Playing for Points

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 01:18 PM\']


Part of the problem with some scoring systems is that they just don't work.  I know this has been brought up before, but on "Go", for example, the rounds went 250-500-750-1250.  In order to fit the game into a half hour, they couldn't play five rounds, but I'm just not comfortable with those kind of scoring systems.

Also, on "Super Password", the $100 puzzle was meaningless - it didn't affect the outcome of the game at all.  It might sound silly, but if I was rooting for a particular contestant, I was always hoping they'd MISS the $100 puzzle! [/quote]
 The first two $100 puzzles on Body Language also had no bearing on the outcome of the game.

[Jimmy Owen]

On MG, matching Patti D. probably should have been worth two points.

[Jay Temple]

Shows that have a first-to-reach-the-goal set-up tend to avoid the problem of anything being meaningless.  (Body Language, Super Password and Go suffered from a poor choice of score values, but they basically achieved this.)  The best examples in point-goals are Split Second and Family Feud.  The definitive example is Blockbusters, where a game could take a long time if players didn't get the questions right, but a tie was impossible.

As to the question of points vs. dollars, I figure that the biggest advantage of points is that they never have to be adjusted for inflation.  (I've been trying to come up with an inflation-proof prize structure.  One idea that I had was to award quantities of gold.)

[chris319]

Point goals only work when both sides have an equal opportunity to play (Family Feud). They generally don't work when two or more players take turns playing. If play alternated between A and B and there were a point goal, A could surpass the point goal BUT WAIT! He hasn't won the game yet because we have to play one more question with B to give him an equal shot. The closest thing to this I can think of that was seen on the air is Match Game, where one player could match all six (five) panelists and the remaining question(s) were played with B who had to achieve a tie. On MG there was not a point goal but a point limit.

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 12:50 AM\'] Point goals only work when both sides have an equal opportunity to play (Family Feud). They generally don't work when two or more players take turns playing. If play alternated between A and B and there were a point goal, A could surpass the point goal BUT WAIT! He hasn't won the game yet because we have to play one more question with B to give him an equal shot. The closest thing to this I can think of that was seen on the air is Match Game, where one player could match all six (five) panelists and the remaining question(s) were played with B who had to achieve a tie. On MG there was not a point goal but a point limit. [/quote]
 Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 06:59 AM\'] Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also? [/quote]
 Yes, the player who went second (who I think was the champion, seeing as the Hal In The Loud Suit clip was this precise situation) always got last licks in the event that the first player made the $500 goal. I'm trying to think of another show where this situation occurred, and I'm coming up blank. I'm sure one exists, tho.

(MG, as Chris said, is a different beast with a point limit, and Pyramid had a similar issue, but was organized so as to provide a down-to-the-wire finish as often as possible)

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 10:39 AM\'][quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 06:59 AM\'] Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also? [/quote]
Yes, the player who went second (who I think was the champion, seeing as the Hal In The Loud Suit clip was this precise situation) always got last licks in the event that the first player made the $500 goal. I'm trying to think of another show where this situation occurred, and I'm coming up blank. I'm sure one exists, tho.[/quote]
Initially on "TJW," the champ was in the first slot, meaning that if s/he pulled three Jokers on the first spin and answered the question correctly, the new player had to be brought back on another date to get a chance to play (with another champion).  (When the champ was moved to the second slot, the rule was obviously dropped, since the champ had already gotten a chance to play, thank you very much.)  Still, though, the second player always got last licks if the first player got to the $500 goal on their proper turn.

[GS Warehouse]

[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 09:59 AM\'] Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also? [/quote]
 Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twenty One also plays by that rule.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 12:25 PM\'] [quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 09:59 AM\'] Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also? [/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twenty One also plays by that rule. [/quote]
 But 21 also has a limit, not a goal, and it's a game of perfect knowledge, so it's not really "giving the player last licks" so much as "finishing out the round to determine the result."

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 04:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 03:32 PM\'] A game should turn on the last  element played so that any player can come from behind to win.
 [/quote]
This is one of "Wheel of Fortune"'s faults some of the time, when Pat has to spin and it lands on, say, $250. Even an extra grand, for $1,250, ain't gonna help if Joe has $22,000 total and Beverly is in second with $5,000. [/quote]
 This brings up the weird thing about "Wheel"--there is almost no suspense whatsoever in seeing who will win. There's possible tension, say, when a player who's behind has control of the wheel and could keep spinning even after they know the answer, risking a bankrupt to go for the daily win. But such a gamble is glossed over if not outright discouraged. It's as if the game is engineered to make it as unexciting as possible.

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 04:29 PM\'] This brings up the weird thing about "Wheel"--there is almost no suspense whatsoever in seeing who will win. There's possible tension, say, when a player who's behind has control of the wheel and could keep spinning even after they know the answer, risking a bankrupt to go for the daily win. But such a gamble is glossed over if not outright discouraged. It's as if the game is engineered to make it as unexciting as possible. [/quote]
 The most exciting part of WoF to me is watching it to see how fast I can solve the puzzles (I've gotten a few with no letters over the course of the years I've been watching the show). I couldn't give two squats who wins or how much they win by.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 03:29 PM\'][quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 04:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 03:32 PM\'] A game should turn on the last  element played so that any player can come from behind to win.
 [/quote]
This is one of "Wheel of Fortune"'s faults some of the time, when Pat has to spin and it lands on, say, $250. Even an extra grand, for $1,250, ain't gonna help if Joe has $22,000 total and Beverly is in second with $5,000. [/quote]
This brings up the weird thing about "Wheel"--there is almost no suspense whatsoever in seeing who will win. There's possible tension, say, when a player who's behind has control of the wheel and could keep spinning even after they know the answer, risking a bankrupt to go for the daily win. But such a gamble is glossed over if not outright discouraged. It's as if the game is engineered to make it as unexciting as possible.[/quote]
It's almost like they place all of the drama on the end game.  Seems to be a holdover from the sensibilities of Lin Bolen, who supposedly placed more of an emphasis on some sort of end game, assuming that the housewife audience was busy doing other things and needed to be notified that something big was about to happen.  (Of course, with "Wheel"'s original format the shopping was considered the equivalent of the end game, since they otherwise didn't have one.  I know.)

[chris319]

I think the WOF end game came in during the reign of Jake Tauber.

[ChuckNet]

Yes, the player who went second (who I think was the champion, seeing as the Hal In The Loud Suit clip was this precise situation) always got last licks in the event that the first player made the $500 goal.

And, going back to earlier in this thread, Jack came perilously close to screwing up on Hal's final spin...when a category appeared in the first window, he began going into the whole "we have a new champion" spiel, but FF Spelling popped up in the 2nd window, prompting Hal to wave his hands and say "Wait, wait, wait!"

Sadly, while Hal came close to making a comeback on that spin, he blew it on the answer which would've put him at $450 (he was playing FFS for $50) by misspelling "Schenectady", eerily reminiscent of how TTD's 2nd all-time top winner Kit Salisbury lost.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 11 2004, 09:15 PM\'] he began going into the whole "we have a new champion" spiel, but FF Spelling popped up in the 2nd window, prompting Hal to wave his hands and say "Wait, wait, wait!"

 [/quote]
 It's always nice when the players are more familiar with the rules than the host.