Author Topic: WWTBAM doing their own "Million Dollar Mission"... (Read 22078 times)

weaklink75 · « **on:** August 28, 2009, 12:14:27 PM »

Based on the article this looks like a November Sweeps stunt..

I'm torn about this- obviously they want to have a MDW this year, and this is a good way to do it (I'd think anyone who was at the $100K level would risk $75K for a shot at the million), but this smacks of DOND-type desperation....

bandit_bobby · « **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2009, 12:21:28 PM »

IMHO, this is a much better way for "Millionaire" to hold a Tournament of Champions (unlike the "Champions" edition that the ABC version held previously), of sorts. This also adds the element of the MDQ from "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" and "Don't Forget the Lyrics!". I don't know how the clock will factor into this, though.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #2 on:** August 28, 2009, 12:32:23 PM »

Disappointing, to say the least. Because it's now been over six years since we had a million-dollar winner, I can understand why they want one. However, if they really feel they have to alter the rules to try to get one, why not just dumb-down the questions for a while?

I'm not really in favor of it as I'd like to see the game keep its intergrity, but some big winners have won with easier stacks. That way you can finally break the long streak of the jackpot not being won but by having played the game the way the rules were originally written, putting it in November sweeps and then going back to the usual difficulty level of the stacks.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #3 on:** August 28, 2009, 12:48:52 PM »

The article specifically said that the details weren't all in yet, but so far I really don't have a problem with any of this. I'd be much more concerned about the "integrity of the game" (whatever that really means) if they started dumbing down the stacks just to get a winner. Playing a promotable stunt that brings back people who've done well in the past? I don't see the big deal. Jeopardy guarantees a large payout to its Tournament of Champions winner every year and doesn't even make its players risk their earnings to participate.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #4 on:** August 28, 2009, 01:01:53 PM »

What I meant by "integrity of the game" is that I'd rather see a contestant answer all 15 questions to win the million.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #5 on:** August 28, 2009, 01:28:26 PM »

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'224337\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 01:01 PM\']What I meant by "integrity of the game" is that I'd rather see a contestant answer all 15 questions to win the million.[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I understood that's what you meant, but we have to remember that it's not our game. Why do we get to decide that anything less that fifteen questions isn't "right"? In several countries, they now only have to answer twelve. It's still their game, and these are just their rules.

clemon79 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 28, 2009, 01:59:30 PM »

The part I have a problem with is the "ranking" system. The explanation was pretty convoluted and so I hope this isn't how it actually works, but it makes it sound like all ten players are going to be required to answer their question regardless. Which doesn't seem right to me, because if the top-ranked player answers their question correctly, then all the #10 ranked player is playing for is not to lose their money.

(Obviously they would do it in reverse order, so that #10 goes first. But the overall effect is the same.)

It feels to me like a much fairer implementation would be to start with #1, and when someone gets theirs right, boom, that's it, everyone is done, and anyone who hasn't played yet keeps their original winnings.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #7 on:** August 28, 2009, 03:28:03 PM »

I like the concept of a tournament, but I hate the concept of automatically throwing someone into the Million Dollar Question.

I like the concept of risking what you've won, but I hate the concept of automatically throwing someone into the Million Dollar Question.

I agree with letting the biggest winner go first, being it would suck that I win a quarter-mil, but I lose my shot at the million because some $16,000 winner went first and won the money. But, what do you do in the event of ties (i.e. three contestants who all walked with $100,000? Rank the contestants based on most time banked over their run? Blind number draw?*

*Get your Mega-Millions tickets, people!

/Actually, don't.
//That $325M is mine dammit

Joe Mello · « **Reply #8 on:** August 28, 2009, 03:30:53 PM »

Here's what I would suspect based on the murk from the article.
-The stunt is like the old 100K tournaments in that it ends when it ends, but it ends if they run out of people, too.
-Since this is opt-in, if you elect to play and actually do, you forfeit the ability to walk
-This will likely run at the last segment of the 2 weeks (or less) of shows

Here's what needs to be answered:
-Who goes first and will it matter?
-How much time do you get?
-Whose MDQ? The one from your original stack or from elsewhere?

Another thing I've noticed is that this is another way to reduce the number of contestants cast for the season. The Ring of Fire Rescuees will easily take up a week of shows or more, and this will take up the space of another couple of contestant slots.

clemon79 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 28, 2009, 04:44:48 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'224350\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 12:30 PM\']-The stunt is like the old 100K tournaments in that it ends when it ends,[/quote]
I would love for you to tell to me what in that explanation makes you draw that conclusion.

Quote

-Whose MDQ? The one from your original stack or from elsewhere?

You're really asking this? Really?

TLEberle · « **Reply #10 on:** August 28, 2009, 09:05:12 PM »

[quote name=\'weaklink75\' post=\'224328\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 09:14 AM\']I'm torn about this- obviously they want to have a MDW this year, and this is a good way to do it (I'd think anyone who was at the $100K level would risk $75K for a shot at the million), but this smacks of DOND-type desperation....[/quote] If indeed that's how it will play.

[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'224331\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 09:21 AM\']IMHO, this is a much better way for "Millionaire" to hold a Tournament of Champions (unlike the "Champions" edition that the ABC version held previously), of sorts.[/quote]Not it isn't.

Quote

This also adds the element of the MDQ from "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" and "Don't Forget the Lyrics!".

No it doesn't.

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'224332\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 09:32 AM\']Disappointing, to say the least. Because it's now been over six years since we had a million-dollar winner, I can understand why they want one. However, if they really feel they have to alter the rules to try to get one, why not just dumb-down the questions for a while?[/quote] Because they can't afford to do that. For every person that wins $50,000, they probably need someone to win $1,000, or three to win $16,000, and so on. They probably can set aside a million dollar jackpot, but not have a bunch of people winning an extra level of money.

Quote

I'm not really in favor of it as I'd like to see the game keep its intergrity, but some big winners have won with easier stacks. That way you can finally break the long streak of the jackpot not being won but by having played the game the way the rules were originally written, putting it in November sweeps and then going back to the usual difficulty level of the stacks.

Which just rewards someone for showing up at the right time. Blech.

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'224350\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 12:30 PM\']Here's what I would suspect based on the murk from the article.
-The stunt is like the old 100K tournaments in that it ends when it ends, but it ends if they run out of people, too.
-Since this is opt-in, if you elect to play and actually do, you forfeit the ability to walk
-This will likely run at the last segment of the 2 weeks (or less) of shows[/quote] Why do you suspect these things? What in the article says "this is how it will be?"

Quote

-Whose MDQ? The one from your original stack or from elsewhere?

How does this make an iota of difference?

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 28, 2009, 09:11:03 PM »

Read the linked three times and this still makes no sense to me. Both in the "how" and "why" departments.

itiparanoid13 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 28, 2009, 09:13:58 PM »

An official release and announcement will come on Monday.

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #13 on:** August 29, 2009, 01:49:20 AM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'224350\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 02:30 PM\']-Who goes first and will it matter?[/quote]
I imagine they'd start with the tenth ranked person and work upwards, to guarantee that it goes up to the last player. If you go from the top down, you risk the whole thing being over in a matter of 45 seconds.

I'm torn on this, for the mere fact that there's no real "head to head" competition between the players. Here's my idea for a Millionaire "ToC":
-Throw out the whole "risk" factor.
-Put the ten players into Fastest Finger. Winner plays for the million.
-Player chooses only 2 lifelines they'd like to take into the Hot Seat.
-Wherever the player ended their stack in the regular season is where they continue from. That way, there's an advantage to those who played better in their respective games.
-Lose, and you lose your progress and go back to Fastest Finger. Wash, rinse, repeat until someone completes their stack and wins the million.

Just a thought.

Loogaroo · « **Reply #14 on:** August 29, 2009, 02:46:21 AM »

[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'224381\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 01:49 AM\']I'm torn on this, for the mere fact that there's no real "head to head" competition between the players. Here's my idea for a Millionaire "ToC":
-Throw out the whole "risk" factor.
-Put the ten players into Fastest Finger. Winner plays for the million.
-Player chooses only 2 lifelines they'd like to take into the Hot Seat.
-Wherever the player ended their stack in the regular season is where they continue from. That way, there's an advantage to those who played better in their respective games.
-Lose, and you lose your progress and go back to Fastest Finger. Wash, rinse, repeat until someone completes their stack and wins the million.[/quote]

I'm liking this. No, I'm really liking this. It's a way to generate buzz and increase the chances of giving away the bundle whilst keeping the integrity of the game at least somewhat intact. The only stipulations I'd add is that you'd only do it if nobody won naturally (since there wouldn't be a need), and just have everyone play the upper tier over again. That way viewers don't have to keep track of juggling who needs how many questions in their heads.