Author Topic: Million Second Quiz Afterthoughts (Read 13965 times)

tvmitch · « **on:** September 20, 2013, 01:01:57 PM »

So now that the Million Second Quiz is over...

I\'ve had discussions with co-workers and others about why the format of this show didn\'t work, and it brings about the easy format comparison to Millionaire. A few shows have tried to make this very specific sort of format work, where two contestants \"battle\" with multiple-choice questions under a set (limited) time limit. I can\'t recall a format that has done this well. When it\'s a single player against the house, it\'s an easy format (Millionaire), but adding a second player has proven troublesome. (I really liked Duel, for instance, but that show was not meant to be for any number of reasons.)

I thought this question would be a good way to frame the discussion: What are three things you would change to improve Million Second Quiz for a hypothetical season 2? Can changes be made to make this battle format work well on TV?

clemon79 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2013, 01:15:30 PM »

What are three things you would change to improve Million Second Quiz for a hypothetical season 2?

Here\'s my follow-up question: how many posts do you think we\'ll get through before someone fails to read the word \"three\"?

beatlefreak84 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 20, 2013, 01:24:24 PM »

Good question!

I\'ll preface my response with this: The TV format, actually, was kind of cool. At first, the \"Double Dare\" mechanic seemed a little tacked-on, but, after watching some very close matches and some \"poker faces,\" I liked having unlimited \"Doublers\" present.

But, that does bring me to my first change:

1. Keep the doublers, but don\'t increase the point values of questions as time goes on. I didn\'t really like that questions at the end were worth way more points than those at the beginning, though I can see why that was done from a \"can he/she come back\" kind of thing.

2. Whatever is done on TV, should be done for the web-only games, too. I did enjoy watching the live feeds, but it was an extremely boring format, and, once someone got a 3-4 point lead, that pretty much meant the game was a foregone conclusion. At least, with the Doublers in play, it would have made those matches a bit more strategic and not just \"Person A, what was your answer? Person B, what was your answer?\"

3. I like the idea of some sort of consolation prize for those who get in the Money Chair, win a bunch of bouts, but never qualify for Winner\'s Row. Before, I had suggested $100/bout, but you could even do it based on time, say, $500 or $1,000/hour.

So, YMMV, but those are my three. Attack.

Anthony

NickS · « **Reply #3 on:** September 20, 2013, 01:30:11 PM »

A) More cameras in the 23/7 feed. If this is going to be Big Brother-ish, have a way that you can isolate some of the drama if someone gets close to the fourth player on WR or if there\'s shenanigans going on in WR (i.e. plotting against Devin because he wasn\'t one of \"the four\"), some people might want to watch that versus pre-casting row.

B) Yes, more from a production standpoint, but if there weren\'t cameras fixated on each player\'s podium\'s to make sure that there wasn\'t a lock-in error, they need this. I know, I know, judges\' rulings are final but with all the videos on social media after the Hailey moment, MDQ comes back and says, \"welp, here you go\" with their video (and Brendan Shanahan cameo explaining why) and it\'s done. Over.

C) Simplify the game play. I go back to a twitter analogy: if you can\'t explain the rules in less than a tweet or two, it\'s probably too complex.

colonial · « **Reply #4 on:** September 20, 2013, 01:42:12 PM »

A) Instead of making qualification essentially \"score 3500 points on the app and we\'ll consider you,\" reach out to NBC affiliates and set up \"regional\" qualifications at area hotspots. Good promotion for the show and the affiliates, and can work at removing the \"New York-centric\" casting of the series.

B) Big Brother has a three-hour \"after dark\" show on TVGN. Why can\'t MSQ have a \"best of the online games\" on an NBC/Comcast cable channel? Put it on G4 or the soon-to-be Esquire Network. Perhaps use the NBC affiliate digital substations that broadcast weather loops and Antenna TV to show games as well.

C) One universal format for both online and television.

JD

clemon79 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 20, 2013, 01:45:24 PM »

Good promotion for the show and the affiliates, and can work at removing the \"New York-centric\" casting of the series.

By virtue of the \"c\'mon down and stand in line\" nature of the show, you weren\'t gonna get around this. And they obviously budgeted to fly in a single line-jumper per night, which makes sense, because there is no way I am going to fly in people to play online to next to no audience. Not worth the money.

I don\'t think your idea is a bad one necessarily, I just don\'t think the regionality of the game can be avoided.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #6 on:** September 20, 2013, 02:23:31 PM »

I never caught any of the online-only broadcasts, so I can\'t comment one way or another, and won\'t go into criticizing what so many others have. Therefore, I only have two suggestions.

1. Limit the number of doubles...I remember watching the second episode, where the contestant basically started hitting the double out of sheer desperation and hoping he could eventually catch up (he did...somewhat). While it wasn\'t a bad tactic, I would love to see more contestants use the doubles as a strategy, kinda like using the \"LONGSHOT\" on Whew! Give them 2 or 3, and maybe add an extra one during the last 30 seconds of the match.

2. Definitely offer an incentive for winning a match. I suggested $250/win, and a $100 consolation for runners-up. Maybe even $500/250, but the 250/100 is just fine IMO. $100 is still dinner in the city and a subway pass home or a tank of gas. :-)

oaklandfan2kx · « **Reply #7 on:** September 20, 2013, 02:34:07 PM »

I hope that Season 2 of the Million Second Quiz will take place live before or after the 2014 Winter Olympics which will take place in Sochi, Russia, I hope we can see the ratings increase before or after the Olympics occurs!

MikeK · « **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2013, 02:55:06 PM »

1. The line jumpers. Something irked me quite a bit about the lady who line jumped and walked away with ~$270,000 because she was in the chair at the end and beat someone who had accumulated more than $250,000.

2. Getting ringers on the show. Going through the trivia Rolodex and attempting to get Ken Jennings plus other heavyweights in the trivia world sounds like the producers/the powers that be at NBC were grasping at straws to boost the ratings. Bringing in ringers kills off the \"anybody can play and win\" aspect, since apparently anybody can play, but if you did real well on Jeopardy! or Millionaire, it certainly helps your chances at getting an opportunity to play. One reason Millionaire was amazing back in the day was the \"anybody can play and win\" aspect. Getting a name player because you can <> good TV.

3. Get the rules down pat and in a coherent form before the cameras start rolling. I only watched the first episode and last night, as the confusing, almost arbitrarily tacked on rules on the premiere made it look like they didn\'t have their stuff straight before going live. The reasons I watched last night\'s show are I was curious how they were going to handle the ultimate payoff, and I can only take so much bland baseball and MSQ was the only semi-interesting option on TV. (Good job, maybe playoff-bound Indians, but you barely beat the 100-loss Astros in extra innings last night in your home park.)

That Don Guy · « **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2013, 03:48:49 PM »

1. Have the same time limit for each bout, except (maybe) for Winners Defense and the \"$2,000,000 tournament.\"

2. Don\'t give the person in the chair all of the Winners Row player\'s money if he wins a Winners Defense bout. It seems too easy to rig it so the people the producers/NBC want to be on Winners Row end up there; that\'s how the 1950s game show scandals started. I wouldn\'t be surprised if they saved the best woman they could find among the home players for the final line jumper spot in order to decrease the chance of having an all-male final four (\"oh, great, another knowledge/trivia event dominated by men - what a surprise\").

3. Get rid of stalling for time at the end - replace the last 100 seconds with a fixed number of questions (maybe increase the point value as you go through them - e.g. with 10 questions, the first four are worth 4, the next three 5, the next two 6, and the final one 7).

As for some of the other responses, I think \"limiting the number of doubles\" is going to be treated like the time the NCAA changed the basketball rules so that all fouls near the end of the game were 2-shot fouls; people aren\'t going to like it because it prevents comebacks. Maybe a rule along the lines of \"if you double and your opponent is correct, you can\'t double the next question (but if your opponent doubles it, you can double back)\" would work better, or perhaps the doubling player must also answer, and gets only the \"normal\" number of points if both players are wrong.

Oh, and can I throw in a suggestion (technically it\'s not an improvement as it didn\'t apply to the first season)? Don\'t have the Season 1 winner automatically advance to the Season 2 final (the way ABC Password and syndicated The Joker\'s Wild did in its tournaments). Maybe they can have him start the million seconds in the chair (which technically means he would be the first onto Winners Row as well when he loses), but he has to earn his way into the finals like everybody else.

clemon79 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2013, 03:58:20 PM »

I really, truly fail to see why clock management is an issue, especially with a five second shot clock. If they are smart enough to use it to their advantage, bully for them.

Don Howard · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2013, 05:01:54 PM »

Less behind-the-scenes stuff; more game play.

(Good job, maybe playoff-bound Indians, but you barely beat the 100-loss Astros in extra innings last night in your home park.)

Thankfully, Matt Carson effectively used his Doubler.

I was afraid I was going to have to pull out another Flashback \'82.

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2013, 07:09:37 PM »

Good promotion for the show and the affiliates, and can work at removing the \"New York-centric\" casting of the series.
By virtue of the \"c\'mon down and stand in line\" nature of the show, you weren\'t gonna get around this. And they obviously budgeted to fly in a single line-jumper per night, which makes sense, because there is no way I am going to fly in people to play online to next to no audience. Not worth the money.I don\'t think your idea is a bad one necessarily, I just don\'t think the regionality of the game can be avoided.

I think you\'re right to an extent, but I don\'t think there would be anything wrong with having smaller remote locations across the country (call them qualifying stations, or what have you) where they can find their line jumpers for New York. Face it, if you didn\'t fly out to NYC or be selected as one of a handful of the bajillion people who scored 3500 points on the app, you had no shot to play.

I guess that counts as one, so here\'s a couple more:

I didn\'t like the all or nothing of the Winner\'s Defense, since the defender has everything to lose. Maybe you treat it like a poker game- whatever the challenger\'s total is at the time of the Winner\'s Defense is their \"all in\" and the Top 4 player chosen for the bout has to put up the same amount in a pot. Whoever wins the match wins the pot and the Money Chair. Theoretically, it could keep a Top 4 player from losing their entire lot and spot (like last night) to a player who had everything to gain. This way, a challenger gets a chance to easily double up and keep playing without making the game totally unfair.

I would be all for taking the game down to a dollar a second and letting every person who gets in the Money Chair keep his or her winnings. At the end, give the Final Four bonus money based on their final tourney standings.

TLEberle · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2013, 07:23:58 PM »

To piggyback on Jeremy\'s point: I don\'t know what the intent was, but it looked awful to have Brandon \"miss out\" on the $2.2 million bonus and be depressed about it, as opposed to elated at winning $330,000.

I think this would be fine as a daily half-hour show. Let the players play the game as it was on air (and ditch the off-air bouts with different rules) pile up $100 a point and the top winners come back at the end of a thirteen week period to double their money and get to play again.

The game was largely OK, I didn\'t care for the trappings.

clemon79 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2013, 07:57:35 PM »

but it looked awful to have Brandon \"miss out\" on the $2.2 million bonus and be depressed about it, as opposed to elated at winning $330,000.

Okay, but what are you gonna do? A nineteen-year-old kid who by his own admission hasn\'t been away from his folks for more than a couple days at a shot up until a week and a half ago had a moment of immaturity.

Maybe I\'m reading the vibes wrong, but the vibe I am getting from the assemblage here is that they want to lay the blame for that at someone\'s feet, and I just don\'t see where you can lay it.