Author Topic: Australian Wheel of Fortune (Read 4691 times)

TLEberle · « **on:** March 13, 2006, 11:58:15 AM »

After seeing a clip or two of the Australian version of Hangman, it seems like the luck of the wheel is even more a factor there than it is here.

The winner of the show is the person who won the most money. Money doesn't reset after each round, and you only get the value of the spin if you get multiple letters. The prizes won for solving the puzzles don't factor in when determining the winner.

That makes it seem like the only way to win the game is to spin the top dollar value lots, and call right letters lots. Solving the puzzles are secondary to not spinning bankrupt.

Did I manage to miss some important part of the game entirely?

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2006, 12:00:22 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 11:58 AM\']Did I manage to miss some important part of the game entirely?

[snapback]112657[/snapback]

[/quote]
From what I've seen, that's pretty much it. Kinda backwards to me, but their toilets flush the wrong way, so I'm not surprised. :-)

Brandon Brooks

weaklink75 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2006, 12:08:14 PM »

Well solving the puzzle is important, as it makes your score up to that point safe from a bankrupt later on. And since you only get the value of the space regardless of how many times the letter appears (unless you hit the red letter in each round which doubles it), it sort of negates some of the top dollar landings (a person can't get a gigantic lead on a larger puzzle with an early top dollar spin with 6 or 7 of a letter)...

Also the fact that the more money you have at the end (and it should be called points instead of money, since a puzzle solve gets prizes, not money), the more letters you get for the bonus round, it does encourage more spinning.

Gus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2006, 12:17:43 PM »

I believe if you solve a puzzle, your score can only go back to that much if you hit a bankrupt, but if you haven't solved one and hit a bankrupt, it goes down to 0. I'm guessing the ep you saw was the one from 30th January on YouTube...

SPOILER FOLLOWS!

...While all the players I think got to solve puzzles, since Sara hit the 750 a couple times to start and never hit a bankrupt, she ended up with the most money, and therefore won.

SPOILER PRECEDES!

I hadn't been paying attention to the scores as each letter was called; I knew you only got x1 if you got multiple letters, but do you really get x0 if you get just one?

EDIT: Oop. I started writing the message before weaklink's response, and took a little break before I posted it, and I see he said the same thing I did kinda.

bandit_bobby · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2006, 04:35:12 PM »

That format is totally screwed up.

clemon79 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2006, 04:39:52 PM »

[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 01:35 PM\']That format is totally screwed up.

[snapback]112675[/snapback]

[/quote]
Glad you think so. Now tell us why.

(Yeah, I know, won't happen.)

Because it's not the same as the show you appear to live your entire life in front of? I think it's an interesting change, myself. Not paying off every occurrence of a letter keeps the games closer and leaves less reliance on luck, you're encouraged to take risks in the front game you might not take in order to improve your standing in the endgame, and they don't seem to think it's necessary to give away eleventy billion dollars every night.

My kind of show, personally. I look forward to my friend returning from her trip to Australia a great deal.

J.R. · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2006, 05:16:44 PM »

[quote name=\'Gus\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 12:17 PM\']do you really get x0 if you get just one?

[snapback]112660[/snapback]

[/quote]

Nope. The player does score if at least one letter shows up.

I'll say that the Australian format is confusing when you first watch it, but once you figure it out, it really makes a lot of sense. It must be working, it has been on the air for over 25 years there.

-Joe R.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2006, 06:12:05 PM »

Something I forgot to mention when the first episode was linked a couple of weeks ago--they plugged the car THREE times! Okay, that's out of my system now.

Another benefit of not multiplying spins is that I'm not encouraged to yell at people who take one more turn after they obviously know the puzzle, pick a letter that's NOT the one with the most occurrences in the puzzle, and solve. Someone last week, during a speed-up round, threw away $12,000 doing that.

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2006, 08:22:10 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 04:39 PM\']Because it's not the same as the show you appear to live your entire life in front of? I think it's an interesting change, myself. Not paying off every occurrence of a letter keeps the games closer and leaves less reliance on luck, you're encouraged to take risks in the front game you might not take in order to improve your standing in the endgame, and they don't seem to think it's necessary to give away eleventy billion dollars every night.

[snapback]112676[/snapback]

[/quote]
I disagree... not with your characterization of banditbobby's rampant idiocy, it'll never get any better for him.. Australian WOF is more reliant upon luck since you can't really time your letter picking in order to get big money. I guess it makes games less predictable, but to me, it does seem a little off. I do like it, nonetheless. Larry Emdur ain't half bad for a WOF rookie.

Brandon Brooks

pownster · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2006, 08:48:34 PM »

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 08:22 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 04:39 PM\']Because it's not the same as the show you appear to live your entire life in front of? I think it's an interesting change, myself. Not paying off every occurrence of a letter keeps the games closer and leaves less reliance on luck, you're encouraged to take risks in the front game you might not take in order to improve your standing in the endgame, and they don't seem to think it's necessary to give away eleventy billion dollars every night.

[snapback]112676[/snapback]

[/quote]
I disagree... not with your characterization of banditbobby's rampant idiocy, it'll never get any better for him.. Australian WOF is more reliant upon luck since you can't really time your letter picking in order to get big money. I guess it makes games less predictable, but to me, it does seem a little off. I do like it, nonetheless. Larry Emdur ain't half bad for a WOF rookie.

Brandon Brooks

[snapback]112730[/snapback]

[/quote]

I think the longevity of the show in this country is as a result of the "entertainment" value of the format and the fact home viewers can play along - not the big prizes on offer. The rules of our version of the game haven't changed much over 25 years - and viewers have essentially demanded that. When the format was revamped in 1996 - viewers swiched off in droves - and so the original rules were reinstated (albeit without the shopping rounds). I think the fundamentals of our game is right for our market, and it is what viewers are used to (and accepting of). One must remember that WOF is probably watched by 500,000 nationally at the most each night - so everything must be scaled down to keep the show financially viable. And it should be said - the prizes on offer ain't that bad. They have done all this - and the show flourishes after 25 years. If the format is right - and viewers continue to watch the show - that's all that matters!

tvwxman · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2006, 08:53:40 PM »

[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 08:48 PM\']The rules of our version of the game haven't changed much over 25 years - and viewers have essentially demanded that. When the format was revamped in 1996 - viewers swiched off in droves - and so the original rules were reinstated (albeit without the shopping rounds).

[snapback]112738[/snapback]

[/quote]

I've often read about this disasterous change in rules...but never knew what they were....can you give details? Thanks as always for the Aussie stories!

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2006, 09:30:15 PM »

[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 08:48 PM\']I think the longevity of the show in this country is as a result of the "entertainment" value of the format and the fact home viewers can play along - not the big prizes on offer. The rules of our version of the game haven't changed much over 25 years - and viewers have essentially demanded that. When the format was revamped in 1996 - viewers swiched off in droves - and so the original rules were reinstated (albeit without the shopping rounds). I think the fundamentals of our game is right for our market, and it is what viewers are used to (and accepting of). One must remember that WOF is probably watched by 500,000 nationally at the most each night - so everything must be scaled down to keep the show financially viable. And it should be said - the prizes on offer ain't that bad. They have done all this - and the show flourishes after 25 years. If the format is right - and viewers continue to watch the show - that's all that matters!

[snapback]112738[/snapback]

[/quote]
Believe me, I think it's awful that our WOF offers gobs and gobs of money that in ways can cloud the actual game. However, I don't understand the reasoning for the changes from the American format from the get go. Hey, if it works for you all, I ain't bitchin'...

However, to piggyback off of Connecti-Matt, what were these changes made in 1996?

Brandon Brooks

JasonA1 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2006, 09:45:45 PM »

Stealing from the Australian WoF Page:

Number of rounds changed, a general knowledge question was asked to determine who went first, they got rid of the prize on the wheel, the surprise, the red letter bonus, and the prize shop at the end of a round - instead awarding a set prize to a puzzle solver. They also abolished the frozen score for solving a puzzle - your points were at risk throughout the entire show. Plus, the famous golden prize wheel was replaced by something resembling our W-H-E-E-L envelope endgame.

-Jason

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2006, 10:48:17 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Mar 13 2006, 09:45 PM\']Stealing from the Australian WoF Page:

Number of rounds changed, a general knowledge question was asked to determine who went first, they got rid of the prize on the wheel, the surprise, the red letter bonus, and the prize shop at the end of a round - instead awarding a set prize to a puzzle solver. They also abolished the frozen score for solving a puzzle - your points were at risk throughout the entire show. Plus, the famous golden prize wheel was replaced by something resembling our W-H-E-E-L envelope endgame.

[snapback]112764[/snapback]

[/quote]
Well, I know why it didn't work. All of the rules except for the last one were just friggin' stupid.

Brandon Brooks

TLEberle · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2006, 12:47:11 AM »

The thing that sticks out in my mind is that the game becomes a giant spinning battle, as opposed to solving the puzzle. The thing that gets to me is that I want so badly to enjoy the show: it has a feel that the American version had in the 1980s. It could certainly be chalked up to different ways of doing something.