Ok if you win a killer game with the maximum of 3 lives intact then you would recieve maximum points but if you onlyhave 2 lives left then you are penalised points wise, and even more penalised if you have only 1 life.

For example in a killer game with 5 players the pot is 55 points (where 5 points are deducted for each life lost)

If the winner ends with 3 lives then he takes 55 points
If the winner ends with 2 lives then he takes 50 points (-5 for life lost)
If the winner ends with 1 life then he takes 45 points
(-10 for 2 lives lost)

Now obviously this isnt going to eradicate tapping altogether, but it might make the leading player more likely take a pot on instead of tapping.

i like the idea in the sense that yes it may stop people tapping the ball but sorry cuch mate it is part of the game and a tactic that can and should continue to be avaliable so i don't agree with this for that reason sorry

I agree with 9_darter in the fact that, it's part of the game so it should be used.
However, it doesn't promote fair play. I think your idea is a good one because it gives everyone a more equal chance.
However, if this is being used for tapping, it would obviously have to be used over the whole game. If someone played fairly and won with one life, is it right that they should lose ten of the points they fairly won?

Edited at 21:14 Mon 4/08/08 (BST)

yep agreed mate i think we are saying cuch you have come up with a good solution to a problem that doesnt need solving

I'm not saying it doesn't need solving. I'm just saying that there isn't a solution that solely affects people who tap. Any solution would, realistically, have to affect everybody. I think implementing a solution likes your's cuchulain would lower the popularity of Killer.

No need to apologise mate
Do you think that winners should be penalised for each life that they have lost? Or should I say that winners with maximum lives are given the most points. As this would give somebody something to target instead of not caring about losing lives if they are 3-1 up?

Edited at 21:23 Mon 4/08/08 (BST)

i agree with u that people should be rewarded for going through a game without losing a life but i would suggest something along the lines of an announcment for it maybe?

BTW i personally dont disagree with tapping (anybody that has ever played me knows that ) Im just thinking of ways to promote fair play and game improvement.

Say we forget about the tapping issue altogether. Would this still be a fair reward point system?

Edited at 21:28 Mon 4/08/08 (BST)

Frankly, no I don't. There are many situations where a player can't avoid losing a life, I'm sure if you've played Killer, you've realized this.
If there is a way for the system to differentiate between accidental fouls, being snookered and such, and purposeful fouls: tapping, then a solution like this would be viable. But I'm sure Nick, and everyone else will agree that penalizing players who play fairly and who can't avoid losing lives is against what the aim of the site is.
On the other hand, penalizing players for losing lives may make players think more about their shots, so to avoid losing lives and points should they win. This would, of course, help the player improve.

I've just realized actually how long I take to write a message lmao

Well I would put the point that we would be rewarding high lives wins as opposed to penalising low lives wins.

I reckon you should be rewarded for finishing with max lifes, but shouldn't be deducted if you don't finish with three. Tapping in killer is liking snookering in snooker, its part of the game, a good tactic and in my opinion doesn't need changing.

Edited at 00:52 Tue 5/08/08 (BST)

Good alternative

Edited at 21:33 Mon 4/08/08 (BST)

yeah just got to think of a fair reward i suppose if you finish with 3 lives you could win the pot plus 20% maybe?

I think some people are missing my points here.
Im not trying to devise a system to eradicate tapping and I agree tapping is a part of killer. But a good score in a game can be rewarded, a change on my orig post

For example in a killer game with 5 players the pot is 55 points (where 5 points are added each extra life)

If the winner ends with 3 lives then he takes 65 points(+10 for 2 extra lives)
If the winner ends with 2 lives then he takes 60 points (+5 for 1 extra life)
If the winner ends with 1 life then he takes 55 points

From another perspective, the player that taps to win also must lose a % to their turn success. So they are losing out in one way or another. But i agree it is all just part of the game

I think you need to look at it from different points of view I being down my local pub playing killer for £20 per person with 20 people in thats £400 and when you got 2 lifes 1 ball left and the dude next has only got 1 i'm sorry but you play dirty becuase its alot of money and you no they would do the same becuase everybody will do anything to win (unless obv the easy pot is on)

I no this is just a game but if you play the game with the same tactic then you no what to do.

But personally i wouldnt tap up on this game as all your doing is loosing 10 points lol and you can get them back in 5 minute sof 3 man killer

Also though people are tapping up and saying 'ohhh laged sorry' but if somebody actually did lag and taped up would it be right for them to loose the 5 points or however many?