Trying to reply to several pages’ worth at once, so by all means ignore any redundancies…
Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.
It might, or it might not. Depends on what the reason is, and if anyone knew, it’d be posted by now.
No, it doesn't. I still haven't heard a good explanation -- or even a bad explanation -- for how it makes sense to give any contestant who doesn't care about the prizes $500 just for getting onstage.
Because you didn’t know they wouldn’t want to win or you wouldn’t have called them down in the first place. Given contestants who want to win the game, the new rule seems more natural. Given contestants who don’t want to win the game, almost any game on the show is spoiled…
Why would anybody NOT want to win the prizes?? Even if they don't want them, they can still sell them. Have you ever heard of anybody deliberately trying to lose a game???
It happens, but it’s very rare. Of course, Make Your Mark is different than, say, Push Over, in that there’s an incentive to make the “wrong” choice (any other game, you can simply play to win anyway, and decline the prize, but it was really there all along even though the odds weren’t as good. Someone who doesn’t want the prizes doesn’t want them, and would probably take the slightly-better-than-1:4 chance at the cash anyway.
Yes. I've seen episodes where I'm pretty darn sure somebody intentionally overbid on the second showcase so that they wouldn't have to win prizes they didn't want.
It’s different in the showcases; there, deliberately losing is simply being generous to your opponent.
And we're gonna see it in Barker's Marker$, too, if the explanation ends up boiling down -- and it will -- to "If you leave the marker where it is, you'll win $500 no matter what happens, but if you move it and you're wrong, you won't win anything."
If they choose to say it like that, then of course it will be a change for the worse. But then that would be a matter of poor *presentation*, not a game flaw. Then again, I always enjoyed “Let’s Make a Deal”.
You didn't read the first part of my argument, I see. Are you willing to guarantee yourself $500 at the expensive of looking like a complete asshat?
The only way you (or the game) would look bad is if you *say* you’re leaving it because you don't want the prizes. If you instead say you think it’s right the way it is, or just that you don’t want to swap, you at worst look like you’ve made a mistake. And how much does it really matter if someone loses on purpose as long as it looks like they were trying?
there is now no incentive to bother playing it if you don't want the prizes.
…AND THERE NEVER WAS. Under the old rule, did you get anything besides the prizes you didn’t want anyway for switching? No. The only way you had a chance at anything else was if you stuck by your original choice. Which is still true; only your odds are improved.
Ignoring what the rules have actually been the last umpteen years, if the $500 were earned in some way (say, a Secret X/Pathfinder style SP), would you then prefer the rest of the game under the new rules or the old?
