ok i love killer and i think its a great addition but i think its a little bit unfair that the playing order of players isnt randomized. If you are playing with some really good players and some really poor onesits unfair one the player who plays after the good player. I don't suggest changing the order every rack - then players might not have the same number of shots, but perhaps after 2 or 3 cycles through the players the order should be randomized again to make it fairer. Any thoughts?

How are the "poor" players supposed to improve getting out of tough shots if they can't be placed in them?

If poor players don't want to risk playing with a good player, they shouldn't start a game with a good player in it.

The playing order is already randomized at each game start. I think it's enough randomization, at long term (after many games) it should minimize the part of luck.

By the way, it would be very unfair to change the playing order in the middle of a game. I think the game should be finished just as it was started, then you may start another game if you want a new roll.

what? i think you've missed the point. You cant help it if your in a killer with a poor player and a good 1 can you? my point is it makes it fairer for all the players so they have the fairest chance of winning if the order is randomized. I don't really care how "poor" players are supposed to improve, please only reply if you have a brain

that above was in response to iamtheopwrst, in reply to blutch, why is it " very unfair to change the game playing order" that makes no sense at all id say its very unfair for 1 player to always have to play after a better player, how can you not see this? Its like having the premier league but chelsea played man utd every week whereas liverpool got hull every week... its just not fair

If you want some constructive criticism.. please don't say "please only reply if you have a brain". That won't help get your point across.. and won't gain you any respect.

Thats all I have for this topic now. Have a nice day.

look you missed the point of my topic so badly that you can't have read it or you don't have a brain. You've talked about poor players getting in tough shots, thats nothing to do with it. I think iv made my point pretty clear with the premiership analogy

The reason why it's unfair to change the order during the game, is that there could be a player who would play more than the others.

What I mean, is that at long-term, you'll have played many games against 1 bad and 1 good player, and you'll have played half of these games after the good player, and the other half after the bad player. That's why it could seem unfair to play 1 full game after a good player, but the rankings are based on many games, that's where the randomness is really meaningful.

And calm down, there's really no need to be aggressive.

ok, but one player would not play more than others if the order was re randomized after a full cycle through the players... think about it. It just appears to make more sense if it is randomized after each cycle, as you dont get thorough many 10 man killers in an afternoon so currently the randomization doesnt even out

I understand your point, but the re-randomization within the same game could have some unpleasant side-effects, like for example:

There are players A B C D, they start in that order. Then we re-randomize after 4 shots, the pattern becomes, say, C D B A. You can see clearly that A will have to wait 6 shots before playing again, while D and C will play 2 shots very close to each other. (I obviously excluded the case where D would have to play directly after himself, which would be even worse!)

I think this kind of side-effects would make the game less natural, and there would in the end be more people complaining about such things than about the problem you're talking about.

This is a natural query from anyone who plays killer in real life (as i do, though not often enough anymore!)

In killer as i know it, each shot is random, so you have the paradox of playing a safety only to find out you have to play next.

However, as discussed at length on the pool killer thread, in the online game the current system of randomizing player order at each rack is a good compromise.

Would just like to point out, to add another aspect to the debate, that how it currently stands is exactly how is is played in real life.

Having played many games of Killer in the past, I have never come across (or even heard of) a game whereby the order of play is 'shuffled' mid game!

In fact, in some of the places I've played, to suggest such a thing (especially on the grounds that its 'unfair' because the player in front is a good player) would result in a very swift exit for fear of life and limb!

Edit: lol just browsing forum and clicked on this by mistake and noticed spinner's post just before mine (must of been compiling my essay when it was posted). Must say, I've never heard of it being played that way, but I stand corrected.

Edited at 03:35 Wed 30/07/08 (BST)