Author Topic: Rules flaws, etc... (Read 33519 times)

Dbacksfan12 · « **on:** February 27, 2009, 07:14:14 PM »

After reading the thread about GSN schedules, a flaw in the 70s Pyramid was raised. What other flaws are out there? Do any of them stand out...and could you capitalize on any of them?

One other I can recall was on Get the Picture, when the game went into "speed-up" mode, a team could guess at will without penalty.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2009, 07:24:12 PM »

Card Sharks 01...with the one row of seven cards, I could get to card number six (say, a King), call "LOWER!", and lose the round because the seventh card is an Ace.

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2009, 07:27:06 PM »

Merv Griffin's Crossword's spoiler system.

TheInquisitiveOne · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2009, 07:45:32 PM »

The debacles known as the Osmond Pyramid $100,000 Tournament.

Version 1: In the event that no one wins the $75,000 prize in WC II, the one who won $25,000 in the fastest time, or the one who accumulates the most money wins the 100K. Three days, anticlimactic, no thought.

Version 2: The finalists compete to go to that night's WC's, each worth $50,000...which doesn't guarantee a $100,000 win. Three days, anticlimactic, even less thought...

Compare to this: In Dick Clark's version, the three fastest WC players play. First one to the top wins $100,000. While there is a flaw within this format (what if the cash is won in the first day), this version seemed more plausible and simple.

An honest opinion I wished to share, and if I am wrong, please let me know where I faltered. Thanks!

The Inquisitive One

/good to be back

beatlefreak84 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2009, 07:57:58 PM »

Well, as I'm sure at least one poster here can attest to (paging Chad Mosher...), the huge flaw concerning celebrity partner selection for the bonus round on MDP. It really didn't seem fair to base the selection solely on points scored with the partners, especially since many games ended prematurely, forcing some otherwise great champs to play with a mediocre (or downright awful) partner in the bonus round.

Whether this brings a perceived fairness in selection to the show is immaterial...when there's a MILLION DOLLARS on the line, the contestant should be allowed to choose his/her partner.

As far as $100K Pyramid goes, the Clark/Davidson tournament system was much better from a gameplay standpoint, but I'm not surprised, from a producer standpoint, why it was changed for Donnymid (uncertain # of episodes, the aforementioned problem about having a winner on the first show).

Anthony

rjaguar3 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2009, 12:45:51 AM »

Until 1985, you could buzz in on Jeopardy! as soon as the clue was revealed. Thus, the dominant strategy for a good player quickly became buzzing in as soon as each clue was revealed.

Apparently the correspondingly large number of negs and blank stares caused the rule to be changed, as far as I can tell.

TLEberle · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2009, 12:51:26 AM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'209009\' date=\'Feb 27 2009, 04:14 PM\']After reading the thread about GSN schedules, a flaw in the 70s Pyramid was raised. What other flaws are out there? Do any of them stand out...and could you capitalize on any of them?[/quote] What's the flaw? That you could have repeated ties until someone outscored the other? I don't think that's a flaw as much as it is the nature of the beast until someone changed things.

Quote

One other I can recall was on Get the Picture, when the game went into "speed-up" mode, a team could guess at will without penalty.

And yet you never saw teams thump the button saying "Boondoggle!": to lock out the opposition, which means they were told by the producers to not do it, or the teams never figured out that it was a viable strategy.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2009, 01:02:19 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'209037\' date=\'Feb 27 2009, 09:51 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'209009\' date=\'Feb 27 2009, 04:14 PM\']After reading the thread about GSN schedules, a flaw in the 70s Pyramid was raised. What other flaws are out there? Do any of them stand out...and could you capitalize on any of them?[/quote] What's the flaw? That you could have repeated ties until someone outscored the other? I don't think that's a flaw as much as it is the nature of the beast until someone changed things.
[/quote]
They were referring to the One-And-Done way of handling contestants in the 70s. If you get a bad celeb, too bad.

MrBuddwing · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2009, 01:46:48 AM »

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'209038\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 01:02 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'209037\' date=\'Feb 27 2009, 09:51 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'209009\' date=\'Feb 27 2009, 04:14 PM\']After reading the thread about GSN schedules, a flaw in the 70s Pyramid was raised. What other flaws are out there? Do any of them stand out...and could you capitalize on any of them?[/quote] What's the flaw? That you could have repeated ties until someone outscored the other? I don't think that's a flaw as much as it is the nature of the beast until someone changed things.
[/quote]
They were referring to the One-And-Done way of handling contestants in the 70s. If you get a bad celeb, too bad.
[/quote]

I remember. I recall thinking that "The $25,000 Pyramid," which ran concurrently in syndication one night a week, was in a way preferable because the two contestants got to stay for the entire show, and each got a chance to play opposite each celebrity - it seemed more even-handed that way.

As for the daily "$10,000 Pyramid," I always felt sorry for the contestants whenever Peter Lawford showed up, because he was such a poor player. But I also remember a young man who was such a powerhouse, he kept winning round after round, even though he was saddled with Lawford half the time. And finally, the young man won the Pyramid after something like a dozen tries, much to the joy of the other contestants who were slated to follow him.

Craig Karlberg · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2009, 03:54:39 AM »

All the versions of High Rollers had a flaw that stuck out like a sore thumb, it would lead to an automatic gane over. That being if a player leaves a 1 on the board, game ends right then & there though it's more common in the Big Numbers round than the main game. That's why it's always a good idea to discard the 1 as quickly as possible to avoid that flaw.

PYLdude · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2009, 04:20:35 AM »

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'209048\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 03:54 AM\']
All the versions of High Rollers had a flaw that stuck out like a sore thumb, it would lead to an automatic gane over. That being if a player leaves a 1 on the board, game ends right then & there though it's more common in the Big Numbers round than the main game. That's why it's always a good idea to discard the 1 as quickly as possible to avoid that flaw.
[/quote]

How is that really a flaw? I would figure most people would have enough sense in their heads not to do something like that because they know you can't roll a one.

I mean, yeah, the possibility exists of someone leaving a one (meaning the automatic game over as you said), but I'd chalk it up more to lack of mental acuity then a gameplay flaw because most, if not all, of the players would find a way to get the 1 off the board ASAP.

clemon79 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2009, 04:54:08 AM »

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'209048\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 12:54 AM\']
That's why it's always a good idea to discard the 1 as quickly as possible to avoid that flaw.[/quote]
Many would disagree with you.

Loogaroo · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2009, 09:37:53 AM »

The NBC big-money show Identity had a rule where if you identified 10 out of the 12 personalities without using your free miss, you forfeited the free miss. Considering that the game had no business being played for the enormous sums of money they were offering, that struck me as a ham-handed attempt to create risk where none would be otherwise.

That and the rule in the original version of Jackpot! in which the expert remained at the podium after answering a Jackpot riddle correctly, thus providing no reason to play on once you found it except if you were really close to the Target number.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2009, 09:43:43 AM »

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'209048\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 03:54 AM\']All the versions of High Rollers had a flaw that stuck out like a sore thumb, it would lead to an automatic gane over. That being if a player leaves a 1 on the board, game ends right then & there though it's more common in the Big Numbers round than the main game. That's why it's always a good idea to discard the 1 as quickly as possible to avoid that flaw.[/quote]
This is -- unsurprisingly -- wrong on several levels. As far as the bonus round is concerned, it's not really a flaw of the game for the '1' to be left alone, but a combination of (mostly) bad luck and (maybe) bad strategy. In the main game, leaving the '1' isn't a flaw at all and doesn't end the game "right then & there". You just have to be sure you answer that last question correctly, then it's over.

From my point of view, the bigger problem with High Rollers is that the main games usually end not because one player was successful, but because the other player failed. You typically want a game to end with a winning moment. That can't always be helped in some games, but the High Rollers structure meant that most of the time the game ended because somebody made a bad roll.

GameShowGuru · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2009, 10:15:21 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'209059\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 09:43 AM\']
This is -- unsurprisingly -- wrong on several levels. As far as the bonus round is concerned, it's not really a flaw of the game for the '1' to be left alone, but a combination of (mostly) bad luck and (maybe) bad strategy. In the main game, leaving the '1' isn't a flaw at all and doesn't end the game "right then & there". You just have to be sure you answer that last question correctly, then it's over.[/quote]

You just answered a question that I had for years regarding the remaining 1 in a main game round: If a 1 is the last number remaining on the board, it is essentially a tie game. The toss-up question serves as the tie-breaker whereby whoever "wins the question" will win the game by default.