Major Alphabetics Flaw

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'May 2 2004, 05:52 PM\'] Didn't they change this rule on P+ after Tom Kennedy came on?  (Or shortly before TK came onboard?)  I recall there was something to the effect that the rule was changed to eliminate any chance at the Alphabetics Jackpot for an illegal clue to stop just what you're talking about. [/quote]
 When the Kennedy P+ went to the progressive Alphabetics jackpot, an illegal clue cost the player 20 percent of the potential jackpot. The finale had a $12K win when the jackpot was worth $20K because Tom POston gave two illegal clues.

[beatlefreak84]

Wasn't it 20%, rather than 10? It was no difference in either TK or AL who hosted, it was still a 20% deduction in that jackpot for an illegal clue.

Whoops!  I stand corrected; yes, it was 20%, as Zach and others had stated.

I don't know where I got my 10% from; perhaps I was doing some bad math today!

Anthony

[adamjk]

Here's one I remembered, from 100k Pyramid. The fact that if you passed a word in the main game,  you couldn't go back to it.

Also, this wasn't really a flaw from the game itself, but a flaw within Richard Dawson. I noticed often if a contestant passed on a question in fast money on Family Feud, Dawson wouldn't go back to it if the contestant still had time at the end.

While I'm on the subject of the Feud, a flaw of the new version through season 4, was the fact that there was 3 single questions, and then a triple question where you could only have 1 strike. I've seen episodes where one team had so much points, that if a family failed to get more then the other team had, then they automatically lost the game. Also, the rule that began on Bullseye era Combs episodes, where a if a family tried to steal a bank and succeeded, whatever amount of points the answer revealed was worth, sometimes doubled or tripled when neccessary, would be added to the bank. That was definitely unfair. About that BTW, something I've always wondered, was if Dawson's return in 94 kept that rule or not. Anyone know? I'm really glad that Karn's version has brought the show back to its roots, with the classic gameplay. My only complaint is that, they don't play for money in the main game. Other then that, everything is back to way it used to be in terms of gameplay, with the exception of a 1 answer 5th question tiebreak.

[Jay Temple]

P+ had a flaw in the maingame and one in the bonus.  In the maingame, the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game.  The problem in the bonus wasn't as bad as the old version, but it was a flaw nonetheless.  The jackpot started at $5,000 and went up $5,000 each time it wasn't one.  The effect was that you would end up with less money by winning every round than if you won your last one and lost every round before that, with some money.  (To use a simple illustration, say it's at $5,000 your first time, and you win two games.  If you win both rounds, you have $10,000.  If you get one out of ten the first time and 10/10 the second, you have $100 for the first round and $10,000 for the second, totaling $10,100.)

Body Language:  The first two rounds had no bearing on the outcome of the game.  (My suggestion:  $50 bonus for getting all five words in your first turn.  Then getting your $100 puzzle, your opponent's $100 puzzle and one $250 puzzle ends the game.)

$50,000 Pyramid:  The way to qualify for the tournament is getting 7/7 in the fastest time for that week.  However, if your opponent does so poorly that you only need 6 to win the game (and play for a piddling $5,000 compared to previous incarnations), you get one less opportunity to beat the time.

Double Talk:  If the two players each won a single game, the player who won more money for the day returned, ŕ la the contemporary Pyramid shows.  However, bonus money from the main game counted.  The bonus money came by solving an extra puzzle for $1,000 after getting 4 of 4 in your turn, and if you didn't need all 4 to win, you didn't get the shot at the $1,000.  So, if you won the first game with a perfect score and all bonuses, then won the bonus round, all you had to do to ensure your return the next day is miss two puzzles.  (I'm fairly certain one show worked out that way, though I wouldn't think it was intentional.)

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'May 2 2004, 07:13 PM\'] Also, this wasn't really a flaw from the game itself, but a flaw within Richard Dawson. I noticed often if a contestant passed on a question in fast money on Family Feud, Dawson wouldn't go back to it if the contestant still had time at the end.
 [/quote]
 Didn't that change subsequently?  I do recall seeing episodes where Dawson did go back if time remained (perhaps from much later in the run), but perhaps my mind is playing games with me again (wouldn't be the first time).

Doug

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'May 2 2004, 10:44 PM\'] P+ had a flaw in the maingame and one in the bonus.  In the maingame, the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game.  The problem in the bonus wasn't as bad as the old version, but it was a flaw nonetheless.  The jackpot started at $5,000 and went up $5,000 each time it wasn't one.  The effect was that you would end up with less money by winning every round than if you won your last one and lost every round before that, with some money.  (To use a simple illustration, say it's at $5,000 your first time, and you win two games.  If you win both rounds, you have $10,000.  If you get one out of ten the first time and 10/10 the second, you have $100 for the first round and $10,000 for the second, totaling $10,100.) [/quote]
 Well, not all of P+.  At least for the first couple of years, the $100 puzzles *did* have some bearing on the outcome.

Doug

[J.R.]

Classic Concentraiton Flaw:

In the first season. Solving the puzzle ment immediate bye-bye for the loser but if you were in a game and time ran out and had to go into "Speedround" then whoever solved the puzzle, the one who didn't gets to come back.

Seems REALLY unfair to the unlucky sap who got put on the show in the first half (It made sense when they went to the "Two Strikes" rule)

Of course, you can say the major flaw in "CC" was indecision of a elimation format
-Joe R.

[That Don Guy]

P+ had a flaw in the maingame and one in the bonus.  In the maingame, the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game.  The problem in the bonus wasn't as bad as the old version, but it was a flaw nonetheless.  The jackpot started at $5,000 and went up $5,000 each time it wasn't one.  The effect was that you would end up with less money by winning every round than if you won your last one and lost every round before that, with some money.

True - if you managed to get to the end game the second time.  (There was a recent thread about a Classic Concentration player who got all of the matches but one in the end game in about 27 seconds - and then stopped guessing because he wanted to win more prizes in the head-to-head game; I don't think he got back to the end game a second time.)  By that logic, the entire concept of The $20,000 Pyramid is bad (you have to lose twice at the winner's circle in order to have a chance at the $20,000).

$50,000 Pyramid:  The way to qualify for the tournament is getting 7/7 in the fastest time for that week.  However, if your opponent does so poorly that you only need 6 to win the game (and play for a piddling $5,000 compared to previous incarnations), you get one less opportunity to beat the time.

I thought the sixth category was played through, unless they gave an illegal clue, regardless of the score (like how they handle "Mystery 7" in other versions if it comes up at the end of the game), except that they may have stopped if the time needed to be the "Person of the Week" was passed.

-- Don

[chris319]

the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game

In the 100-yard dash, the first 99 yards have no bearing on the outcome.

Think about it.

[chris319]

Word: Mattress
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Mumble"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Contestant: "Ummm...clue?"
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Pass it"

More like:

Password: "MATTRESS"
Celeb: "Say"
Cont: "Speak"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Cont (CONFUSED): "Bed"
Celeb: "Say"
Cont (SERIOUSLY CONFUSED): "When"
etc.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:14 PM\']

the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game

In the 100-yard dash, the first 99 yards have no bearing on the outcome.

Think about it. [/quote]
 He must have been referring to Super Password, where the lone $100 puzzle indeed had no effect on which contestent ended up winning the game (except for the fact that the player who got said puzzle didn't get to start the next). At least in the 100-yard dash, whoever's in the lead after the first 99 yards has a significant advantage over his opponent, which was not at all the case after the first puzzle on SP.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:18 PM\']

Word: Mattress
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Mumble"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Contestant: "Ummm...clue?"
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Pass it"

More like:

Password: "MATTRESS"
Celeb: "Say"
Cont: "Speak"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Cont (CONFUSED): "Bed"
Celeb: "Say"
Cont (SERIOUSLY CONFUSED): "When"
etc. [/quote]
 Or, if the contestant and celebrity were both good (and the celeb could do a bit of acting):

Allen: "M!"
Celeb: "Mattress"
(beep beep beep beep)
Celeb [with disgusted look]: "OH, SHOOT!"
Contestant: "Mattress!!!"
(Music plays; contestant and celeb hug)
Allen: "One illegal clue, so we reduce your total winnings by $1000, but with the money you won in the game, you have $4400. Let's go play another game."

[Ian Wallis]

1986HS - Games are worth $500 each - a player jumps out to a $1000 lead, it's VERY hard for other player to come back and tie, as very rarely (if ever?) are four complete games played. This was later rectified by making the third game $1000, as well.

That always bugged me as well.  A contestant could do well for the first two games, miss a question in the third game and end up losing the match.  If they wanted to make it possible for a contestant to come back at the end, they should have done something like this:

$500 for the first game
$750 for the second
$1000 for the third, etc.

That would have make it more fair.

[CJBojangles]

Here's one I remembered, from 100k Pyramid. The fact that if you passed a word in the main game, you couldn't go back to it.

I'll take this one. I really don't see that as a flaw of the game, maybe an inconvenience, but that's just the way the game works.

During today's run of Pyramid you can come back if there is time, they just have the extra "Have to say the word before you say pass to receive credit" rule stuck in there to... Well I really don't know why, now that I think of it.

Also, this wasn't really a flaw from the game itself, but a flaw within Richard Dawson. I noticed often if a contestant passed on a question in fast money on Family Feud, Dawson wouldn't go back to it if the contestant still had time at the end.

*crickets chirping, looks for Zach, no sign of him*

Dawson didn't have the choice whether or not he went back to a passed question with a contestant. Wouldn't that be a little unfair? How would you feel if based on whether or not that burrito he had at lunch was sitting right with him was whether or not he decided to go back to a question you passed in Fast Money? During the early years of Dawson's run, a contestant saying "Pass" would basically forfeit the question and earn them 0 points. This wasn't made obvious, but wasn't really discouraged either. Later on, the classic "If you can't think of something, say pass and I'll come back to it if there's time" schpiel was added. It's been that way ever since. Why am I...surprised you...didn't know that?

-snip- My only complaint is that, they don't play for money in the main game. Other then that, everything is back to way it used to be in terms of gameplay, with the exception of a 1 answer 5th question tiebreak.

Wow, you really are a Feud freak. No offense, not saying there's anything wrong with it.. *stops digging his hole deeper*

Really, I think that last comment you made translates to a "flaw" in itself. I really hate the new method of "tie-breaking" on the Feud - when there really is no "tie" per se, it just means that neither family got to 300 in that standard-repetitive-uniform-unchanging allotted time per question (*shudders*) in the earlier rounds. Putting a survey on the board with 1 answer brings the entire game down to a faceoff. A twisted "Sudden Death" version of Bullseye, if you will. I really find it anticlimactic, and leaves a feeling that I just waisted 20 minutes watching the front game.

[adamjk]

True, but you must remember, that in this day and age, there's really not time for a full 5th question