching someone make a high break
handicap system is a good idea aswell
Sorry, but couldn't disagree more. Relatively speaking, if someone's going to beat you with aiming on, they'll probably beat you *eventually* with it off. If you want 'more shots', like I suggested before, put in some practice!! For fear of sounding bitchy, it sounds like you're pro the handicap system because you hope it'll win you games, saving you the effort of practice...
As I kind of stated before, I honestly think if we're going to have a handicap system, it needs to be thouroughly tested beforehand, and be very subtle.
I'm awful, I know that, the least I want is to have a flukey game, and then win by 20 or so points just because I'm 10 times worse than that certain player?
Whilst having a large gulf in class may drive people away, I'd much rather have a smaller event, that works, and everyone plays to their skill, rather than a large event whereby we lose the better players through rage because people with a lack of being a good winner show off when they win purely because of a funky smelling handicap system granting them 50 points.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it takes a stronger person to lose games than it does to win them, and if the only way to win is through gayfully handing out bonuses to those not willing to increase their skill then is there really much point?
I shall aim for last position much like last year, and frankly, I welcome any challenger to my throne.
I suggested a handicap system because I thought the league would be more fun if it were on a more level footing. I always feel uncomfortable giving someone a thrashing if they're clearly less skilful than I - I have no problem if I manage to thrash someone who is at my own level. 
All said, the handicap system might work better with a ladder. As I see it, the ladder would list people's handicaps from lowest to highest. You'd play games with the objective of climbing the ladder - by winning - and the handicap system would just level the playing field for the individual games, without having such an effect on the overall ladder (i.e. the better players would be able to get low handicaps... If a result goes against the run of play, it will even itself out as better players end up with more generous handicaps which let them climb back to their original position and the weaker players end up with not enough handicap to help them win the next game).
Level 3
The minimal line means good players cannot easy pot a lot of balls without knowing the actual angles to use like in real life but the minimal line will help less skillful players to actually line up their shots to be at least close?
Level 3
homerjnick wrote:The minimal line means good players cannot easy pot a lot of balls without knowing the actual angles to use like in real life but the minimal line will help less skillful players to actually line up their shots to be at least close?
Again guys, isn't it all relative? You make it hard for the better players to pot long balls and you make it hard for the intermediate players to pot shorter balls. Scenario: 'Good' player misses long pot from baulk, leaves a mid-length pot on for a not-so-good player. With minimal line, that player's chance of potting is now hugely reduced, thus keeping the gap in quality the same.
Regardless of what line we use, the outcomes are *guaranteed* to be the same.
I actually like the situation where, if you make a mistake, a better player will punish you. Make it harder to pot & build breaks (using minimal line) will, in my opinion, make for sloppier play, you'll not have that worry of being punished at the back of your mind.
Again, no-one even hit 100 in the last tourney. The balance I thought was perfect. Do we want it to feel like a professional tournament, or like a bunch of lads down the snooker hall clugging round the table potting the odd red-black-red then playing safe?
Level 3
QuietlyWrong wrote:All said, the handicap system might work better with a ladder. As I see it, the ladder would list people's handicaps from lowest to highest. You'd play games with the objective of climbing the ladder - by winning - and the handicap system would just level the playing field for the individual games, without having such an effect on the overall ladder (i.e. the better players would be able to get low handicaps... If a result goes against the run of play, it will even itself out as better players end up with more generous handicaps which let them climb back to their original position and the weaker players end up with not enough handicap to help them win the next game).
I know this makes sense, I just cant visualise it. Is there a way to put an example down in a diagram or something?
I'd like to be a part of that, but perhaps as a side-event to the main one.
Would be great if we could get 16 players for our tournament. 4 mini-leagues of 4, followed by 4 quarter-finals, 2 semis and a final. We could draw names out a hat for the league section, using a rough pool system based on last years positions so that you didn't end up with 4 top players stuck in 1 group...
Would be great if we could get 16 players for our tournament. 4 mini-leagues of 4, followed by 4 quarter-finals, 2 semis and a final. We could draw names out a hat for the league section, using a rough pool system based on last years positions so that you didn't end up with 4 top players stuck in 1 group...
Would be good but we need more players for that. Help spread the word and get people to come join us 
Website ©2013 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]
