The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: whewfan on July 05, 2003, 05:40:37 PM
-
As you may recall, I had asked advice on how to build a TJW slot machine.
Now I have another idea. A new format....
Hear me out! Before you think I'm going TJW 90, trust me, I'm not. I wanted to keep all the elements of the original TJW, and do some tweaking to make the game a little longer, and add some new wrinkles to the bonus game.
The new TJW format is in two rounds...
ROUND ONE- Classic TJW
Played exactly the same, with a few exceptions. Round one is played until one player scores $500.
That player has the advantage in round 2. Also, three jokers WILL NOT win the game, but they act as a regular triple.
ROUND TWO- The Fast Forward Round
Remember the Fast Forward category? Well, In this round, ALL questions play just like the Fast Forward category. The player in the lead spins first. This time, 3 jokers CAN mean an automatic win. The player can answer as many questions as he wants, but goes back to his previous score if he misses a question. The first player to score $1500 wins the game. Just as with classic TJW, if one player scores $1500, the other has one last chance to catch up, and missing one question will lose the game. Exception: If a player should score $1500 or more by stealing and answering a missed question, it's a win for that player.
BONUS ROUND- Face The Devil
What would TJW be without the Devil? (Besides TJW 90). Just as on the original TJW, there are dollar amounts and one devil. However, as an added twist, there are also JOKERS on the machine. Spinning one joker means the player must answer one question in order to spin again, worth $50. Spinning two jokers means TWO questions must be answered, at $100 apiece. Three jokers, however, means a possible automatic win, but THREE questions must be answered. Missing a question ends the game, but the player keeps whatever they accumulated at that point.
What do you think?
-
Where are the definitions? :)
-
[quote name=\'whewfan\' date=\'Jul 5 2003, 02:40 PM\'] ROUND ONE- Classic TJW
Played exactly the same, with a few exceptions. Round one is played until one player scores $500.
That player has the advantage in round 2.
[/quote]
Is this a two-player game? If so, having a score of $500 do nothing more than end the round is really stupid. And in ANY case, does any player deserving of a final spin get one? If not, why not? Hardly fair.
Just as with classic TJW, if one player scores $1500, the other has one last chance to catch up, and missing one question will lose the game.
Will only the player who didn't have the \"advantage\" have this opportunity? If so, is having the \"advantage\" really an \"advantage\"? You could allow the player who \"won\" Round One to have the choice of spinning first or getting Last Licks, but that further reduces the meaning of an already meaningless first round.
And once we get past that, we run into the BIG problem with Fast Forward: when you ARE in a situation when someone is getting Last Licks, it's often anticlimactic. Ending a game on an incorrect answer makes for bad TV, in my opinion.
Exception:
Problem.
Just as on the original TJW, there are dollar amounts and one devil.
So you can still lose through no fault of your own. Nope.
Spinning two jokers means TWO questions must be answered, at $100 apiece. Three jokers, however, means a possible automatic win, but THREE questions must be answered. Missing a question ends the game, but the player keeps whatever they accumulated at that point.
Way too freakin' complicated for the average viewer.
What do you think?
See the post icon.
-
Where are the definitions?
You're *really* not helping...
-
While I laud the fact that somebody here is trying to \"renovate an old house,\" think about why Card Sharks 2001 did a kamikaze two months in.
The format was way too complicated and totally deviated from the format that made many -- including myself -- fans of both the Perry and Eubanks versions.
My point is, the proposal for a new format of \"The Joker's Wild\" is way too convoluted and complicated for the masses to read. I feel that the format should stay the same as the 1977-1986 syndie version, except for a few tweaks.
For example, there can be a \"Natural Triple\" bonus of $500 (doubled to $1,000 if there are 3 Jokers). I am also pro straddling. However, if that is frowned upon, let it be a fast-paced, best-of-three format. The first to $500 wins. Simple as that.
In the \"Face the Devil\" round, a contestant could spin until he or she reaches the $1,000 mark. The prize package can be anything from a nice (but not too lavish) car to a vacation package... you know, something valued at least at $10,000.
The tweak to this can be considered a blatant knock-off of Russian Roulette (minus the drops, of course). The contestant can take one final spin of the slots if he/she likes. If no devils show up, the contestant wins an additional $10,000 in cash. If the devil does show up, the contestant loses the prize package, but can keep the $1,000 for consolation.
Now, I may get laughed out of the board for this, but all I am doing is making a few additions to a show whose format really needs no changing. Have at it people!
The Inquisitive One
-
Ok, I gave it some thought. You made some good points. Here's my revised idea...
ROUND ONE AND TWO- Classic TJW
TJW as we all know and love. The winner of this round (Still $500) moves on to round 3. Two new players are introduced for round 2, and it's still the same game. Winner moves on to round 3
ROUND 3- Fast Forward Round
Winners of round one and two play the same TJW, and both start with zero (they still keep their winnings from the previous round) but all questions are fast forward. Just as with the original fast forward category, the player can answer as many questions as he wants, but goes back to his original score if he's wrong. $1500 wins the game. If either player scores $1500, the trailing player gets one last chance to catch up. Exception: If the player scores $1500 by answering a question their opponent couldn't, the player with $1500 wins.
The bonus round
I'm still working on that.
-
(Re: your initial proposal)
I admire your effort to spruce up the \"classic\" format, but...
About Rounds One and Two:
I feel that you're ripping out the heart of the game. Round two is far too similar to the '90s version. Round one is non-essential. I'd prefer sticking with either round being the only maingame, but not both.
Beat the Devil:
Too confusing. Why go back to answering questions? Is your new JW supposed to be some hard quizzer?
-
Jalman wrote:
Beat the Devil:
Too confusing. Why go back to answering questions? Is your new JW supposed to be some hard quizzer?
Well, it can't be any easier a quizzer than the original!
--Ted Schuerzinger
-
My way of doing it:
3 players. Round 1 is classic TJW, with $50/$100/$200 and $500 for 3 Jokers. (if this may take too long, you can double the amounts.) Player with least amount of money is eliminated.
Round 2 is doubled amounts, first to $2,500 to win, and five new categories.
Bonus Round: TJW90's bonus could work, except replace the definitions with quick questions. Joker Joker Joker in any one spin gives the player a jackpot that begins at $10,000 and increases $500 'til won.
Player can stay on until they either win five games or over $100,000.
-
The maingame on \"The Joker's Wild\" seems fine the way it was, with the occasional Mystery or Fast Forward for variety. I always thought it was the bonus round that held it back. The player didn't have any decisions to make except to stop and take the money, which at those stakes isn't exactly pulse pounding.
So here's a new bonus round, which at least introduces an element of risk to the whole thing. It even keeps the devil around. It may be too expensive, but what the heck.
On the wheels are:
--Jokers
--Slides that says \"car\" (perhaps that looks like the \"bar\" on a slot machine)
--$500 slides
--$1000
--$3000 (for color, the dollar amounts could be accompanied by slot machine fruits--cherry, plum, lemon)
--A devil
It takes 3 cars to win a car (a natural triple or with jokers). 3 jokers wins a progressive jackpot that starts at, say, $25,000 and goes up $1000 every spin. Devil comes up, game over.
Otherwise, we pay off the top dollar value on the board, double it if it's a pair, triple it for three of a kind. For example, 500-1000-joker pays $2000--the 1000 doubled for a pair.
The risk comes in as follows: the player can take the earnings from that spin and quit, or they can give the money back and spin again. They don't know if there's a better spin down the road, or if the devil will pop up. They can spin up to, say, five times--if they spin a fifth time, they have to take what they get on that spin.
So how's that sound?
-
[quote name=\'whewfan\' date=\'Jul 5 2003, 08:04 PM\'] TJW as we all know and love. The winner of this round (Still $500) moves on to round 3. Two new players are introduced for round 2, and it's still the same game. Winner moves on to round 3 [/quote]
\"It's the slot machine game you've played all your life, but never quite like this!\"
(Not that that's a bad thing, it worked fine for Scrabble.)
Is this gonna be an hour show, anyhow? 'Cuz it ain't fitting in 30 minutes, no way no how.
ROUND 3- Fast Forward Round
Is still just as broken as it was before.
The bonus round
I'm still working on that.
So far, all you've done is change back a broken format to an original format, and left the rest of the broken format broken. This isn't even close to excretable, much less viable.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Jul 5 2003, 10:18 PM\'] So here's a new bonus round, which at least introduces an element of risk to the whole thing. It even keeps the devil around. It may be too expensive, but what the heck.
[/quote]
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.
I don't see where yours improves on the current format, aside from giving away a boatload more money, and everyone and his brother ought to know where I stand on that issue by now.
-
My two cents on a TJW revival (FWIW I've thrown around this idea at the old place...BTW, I still like the idea this forum still has that \"new board smell\")...
Play the main game just like the original syndicated series except that...
\the champion goes first
\the values are double those of the original (I'm thinking $100 for a single, $200 for a pair, $400 for a triple, $1000 for three jokers; first to $1000 wins).
\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)
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.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 6 2003, 12:42 AM\'][quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Jul 5 2003, 10:18 PM\'] So here's a new bonus round, which at least introduces an element of risk to the whole thing. It even keeps the devil around. It may be too expensive, but what the heck.
[/quote]
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.
I don't see where yours improves on the current format, aside from giving away a boatload more money, and everyone and his brother ought to know where I stand on that issue by now.[/quote]
It's hard to rip on a game for not involving skill when it's based on slot machines. My trouble with the original endgame was that it was pathologically dull. \"High Rollers\" is luck, too, but there are decisions to be made and the game built to a climax. \"Split Second\" was all luck, but it was quick and had some drama to it. On TPIR, more and more pricing games involve a risk--first came Temptation and the Punchboard, more recently Spelling Bee, Let 'em Roll, and It's in the Bag.
The goal of my idea is to add more temptation to quit, thus giving the player something to think about. Otherwise it's like watching a total stranger scratch off a lottery ticket. And while my idea may require bigger prizes, I think a luck-based game needs reasonably high stakes to be interesting (as opposed to a skill game with play-along value, such as \"Lingo\" or \"Password\").
-
My trouble with the original endgame was that it was pathologically dull.
Technically, isn't the original endgame the one with the prizes and circled prizes (Coffee! Another case of coffee! Color TV!)?
-
[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.
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.
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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)
-
[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.
* 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.
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)
-
[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.
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.
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. :)
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.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 7 2003, 10:30 AM\']
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. :^) ]
-
[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.