Chain Reaction...

[WilliamPorygon]

[quote name=\'FlashStash\' post=\'131080\' date=\'Sep 11 2006, 02:30 PM\']
The question was asked somewhere in these 20-odd pages, but in case you're wondering, ties are settled with speedchains, with a team picking from 2 chains, and if one team gets it, the other gets a chance to get theirs.  Play continues until one team gets one and the other doesn't.  No money is awarded for the tiebreaker chains.
[/quote]

That's a lousy way of doing it.  I hate these kinds of tiebreakers because, like Joe said, any tiebreaker rounds that don't result in a winner are going to be edited out for time.  So once you know how it works, it's very anti-climactic, since you know what the result is going to be after the first team has their turn.  Not to mention it's too open-ended; if several tiebreakers are needed before someone finally wins, it makes the taping run long and exhausts the supply of game material they have available.

I think a much better solution would be:  Just give the team who solved the last word of the last chain (thereby coming from behind to cause the tie) a speed chain, just like in the other rounds.  They solve it, they win; they don't, they lose.  It's simple, it resolves the tie without the need for editing or installing expensive buzzers, and it doesn't leave the intelligent viewers (if any) knowing the outcome halfway through the round.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'131803\' date=\'Sep 16 2006, 07:02 PM\']
I think a much better solution would be:  Just give the team who solved the last word of the last chain (thereby coming from behind to cause the tie) a speed chain, just like in the other rounds.  They solve it, they win; they don't, they lose.  It's simple, it resolves the tie without the need for editing or installing expensive buzzers, and it doesn't leave the intelligent viewers (if any) knowing the outcome halfway through the round.
[/quote]
...and gives the other team no control in the outcome of the game, which is ridiculous.

A *slightly* better method would be figuring some way to discern an advantage (say, whichever team solved the most words over the course of the show, regardless of money), and offer them the option to play or pass that speed chain. I still don't think it's very good, but I think it's slightly better than just giving it to the team who happened to get the last word of the game.

[LocalH]

Not that I think this discussion is pointless, but isn't it sort of like trying to polish a turd?

[TLEberle]

Yeah, but it's interesting to find out that with not much thought on our parts, we're able to hack a much better solution to the tie-game situation than Davies and Co. did. For example:

"The first four words in this chain are worth $100. The final word is worth $150. We tossed a midget before the show, and the guys won the toss, so they'll start."

But then again, you'd be requiring people to figure out what $1,550 would be multiplied by three, so that's right out. Nuts.

[Joe Mello]

4500+150

I'm typically out when CR comes on, so I follow by GSNN.  While reading, I can't help but notice that the first three winning teams have combined for 18 correct answers in the endgame.  Is it just me or did the learning curve go up?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131885\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 09:10 PM\']
4500+150
[/quote]
Okay, good for you, but you're missing the point. Travis's point is that the AVERAGE viewer (and by virtue of having an Internet connection and half a brain in your head, you're not average) doesn't like to do math. So they keep it to multiples of $100.

(Oh, and you might look a little less silly if you checked to make sure the links in your sig actually worked.)

[The Great EZE]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131887\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 11:17 PM\']
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131885\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 09:10 PM\']
4500+150
[/quote]
Okay, good for you, but you're missing the point. Travis's point is that the AVERAGE viewer (and by virtue of having an Internet connection and half a brain in your head, you're not average) doesn't like to do math. So they keep it to multiples of $100.

(Oh, and you might look a little less silly if you checked to make sure the links in your sig actually worked.)
[/quote]

Whether they can do math or not doesn't really matter.  Dylbot always mentions how much frontgame-times-3 is anyway.

Personally, for that reason, I never do the math in my head.  I COULD--but I don't :-)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'The Great EZE\' post=\'131888\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 09:34 PM\']
Whether they can do math or not doesn't really matter.  Dylbot always mentions how much frontgame-times-3 is anyway.

Personally, for that reason, I never do the math in my head.  I COULD--but I don't :-)
[/quote]
Yes, but.....oh, nevermind.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131887\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 12:17 AM\']
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131885\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 09:10 PM\']4500+150
[/quote]Okay, good for you, but you're missing the point. Travis's point is that the AVERAGE viewer (and by virtue of having an Internet connection and half a brain in your head, you're not average) doesn't like to do math. So they keep it to multiples of $100.[/quote]
Well, my point is to prove that the Average Viewer does know primary school math and could probably do the math if they wanted to, or God forbid, use a calculator.  Besides, not all dollar values in the front game are divisible by 3, anyway, so that's a more important point, I would think.

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131887\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 12:17 AM\'](Oh, and you might look a little less silly if you checked to make sure the links in your sig actually worked.)[/quote]
Well, it's irrelevant now (since it's about a week away from wrapping up) but thanks for the catch.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131913\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 07:04 AM\']
Well, my point is to prove that the Average Viewer does know primary school math and could probably do the math if they wanted to, or God forbid, use a calculator.  Besides, not all dollar values in the front game are divisible by 3, anyway, so that's a more important point, I would think.
[/quote]
Then you have missed the point entirely, particularly the part where I said that you're not the average viewer.

[Thad Dixon]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'131863\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 08:59 PM\']
Yeah, but it's interesting to find out that with not much thought on our parts, we're able to hack a much better solution to the tie-game situation than Davies and Co. did. For example:

"The first four words in this chain are worth $100. The final word is worth $150. We tossed a midget before the show, and the guys won the toss, so they'll start."

But then again, you'd be requiring people to figure out what $1,550 would be multiplied by three, so that's right out. Nuts.[/quote]

No, it's not out...at least, not if we also change the endgame so that if they win that, the front game winnings are multiplied by ten instead of three -- in that case, they'd just have to stick another zero on the end.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Thad Dixon\' post=\'131922\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 07:45 AM\']
No, it's not out...at least, not if we also change the endgame so that if they win that, the front game winnings are multiplied by ten instead of three -- in that case, they'd just have to stick another zero on the end.
[/quote]
Thad Dixon, ladies and gentlemen.

We'll be back with more of No Friggin' Concept Of A Prize Budget right...after...THIS!

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131913\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 10:04 AM\']Well, my point is to prove that the Average Viewer does know primary school math and could probably do the math if they wanted to, or God forbid, use a calculator.  [/quote]
Any game show idea where the phrase "use a calculator" is even considered is a bad game show idea.

"Myrtle, Chain Reaction's coming on.  Go get the calculator so we can enjoy it."

[Unrealtor]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131825\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 05:57 AM\']
[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'131803\' date=\'Sep 16 2006, 07:02 PM\']
I think a much better solution would be:  Just give the team who solved the last word of the last chain (thereby coming from behind to cause the tie) a speed chain, just like in the other rounds.  They solve it, they win; they don't, they lose.  It's simple, it resolves the tie without the need for editing or installing expensive buzzers, and it doesn't leave the intelligent viewers (if any) knowing the outcome halfway through the round.
[/quote]
...and gives the other team no control in the outcome of the game, which is ridiculous.

A *slightly* better method would be figuring some way to discern an advantage (say, whichever team solved the most words over the course of the show, regardless of money), and offer them the option to play or pass that speed chain. I still don't think it's very good, but I think it's slightly better than just giving it to the team who happened to get the last word of the game.
[/quote]

The best thought I can come up with is to have a five-word chain, first team to get two out of three words wins. It probably would take a bit more time than the existing format, but I can think of a couple ways to speed it up (like having Dylan Lane not repeat every guess back before the reveal or revealing words from the top down instead of giving the above/below option.)

[beatlefreak84]

My thought (puts flame retardant suit on... ):

Do something like Lingo does:  a buzz-in tie-breaker.  My thought was to display a normal speedchain; whoever buzzes in first wins the game, but, if you buzz in and are wrong, the other team wins the game.  No conferences are allowed, but add a letter to the words after five or so seconds if no one has a guess.

This, in my opinion, gives both teams an equal chance of winning, and allows the team who actually has good chain guessers to shine.  It doesn't have to be worth any extra money, just the right to move on to the bonus round.

Anthony

P.S.  Why didn't they just bite the bullet and instill a fixed prize in the bonus round, like maybe $200/word, but, get 10 (or 7), your total goes up to a flat $10,000?  This means that winners of close games won't be given the shaft in terms of total prize money they can win, and there's no need to do any math to figure out the top prize....