Worst scoring flaw?

[Eric Paddon]

The fact that you had to lose twice in order to achieve the top prize on $20,000 Pyramid always rubbed me the wrong way.

Not to mention the fact that the longer you stayed, you faced a situation where you were playing to just "round up" your winnings instead of getting $20,000 ADDED to your winnings up to that point.   All your bonuses and previous failed tries in effect meant you were devaluing the moment when you finally paid off.

[JasonA1]

Wordplay had a very quirky scoring system, as I recall. The connecting dollar values for correct guesses, if applicable, was a different way to build one's score, but not knowing what the hidden values were before the reveal seemed like a crap shoot, especially in the later rounds. 

Good a time as any to link to this Wordplay thread where Chris Holland broke down a couple dozen episodes and revealed the challenger had a huge advantage in getting to pick the last word of the main game.

I hated that the Golden Medley Showdown stopped the clock more often than the last two minutes of a basketball game, it made the scoring much more fair in that regard. In '84 you could have used that for Round 3, then made the bonus round the $10,000 Mystery Tune.

Also, creepy disco dancers aside, the 1978 revival is still the best NTT iteration.

I saw what felt like far too many Golden Medley Showdowns where it's 10 to 2, but we still have another 10 tunes we can somehow play in 8 seconds. I wish they played to a goal with no countdown timer and/or declared whoever's ahead the winner after an unspoken segment time limit. But further, we already saw buzzing in to name tunes in Melody Roulette. So I'd have preferred Melody Roulette and Bid-a-Note be joined by any "both players write down titles simultaneously" game (like Sing-a-Tune) so the contestants got a chance to use different skills during the show.

-Jason

[chrisholland03]

Super Password's $100 puzzle is the first thing that comes to mind.

Body Language is what came to mind for me.

Y'know, I thought about both of these, Body Language specifically. But I argued against them if only because in both instances, it's paid practice until you get to the money that matters, which is still a very fair best 2 out of 3.

As a kid watching these were the two that immediately came to mind.  As an adult watching, I recognized what Jeremy did - it was paid practice.

[Dbacksfan12]

Super Password's $100 puzzle is the first thing that comes to mind.

Body Language is what came to mind for me.

Y'know, I thought about both of these, Body Language specifically. But I argued against them if only because in both instances, it's paid practice until you get to the money that matters, which is still a very fair best 2 out of 3.

As a kid watching these were the two that immediately came to mind.  As an adult watching, I recognized what Jeremy did - it was paid practice.

The cynic in me says it’s a way to play the bonus round fewer times.

I’m a big fan of The Challengers, but not how they deducted money if someone went for it when all players selected the same category.

[Jeremy Nelson]

I’m a big fan of The Challengers, but not how they deducted money if someone went for it when all players selected the same category.

Nah, that’s no different to me than a Daily Double. You’ve got full agency over which questions you play and in which order, and there has to be a risk/reward element whether you’re leading and trying to extend, or trailing and trying to catch up. Run up, get done up.

[Mr. Matté]

DoorNumberFour's facebook post about the flawed scoring of NYSI74 got me thinking. Was that the worst scoring flaw in a game show? If not, what was?

Could you post a link or text of the post?

Re: Super Password, while the $100 is useless, as noted here it acts as a warmup for the new contestant(s). Itwas previously noted on this board that to get to the end game, the contestant has to win at least one puzzle in which they are giving the clues to the celeb.

Re:Body Language, that one is more flawed in that even though it is essentially 2 out of 3 wins, the tie breaker is the pantomimeless puzzle and is more greatly affected by who goes first since it starts with a blank slate and guessing the puzzle with only one blank filled is extremely hard (only the "Cookies" guess comes to mind with a one-clue solve). I guess it is similar to SP/P+ in that you might get the puzzle on a lucky one-clue guess, but there's still the element of having to play regular Password first.


One other thing related to Pyramid, not directly related to the scoring, is how you may play a perfect front game in the 80s version, but then are screwed out of a potential $5,000 (by winning the tiebreaker) because the other contestant misses one word. I wish it was something more like winning say one amount for getting the perfect score, and then maybe an additional bonus for winning the 21-21 tiebreaker .

[TLEberle]

It took a good five or six years, but the current run of Feud finally fixed the one-strike Triple round from the first several seasons. You could clean up as Jeremy said, then lose it all because the other family got hot at the right time.

I thought the one-strike triple round was marvelous and tense. It just has to be part of a race to a goal, not "that's it, most points wins".

[That Don Guy]

In terms of game balance, having the first two questions worth a point and the third worth twenty on The Cheap Show has to set the pace.

That's the first one that came to mind for me. Two others, although one was under very limited circumstances:

First, on the second season of $100,000 Name That Tune, the final of the tournament for the first season's Golden Medley winners that didn't already win $100,000 consisted of four rounds - IIRC, Melody Roulette for 10 points, Sing-A-Tune With Kathie Lee for 10 points, Bid-A-Note for 10 points and Golden Medley Showdown for 30. If the first two rounds were split, Bid-A-Note was just time filler.

Second, on You Deserve It, the tenth clue in a round was meaningless as the prize for that round would have to be reduced to zero in order to see it. I assume it was a carryover from a different rule in what I also assume was meant to be the first episode, where the contestant had to solve the puzzle correctly in order for the next round to be worth more.

[aaron sica]

Could you post a link or text of the post?

Yep! Sure can.

how did no one at G-T in the 70s realize that the way scores were calculated on Now You See It (line number + position) was wickedly unfair

[JasonA1]

One way to rationalize it -- and I'm not saying this is what they thought, or it's even a GOOD reason -- is if you scan the board from left to right, starting in the upper left, the first thing you see is easy to find, so it's worth 2 points (line 1, position 1). But a 2-letter answer in the bottom right corner takes a lot of looking, so it's worth more.

In actual practice, your eyes dart around, so if that happened to be the intent, it didn't come across. I have a soft spot for the 1989 version.

-Jason

[BillCullen1]

One way to rationalize it -- and I'm not saying this is what they thought, or it's even a GOOD reason -- is if you scan the board from left to right, starting in the upper left, the first thing you see is easy to find, so it's worth 2 points (line 1, position 1). But a 2-letter answer in the bottom right corner takes a lot of looking, so it's worth more.

In actual practice, your eyes dart around, so if that happened to be the intent, it didn't come across. I have a soft spot for the 1989 version.

-Jason

I totally agree with you on this.

[aaron sica]

The first one I ever spotted was HS86, during the first season. Each game was worth $500. If the same contestant won the first two games, the other contestant was basically screwed. They fixed this in season two with the third game being worth $1000.

[That Don Guy]

Here's one "in reverse":

Back on ABC LMAD, there was a game where two contestants tried to guess the price of an item, and whoever was closer won money; the amounts were 100, 200, 300, and 400, and if either contestant got 700, they won a car. The problem is, if one player gets both of the first two, then the third one becomes, "It doesn't matter what the first player does, but if the first player wins, they can screw the second player out of the car."

[PYLdude]

 How, on Beat The Clock in 1979, you could win all four stunts and lose the game with a bad slide in the bonus shuffle.

[Jeremy Nelson]

How, on Beat The Clock in 1979, you could win all four stunts and lose the game with a bad slide in the bonus shuffle.

I always thought the Bonus Shuffle, as weird a final game as it was, should have just added the shuffle winner's highest disc to the team's score to decide the winner. At least then, if your opponenets swept the front game, catching up would require a rare feat.