-
I originally wished to post a thread about TPIR games you'd retire, but then realized we've done it to death and, might I add, incorrectly (let's retire Double Prices! Yeeeehaw!). That led me here. Tweaks/fixes to pricing games. And let's make it a nice tidy thread and say...uhh....the network/producers/somebody is limiting you to five. Whatever.
Grocery Game - while there has been a number of wins very recently, I still think the range could be more fair...say $20-$22? In playing a bunch of simulation games where I had a rough idea of the prices, I still managed to overshoot by less than a dollar about half the time. No where near scientific, but the extra dollar would give you a lot more leniecy with the higher priced items.
Hit Me - I dislike this and Pick-a-Pair because of the amount of prize copy v. game play. At least with Pair it feels like some skill is being used, but Hit Me has become the worst example of playing the show like a fiddle. To make it more interesting, I'd get rid of the ace or ten on each playing. Make them try for two or more products that add up to 10/11 (depending on what you have out there). This one has the lowest probability of happening due to how truly confusing the game is to begin with...
Pick a Number - it's really not that bad a game. People always talk about how they want this and Joker sent to the wood chipper, but the only problem I have with it is the number they often choose. If they keep it to figuring out the first or second number, then it's fine - anything else is an exercise in pointlessness.
Poker Game - I'd suggest giving the player a $1,000 bonus if they keep their oirignal hand and win. I figured just handing them $1,000 to make up for the prizes' cheapness was arbitrary, so that's what I came up with. I also had an alternate format in mind, but I see it baffling contestants.
Most games involving cash - Fine, so I broke my own rule. But this is fairly quick. $10,000 really isn't bad - I'm not saying everything needs more money. It needs refinement. For example, $10,000 for finding the right box in 1/2 Off seems fair. For winning Grand Game? $20,000 would be nice, IMO. Punch a Bunch doesn't necessarily need an upgrade, just a new configuration of some sort to make the decisions more interesting. Pass the Buck needs a bit of deflation I feel - picking up 5k so easily is a real kick in the pants for somebody who won $3,000 of furniture in Check Out.
Now for your suggestions...
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM\']Grocery Game
While there has been a number of wins very recently, I still think the range could be more fair
[/quote]
This game, from seasons 29 through 33, has a 48% win rate. There really is no basis for fiddling with the rules.
Card Game, on the other hand, had a win rate of only 33% in five years. There clearly was a problem and rules needed to be adjusted.
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM\']Hit Me
amount of prize copy v. game play
[/quote]
Do you like Golden Road or Triple Play? There is more time involved with setup and copy for those two than there is with Pick a Pair.
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM\']I'd get rid of the ace or ten on each playing. Make them try for two or more products that add up to 10/11 (depending on what you have out there). This one has the lowest probability of happening due to how truly confusing the game is to begin with...[/quote]
It's not confusing at all. The game was won 13 out of 14 times last season with seven blackjacks.
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM\']Pick a Number
...The only problem I have with it is the number they often choose. If they keep it to figuring out the first or second number, then it's fine - anything else is an exercise in pointlessness.[/quote]
How do you feel about Golden Road? Using the hundreds digit in a $80,000 car to determine a winner is just as arbitrary.
[snapback]100326[/snapback]
-
Was it really necessary of you to break down everything he said?
Anyhow, you cite that 7 players got a blackjack in Hit Me. That means 7 idiots didn't get a blackjack.
Anyhow:
I would change Plinko; to the follow config:
$250-$750-$1500-$50-$10000-$50-$1500-$750-$250
That way, a good player doesn't get completely screwed.
I would also change Pass the Buck to this config:
$500-$500-$1000-$2000-Car-Lose Everything
-
Now, maybe strictly in seconds the game play issue is "worse" with Golden Road or Triple Play, but that truly is an event on the show. To see the main prize described, and all six items, followed by the contestant going "uh, index cards" and "uh, beans" compared to somebody going for three cars is a different animal IMO.
I personally don't find Hit Me confusing, but how many of those contestants truly know what they're doing? Considering many haven't grasped Check Game yet, even given several on-air explanations by Bob, who can say that many really understand Hit Me based on a bunch of playings that start with "well, so-and-so knows how to play, so what do you want?"
This is hypocritical of me, but the GR version of Pick a Number is a bit different than the stand alone game. In Golden Road, one can ascertain a logical pick for the hundreds digit by going on the past prizes, whereas in Pick a Number trying to guess whether a barrel sauna is $3663 or $3683 is really just dumb. I say it's hypocritical of me, because I lambasted Hit Me for the same type of "insider tricks." *sigh* Sorry.
And on Grocery Game...my bad, I guess. I'm sorry I don't pore over the numbers. And no, that's not a backhanded comment against such practices, I really do like the things you can learn from looking at the stats so well provided by members of the fan community. I didn't realize it was doing that well. After seeing last season's record of embarassing losses, however, I felt something could be done to at least give the contestant more of a fair shake - more possibilities to win. Oh well.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:19 PM\']
Anyhow:
I would change Plinko; to the follow config:
$250-$750-$1500-$50-$10000-$50-$1500-$750-$250
That way, a good player doesn't get completely screwed.
I would also change Pass the Buck to this config:
$500-$500-$1000-$2000-Car-Lose Everything
[snapback]100330[/snapback]
[/quote]
I've been saying for some time now tha tthe other dollar values in Plinko need upped. I agree with those, except for the $50s. A truly good player won't put all five chips in the $0, anyhow. How unlucky you'd have to be...
PtB needs two Lose Everythings, because then, if you happen to pick it on the first try, where's the suspense? (Yes, I know it happened recently with two, but that's an incredibly rare occurrance, and she only got one prize) Plus, I think the higher dollar values make the decisions to stay or go a lot trickier sometimes... Who the hell's gonna stay with $1000? or even $3000? against a $15K+ car.
I can't think of too many changes that I'd make. Possibly put $1,000 in a second box in Half Off, so that a perfect winner is guaranteed something?
I'd make the 15 and 5 on the wheel worth something like $25,000 on a million dollar spin.
That's about all I can think of at the moment. I guess I'm kind of an "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guy, and I think the ways that the show still remains relatively the same are what keep it so popular.
That is, until Bob hangs it up, and we're treated to TPiR94 Part Deux.
-
Hit Me - Set the contestant cards up so there is a 10, A, a pair totalling 10 and a pair totalling 11. Get rid of the dealer cards, and just have the contestant draw until they bust or win by getting 21.
Reason: I'm sick of seeing clueless contestants totally blow the game and still win because the house busted.
Bullseye - Get rid of the hidden bullseye.
Reason: This game is pick-a-pair level easy, especially given how there's usually a $5-$6 product up there, and anybody that can't get it right in 3 shots doesn't deserve to win.
Pocket Change - The contestant gets one shot at each digit, and if they're wrong, no envelope for that guess (as well as increasing the price of the car).
Reason: As it is you know they're going to end up with 4 envelopes + the free 25 cents, and picking one after every right guess just drags things out.
Spelling Bee- Instead of giving all 5 cards and 3 SPs automatically for guessing one exactly right, award 1 card for being within $10 and 2 cards for being exactly right (for potentially up to 8 cards). Also make the bailout option $1000 per remaining card.
Reason: None really, I've just always felt the game would be better this way. Also $2500 is not tempting enough these days.
Clock Game - Play it for 3 prizes instead of 2. Award the contestant an additional $500 on winning the 2nd prize and another $1000 on the 3rd prize.
Reason: A decent player should still be able to win everything every time, and it wouldn't be so cheap anymore (as it is the maximum Clock Game could be played for is $2998).
[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\']A truly good player won't put all five chips in the $0, anyhow. How unlucky you'd have to be...[/quote]
It did happen, once. I agree though, the 0s next to the top amount are a necessary evil.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 10:38 PM\']For winning Grand Game? $20,000 would be nice, IMO. Punch a Bunch doesn't necessarily need an upgrade, just a new configuration of some sort to make the decisions more interesting.[/quote]Color me confused, but why would Grand Game, probably the easiest cash game to win, need an upgrade more than Punch a Bunch, not won considerably more often, even in a good season for the game? Not to say Punch a Bunch needs an upgrade, mind you, but moreso than Grand Game, at least.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:19 AM\']Was it really necessary of you to break down everything he said?
[/quote]
To keep my points organized, yes.
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:19 AM\']Anyhow, you cite that 7 players got a blackjack in Hit Me. That means 7 idiots didn't get a blackjack.
[/quote]
True, but six of those idiots still won the game.
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:19 AM\']I would change Plinko; to the follow config:
$250-$750-$1500-$50-$10000-$50-$1500-$750-$250
That way, a good player doesn't get completely screwed.
[/quote]
Why? The last time someone got $0 was in December of 2003. I don't really think it is necessary to change the slot values.
[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:46 AM\']Possibly put $1,000 in a second box in Half Off, so that a perfect winner is guaranteed something?[snapback]100334[/snapback]
[/quote]
Why add confusion to the reveal of the game? Let's say the contestant has a choice between box A and box B. They open their chosen box and money falls out...everyone is excited...but...WAIT it's only $1,000. "Sorry to get your hopes up, you did not win $10,000." Then what would happen? We'd get an executive decision from Bob just like when he incorrectly read a $1,000 slip from Punch-a-Bunch and awarded the contestant $10,000 anyway.
-
[quote name=\'jmangin\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:11 PM\'][Grocery Game], from seasons 29 through 33, has a 48% win rate. There really is no basis for fiddling with the rules.[/quote]That is wrong. The actual winning percentage was 32%.
Card Game, on the other hand, had a win rate of only 33% in five years. There clearly was a problem and rules needed to be adjusted.
This is also wrong. The winning percentage was 25%.
-
CarShark your calculations are absolutely right; how could I make such an elementary mistake! Sorry for the error!
Based on that, then yes, maybe Grocery Game does deserve a small change, but I wouldn't go overboard like they did with Card Game.
Sorry again for the confusion!!
-
Based on this new refined data, would you then consider $20-$22 to be a fair range?
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:26 PM\']Based on this new refined data, would you then consider $20-$22 to be a fair range?
[/quote]
Yeah that would be fine. Does anyone have any idea how many times in recent history that a contestant lost with a total between $21 and $22?
-
Since people were so nice as to bring stats into this, I did a bit of research on the topic.
Last season they had 11 losses out of 14 plays - a win percentage of 21.4%. Of those 11 losses, the totals were...
May 10 - $31.98
April 11 - $21.24*
March 30 - $23.22
March 1 - $25.03
February 7 - $28.24
January 24 - $23.48
December 23 - $21.87*
December 6 - $21.26*
November 3 - $24.87
October 27 - $21.52*
October 1 - $21.70*
Now we don't know for sure if the new range would change play significantly, but with these stats alone, the win percentage goes to 8/14, or 57.1%.
-Jason
-
Personally, I would limit Pick-a-Number to always have the first digit missing. Guessing the hundreds digit on a $6,000 prize is kind of random, too. (Well, once they had the last digit missing, but the choices made it obvious -- something like 1, 4, or 9, with the 9 being right. That would be okay.)
My solution to repair the "do everything right and lose" problem of Secret "X": Allow the contestant to win with three in a row vertically. They'd still get a free X and could still earn two more. But instead of having the smaller prizes already in plain sight, a model would wheel them in one at a time. So if the contestant wanted to try for a vertical win, they'd have to gamble on the hope that they could price the second smaller prize correctly before they see what it is.
--
Scott Robinson
-
[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:53 PM\']Pocket Change - The contestant gets one shot at each digit, and if they're wrong, no envelope for that guess (as well as increasing the price of the car).
Reason: As it is you know they're going to end up with 4 envelopes + the free 25 cents, and picking one after every right guess just drags things out.
[snapback]100336[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yeah, the knowledge that picking four pockets is a constant is draggy. What's more, it allows the player to go 0-for-10 on the digits and still win. Maximum tag price is $2.75, so the two-dollar pocket plus any three other pockets totaling 50 cents or more wins. (Just one example; aren't there four-pocket sets totaling $2.50 or more without the two-dollar pocket?)
I've thought about two guesses per digit rather than just one, with each wrong guess still bumping the tag price . . . so with each digit the tag price increases by zero, 25 cents, or 50 cents.
And did that new picked-pocket rack have five slots? I favor having the player guess the first digit anyway. Blowing that should--should--be rare, especially with two guesses.
The last digit is a special case here. Given a starting field of six numbers for a five-digit price, only two candidates will remain for the last digit; so here a pocket is guaranteed. However, does this really allow a player to win with no correct guesses at all? Hmmm.
Say the player blows each of the first four digits (eight wrong guesses in all). Going into the final digit the player has 25 cents and no pockets, and the tag price is $2.25. Assuming a top pocket value of two dollars, the player will need to get the final digit on the first guess to have that 1-in-however-many chance of winning. If that guess is wrong, the tag price goes to the insurmountable $2.50. Therefore the player cannot win without earning a pocket.
Is missing out on a pocket too much jeopardy here? Too complex? Too slow? Just plain bad television?
-
I would change Plinko to the Doug Davidson days when the $100 slots were worth $2500. The only problem is that some people would aim for the sides to guarantee themselves some fast cash (Like the girl who seemingly aimed for the $100 slots during last week's playing).
Pocket Change DOES drag along, considering the players will get 4 envelopes regardless of how many times they miss. I like the idea that was posted- one chance for each number- it determines whether or not you get an envelope.
I would add a bribe to Half off, depending on the number of boxes that are remaining. After all, every other all-cash game guarantees some sort of monetary win as long as you're not completely inept.
Spelling bee's cash cards should be upped to $1,000 each. Nobody ever takes the $2500 bribe. Now $5,000.... that may change some minds.
Secret X should be kept the way it is.. no vertical wins. It makes the name of the game completely unnecessary (*cough* time is money....*cough*)
I think the bonus spin on the showcase showdown should give bonus money regardless where it lands. If you hit 95, you get $950. 20 nets you $200 and so forth.
Make the Cliffhanger prizes tougher and play for a car, like the Australian version.
-
It's been suggested before--turn Poker Game into a grocery items game for a prize package. Have the items always between $1 and $9.99, so it'd be the same game play as with the four prizes now.
Seems to me that Barker was able to handle four digit prices in Clock Game in the old days (and it seems to me that both Kennedy and Davison did four-digit items in their versions)--why can't he now? Just doesn't want to?
-
[quote name=\'jmangin\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 08:26 AM\']Why? The last time someone got $0 was in December of 2003. I don't really think it is necessary to change the slot values.
[/quote]
And, personally, I do. (Irrelevant of the last date--the possibility exists that a good pricer gets screwed) But I can tell you're going to analyze what everyone is going to say in this thread; so I'm through posting in it.
-
Perhaps this seems like 'Mo Money Syndrome, but I'd kind of like to see Clock Game tweaked.
Divide the 30 seconds into 5 sections of 6 seconds each. If you price both prizes within 6 seconds (30-24), you get a $5,000 bonus all the way down to the standard $1,000 bonus for 6-0 seconds. You don't even have to spend 3 minutes explaining the bonus structure, just repaint the clock face to show the "zones."
Most players would probably win in the $2,000 to $3,000 range giving them a "package" worth about as much as a living room group. (<$4,000) This rewards good players and even an "inept" player gets the same bonus under current rules.
-
Who the hell's gonna stay with $1000
There was one contestant on Pass the Buck who stopped with $1,000. Had she gone on, she would have won the car.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 06:45 PM\']But I can tell you're going to analyze what everyone is going to say in this thread; so I'm through posting in it.
[snapback]100413[/snapback]
[/quote]
Grouping my reply into short sections based on the quotes to which I am referring is a very clear way to state my opinion. I'm sorry you seem to feel that I'm singling out you or anyone else by posting a reply with a quote in it, but that's not what I'm doing. Perhaps its because you are reading text and assuming one inflection while my intent is the opposite.
If you're choosing not to participate because someone is analyzing what you say, then I think you are missing the point of what we're doing here. The act of posting on a message board is an implicit invitation for someone to reply and analyze.
-
Jay's tweak to Clock Game is brilliant. Just have Bob say, "and, if you get both prizes before time runs out, you get the money where the clock stopped." Or something like that. I'm sure you can even write something simpler.
And I never thought of doing that with Poker Game. That's also a great idea. No set change even - just add a table in front of the current pricers, and off you go.
I don't have Mike Klauss's brilliant study on the game in front of me, but in most cases, the players in Pocket Change would need all 5 envelopes to win I do believe. It's just a necessary evil in the game show world to show why things are happening. Sure, they get all the envelopes either way - but just outright giving them to the player is bad. It's a personal favorite of mine, so I am biased, but I think the game is fine as it is.
-Jason
-
This (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6725&view=findpost&p=70908\") was a tweak for "Pocket Change" I had suggested on these very airwaves on 1/11/05 after the first playing of the game. Not saying it's the "be all, end all" (or however that expression goes), but it is a way to make the game go a lot quicker and guarantees you have to have at least one correct guess to even have a chance to win the car (and doesn't guarantee an automatic win even if you get all five digits right).
Doug
-
[quote name=\'JayDLewis\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 07:34 PM\']Divide the 30 seconds into 5 sections of 6 seconds each. If you price both prizes within 6 seconds (30-24), you get a $5,000 bonus all the way down to the standard $1,000 bonus for 6-0 seconds. You don't even have to spend 3 minutes explaining the bonus structure, just repaint the clock face to show the "zones."[/quote]I don't like that at all. You're telling someone that they can win $5000, but they have no realistic shot at it at all. I don't think that any contestant has won both prizes in 6 seconds or less. Also, what happens if its debatable as to which zone it's in? Do you just let Barker make an "executive decision"?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 11:01 PM\']I don't like that at all. You're telling someone that they can win $5000, but they have no realistic shot at it at all.
[/quote]
At the risk of looking like a huge hypocrite (and I humbly withdraw my previous comment to Mr. Mangin), they do the same thing with Plinko--they don't have a realistic shot at $50,000 at all.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 11:01 PM\']I don't like that at all. You're telling someone that they can win $5000, but they have no realistic shot at it at all. I don't think that any contestant has won both prizes in 6 seconds or less. Also, what happens if its debatable as to which zone it's in? Do you just let Barker make an "executive decision"?
[snapback]100454[/snapback]
[/quote]
Re $5,000: See Mark's Plinko comparison. Like I said, MOST contestants will pick up $2,000 or $1,000. You'll get a few good players who might get $3,000. Or change the zones to every 10 seconds ($5K, $2.5K, $1K). The idea isn't to give away TONS more cash, just to reward better players.
Re: Barker's Executive Decision...why not? Happens on other games for far more potatoes than $1K. Build it into the game then. If it's splitting the difference between zones, they get the higher amount.
-
Correction: THIS iteration is brilliant. :) That way, most players should get $2,500, making the average take on Clock...~$4,000. And it gives good players a real chance at the 5k, and everybody of the course the 1k.
And Re: Pocket Change, if I had to pick a tweak, Chris Lemon's suggestion of giving them two shots at every number (and this was still with the first number being guessed) was the best in my mind. But that's if I absolutely had to change it - which would likely be due to time.
-Jason
-
I've had this idea for Clock Game rolling around for a while, and want to get it out there before I forget. Other ideas for other games coming when I actually remember to bring the disk with me to the library...
Anyway, the player is shown each of up to five prizes one at a time, and plays the game as normal. After each prize is claimed, the contestant can stop and take the winnings, or risk the lot to keep going. Two prizes won adds $500, and each new prize claimed doubles that cash amount. If the clock runs out, everything goes away. A player who won five prizes would keep them all, along with $4,000.
Good players would be rewarded (, and sucky players wouldn't win very much.
-
The basic idea of each tweak is to one of two: to either reward good players or to make the game more interesting. Sometimes it works out that both happen in one.
Bonus Game: Offer a secondary bonus prize if you win all four windows, like the $500 for Shell Game.
Bullseye: Hidden bullseye goes away. If you can't hit the bullseye in three shots, you lose. That's all that dart throwers get.
Card Game: Cards are an equal distribution of: $1000-1500-2000-2500. If you wanna add 250s or whatnot, make the deck fat enough so that you can do a normal distribution with them.
Dice Game: The dice are now ten sided dice (very much like the dice that Pepsi used in Play for a Billion. If you can't get the camera angles right, use a d20 and repeat the numbers.) Never again will we hear "There are no numbers higher than six in the price of the car, and there are no zeroes."
Grocery Game: $20-22, bring back the cash bonus to bail out of the game.
Hit Me: The basic thing is the same: if you know the game, it's a cakewalk. If you don't, it's gonna get ugly. Let's try this. Bob offers the contestant a $2,100 bonus if he can win the game with two cards. Find a blackjack and you win the cash as well as the prize. Fail, and you lose. The contestant can opt to turn down the bribe, at which point we all turn the station.
Pick a Pair: There is one pair of items on the board, the other four won't match anything. To make up for this, you can pick three items, and if any two match, you win. Frankly, I think the game is easy enough to win, but not having to pick which item to match may cut down on time played.
Plinko: No free chip, give players the choice of two layouts, one has four zeroes, four $1,000 slots, and the Big Fella. Other has 200-500-1000-100-5000-repeat.
Pass the Buck: If you must play for a car, have more numbers on the board. For that matter, lower the cash prizes to $100, $500 and $1,000. Last year had a college-aged gal win $5,000 with her free pick; she missed both the grocery items. If you don't want to have players picking from 30 numbers, then decrease the major prize to a trip.
Pick a Number: Play for three prizes, like Most Expensive. Assign the proper digit to each prize and win all three.
Pocket Change: Get rid of the $2 card, and the zeroes. Five each of nickel, dime, quarter and 50 cent piece. You must guess the first digit as before the show's own rules tweak.
Poker Game: Instead of playing one hand against the other, pick your best two of four prizes. Draw a card from a deck, and if you beat the hand printed on that, you win the prizes and some sort of bonus, cash or merchandise.
Punch Board: The top prize is $25,000, and it appears once on the board. No more second chances. The catch is this: the holes are randomly stuffed, and anything can be in any hole, from $50 to $10,000. So you might get $4,250, $1,500, or $200. The player will have the same option as always as to keep it or give it away.
Secret X: Not only are the 2, 5 and 8 squares secret, 4 and 6 are too. Add a third small prize, and perfect pricing means you win.
Ten Chances: Actually enforce the 10 second rule. Don't have a rule if you don't use it.
Three Strikes: This may mean that Pocket Change is redundant, but you get one chance to place each digit in the right place. Get it right, and the number goes away. Wrong and it goes in the bag. Play as normal.
Triple Play: "One of these prices is the ARP of the car. The rest are not. To move on, tell me the ARP of the car."
-
I won't go through and break these down, because my basic complaints break down to a few things. One was a quote made over at Loogaroo's board - paraphrasing, but, the best player shouldn't always win, they should have the best chance of winning. Luck will always be a part of it.
Second, the games have certain quirks to make them different. Making Triple Play into three rounds of Double Prices (albeit with more choices), or making Bonus Game into "Shell Game Without The Shells" would take away some of the games' inviduality.
And I think this is a lesson we've learned many times over on our board, but I guess it bears mentioning - if the format seems unecessarily convoluted, then it's bad. So what if it makes things "fair" for the contestants - if it takes a day to explain, then it needs tweaking.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Oct 26 2005, 03:01 PM\']Pass the Buck: If you must play for a car, have more numbers on the board. For that matter, lower the cash prizes to $100, $500 and $1,000. Last year had a college-aged gal win $5,000 with her free pick; she missed both the grocery items. If you don't want to have players picking from 30 numbers, then decrease the major prize to a trip.[/quote]They started with 8 numbers, but 8 left with money, 2 left with no money, and only one won the car. When they changed to the current format (six numbers), six people won cars, 5 left with money, and only 2 left with nothing. I'd imagine that everyone's ideal lies somewhere in between.
The bailout money isn't a big issue, but your suggestion makes it way too low, like Temptation or Spelling Bee. I think $1000, $2000, and $3000 would be enough to give contestants pause.
Secret X: Not only are the 2, 5 and 8 squares secret, 4 and 6 are too. Add a third small prize, and perfect pricing means you win.
I proposed something like this before, except with the house randomly lighting up O's where the Secret "X" wasn't at. Your idea is much simpler.
Three Strikes: This may mean that Pocket Change is redundant, but you get one chance to place each digit in the right place. Get it right, and the number goes away. Wrong and it goes in the bag. Play as normal.
Isn't that the same as it is now?
Triple Play: "One of these prices is the ARP of the car. The rest are not. To move on, tell me the ARP of the car."
That makes it too much like Five Price Tags, a game that went winless last season.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' date=\'Oct 26 2005, 04:03 PM\']
Three Strikes: This may mean that Pocket Change is redundant, but you get one chance to place each digit in the right place. Get it right, and the number goes away. Wrong and it goes in the bag. Play as normal.
Isn't that the same as it is now?
[snapback]100524[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think he means you get a shot to place each digit before it goes in the bag. Get it right, and that digit stays out of the bag, otherwise it goes in and you'd have to draw it to get another shot. In other words, you get five free shots without the chance of drawing a strike.
I think it might make the game a little too easy, personally, but I could see situations where it might work.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:46 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:19 PM\']
Anyhow:
I would change Plinko; to the follow config:
$250-$750-$1500-$50-$10000-$50-$1500-$750-$250
[snapback]100330[/snapback]
[/quote]
I've been saying for some time now tha tthe other dollar values in Plinko need upped. I agree with those, except for the $50s. A truly good player won't put all five chips in the $0, anyhow. How unlucky you'd have to be...
[snapback]100334[/snapback]
[/quote]
No real need to change the Plinko daytime values. However, aside from the $20K space, the Plinko dollar values for the primetime specials could use an upgrade, at least putting $2500 in place of the $100 like TNPIR94 usually did. It seems like quite a jump from $20K to the next highest space, $1K.
-
My problem with a lot of these suggestions is the same problem I have with my own ideas about tweaks: they may make the game fairer/less stupid/etc., but at the cost of most of the audience going: "Huh? He gets to pick from different money layouts? What the hell are ten-sided dice?" And so on.
One way to make the Clock Game "time is money" tweak better, IMO, is to (gasp!) switch to a digital clock that doubles as a money readout. $ _ _ 0 0, basically.
Oh, and I'm all for enforcing the 10-second rule in Ten Chances--but how? Do they have ten seconds to *start* writing? We've certainly seen contestants take the better part of a minute just writing one digit at a time.
"Today we're playing Ten Chances, and here's a new feature of the game. Up here on top of the board is our current rate per second for ad time, and here is a clock set for 3 minutes. If the clock hits 0 and starts counting upwards while you're still playing, you owe us money in the amount of ad time we're sacrificing for you to make a fool of yourself by putting the 1 as the last digit of the car over and over. Ready? Go!"
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' date=\'Oct 26 2005, 02:03 PM\']PTB: The bailout money isn't a big issue, but your suggestion makes it way too low, like Temptation or Spelling Bee. I think $1000, $2000, and $3000 would be enough to give contestants pause.[/quote]I don't like the idea of giving out scads of money based on one pricing decision. Even $3,000 is too much, really.
Triple Play: "One of these prices is the ARP of the car. The rest are not. To move on, tell me the ARP of the car."
That makes it too much like Five Price Tags, a game that went winless last season.
Erm, no it's not. 5PT has that small price thing. And what's wrong with trying to get the right price...that IS the name of the show, after all. And what does the win/loss record of 5PT have to do with anything? I think it is one of the better car games.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Oct 26 2005, 09:19 PM\']One way to make the Clock Game "time is money" tweak better, IMO, is to (gasp!) switch to a digital clock that doubles as a money readout. $ _ _ 0 0, basically.
[snapback]100556[/snapback]
[/quote]
Usually I'm a traditionalist, but I think that's a terrific idea. Granted, I can't imagine a scenario where someone would win the full $3,000 (I guess I could, but it's so unlikely that both prices would be guessed immediately without even one second ticking off). But I think that idea has a pretty good degree of merit. YMMV.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Oct 26 2005, 07:19 PM\']One way to make the Clock Game "time is money" tweak better, IMO, is to (gasp!) switch to a digital clock that doubles as a money readout. $ _ _ 0 0, basically.[/quote] In post #19 of this thread from, oh, about 21 months ago, (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3001&hl=digital%20clock%20game&st=14\") I chimed in with my idea for a similar Clock Game tweak, allowing for the unlikelihood of two perfect bids.
Esoteric Eric, who thinks the ten-sided dice for Dice Game would work just fine. (Don't think I ever posted about it, but also arrived at that idea independently.)
-
Well, using ten-sided dice in Dice Game "breaks" the vague concept of it being a casino game (rolling dice on a felt-covered table, across a line). But I just used that as a generic example--it's not really a bad idea.
(I'm still ticked off that they didn't play all their casino-esque games during that first Vegas $1M show.)
-
One of the major tweaks I'd make to Hit Me:
Make the card that's the Ace 11 times the price of the item. I think that would make the game a bit more challenging, but still easy to win.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 08:48 AM\']One of the major tweaks I'd make to Hit Me:
Make the card that's the Ace 11 times the price of the item. I think that would make the game a bit more challenging, but still easy to win.
[snapback]100648[/snapback]
[/quote]
Of all of these hairbrained ideas on this discussion (and my gawd there are lots of em), this one is brilliant. I can't believe that this simple twist makes this game challenging to win.
Nice job.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 07:14 AM\']Of all of these hairbrained ideas on this discussion (and my gawd there are lots of em), this one is brilliant. I can't believe that this simple twist makes this game challenging to win.
[/quote]
Not really, unless you REALLY mix up the prices of the products.
1) Pick the highest price on the board that ends in 0. That's your ten.
2) Pick the highest price remaining on the board. Nine times out of ten that will be your 11.
Now, if they play the game with grocery items ranging in price from $1 to, say, $9, this has some possibilities.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 09:39 AM\'][quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 07:14 AM\']Of all of these hairbrained ideas on this discussion (and my gawd there are lots of em), this one is brilliant. I can't believe that this simple twist makes this game challenging to win.
[/quote]
Not really, unless you REALLY mix up the prices of the products.
1) Pick the highest price on the board that ends in 0. That's your ten.
2) Pick the highest price remaining on the board. Nine times out of ten that will be your 11.
Now, if they play the game with grocery items ranging in price from $1 to, say, $9, this has some possibilities.
[snapback]100657[/snapback]
[/quote]
True. And agreed. But you have to admit, it does improve the challenge to this game.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 08:13 AM\']True. And agreed. But you have to admit, it does improve the challenge to this game.
[snapback]100659[/snapback]
[/quote]
I dunno. Right now I'd say 2 or 3 out of every 10 muck it up and luck into winning. I see no reason why that wouldn't happen here as well.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 09:39 AM\'][quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 07:14 AM\']Of all of these hairbrained ideas on this discussion (and my gawd there are lots of em), this one is brilliant. I can't believe that this simple twist makes this game challenging to win.
[/quote]
Not really, unless you REALLY mix up the prices of the products.
1) Pick the highest price on the board that ends in 0. That's your ten.
2) Pick the highest price remaining on the board. Nine times out of ten that will be your 11.
Now, if they play the game with grocery items ranging in price from $1 to, say, $9, this has some possibilities.
[snapback]100657[/snapback]
[/quote]
Actually you could have some fun with this as well. If you put an item that's say 4.95 and multiply it by 4 you have 19.80.
If you took item that's say, 1.39 and make it the 10, you have a way to do this. (13.90)
Remember, the object of this game is to figure out the actual price of the item.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 10:10 AM\']Remember, the object of this game is to figure out the actual price of the item.
[snapback]100671[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yeah, thanks for that, I think I know how to play Hit Me.
My comments stand.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Oct 28 2005, 12:10 PM\']Remember, the object of this game is to figure out the actual price of the item.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the object of the game is to make a better blackjack hand for yourself than the one dealt for the house. Knowing the prices helps, but it's hardly required. Even the worst players are still pretty much playing a blackjack hand (stopping at 14 or whatever).
("I *suggest* you *hit*, sir."
"I *also* like to live dangerously.")
-
I've always thought that they could do Clearance Sale without being a thinly veiled copy of Eazy Az 1-2-3. They could have the contestant match discounts to sale prices. I think it would go like this:
Barker: That dinette is not $1080. That motorcycle is not $500. That grandfather clock is not $2100. Those prizes are on sale. It's a clearance sale. You have to put the right discount on each prize. Here are the discount tags: 10% off, 25% off, 40% and 75%. (hands tags to contestant) Do be careful, because one tag doesn't belong with any prize. Go!
(contestant puts the 75% tag on the motorcycle, the 25% tag on the grandfather clock, and the 10% tag on the dinette, and goes back to Barker)
Barker: OK, what is the price of the motorcycle? (Rebecca lifts the tag) $2,000, so it must be 75% off, right? (another flip confirms it) I should hope so. What is the price of the clock, Gwendolyn? (she lifts the tag) $2,800, for a discount of...(another flip)...25%! Y'know, you just might have won this. If that dinette is 10% off at $1080, then all three prizes are yours. Rachel, what is the price of the dinette? (she lifts the tag) $1800. The discount is...(final flip)...40%. <buzz, losing horns> I'm sorry. (shakes contestant's hand) We'll have another game after this announcement.
Soooooo...Whaddya think? Too much math? Too long? Too hard? I think I posted this idea somewhere before, but I'm not sure.
Five bucks says that either Lemon or Howard makes a joke about "long and hard"!
-
The discount price is a cool idea, but in order to make it a little easier to calculate mentally, you might want to give the contestant the prices and make the percentage discount attached to each prize.
Prizes:
Motorcycle: 75% Off
Clock: 25% Off
Dinette: 10% Off
Here are four prices: $500, $1080, $2100, $2399
Put the right price on each prize so the percentage discount is correct. One is a dud.
A good idea--but may confuse people who are not mathematically inclined.
-
[quote name=\'jmangin\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 12:52 PM\']The discount price is a cool idea, but in order to make it a little easier to calculate
A good idea--but may confuse people who are not mathematically inclined.
[snapback]100868[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not to mention that the average viewer wouldn't be able to tell at a glance why someone lost.
Great for math geeks (and I say that as a math geek), not so good for broadcast.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 04:46 PM\']
Soooooo...Whaddya think? Too much math? Too long? Too hard? I think I posted this idea somewhere before, but I'm not sure.
[snapback]100866[/snapback]
[/quote]
I'm gonna leave the obligatory joke to Lemon...but I don't like this idea at all. I see enough contestants with bad math skills on TPIR- I don't need to see a game that would become virtually impossible to win add to the problem (that of course, is if they made the changeover).
I don't know what's worse- this idea, or Travis' Dice Game change (I can see at least 40 things wrong with it, if you know what I mean). No offense intended to either of you guys, though.
-
Anything involving percentages is going to confuse almost every contestant that plays the game. I think CarShark's idea could work if instead of saying "25% off," the tag said "$700 off" (and so on).
Yes, there are similarities to Barker's Bargain Bar, but you're going to get a blank stare if you tell a contestant "Place the tag on the prize which has a price that is 75% less than its retail price."
Besides, most prizes have weird prices that don't lend themselves to percent discounts that don't get into some number of cents.
--
Scott Robinson
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 04:58 PM\'][quote name=\'jmangin\' date=\'Oct 31 2005, 12:52 PM\']The discount price is a cool idea, but in order to make it a little easier to calculate
A good idea--but may confuse people who are not mathematically inclined.
[snapback]100868[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not to mention that the average viewer wouldn't be able to tell at a glance why someone lost.
Great for math geeks (and I say that as a math geek), not so good for broadcast.
[snapback]100869[/snapback]
[/quote]
I gotta agree. This couldn't work in practice...but damn, I wish it could.