Poolgame: Wizardball

FeelDaShot said:
I think this game basically already exists. It's called Saratoga: https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/game/saratoga/
Click to expand...
This is indeed very similar, I did not know Saratoga! The idea of having a variation of rotation in 8ball is not revolutionairy*. When I was pondering on how to make things more interesting I was looking for a way to have an incentive for trickshots. The pointsystem is an incentive, but als the possibility to score more than one game in one rack.

* I think this is part of people's critique, which I welcome by the way :) I too think game design for pool could be more revolutionairy. In a way it's kind of lazy to take a little from various games and Frankenstein it into a new game. Sometimes that's a proper strategy to come up with something new and good. But in the end I think we could and should think more out of the box for a revolutionary new pool game. There have to be new games that are fun for every level to play and more exciting to watch?
 
kling&allen said:
I would think this scoring format would give a huge advantage to the better player? The better player is more likely to be able to string runs together and bank balls in, leading to an insurmountable early lead in points? The lesser player would have to make incredible trick shots to catch up, which isn't likely to happen.

But it's always good to share ideas.
Click to expand...

This could very well be the case. On one hand you want the better player to have an advantage, on the other hand it's nice if the lesser player has a chance to win against the stronger player. 9-ball, no-limit holdem and Settlers of Catan are all good examples of games where the lesser player has a chance to win, but the strong players have an edge.
Chess would be an example where the strength of the player allmost exclusively decides who wins.

I think you are correct that in this game the player's strength is more decisive than in 9ball for example. The odds of making a hail mary 3-rail-kick-carom are tiny.

It's easy to give odds (opponent starts with X points), but that is sloppy design.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Who do you see as the primary customer for this game?

It appears too hard for the average player -- think APA 2-3. It is not interesting to the top ten players in a pool hall because all the tournaments they play in are 8- or 9-ball.

Have you gotten a room to have a tournament of this game?
Click to expand...
Good question. It would indeed be to hard for beginners and average. More for league and pro. And I dont expect this to overtake any of the usual formats. But it would be interesting to see a testmatch between two strong players. I dont consider myself one, but as soon as I get the chance Im going to do a testgame against myself and will post the results here.
 
DaWizard said:
I've considered setting complexity to zero! But then the player is not rewarded for making runs (as every shot = 0 points). The goal of the pointsystem is that runs are rewarded and trickshots. And if you combine it you can score big.
And independently: a solid run can win a game, or a hail mary trickshot.
Click to expand...
Ya but your winner is determined by whoever wins 2 of 3 sets. Not by who has the most points overall. So what's the goal...? To win, or make the losing effort highlight reel...?

Strong players will simply run the rack and continue. If a bank or two happen along the way that's fine by them but they will not place focus on circus shots because there's no need to and all it does is lower the odds of them getting the run out point.
 
I can hardly find anyone willing to play Rotation and do basic addition.

I appreciate the creativity and (gasp) play Cowboy by the BCA rules, but the scoring here is way too complicated, not to mention the ball set is guaranteed to be confusing as a spectator. We can barely make out 9 balls already.
 
Sounds like my (joke) idea about using style points to play pool. If someone misses but leaves you an easy shot they get a point for an assist. If you scratch but do it in a funny odd way, you get a style point. Shit in a shot off 2 balls and an extra rail, style point.

The complexity of this game is a bit much, seems like a bonus ball type thing, in theory it seems like a neat idea, but after a week people will go back to playing 9 and 8 ball.
 
Have the players wear fogged out glasses to add a challenge element.

Players would have to aim and line up the shot with less visual orientation.

Ive been experimenting with creating billiard games for people with different challenges.

Parkinsons patients and reduced vision people are my primary research interests.

A game for players with shaky hands would focus on shots that require less precision. A game for reduced sight people will demand players play shots with the emphasis on position.
 
The_JV said:
Ya but your winner is determined by whoever wins 2 of 3 sets. Not by who has the most points overall. So what's the goal...? To win, or make the losing effort highlight reel...?

Strong players will simply run the rack and continue. If a bank or two happen along the way that's fine by them but they will not place focus on circus shots because there's no need to and all it does is lower the odds of them getting the run out point.
Click to expand...

If your score in a single game exceedes 210 points you win 2 games. For 250+ you win 3 games. Especially if you're trailing in a set it's worth to go for a trickshot. Because you could go from 0-2 to 3-2 in one rack.

Also I just googled the break and run stats: 8ball ~40% and 9bal ~28%. I would guess that this is a slightly harder game to break and run. So in most racks the players won't break and run. And then we'll see standard safety play (which is usually entertaining) and -I think- we'll see situations where there's an incentive to go for (relatively easy) banks, kicks and what not to drive up the score.

Im planning to test it myself to see if this is the case. It's what I theoretically think, but practice will tell.
 
eddieindetroit said:
To me, a large part of wizardry is the lofty hat.
A man claims he’s a wizard-
He isn’t wearing one of those tattered pointy hats with the wide brim...
Suspect.
Click to expand...
Yes, I forgot to add, that in this game we refer to our cue as 'wand' and upon breaking one must screech "EXPECTUM BREAK AND RUNN'M!".
 
DaWizard said:
If your score in a single game exceedes 210 points you win 2 games. For 250+ you win 3 games. Especially if you're trailing in a set it's worth to go for a trickshot. Because you could go from 0-2 to 3-2 in one rack.
Click to expand...
Ok hold on, but your scoring methodology was broken down in the first post. I'll paste it in italics below:

"Added points to complexity: (base score 1)
Bankshot = +1 point. Carom = +1 point. Kickshot = +1 point. Jumpshot = +1 point (a jumpshot has to at least partially jump over a ball)
2 railkickshot = +2 points, 3 railkickshot = +3 points etc.
Jumpshot + carom = +2 points, Double-bankshot = +2 points. Bankshot + carom = +2 points, etc.
A cannon = +1 point for every ball in the cannon."

Based on the above scoring method. How could you possibly believe that a score within a single game will exceed 250 points, let alone 210...? You do need to make the shot to score the complexity points right..?
DaWizard said:
Also I just googled the break and run stats: 8ball ~40% and 9bal ~28%. I would guess that this is a slightly harder game to break and run. So in most racks the players won't break and run. And then we'll see standard safety play (which is usually entertaining) and -I think- we'll see situations where there's an incentive to go for (relatively easy) banks, kicks and what not to drive up the score.
Click to expand...
What exactly did you google...? Curious to know if your stats include all levels of play or just pros for example. To be clear, I didn't mean to say that it would be an elementary task for the player to run the rack. Just that winning the game would be far easier then trying to score additional points that aren't required to win.

Anyways, you seem to like your idea and my intent isn't to bust your balls. I hope you enjoy your game when you have the opportunity to try it out.
 
Saratoga is a good occasional tournament format but not a good everyday game. Takes way too long for average ballbangers. I have no words for this wizball or wtf ever the guy's calling it. I don't get the need to invent new games. The one's we have now have stood the test of time for a reason. These goofy format games don't last for a reason too. Bowlliards is the only off-tangent game that worked where i live. Its fast and easy to score(exactly like bowling).
 
Last edited:
justnum said:
Have the players wear fogged out glasses to add a challenge element.

Players would have to aim and line up the shot with less visual orientation.

Ive been experimenting with creating billiard games for people with different challenges.

Parkinsons patients and reduced vision people are my primary research interests.

A game for players with shaky hands would focus on shots that require less precision. A game for reduced sight people will demand players play shots with the emphasis on position.
Click to expand...
have the players get bowl cuts and see if they can manage them like you do
 
The_JV said:
Ok hold on, but your scoring methodology was broken down in the first post. I'll paste it in italics below:

"Added points to complexity: (base score 1)
Bankshot = +1 point. Carom = +1 point. Kickshot = +1 point. Jumpshot = +1 point (a jumpshot has to at least partially jump over a ball)
2 railkickshot = +2 points, 3 railkickshot = +3 points etc.
Jumpshot + carom = +2 points, Double-bankshot = +2 points. Bankshot + carom = +2 points, etc.
A cannon = +1 point for every ball in the cannon."

Based on the above scoring method. How could you possibly believe that a score within a single game will exceed 250 points, let alone 210...? You do need to make the shot to score the complexity points right..?

What exactly did you google...? Curious to know if your stats include all levels of play or just pros for example. To be clear, I didn't mean to say that it would be an elementary task for the player to run the rack. Just that winning the game would be far easier then trying to score additional points that aren't required to win.

Anyways, you seem to like your idea and my intent isn't to bust your balls. I hope you enjoy your game when you have the opportunity to try it out.
Click to expand...
I got it from this forum: here

The info you copied was to asses the difficulty of a trickshot. The complexity, C.

But the points for a shot are calculated by V x C x R. See the second post for a filled in scoresheet. All scoringrules are explained on the scoresheet.

I understand people are a bit scared of such a pointsystem. I could argue it's about as difficult as the snookersystem.

But bottom line is:
1) I have to test to see if the scoresystem creates the incentive for creative play that I hope it does.
2) a game without a scoresystem is more elegant. E.g. anyone understands that the game is done when the 8ball disappears in a hole.
 
DaWizard said:
I understand people are a bit scared of such a pointsystem. I could argue it's about as difficult as the snookersystem.
Click to expand...
Well the biggest difference is there zero debate about what balls (shots) are worth....lol. The one thing I think "wizardball" could do, is starts brawls at local bars...
 
DaWizard said:
... 1) I have to test to see if the scoresystem creates the incentive for creative play that I hope it does.
...
Click to expand...
Maybe you could organize a tournament at a local club. Maybe 8 players. You will have to be the referee at each match or the players will not know what to do. Also, there may be problems with the rules you have not yet thought of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top