Author Topic: TJW (Read 11526 times)

clemon79 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 06, 2003, 03:17:19 PM »

[quote name=\'dmota104\' date=\'Jul 6 2003, 09:32 AM\'] if you answered a question correctly, the value of the spin is added to your score *AND* you get to spin again (this as opposed to alternating turns)

[/quote]
I can see a LOT of people losing on the first turn from someone running the board. No, thanks.

Quote

I always felt it was unfair when the first player would spin \"a three-way split\", using Cullen's terminology, and then, regardless of the result, the second player would spin a potential game-winning three jokers.

Tough! This is the \"Lady Luck is Queen\" part of the whole equation. You don't get the spins, bemoan your own bad luck, but don't call the format broken.

Dan Sadro · « **Reply #16 on:** July 06, 2003, 05:28:51 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 6 2003, 12:42 AM\'] The knock on the original bonus round (which I've never had a problem with, BTW) wasn't that there wasn't enough risk, it's that there was NO SKILL. Yours doesn't take any more skill, it's just luck in a different form. [/quote]
Well, entertain this. TonicBH touched lightly on it, but let's remove the risk from the endgame.

Rapid-fire questions -- 30 seconds, 45 seconds, I don't care. Each correct answer is worth one spin of the reels, and maybe give the contestant one free spin just for winning the game. No devils, but have a joker in each window. You spin $X-$Y-$Z, you win $(X+Y+Z). You spin $X-Joker-$Z, you win $(X+Z). You spin Joker-Joker-Joker, you win, and there is much celebrating. If after you've spun your spins you've reached a predetermined amount, you win the star prize and there is also much celebrating.

For convenience's sake, it might be an idea to keep the maingame win and endgame win goals the same... like from the first season of the original Family Feud.

clemon79 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 06, 2003, 08:06:17 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Jul 6 2003, 02:28 PM\'] Rapid-fire questions -- 30 seconds, 45 seconds, I don't care. Each correct answer is worth one spin of the reels, and maybe give the contestant one free spin just for winning the game. No devils, but have a joker in each window. You spin $X-$Y-$Z, you win $(X+Y+Z). You spin $X-Joker-$Z, you win $(X+Z). You spin Joker-Joker-Joker, you win, and there is much celebrating. If after you've spun your spins you've reached a predetermined amount, you win the star prize and there is also much celebrating.
[/quote]
Hmm. Not bad at all. I have a problem with a Joker being essentially a wasted window unless it comes up with two of his bretheren, tho. What about adding the following twists, as long as we're emulating the TJW '90 endgame:

* When a Joker comes up, it can be frozen, or not, at the player's discretion. (A player may not want to freeze a Joker if they feel they can reach the cash target, to keep that reel spinning to rake in more dough.)

Player wins if:

a) They acquire a set dollar amount, determined through much playtesting, in which case they win double the money and a prize package. (My point in doubling the pot is to encourage players not to freeze Jokers.)
b) They acquire three Jokers in a combination of spins, in which case they win the cash they have accumulated and the same prize package.
c) They spin three Jokers at once, in which case they win the prize package and clear out the Joker Jackpot, which should be set at some significant amount of money and incremented each time it is not won.

If you should fail, you get the cash accumulated to that point.

I don't _think_ I'm complicating things by doubling the pot on a win - it worked on Bullseye for the opposite winning condition - but I'm not sure I've set things up to make a player really _think_ about whether to freeze that Joker window or not. I'd be interested in arguments for and against and possible alternate payouts / win conditions to make that decision more interesting.

WorldClassRob · « **Reply #18 on:** July 07, 2003, 02:17:37 AM »

I'll sum all of this up in one idea to bring back TJW.

Stick with the original folks. Two contestants competing in an Q&A game with the players pulling a lever to activate the category machine.

Adjust the question values for inflation purposes.

Single categories (three different subjects); $100
Two of a kind and one different category; $200 for the pair or $100 for the other single category.
Three of a kind (aka natural triple); $400. ($500 in bonus money is awarded to anyone who spins a natrual triple and is theirs to keep regardless of the outcome of the game).

Of course the Jokers are Wild Cards and can be subsituted for any category.

If a player spins three jokers and he/she correctly answers a question from any category in play, that player automatically wins the game and $1,000.

The first person to reach $1,000 or more in PROPER turn wins (meaning if the challeger who spins reaches $1,000 first; the champion is given a final spin to either tie or win the game) In the event of a tie game, extra rounds are played until one is ahead after a completed round.

THE BONUS ROUND -- Just like the original. Money and devils on the wheels. Spin $2,000 or more on the wheels without the devil appearing and he/she wins the money and a fabulous prize or trip. Here's the catch: spin a natural triple at any time, the winning player will win $5,000 in cash and the bonus prizes. Maybe throw a jackpot into the mix for that purpose.

Any player who wins 5 games in a row wins an new automobile. Win ten games total, the player is retired undefeated and is awarded $25,000 in cash and a spot in the annual tournament of champions.

Sounds simple to me, don't you think?

Game Show Man · « **Reply #19 on:** July 07, 2003, 02:50:50 AM »

Oh, boy. I've been trying to keep out of this, but...

My format entails the introduction of a four-player format, similar to the one used on Scrabble. Two players play one game (with the double dollar values mentioned by WorldClassRob; dollar value also determines difficulty, singles are easy, doubles are medium and triples are hard) to $1000; the other two players repeat the process. New categories are used in every game. If a game runs long, the game switches to goes into a speed-round. The host gets to spin his (usually concealed) lever, which brings up a three-way split. The player who's behind picks a category, and the host asks a single-level toss-up question for $100. The chosen category rotates out of play with one of the two categories not in play. This process repeats until someone has $1000. The two winners play a final championship game, carrying over their scores from their preliminary games. Dollar values in the championship game are increased to $200 for a single, $400 for a double and $800 for a triple. The first to $3000 wins.

My endgame is a cross between suggestions made by Chris Lemon and Dan Sadro:
the champion picks one of the ten categories used in their two games (this is chosen over the final commercial break), and the host asks a series of single-level questions in their chosen category. The player has 45 seconds to answer as many correct as possible. Each right answer earns a spin on the Joker Machine, which now contains dollar amounts, prizes and Jokers. Money is won simply by having it appear (as Dan says: \"You spin $X-$Y-$Z, you win $(X+Y+Z). \") Three of the same dollar amount wins triple the total for that spin (You spin $X+$X+$X, you $(X+X+X) x 3). In order to win a prize, you must get three of the same prize; wheels may be frozen to facilitate a triple. Once a prize is won, it's cleared from the wheels, and the contestant keeps spinning until either: they win all the prizes (there's five to win in my format, it's almost impossible) or they run out of spins. Jokers are still wild of course BUT you can't use for dollar amounts (unless that's all there is showing), you can't use them prizes not showing on the wheels (because the star prize is only on wheel three, and you can't win it unless it appears, you freeze it and then get two more Jokers to make up the difference) and you can't freeze them by themselves (because Three Jokers wins all of that days prizes, including the star prize, AND the ever increasing Joker's Jackpot starting at $25,000 and increasing by $1,000 for each day it's not won).

\"Game Show Man\" Joe Van Ginkel

dmota104 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 07, 2003, 06:41:49 AM »

Clemon79, thanks for raising a red flag. There's something I meant to address to that effect.

In the event one player keeps his/her turn from start to finish, the losing party (who, as you implied, didn't get a word in edgewise after the contestant interview) would return in the next (or a future) game.

This happened when the champ got to spin first in the CBS days of TJW (if the champ spun 3 jokers to start the game and then won with a correct answer, the challenger came back a week or so later).

Plus, on (dare I call it) \"Civilian Bullseye\", if a player held on to control of the game from start to finish and banked at least the game-winning $2000, the challenger came back to play in the next game.

And on a few occasions of TTD, whenever the \"bonus category\" was on the board and the champion managed to not give up control of the board to the challenger, the challenger came back in the next game.

So, if it's been done before, it can happen again.

(Again, thanks for raising the red flag)

Dan Sadro · « **Reply #21 on:** July 07, 2003, 11:07:21 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 6 2003, 07:06 PM\'] Hmm. Not bad at all. I have a problem with a Joker being essentially a wasted window unless it comes up with two of his bretheren, tho. [/quote]
Well, this is a game where lady luck is queen. The problem isn't cosmetic, it's that it doesn't follow the maingame usage of the joker, which could probably be altered by giving the joker the highest value on the other windows.

Quote

* When a Joker comes up, it can be frozen, or not, at the player's discretion. (A player may not want to freeze a Joker if they feel they can reach the cash target, to keep that reel spinning to rake in more dough.)

Player wins if:

a) They acquire a set dollar amount, determined through much playtesting, in which case they win double the money and a prize package. (My point in doubling the pot is to encourage players not to freeze Jokers.)
b) They acquire three Jokers in a combination of spins, in which case they win the cash they have accumulated and the same prize package.
c) They spin three Jokers at once, in which case they win the prize package and clear out the Joker Jackpot, which should be set at some significant amount of money and incremented each time it is not won.

Three problems I'm seeing. 1 -- this isn't Bullseye. Freezing windows really has nothing to do with the spirit of TJW. 2 -- You've just given three different ways to win three different amounts of money and prizes. It's fine to have one exception to the rule (such as the first ball rule on Bonus Lingo) to make it interesting or dramatic or give one situation extra-special treatment. But you have two different exceptions, and I think you're asking too much of a viewer who is watching people pulling a lever. 3 -- You're assuming that there's returning champions. In this day and age... it should be assumed that there's no returning champions. If for some reason in the development of the television game they agree to deal with returning champions, that would be a better time to develop incremental jackpots.

Quote

If you should fail, you get the cash accumulated to that point.

I don't _think_ I'm complicating things by doubling the pot on a win - it worked on Bullseye for the opposite winning condition - but I'm not sure I've set things up to make a player really _think_ about whether to freeze that Joker window or not. I'd be interested in arguments for and against and possible alternate payouts / win conditions to make that decision more interesting.

Assuming that there is 1 joker to 5 dollar values: By introducing freezing windows, you're moving the chance of a triple Joker win from 1 in 256 to a situation where 6 spins would statistically make a Joker-Joker-Joker. I'd much rather have the focus of the endgame spinning to earn money (in an abstractly similar way to the maingame) than in trying to get three jokers, but to each his own.

I also think that the win rate under freezing jokers would be too high.

(edited for clarity and to add one line)

clemon79 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 07, 2003, 11:30:31 AM »

[quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Jul 7 2003, 08:07 AM\'] Freezing windows really has nothing to do with the spirit of TJW. [/quote]
I don't think it necessarily VIOLATES said spirit, either, byt YMMV.

Quote

But you have two different exceptions, and I think you're asking too much of a viewer who is watching people pulling a lever.

Point taken.

Quote

You're assuming that there's returning champions. In this day and age... it should be assumed that there's no returning champions.

Don't agree. Just because everyone else jumps off of a cliff is no reason for me to go jumping off after them. Mo' Money Syndrome is one thing. Having a returning champ _improves_ the show and is feasible. I'm the producer, and if Jeopardy and H2 can do it, so can we. Oh, and we're following a traditional taping schedule; none of this \"pump out 65 shows in two weeks\" crap, and if my high-priced host doesn't like it, I'll fire his ass and bring in Van Ginkel.

Quote

Assuming that there is 1 joker to 5 dollar values:

Assuming. Certainly that can be tweaked. If we're using computers (and I'm guessing they would be, in portrait orientation), I can have 1000 slides on a reel if I want, and 1 of those could be a Joker, or 999 of them can be Jokers.

Again, though, all of your points are well-taken.

Dan Sadro · « **Reply #23 on:** July 07, 2003, 12:03:22 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 7 2003, 10:30 AM\']

Quote

You're assuming that there's returning champions. In this day and age... it should be assumed that there's no returning champions.

Don't agree. Just because everyone else jumps off of a cliff is no reason for me to go jumping off after them. Mo' Money Syndrome is one thing. Having a returning champ _improves_ the show and is feasible. I'm the producer, and if Jeopardy and H2 can do it, so can we. Oh, and we're following a traditional taping schedule; none of this "pump out 65 shows in two weeks" crap, and if my high-priced host doesn't like it, I'll fire his ass and bring in Van Ginkel.

[/quote]
Well, yes, a returning champion can improve a show (especially a trivia-based one such as this) but the feasibility really goes with the intended output. The most obvious place to put TJW would be on GSN -- eventually the network will look toward using library products (they haven't been immensely successful serving the same old hash every day, so it will eventually be at least an experiment) and bringing a new version of the show could be a big marketing happy happy joy joy. If it would go on GSN, you'd be taping 65 episodes (if you're lucky) in two weeks and the phrase \"returning champions\" would be censored on the set.

If GSN isn't for you, look toward syndication. If you think that TJW would survive in syndication, you're probably much more optimistic than I am. I don't see the draw of TJW in the syndication world; it's not 'edgy' and doesn't have one percent of the name recognition that Pyramid enjoys.

[ Most any person on this forum would jump at the opportunity to host a game show for scale, not just Van Ginkel. :^) ]

clemon79 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 07, 2003, 01:10:59 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Jul 7 2003, 09:03 AM\'] but the feasibility really goes with the intended output. [/quote]
And this, I think, represents our fundamental difference with proposals. All I ask is that a premise be good and it be financially responsible. You take it a step further and look for a logical home for it, too. And there's not a THING wrong with that, it just represents a difference in philosophy.

See, I figure if an idea came along for a show that was 1) a good idea, 2) financially feasible, and 3) had a slot to fill, it would already be filling that slot. I tend to operate in the Utopia where there's no harm in having good ideas filed away, just in case something bizarre should happen and the three-hour network daytime game show block comes back into vogue TOMORROW. Never happen, yeah, but I think a proposal can be quality without necessarily having a niche available in the current landscape to fill.