It can't just be me that's frustrated with the game.

I generally have a medium-high rank hovering in and around the top 50 sort of 790-810 area usually.

I find that most of the people that rank play very cautiously and as a result win games but don't score many high breaks.

the game tends to reward negative play.

there is little incentive for players to play more open (and many would say more enjoyable) frames

I'd prefer to go for a high break, and should I fail lose, but surely there should be some advantage for positive play

if people want to play negatively to win they should be able to

but those who don't shouldn't be penalised

the rank you get for winning games is altered depending on your rank and your opponents rank, why not also include a bonus rank boost for high breaks?

This would encourage players to continue to play positively, and more players to do so, rather than the "play to get over the line" attitude of some players.
they will still win games but will not be as highly rewarded for doing so.

Another great idea from me

Good idea but...

People that hit cents and halfs religously (tyler etc)

Rank is not infinite, it stops at a certain point.
There does need to be something to encourage positive play.

This idea however, is not it... Therefore, Im out

is there not a competition within every snooker tournament where the highest break gets rewarded?

I'm fed up of knocking in a big break one frame and winning 100-0 then next frame losing 55-50 in a scrappy frame cos the guy won't play a simple pot when theres a snooker on?

why is the better play not rewarded in any way?

You are rewarded... You go to sleep with a smile on your face whilst they cry into their pillows

Is that a joke ^^ if so not funny lol

I see where your coming from... But rank for a break will ruin the purpose of rank

unless its like tournapoints and the number of breaks turns into points with a competition?

If you do a whole new sort of ranking thing for breaks, then this would be good!

This all comes down to the persons style of play!

You say you knock in a 100 break and then you say you hate it when you lose a scrappy game.

Perhaps the reason you lost is because someone thought to snooker you and you missed and he won.

You can't tell people what ball they should pot, everyone has a choice in life a simple pot or a simple snooker who cares what they choose its upto them.

If every time i played a game and i hit a cent or the person hit a cent it would get boring after a while in my opinion, i love a good battle and tactical games.

Just because some people can hit high breaks does not mean they are better than yourself, You don't need high breaks to win games, All a high break does is finish the game dead with no chance for the opponent on the receiving end of it.

High breaks are underrated and only give that person bragging rights or celebrity status on here as a great player because of high breaks look at magical_cue 2nd highest rank in arcade Wins 1,926 (84.4%)
Losses 356 (15.6%) and only 39 max breaks.
scorpio no max breaks, 3rd highest ever ranked player in arcade.

1 break then a snooker then 1 break = game over
If your good enough every time to clear the whole table like some on here then your rank will be high.

Everyone has there own style if we all played how you wanted people to play it would be a pretty boring internet game.

No offence Greg just having a good old type before i go to bed haha

I personally quite like the idea, but it would have to be a slim reward rather than generous, there are two types of people in this game in my opinion, those who can break build and those who can't, but once every so often, one of those ones that cant, will hit a half cent, and then they'll see it pop up and they'll get the 1 half cent on their account, and they'd be like. "Wow, all this hard work to improve and its for a 10 second moment in fame" whereas, if they hit a half cent and got an extra 0.3 rank, they would most certainly strive to hit another and another. For the good players, yes there rank will be high, but why the hell not. Alot of the players on this game have been playing and improving for years, there was a time when there were that guy who hit a half cent one time and got a stupid broadcasted message, but they carried on improving and they should be rewarded, i would even go as far as to suggest an appropriate bonus ranking system if nick were to lend me his ears. At the end of the day, the "oh it shouldnt be done because all these good players will get good rank" well so they should they worked to be that good! dont see a guy make a brand new account who has never played before bashing centuries and maxes in do you ?

for Arc obviously the rank margins should be smaller as it is the most frequently played and portrayed as the easiest, reg, orig and power should be the same sort of rankings distrubuted as one another, with a setup for carom also.

The rank system is just terrible.

Nice idea, but this ^^ is important, or you could have a position where someone hit a 50+ break, but went on to lose yet still gained rank!

Another thing you have to remember about rank in general is that for someone to gain, someone else must lose, there is only so much in the pot, so to speak, so this could also have a negative effect as people may play safer so as to avoid thier opponent hitting a high break.

Further to the above post by Spinner, there are occasions, more so on the regular and original tables, where it is possible to hit 2 50+ breaks in the same frame. Should this lead to a double increase / decrease in ranking points...?

Also, there are some players (myself included), who seldom play "ranked" games; it could be considered as an unfair way of gaining ranking points by scoring 50+ in a friendly.

My last point here relates to the "mythical" 1000 rank. This would potentially become obtainable simply by hitting lots of high breaks ...

www.funkypool.com

The perfect site for you if you want players that play openly. This game however is called "Snooker". You have to expect people to play snookers pal.

to hit a half cent and lose is rare yet possible, in which instance the rank for the losing player would be reduced as it most definately a close frame? and in most instances the player that won would have to hit a half cent back to win, thus cancelling out.

As for the if someone gains another must lose, why does that have to be the case?

See that would be the thing, If your playing a friendly game in real life, say against a mate, and you were to hit a century, it would be for personal pleasures only as you just met up with a mate and played a frame, so i think that should run true with friendlies on snooker, a high break against a guest or a friend in a friendly game should be be rewarded points for said break. That would eradicate people from just hittin cents all day long.