TPiR Season 37 changes

[Fedya]

[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194930\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 07:27 AM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194923\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 04:28 AM\']Why in the hell is adding the cash bonus to 1/2 off a bad thing?  The game sucked as it was created originally--"Hey, you got all 3 prices right; but you aren't lucky. Enjoy your $11 foot massager".[/quote]

I don't get the luck argument.  Half of the games have at least some element of luck - Plinko, Cover Up, Switcheroo, Squeeze Play, Pick A Number, Golden Road, Three Strikes, Dice Game, Secret X, Lucky 7, Punchboard, Bonkers, etc etc etc.
[/quote]
If you know the price exactly, there's no luck element in several of the games you mention.

However, even in Half Off, if you get all three prizes right, there's still a 50% chance you win no cash, which is the big reason I dislike the game.  (I also dislike Secret X, and I'm probably the one person who doesn't like Plinko either.)

If you want to have a cash bonus, one way to go about it would be to have the $10,000 in one box, and something like $500 in another box.  If you get all three prizes right, you're guaranteed the $500, since it will be in one of the two boxes remaining.  (Not that this is a perfect solution, of course.)

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194931\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:05 AM\']
That said, I still don't like games being changed and/or retired.[/quote]
Well, there you go then.  This is exactly what the people on the other side of your argument have been saying.  You simply don't like it when they change a game.  If you go into the argument with that as your starting position, then I'm sure you'll be able to find evidence to support your argument.  That's what Debate Club is all about, being able to argue a position regardless of what the position is.  It's also how the legal system and talk radio works.  You have a position because it's the position you want or need to have and then fit the evidence to that opinion.

Objectively, I'm looking at these minor changes on Three Strikes, Make Your Mark and Half-Off, and I ask myself whether anybody would consider the game "broken" if those were the rules when it premiered.  And so far, I haven't found any that fail that simple test.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194944\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:52 AM\']Objectively, I'm looking at these minor changes on Three Strikes, Make Your Mark and Half-Off, and I ask myself whether anybody would consider the game "broken" if those were the rules when it premiered.  And so far, I haven't found any that fail that simple test.[/quote]
In the cases of 3 Strikes and 1/2 Off?  No.  The games have been changed for the worse, but they're not broken.

In the case of Barker's Marker$?  Hell yes.

[tpirfan28]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'194943\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:41 AM\']
...and I'm probably the one person who doesn't like Plinko either.)[/quote]Nosir.  I also dislike Plinko.  Too much blind-assed luck for me.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194944\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:52 AM\']
Objectively, I'm looking at these minor changes on Three Strikes, Make Your Mark and Half-Off, and I ask myself whether anybody would consider the game "broken" if those were the rules when it premiered.  And so far, I haven't found any that fail that simple test.
[/quote]
I find Three Strikes' rule changes pretty major.  One playing had a higher strike to number ratio, and another made the game "too easy" to play for luxury cars.

Check Game's change?  Inflation.
Punch and Bunch and Make Your Mark?  Bizarre, but I understand.
Half Off?  Eh.

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194923\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 04:28 AM\']
Why in the hell is adding the cash bonus to 1/2 off a bad thing?  The game sucked as it was created originally--"Hey, you got all 3 prices right; but you aren't lucky. Enjoy your $11 foot massager".
[/quote]

Chiming in here for the first time.

Am I the only one who thinks that giving money away as a consolation prize is wrong? I mean, I get that you want to give them something for not winning the big prize, but isn't that the point of the one-bid prize won on contestants row?

I always, since day one of the show, looked at the pricing game as a bonus. Either win it or lose it, but that's that. You want to give away small prizes for partial wins on "Any Number", "Race Game", "Step Up", heck, even give away the grocery products plugged? Fine. But once you throw in money for "1/2 off" just because you weren't lucky in picking a correct number, then it loses something in the process.

Which is why , yes, I think in the hell addding the cash bonus to 1/2 off a bad thing. And I don't think the game sucked as it was created orignally. My Consolidation of Suck (tm) goes to "More or Less".

[TheLastResort]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'194943\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:41 AM\']
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194930\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 07:27 AM\']I don't get the luck argument.  Half of the games have at least some element of luck - Plinko, Cover Up, Switcheroo, Squeeze Play, Pick A Number, Golden Road, Three Strikes, Dice Game, Secret X, Lucky 7, Punchboard, Bonkers, etc etc etc.
[/quote]
If you know the price exactly, there's no luck element in several of the games you mention.[/quote]

Well that's never going to happen, so there is always luck involved in those games.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194948\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 09:29 AM\']
In the case of Barker's Marker$?  Hell yes.[/quote]
You have yet to successfully back up this statement in any fashion that isn't ad verecundiam.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'194964\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 12:24 PM\']
And he probably never will.[/quote]
Weenie words. You know better.

I am absolutely willing to give consideration to an argument that isn't some flavor of "This is broken because I say it is, and I'm a Price expert so it must be true."

And I'm not going to say "and that will never happen" or "but he's not capable of one" because I don't believe that to be true. I will simply leave it at that and let his future actions dictate the necessity of further discussion.

So perhaps it's best to move on, because he just doesn't Get It.

You've been quite the Thread Cop of late.

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194931\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:05 AM\']The point being made is that you have a chance to win $10,000.  Perfect pricing doesn't guarantee a win in Punch a Bunch or Plinko, so what's the need for 1/2 Off?  I mean, all those chips could fall into the 0 slot, so wouldn't it make sense to award someone $500 for each chip they win?[/quote]
Well, if you're going to make arguments based on what is and isn't guaranteed, I can't disagree. But a whole heck of a lot of contestants get to walk away from a Punch-a-Bunch loss with $500 or $1,000, and a whole heck of a lot of contestants get to walk away from a Plinko loss (aka "from Plinko") with a couple thousand dollars.

So if one's argument is, rather, "our other luck-based cash games have a bit of a cushion for when things don't go well for the contestant, and 1/2 Off doesn't, and maybe we should change that", it looks quite a bit different to me.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194968\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 01:51 PM\']Well, if you're going to make arguments based on what is and isn't [/quote]I think much of the barrier here is that there are different ways to perceive all of the different outcomes. For one, I never looked at the "pricing game" part as a bonus, or the one-bid prize as the "consolation prize" if you lose the car or cash. But it's a valid way to look at things. For every position that someone can take pertaining to the show, there's a just as reasonable way to look at it from another angle.

If those who have their heels in the trenches were willing to back away from their preconceived notions and say "I never thought about it that way," we'd be a lot farther along.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194969\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 05:45 PM\']If those who have their heels in the trenches were willing to back away from their preconceived notions and say "I never thought about it that way," we'd be a lot farther along.[/quote]
Very well said (the rest of it too).

I don't even think you have to go that far.  Just "I see your point".  As always around here, the problem is that people are expressing things in extremes.  And often, completely ignoring what the other side is saying.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194973\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 03:16 PM\']
I don't even think you have to go that far.  Just "I see your point".[/quote]
The problem is that, around here, "I see your point" often isn't good enough; it has to be appended with "and I agree with it" or "and you're an authority so I feel no need to challenge you to defend it."

[TroubadourNando]

I defer to Matt, just wanting to add that if the fringes on both sides calmed down, I think we could all agree that the debates over the technical aspects of the games that we've had lately HAVE been pretty interesting and informative.

[tpirfan28]

Just so everyone is aware, there probably will be a new Liberty Medical commercial during the show, featuring our good buddy Wilford Brimley and a catchy tune.  I saw it earlier today.

Because of this change, I refuse to watch the show now.

[ClockGameJohn]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194968\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 04:51 PM\']Well, if you're going to make arguments based on what is and isn't guaranteed, I can't disagree. But a whole heck of a lot of contestants get to walk away from a Punch-a-Bunch loss with $500 or $1,000, and a whole heck of a lot of contestants get to walk away from a Plinko loss (aka "from Plinko") with a couple thousand dollars.[/quote]

Let's look at the issue with 1/2 Off offering a 50/50 chance at $10,000 for perfect pricing.  If we changed it to say "You win $10,000 if you correctly price these 3 sets of prizes" would that seem reasonable?  I, of course, say not.

That's just part of the game.  We all know each game offers different odds, each has it's own niche.  I do not disagree.

I am a traditionalist, perhaps because I feel I understand the show and the reasons behind it.  Much like some of the people here, someone [at the Production Company/CBS/Fremantle] thinks they can make a remarkable change to a show and it will be successful.  The fact is, the show has been successful for decades.

There have been people who have wanted to get their paws on the controls for many years, and couldn't until Barker/Dobkowitz were gone.  Now there is more freedom.

Changing the rules to 3 Strikes...twice in two weeks -- whereas the rules were just fine before the changes.  Some people won, some people lost.

What exactly are we accomplishing besides confusion?

Trust me when I say that what we see on TV in the beginning of Season 37 will be generally what the viewing audience is used to.  Behind the scenes, not so much.  I just worry when it starts to spill over.