Author Topic: If Pyramid were to come back again... (Read 9752 times)

TLEberle · « **Reply #30 on:** July 18, 2006, 10:09:42 PM »

I would have no problem with $25,000 for each conquering of the Pyramid, stay on until defeated in the main game. I'm sure some people I know would also like this, because they could make "Pyramid contestant" their second job.

The only change I'd make would be to double the consolation money on the Pyramid. Everything else including the "7-11" and "Mystery Seven" are fine as is.

ITSBRY · « **Reply #31 on:** July 19, 2006, 06:15:11 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'124371\' date=\'Jul 17 2006, 03:51 PM\']
Really. Every single "enhancement" to this show, from the day that Dick Clark stepped away from the podium, has made the show poorer... 6-in-20.
[/quote]
I do think 6-in-20 made the front game more interesting and more challenging.

Was it broke with 7-in-30? Well, no but getting 6-in-20 did add a bit more nail-biting action for me that wasn't present in the later episodes of 80s Pyramid when perfect games were very common. 6-in-20 was a nice new wrinkle...not because it "fixed" anything, but just because it made good game play stand out a little more. You really have to be on it to get 6 words in 20 seconds!

Saying that it made the show poorer was a strong statement that surprised me a little. I'd be interested to hear your reasons for putting it that way.

Donny's Pyramid had it's OKAY points, but they ruined the one thing that made (my personal opinion here) 80s Pyramid the best executed version of the best game show ever....THE WINNER'S CIRCLE. Had they gotten that right, I could have overlooked the other flaws.

Fedya · « **Reply #32 on:** July 19, 2006, 11:04:51 PM »

I can't speak for anybody else, but I didn't like the 6-in-20 in part because it got the game backwards: the front game shouldn't be ridiculously easy, but it should be easier than the Winner's Circle -- and maybe help the celebrities look good, too. The Winner's Circle should then be the challenge.

Osmond's Pyramid reversed this, making the front game look very tough, and the Winner's Circle easy by comparison.

Also, 6-in-20 places a much higher premium on the material writers (yet another area where the Osmond Pyramid got it wrong). In the 70s and 80s, if you got stuck on a difficult word early on, it was usually possible to come back for at least a 4, or even a 5. Stick the wrong word early in the list under the 6-in-20 rules, and a team gets stuck with a 1 or a 2. This led to too many games which ended after five categories (and some that ended after four).

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #33 on:** July 21, 2006, 01:03:47 PM »

Quote

I've always thought that the whole "on your second trip it's worth _________" is a complication not worth having. It was goofy back on the $20,000 version--where it just seemed cheap that most of the time they weren't playing for $20,000--and it was goofy on Donny's. At least when the jump is from 10 to 25,000 it's significant, but still, I say figure out the prize budget and offer the same amount every time. (Except for tournaments, of course.)

Re the $20,000 Pyramid - would it have worked better if the first trip was worth $20k, the second $15, and the third and any thereafter $10?

clemon79 · « **Reply #34 on:** July 21, 2006, 01:17:08 PM »

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'124680\' date=\'Jul 21 2006, 10:03 AM\']
Re the $20,000 Pyramid - would it have worked better if the first trip was worth $20k, the second $15, and the third and any thereafter $10?
[/quote]
Uh, no. How do you think it looks on TV to say "Hey, you get to play another game, and if you win, you'll be right back here in the Winner's Circle...but only for $10,000."

(Answer: bad.)

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #35 on:** July 21, 2006, 08:27:44 PM »

I'm honestly amazed that Stewart went with the structure he did for $20K Pyramid. What would have been better, IMO, for both his budget and for not keeping extra money away from the best players: every trip worth $10K, but you can win it twice before retiring. It's no more disingenuous to call that a "$20,000 win" than it is to call any of the syndie wins in the '70s "$25,000 wins".

Jay Temple · « **Reply #36 on:** July 29, 2006, 01:31:15 AM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'124423\' date=\'Jul 18 2006, 09:32 AM\']
I've always thought that the whole "on your second trip it's worth _________" is a complication not worth having. It was goofy back on the $20,000 version--where it just seemed cheap that most of the time they weren't playing for $20,000--and it was goofy on Donny's. At least when the jump is from 10 to 25,000 it's significant, but still, I say figure out the prize budget and offer the same amount every time. (Except for tournaments, of course.)
[/quote]
Exactamundo. My wrinkle, if the budget can support it: Play for $1,000 times your main-game score, excluding tie-breaker rounds. Either play every round all the way out, or have a stipulation for when you only need 1-2 on your last turn to win.

clemon79 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 29, 2006, 05:31:51 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'125591\' date=\'Jul 28 2006, 10:31 PM\']
Exactamundo. My wrinkle, if the budget can support it: Play for $1,000 times your main-game score, excluding tie-breaker rounds. Either play every round all the way out,
[/quote]
...which kills the dramatic finish...

Quote

or have a stipulation for when you only need 1-2 on your last turn to win.

If your rule needs an exception....c'mon, say it with me, class..."IT'S NOT A GOOD RULE!"