Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Rules flaws, etc...  (Read 19899 times)

Kevin Prather

  • Member
  • Posts: 5926
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #135 on: April 01, 2009, 11:58:00 PM »
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'211814\' date=\'Apr 1 2009, 08:46 PM\']
The $100KP that aired on GSN today had an instance of what I think was a horrible flaw in the tournament. The two players split their games and won the exact same amount in the Winner's Circle, so they tossed a coin to see who came back.
[/quote]
Good point. I wonder what would have been a better tie breaker though...

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 14465
  • Game Maven
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #136 on: April 02, 2009, 12:07:26 AM »
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'211818\' date=\'Apr 1 2009, 08:58 PM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'211814\' date=\'Apr 1 2009, 08:46 PM\']The $100KP that aired on GSN today had an instance of what I think was a horrible flaw in the tournament. The two players split their games and won the exact same amount in the Winner's Circle, so they tossed a coin to see who came back.[/quote]Good point. I wonder what would have been a better tie breaker though...[/quote]No tiebreaker. If you lose the main game, you swap with the person in the wings. Play as normal, heat to 470 degrees. Serves an entire audience who is hungry after running up on stage.
Travis L. Eberle
Director of Ludic underlings.

BillCullen1

  • Member
  • Posts: 2313
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #137 on: April 02, 2009, 10:54:12 AM »
^ They could have counted players TOTAL winnings BEFORE the $100K tourney began in the event of a tiebreaker. Higher scorer plays on the next show. That's a fairer way to break the tie, IMO. They could have counted additional winnings on the show, like a Mystery 7, but IIRC, they eliminated those on the $100K tourney weeks.

SRIV94

  • Member
  • Posts: 5338
  • From the Rock of Chicago, almost live...
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #138 on: April 02, 2009, 10:55:46 AM »
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'211820\' date=\'Apr 1 2009, 11:07 PM\']
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'211818\' date=\'Apr 1 2009, 08:58 PM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'211814\' date=\'Apr 1 2009, 08:46 PM\']The $100KP that aired on GSN today had an instance of what I think was a horrible flaw in the tournament. The two players split their games and won the exact same amount in the Winner's Circle, so they tossed a coin to see who came back.[/quote]Good point. I wonder what would have been a better tie breaker though...[/quote]No tiebreaker. If you lose the main game, you swap with the person in the wings. Play as normal, heat to 470 degrees. Serves an entire audience who is hungry after running up on stage.
[/quote]
Either that, or whoever reached their dollar amount in the WC faster.  If it took Player A 38 seconds to get to $750 and Player B 43 seconds, Player A comes back tomorrow.
Doug
----------------------------------------
"When you see the crawl at the end of the show you will see a group of talented people who will all be moving over to other shows...the cameramen aren't are on that list, but they're not talented people."  John Davidson, TIME MACHINE (4/26/85)

Neumms

  • Member
  • Posts: 1955
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #139 on: April 02, 2009, 12:02:34 PM »
It may have taken a little editing, but they could play a front game tiebreaker. Provided they hadn't played one that day already.

tvmitch

  • Member
  • Posts: 1251
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #140 on: April 02, 2009, 12:12:51 PM »
I think a better option (which I think is mentioned earlier in this thread but not sure of the wording) is that after each and every round, the losing player leaves and the player swap occurs. This would reward contestants who do well in the front game.
You should follow me on Twitter

Jay Temple

  • Member
  • Posts: 2227
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #141 on: April 02, 2009, 05:24:15 PM »
I've had a few ideas over the years of other ways to break a tie, some already mentioned:
1. Tie-breaker, as if it were a tied game (already mentioned)
2. time needed to achieve the score (also mentioned, but I question the fairness of comparing a round where categories are passed or buzzed)
3. Declare the winner of Game 1 the daily winner. The onus would be on the Game 2 winner to top the score.
4. Each of the tied players gets to play one game the next day. (The existing coin toss would determine who plays Game 1 and who plays Game 2.)
5. Play both games out completely, and use the combined score to break a tie. (This means that a regulation winner beats an extra-inning winner every time.)
6a. If it happens on Day 1, the player with the better qualifying time wins.
6b. After that, the player who was already the defending "champion" wins.
7. In the event of consecutive days with ties, ignore the above criteria, and do not allow one player to repeat on consecutive days by virtue of tying his opponents.

But I agree 100% with Mitch. The best idea would simply have been to sit players out one game at a time instead of one day at a time.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 05:28:17 PM by Jay Temple »
Protecting idiots from themselves just leads to more idiots.

alfonzos

  • Member
  • Posts: 912
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #142 on: May 08, 2009, 06:30:43 PM »
Okay, this is going waaaay back but here goes...

Wordplay: In a procedure too tedious to describe, each correct answer is worth as much or more than the previous response. The gives the second player an advantage over the first player in each round. Unless the second player gets more definitions wrong than the first player, the first player is doomed. Solution: the player with more money goes first in each round. That should balance the score.

Showdown: The bonus round was called 'Triple Treat.' If each player chose the same multiple choice answer and that answer was correct everyone won the bonus prize. Otherwise, everyone loses. Before the game began, the wining team would chosen a number and hope that the number chosen was to be the correct answer. Solution: make the final question short answer rather than multiple choice. (Big deal! The game was cancelled after thirteen weeks anyway!)
A Cliff Saber Production
email address: alfonzos@aol.com
Boardgame Geek user name: alfonzos

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 14465
  • Game Maven
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #143 on: May 08, 2009, 08:57:38 PM »
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'215263\' date=\'May 8 2009, 03:30 PM\']Wordplay: In a procedure too tedious to describe,[/quote] A correct answer is worth the amount of money on the box as well as any boxes connected to it.

Wow, I think I need to like down and have a pull from Grampa's oxygen tank*. Jeez.

You can slap whatever scoring you want onto the game, but if you have celebrities being funny, that's what viewers should pay attention to. Because I'm feeling lazy after typing out the old way, award each player 50 points for a correct judgment, and have some big Final Word thing. Don't take away from the reason people are watching.

Quote
Showdown: The bonus round was called 'Triple Treat.' If each player chose the same multiple choice answer and that answer was correct everyone won the bonus prize. Otherwise, everyone loses. Before the game began, the wining team would chosen a number and hope that the number chosen was to be the correct answer.
What kind of questions are we talking about? "What kind of cheese did I put on my sausage biscuit?" or something you could possibly know, like South American capitals? If you have a chance to know it, I'd rather cast my lot with hoping that we'll all know it.

Quote
Solution: make the final question short answer rather than multiple choice. (Big deal! The game was cancelled after thirteen weeks anyway!)
You must be knew here. This is what we do.

* I no longer have a grampa from which to commandeer his oxygen tank.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 09:02:28 PM by TLEberle »
Travis L. Eberle
Director of Ludic underlings.