Author Topic: Showcase Showdown Alternative to Include Pricing Knowledge  (Read 4286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whowouldeverhurtawhammy

  • Taking a Bonus Spin
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Showcase Showdown Alternative to Include Pricing Knowledge
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2017, 01:53:51 PM »
The show would do well by not making a radical change to the Showcase Showdown.
Luck was always the lofty standard of the Showcase Showdown, and it must not be altered for any other purpose (except for altering the cash prizes to larger values).
(to the tune of Sailor Moon)
Guessing prices by moonlight, winning cars by day light, never losing to a real fight, I am the one named...WHAAAAT?!?!

Online gamesurf

  • 4/4/2023
  • TPiR Alumnus
  • *
  • Posts: 1239
  • makin' flippy floppy, tryin' to do my best
Re: Showcase Showdown Alternative to Include Pricing Knowledge
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2017, 03:04:35 PM »
The show would do well by not making a radical change to the Showcase Showdown.

People keep saying this but nobody in this thread has suggested that. Nobody thinks they should axe the Big Wheel for season 47.

I’m just saying the SCSD is the weakest part of the show for me and I like to play “what could have been”.

Luck was always the lofty standard of the Showcase Showdown, and it must not be altered for any other purpose (except for altering the cash prizes to larger values).

Why though? “Because it’s always been that way” isn’t the most persuasive argument.

There was always an element of luck in determining who got to compete in the Showcase.  Even when the show was just 30 minutes.

Before the wheel, the top two winners went on to the Showcase.  Obviously, contestants winning their way on stage have no say in what pricing games they're going to play or the top value of the prize they're playing for. So, if all three contestants won the maximum amount of prizes they could win in their assigned pricing games - if the 1st game was worth $2000, the 2nd $6000 and the 3rd $5000, the contestant who played the first game was eliminated through no fault of his own, even though he did everything right (that is, win all the prizes he had a chance to win), because he had the bad luck to play the pricing game that awarded the lowest dollar-value amount of prizes that day.

I see your point, but pushing back against it: Isn’t that situation preferable to “the guy who played Pathfinder perfectly lost against the genius who thought he was playing for a $1,800 trip in Flip Flop”?
Quote from: Bill Todman
"The sign of a good game, is when you don't have to explain it every day. The key is not simplicity, but apparent simplicity. Password looks like any idiot could have made it up, but we have 14 of our people working on that show. There is a great complexity behind the screen. It requires great work to keep it simple."