Use the the boards to reflect shots at the person to your left or right or shoot right up the middle.-- gootyam, Dec 21 2000 Doesn't matter who made the goal. Instead of getting a point for scoring a goal, you get a point when a goal is scored on you. When you accumulate 3 points, you're out of the game. Last one left wins.-- PotatoStew, Dec 21 2000 It would be pretty difficult to score on the people to your left and right by banking shots, and the game would probably end up being mostly long volleys between people at opposite goals. What about using an octagonal board with goals in every other corner? Then you'd have a clear shot at everyone.-- Monkfish, Dec 21 2000 Why so complicated? Why not just a square board with a goal in the middle of every side?-- centauri, Dec 21 2000 The problem with the "diamond" board is that it would still be hard to score on the right and left people, unless you could ride the puck along the side all the way in or do fancy bank shots, which seem like things I wouldn't be able to do, so I would sulk and the game would be ruined.
I figured that an octagonal board would have some more exciting, unpredictable bouncing, but just using a square board would probably be easier and just as interesting. Degroof's other boards sound neat too -- maybe a set of detachable bumpers which you could slot into different positions to make things interesting or handicap certain players.-- Monkfish, Dec 21 2000 Don't forget the cone of silence over the board. It would be the noisiest game ever, and if it were in a home, family and neighbors... Great idea-I love air hockey.-- thumbwax, Dec 22 2000 degroof: if lowest score wins, how do you know when to stop? Would there be a time limit on the game?
I like the moveable bumpers idea.-- PotatoStew, Dec 22 2000 But we never play with a time/score limit for normal games (unless the arcade has one) we just play until someone is clearly winning, then sulk/gloat appropriately, and go and do something else.-- Detly, Dec 22 2000 degroof, I'm not sure why, but the instant I read the description I picutured the game with 3 pucks in play. Maybe the scoring would work such that at the end of each round after the final puck has gone into a goal, you lose a point for each puck you have. If everybody started with a certain number of points, getting to 0 puts you out, and you have to take a puck with you. #pucks=#players-1. 3-on-1 gang ups would just suck. heheh.
zippyanna, do you mean 4-way foosball(sp)? wow. now THAT would be something...-- absterge, Dec 23 2000 square table with 2 pucks would be good - 3 pucks would be too chaotic - 1 puck not chaotic enough unless it was a small table(and ideally you need a table big enough to stop any 2 players being able to touch the puck at once) - X-shaped tables would lead to 2 separate games and the other shapes all seem to funnel shots into the goal-- chud, Sep 15 2001 WOWWWWWWWWW!!!-- kaz, Sep 15 2001 random, halfbakery