Room for Improvement

[PPatters]

Yes! Yes! A million times, yes! I always felt the pantomime portion should have been a part of the maingame scoring. I guess if I put myself back in that time, it was not long after Password essentially did the same thing.

At least for Password, though, the puzzles were their own form of Password — clues led you to a Password, this time in the form of the puzzle. For Body Language, the puzzle portion was very divorced from the pantomime, so I definitely can agree that giving money in the front game for the pantomime makes sense.

I always thought that you should get more money in (Super) Password (Plus) for how few clues you needed to guess the puzzle — so, you got more money for guessing with the first word than with the fifth. For example, $500 for the first, $400 for the second and so on — and you’d need something like $800 to win the match.

[Otm Shank]

Or, have a flat amount for each password, and the winner of the puzzle also wins the amount of the unplayed passwords. To keep it within the rough budget of the SP/P+ era, $25 per password, $25 for the puzzle, making each round $150. Set the target above $300 to ensure a crossover.

[TLEberle]

Bullseye: The game dragged with long contracts on questions where contestants were not well versed in either category presented. I thought the contract should be the number of questions asked, not the number correctly answered. The correct answer on the final question (which could be increased difficulty) would still control the pot. If not answered correctly, either a simple tossup question would determine control, or continue the game with the last correct player spinning, with neither player allowed to bank at that point. There would need to be a provision to prevent the "endless" game, perhaps by "freezing" the contract window, and making it an automatic 1-question contract on the next spin (which could be a provision that kicks in only when there is at least a $2,000 bank).

Having seen the little bit of Double Cross that I have, I think I would try to make Bullseye as much like that as possible. The contract element is uninteresting, and the risk/reward really isn't there, plus I would want to get to play with the prop as much as possible.

I was thinking the same thing.  It's one thing to have a dud contestant on Jackpot! all week among 15 others; that person can be hidden easier.  But if you've got a lousy family, you're stuck with them for five straight shows.

On the other hand, instituting a two- or three-loss rule would encourage more families from different areas of the country to apply.  It's hard to get excited about having five people travel hundreds or thousands of miles apiece to split eighty-four dollars.

Perhaps they only thing to recommend about Mindreaders was how they handled this--each team would play three games against the same opposition and that was that. That doesn't really scale to a five-day week unless a game is shorter than an episode.

[Unrealtor]

Or, have a flat amount for each password, and the winner of the puzzle also wins the amount of the unplayed passwords. To keep it within the rough budget of the SP/P+ era, $25 per password, $25 for the puzzle, making each round $150. Set the target above $300 to ensure a crossover.

That has some major runaway potential that the SP and first-to-$300 P+ systems didn't have because it was mathematically impossible for a contestant to be in a worse situation than "get this round and the score is tied." Also, you'd have to choose between ending matches mid-puzzle or the possibility of having a situation where solving a puzzle gets a contestant across the finish line but with a lower total score than their opponent.

[TLEberle]

If the value of each unplayed word is the same as each played word, that's not any different than what Password Plus did, plus you want a round to be worth more the longer you go as opposed to less.

[ET206]

PYL:  Each square has four images.  Top amounts are $10,000/$12,000/$13,000/$15,000.  Avoid-a-Whammy insurance markers can be "won" in the first big board round.  If a player has a marker and hits a Whammy, only the spin is lost.  Also Pick-a-Prize square and Double Next Spin or $1000 square are added.  For the latter, if the player chooses to double the next spin but hits a Whammy, he gets two.


Super Password:  The main game is best 3 of 5 puzzles solved.  $500 is awarded for solving the puzzle on the first password, $400 on the second, and so on.  The fourth puzzle only has three passwords; the fifth only two (to speed up the round).  The Cashword is $10,000 if solved on the first clue, $5000 on the second, and  $2500 on the third. The End Game is tiered.  The first try is worth $10,000.  The second time is worth $25,000, then $50,000,  $75,000, $100,000.  However, if the champion has won the End Game every time, the fifth time the prize is worth $250,000.  The eighties theme is still used.

[dale_grass]

PYL: ... Top amounts are $10,000/$12,000/$13,000/$15,000.

Super Password:  ...  The Cashword is $10,000 if solved on the first clue, $5000 on the second, and  $2500 on the third. The End Game is tiered.  The first try is worth $10,000.  The second time is worth $25,000, then $50,000,  $75,000, $100,000.  However, if the champion has won the End Game every time, the fifth time the prize is worth $250,000.

I'm missing my Matthew Lesko meme.  Anyone have a copy handy?

The eighties theme is still used.

I doubt they could afford it at this point.  Maybe a production staffer's nephew could whip something up on a Casio SK-1.

[PYLdude]

I like your idea a whole lot but how do you ensure that the strongest link stays around? Do they also have immunity in each round?

You'd need to have someone keeping track of the stats, which I figured someone would already be doing.

Far as the voting is concerned: I wouldn't think you'd have to switch up the voting to ensure the strongest link stays around. If I remember, most matches didn't see a really strong player eliminated until the double money round; ergo, instead of putting him at the mercy of two relatively weaker players, reward him for playing well throughout the game.

[Flerbert419]

I like your idea a whole lot but how do you ensure that the strongest link stays around? Do they also have immunity in each round?

I have an issue doing anything with the strongest link until the methodology is changed from number of correct answers to highest percentage of questions answered correctly. Tiebreaker would be the lowest average time it took the individuals to answer all their questions in the round.

Far too often the strongest link was simply the person who started the round because they got the most opportunities to answer questions.

[TLEberle]

I notice that nobody who has said "Introduce more money into the game" has said why that will improve the situation, much less how Super Password can absorb a $250,000 hit. I know it's not really "just one thing" but hear me out:

Nick Arcade: The game would become College Bowl-ish. Ditch the opening face-off and the map. A toss-up visual puzzle from the library is played and whoever solves it scores 25 points, then goes over to the Video Challenge arena to play a game for more points. Round two would increase the stakes and decide the winner. Two things that bothered me as a youth is that the map was random and the Goal rarely hit, and the Video Challenge should have been the star of the show rather than a side-quest.

[BillCullen1]

Here are my thoughts:

Body Language - give the contestant the option of acting out or guessing in the bonus round.

Family Feud - raise it to $10 a point in the Fast Money round if they don't win the big money. It's been $5 a point since 1976.

Weakest Link - in the final round, the loser gets 10% of the winning amount

Funny You Should Ask - raise the amount to $10,000. For 2018, $5,000 seems very cheap for a top prize  - even for a Byron Allen show.

Since we're not allowed to suggest host changes, I'll stop here.

[Dbacksfan12]

Weakest Link - in the final round, the loser gets 10% of the winning amount

And by doing so, the show loses one of its trademarks--that losers go home with nothing.

To Mark's point: I think this would require that Alphabetics is either played for $5,000 or $10,000 every day, or the jackpot grows less quickly.

I would be fine with axing Cashword.  Perhaps you could raise jackpots by $2,500 to slow things down and/or reset the jackpot when a champion is defeated.

[TLEberle]

would be fine with axing Cashword.  Perhaps you could raise jackpots by $2,500 to slow things down and/or reset the jackpot when a champion is defeated.

I'm always a proponent of "new champion, new jackpot." And by golly, I enjoy the break that Cashword provides.

[BrandonFG]

Merv Griffin's Crosswords: instead of one giant puzzle, I would've broken either broken it down into sections (say, four quadrants), or each round simply has a small puzzle of 10-15 words, perhaps following a theme. The bonus round would've been its own puzzle, with a set number of words. While this is now the "Crossfire" round from Cross-Wits, it at least avoids the inconsistent number of questions for each day's bonus round.

I know it says just one change (sorry), but ditch the Spoilers concept, and use a format similar to Face the Music or Top Card: three contestants, down to two, the winner plays a returning champion, for the chance to go to the final puzzle. That way, no last second snipes from a Spoiler.

[TLEberle]

Merv Griffin's Crosswords: instead of one giant puzzle, I would've broken either broken it down into sections (say, four quadrants), or each round simply has a small puzzle of 10-15 words, perhaps following a theme. The bonus round would've been its own puzzle, with a set number of words. While this is now the "Crossfire" round from Cross-Wits, it at least avoids the inconsistent number of questions for each day's bonus round.

I know it says just one change (sorry)

You're absolved--it was such a horrible mess it would take several changes just to get its head above water.