Improve One Pricing Game...

[chris319]

"Double Cross" is a mess. Eliminate it.

[BrandonFG]

Somewhere, I mentioned going from a check-based game to a debit card-based game.  You go to an ATM and can withdraw as much money as you want.  If the amount of the withdrawal plus the price of the prize is within a range, winner.  And in lieu of a giant oversized voided check, you get a giant ATM receipt.

Jeremy and I were just chatting about this, except replace ATM receipt with a custom TPiR "debit" card. Maybe even print the contestant's name on the card after the show.

The more I think about it, the more I really love the idea of a giant receipt tho.

[TLEberle]

Somewhere, I mentioned going from a check-based game to a debit card-based game.  You go to an ATM and can withdraw as much money as you want.  If the amount of the withdrawal plus the price of the prize is within a range, winner.  And in lieu of a giant oversized voided check, you get a giant ATM receipt.

Jeremy and I were just chatting about this, except replace ATM receipt with a custom TPiR "debit" card. Maybe even print the contestant's name on the card after the show.

The more I think about it, the more I really love the idea of a giant receipt tho.

i really don’t need more reminders that CVS exists.

[Jeremy Nelson]

Another one I was thinking of that's not likely to be won anytime soon - "Perfect" Plinko game, all the chips landing in the top spot, and your money is doubled.

Considering it hasn't been "won" once in 40+ years, it's like saying a team should get ten points for 70 yard field goal. That said, I'd just overhaul the game altogether.

Turn Plinko into a one chip game. Every small prize guessed correctly increases your multiplier by one. Overhaul the board to remove the zeroes to guarantee that the contestant will win something (they could even be $100 slots) and let that one chip fly.

[SamJ93]

"Double Cross" is a mess. Eliminate it.

I disagree--it's fine for what it is as a quick, easy-to-understand time-filler.

What I would change about it, though, is adding a "neutral" space for the indicators to rest in at the start of the game instead of on one of the answers. Something about the possibility of winning by doing nothing just never sits well with me in any circumstance.

[TimK2003]

"Double Cross" is a mess. Eliminate it.

Something about the possibility of winning by doing nothing just never sits well with me in any circumstance.

Switch? says "Hey"!

Back to Pathfinder, if you can correctly guess the 3 prizes for 3 extra chances before you start stepping, just have any unused chance become a $1000 bonus.  No mistakes? $3000 and the car.  Use all your extra mulligans? Car only.

[BrandonFG]

"Double Cross" is a mess. Eliminate it.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a mess, but I kinda see how it feels like there's an extra step that makes it a little more complex than similar games like Switch or Flip Flop. Doesn't exactly hurt the game IMO, but there might be a tweak that could be made.

To Sam's point, maybe make the starting point the "neutral" value. In the below example, Drew says the Bahamas trip is currently set at $9,760 while ATL is $6,459. Have him preface by saying "Those are not the current values; what you must do is move the slider blah blah blah..." That still gives you a 1-in-3 shot of winning.

[Kevin Prather]

Turn Plinko into a one chip game. Every small prize guessed correctly increases your multiplier by one. Overhaul the board to remove the zeroes to guarantee that the contestant will win something (they could even be $100 slots) and let that one chip fly.

I think reducing Plinko to a one-chip game takes a bit of the fun out of it. It's enjoyable watching the chip drop, and seeing a variety of results from each chip is a good thing.

I like your idea of eliminating the zeros. I'd implement the layout occasionally seen on PiR94, with two top prize slots and three zero slots (or $100 if we're taking your suggestion.)

[TLEberle]

Spelling Bee - The walk away mechanic should escalate. Almost no one takes the money on the fifth card if they've flipped 4 already because they're already so deep. If the walk away grew, then it could make the end of the game more interesting. When they play the game for cash, it would make a world of difference because no one is taking $1000 (5 cards for guaranteed $5000, or risk it for $25000).

Instead of $1000 printed on the back of the cards, escalating amounts would be on the holding slots ($1000-$5000). Walk away before the first card is revealed, you get $1000 and so on. So if they get 3 cards, they could walk away with up to $3000, but they at least have to play the first two cards. And if they got an R (or N in W-I-N), then they have a more meaningful choice before deciding to flip the last card.

I think it is worth exploring this because it goes to the fact that in the main the producers know what they're doing. When the contestant has all the money amounts facing them, the choice is all the cash against the unknown. If the game moves to a place where all of the cards have been Cs and there's one more to reveal there's no reason to offer anything more than a grand because there has to be an instant car behind there. The offer at that point is perfunctory and you get a great moment as the contestant either decides to chicken out or go all in and then the climax happens.

[wdm1219inpenna]

One of my favorite car pricing games is Pocket Change.

Since the player will eventually wind up with 4 envelopes once the price of the car is filled in, rather than waste time with the player walking over and picking one envelope each time they correctly place the next digit in the car price, just have them select the 4 envelopes at the start of the game.

[WhammyPower]

One of my favorite car pricing games is Pocket Change.

Since the player will eventually wind up with 4 envelopes once the price of the car is filled in, rather than waste time with the player walking over and picking one envelope each time they correctly place the next digit in the car price, just have them select the 4 envelopes at the start of the game.

I like my idea better: Only two chances at each digit. This now limits the max price of the car to $2.00 (so the $2.00 envelope is now truly an instant win), but of course only guarantees one envelope (although most people will get more).

[wdm1219inpenna]

That's quite an interesting twist on the game!  Makes it more rewarding when players get the digits right within 2 tries at each.  Would be a time and budget saver to be sure!

[Kevin Prather]

Spelling Bee - The walk away mechanic should escalate. Almost no one takes the money on the fifth card if they've flipped 4 already because they're already so deep. If the walk away grew, then it could make the end of the game more interesting. When they play the game for cash, it would make a world of difference because no one is taking $1000 (5 cards for guaranteed $5000, or risk it for $25000).

Instead of $1000 printed on the back of the cards, escalating amounts would be on the holding slots ($1000-$5000). Walk away before the first card is revealed, you get $1000 and so on. So if they get 3 cards, they could walk away with up to $3000, but they at least have to play the first two cards. And if they got an R (or N in W-I-N), then they have a more meaningful choice before deciding to flip the last card.

I think it is worth exploring this because it goes to the fact that in the main the producers know what they're doing. When the contestant has all the money amounts facing them, the choice is all the cash against the unknown. If the game moves to a place where all of the cards have been Cs and there's one more to reveal there's no reason to offer anything more than a grand because there has to be an instant car behind there. The offer at that point is perfunctory and you get a great moment as the contestant either decides to chicken out or go all in and then the climax happens.

Was gonna make this point, but you said it better than I could. If the money is reversed, you're actually kind of rooting for a bunch of lousy draws.