Duel Returns in April

[chill411]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'181231\' date=\'Mar 13 2008, 02:12 PM\']
The rules were unintuitive?  There wasn't enough suspense?

Oy.
[/quote]

The only rule change I could imagine that would make the game more intuitive, and not affect the game greatly, is making the lock-in of an answer an auto-accelerator on your opponent.

I'm really indifferent on the accelerators; I'm not sure just how much they add to the game.  At the very least, one could argue that such a rule change would give an additional reward for knowing an answer quickly - being able to pressure your opponent.  On the other hand, 1-1 chip situations lose their current suspense, as I can imagine contentants throwing caution into the wind to force their opponents to do the same thing.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chill411\' post=\'181295\' date=\'Mar 13 2008, 11:20 PM\']
On the other hand, 1-1 chip situations lose their current suspense, as I can imagine contentants throwing caution into the wind to force their opponents to do the same thing.
[/quote]
Any chip lead loses its suspense. If I can blow four chips to do an Insta-Press and scare my opponent down to 1, why wouldn't I do it?

They're strategically interesting when used well. It's just that, in true prime-time fashion, the coordinators aren't interested in people who use them well.

[chill411]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'181331\' date=\'Mar 14 2008, 01:47 PM\']
Any chip lead loses its suspense. If I can blow four chips to do an Insta-Press and scare my opponent down to 1, why wouldn't I do it?

They're strategically interesting when used well. It's just that, in true prime-time fashion, the coordinators aren't interested in people who use them well.
[/quote]

I agree with you, although a chip lead in this game is very rarely to the point where one could weather two of those, if even one of them.  The type of question has a fairly significant impact.  I'd gladly play 4 and rush out an accelerator on figuring out what day of the year Christmas is on, as opposed to remembering Booker Prize winners.  Of course, how often does that scenario come up? (rarely)

The saddest part, I imagine everyone here has reasoned out these accelerators more than any of the contestants appearing on the show - British or stateside.  There's a deeper game there, we're just not allowed to see it.

[Chelsea Thrasher]

As long as they make sure to keep reminding me what show and network I'm watching as they lead into each and every last commercial break.  I can be forgetful.

/Why was I watching this show again?

[Jimmy Owen]

If they would reduce the number possible answers to three, players could always cover A-B-C for at least the first couple of questions, and thus get another plug in for the network.  

/in addition to the bug in the corner.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Seth Thrasher\' post=\'181450\' date=\'Mar 15 2008, 06:35 AM\']/Why was I watching this show again?[/quote]
The pen.  It's hypnotic.

[bdatcf1]

Has any one heard where DUEL is in the casting process. I heard they were going to start taping next week.
Just patiently waiting for my phone to ring.

[uncamark]

And they started running promos Monday night on "Dancing With the Stars."

Within the next week, I suspect that "DUEL RETURNS FRI. APR. 4 9/8C" will be emblazoned next to the ABC logo bug until Apr. 4.

[Mr. Armadillo]

Okay...I admit that the particular numbers used in the first entry were pretty out of hand...but would it be unreasonable for contestants to play for more dough the more games they win?  I mean, something like 5k per chip for the first two games, 10k per for games three and four, and 50k for the fifth win (at which point the champion retires undefeated).  And yes, I know full well those numbers are still too high...but they can be tweaked.  It's just the idea of it.

(It's also worth noting how few contestants actually win three games.)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'181962\' date=\'Mar 19 2008, 04:42 PM\']
Okay...I admit that the particular numbers used in the first entry were pretty out of hand...but would it be unreasonable for contestants to play for more dough the more games they win?  I mean, something like 5k per chip for the first two games, 10k per for games three and four, and 50k for the fifth win (at which point the champion retires undefeated).  And yes, I know full well those numbers are still too high...but they can be tweaked.  It's just the idea of it.[/quote]
Doesn't sit right with me. First off, the idea of the two players playing for different amounts of money per chip, I think, will confuse the average fan. And the only way around that I can think of is to not mention it until the game is over, and then say "Okay, Bob, that was your second duel victory, so at $10K per chip you just won $40K." And that strikes me as anticlimactic.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'181963\' date=\'Mar 19 2008, 04:54 PM\']First off, the idea of the two players playing for different amounts of money per chip, I think, will confuse the average fan. [/quote]The easy solution there is to either make the chips worth nothing by themselves, or a token amount, but allowing the champion to play a bonus question (like the British show does), where the total on offer grows. "John, it's your third win, this time you can win $3,000; $6,000 or $15,000 if you cover the right answer."

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'181982\' date=\'Mar 19 2008, 10:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'181963\' date=\'Mar 19 2008, 04:54 PM\']First off, the idea of the two players playing for different amounts of money per chip, I think, will confuse the average fan. [/quote]The easy solution there is to either make the chips worth nothing by themselves, or a token amount, but allowing the champion to play a bonus question (like the British show does), where the total on offer grows. "John, it's your third win, this time you can win $3,000; $6,000 or $15,000 if you cover the right answer."
[/quote]

I agree with both. Didn't the contestants play for different amounts on Maury's Twenty-One?

In an excalating bonus, you could get three or four chips worth $X apiece (X increases for subsequent appearances) but must answer one question correctly--if you're right, you cash out the chips you didn't use.

Or you get four golden chips, and you win $X for each question you get right until you run out of chips.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'182013\' date=\'Mar 20 2008, 09:20 AM\']
I agree with both. Didn't the contestants play for different amounts on Maury's Twenty-One?[/quote]
Yes. Didn't the average viewer have trouble following Twenty-One? Also yes.

The thing with Travis's idea is that it's *interesting* for the chips to be worth non-trivial money during play, because it drives home the idea that they're spending it by covering more answers. Which is why I don't like saying what they were worth after the fact. I like "Here's nine $1,000 (or whatever) chips. If you win, you keep anything you have left. We'll give you your tenth chip...after this you're watching Duel on ABC."

If you want to throw a Four Golden Chips bonus side-game into the mix to break up the monotony of game after game after game (and I like Neumms' idea for that), that works for me, but I'm a big fan of what (I think) the Brits are doing: chips are worth a flat rate, lost ones go into a pre-seeded Jackpot, players risk whatever they have won (or a portion thereof) to play on, and X wins cleans out the Jackpot. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'182028\' date=\'Mar 20 2008, 03:13 PM\']
I'm a big fan of what (I think) the Brits are doing: chips are worth a flat rate, lost ones go into a pre-seeded Jackpot, players risk whatever they have won (or a portion thereof) to play on, and X wins cleans out the Jackpot. Lather, rinse, repeat.
[/quote]

I like that, too, even with the pregnant pauses and commercials in between the lather and rinse. The idea of a solo bonus round on a game called "Duel" does seem a little anti-climactic. (As it was on Maury's show, even if its name wasn't "Duel.")

Do you (or does someone) know how they establish how much the champ must risk? It's not the Jack Barry Twenty-One method of taking your dethroner's winnings out of yours, is it?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'182039\' date=\'Mar 20 2008, 02:55 PM\']
Do you (or does someone) know how they establish how much the champ must risk? It's not the Jack Barry Twenty-One method of taking your dethroner's winnings out of yours, is it?[/quote]
I'm almost certain it's not a per-point thing like the old Twenty-One, no.