How bout a time limit for tourny rounds, after say 10 minutes da person wiv da most balls potted go's through if da games nt finished.

This can b applied to all situations, if the score is 1-all and 3 balls potted each then the tourny bot should randomly chose the winner.

The time limit could be chosen at the tourny owners chosing.
In best of 5 n 7 finals the limit will obviously have to be greater.

Theres flaws in this idea, but it could be changed so tht its suitable for tournys n wil eliminate very long waits where the 2 people involved r obviously nt good enough to win

For tactical battles, da limit wil add n extra element, someone has to get da 'perfect' snooker in the time limit, plus becuase da limit would be reasonably high there should be adequate time for a person to win through.

If this option is not used for evry tourny it cd b used in occasional ones, as people such as my self and trickshot r put of by long waits.

slang is becuase i used to many charactors and has to shorten it, i can spell!

no need to do it in the final because there will be no 1 waitin will there?

Nah, tournys are fine the way they are and we also won't be able to take our time on shots and play tactically.

Edited at 23:21 Mon 4/07/05 (BST)

waste of time typing that out but i think its a good idea but too much hassle

it adds an extra element for use occasionally, not every tourny, just every now and then ??

Its just an idea, and not even mine, i just interpreted it.

tournies are the time for tactical play. if anything the time limit should be made longer. but its fine how it is overall

well what happens if its 1-0 in a game
say me n raiden n im 1-0 up...

he breaks pots all 7 messes up on black n its 8 mins into the game..

alls i have 2 do is take my time, snooker n then carry on snokerin till 10 mins has passes n coz iv won that 1 game i'd win the round rite?

dont fink thats really fair do you?

Actually that code is kind of there already (but unused). If players are very slow the idea is both players will be kicked out as a punishment. Harsh but fair?

to everybody, i know this idea has flaws, but im sure some form of it could be used to a good effect.

also, the time limit would be quite high 10 mins was a poor example, the time limit would be as such so that only very poor players would ever be in any danger of not finishing a game in time.

It should give enough time for a tactical batlle to go on, and if raiden pots 6 then screws up black lambert, i very much doubt theres 8 minutes gone!!

Edited at 08:26 Tue 5/07/05 (BST)

Yeah but it'd ruin rocketronnies chances *cough* pot, snooker, snooker, snooker, snooker, get a carry, snooker, snooker, snooker *cough*

thts not fair.im slow and crap... and 4 the sake of his annoyance ill disagree

Edited at 12:13 Tue 5/07/05 (BST)

LMAO @ all ov ya and y not playerx.... we cud have a really bad game where 8 mins does go by for just 1 game ya neva know and countin snookers in the 1st frame its easy 2 make a game that long

lambert, dude read what i put!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the 10 min thing is an example, the limit (if its put in place) willl be much higher, and yes its possible, but very unlikely.

Tournys are bout patience and stamina, this would defeat the point. 8-)

Thats an awful idea, do you realise how many complaints the hosts and mods will get. People will be raged if they were 1 - 1, and the other person went through because they had potted one more ball at the time. This idea is never going to go ahead, but i do agree tournies are a long wait and i cant regularly be bothered to sit down and play for 2 hours..

Why don't the tournaments just get chopped up into say 2 or 3? It wouldn't be anymore work for the mods surely. Something like the Smackdown and Raw thing they used to have (still do?) in the WWF? I know what I mean, but I don't think I've conveyed it very well..

Post removed by an admin