New Scaratings
https://scaratings.com/newScaratings/

Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
https://scaratings.com/newScaratings/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1536		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  MitchWolf [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:06 am ]
Post subject:  Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
OK is Buzztime trying to butter us up on a game that is way too trendy by make it way too easy?

Wonder how many perfects are there when it's revealed at 7a pst.
Author:  zog741 [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
I blew the fire hydrant question; I had even started with fire hydrant and then tried to associate "dog" with something else; I shouldn't have done that. I also coulnd't match the hint with ski on the Wyoming question, and there was one other that I only scored 970, so I scored in the mid 13s. But I also wasn't on a team tonight. I played tonight's Trendalicious because it looked like an interesting topic, and it was. But the questions should have been harder, and the list of perfectos on the network scoreboard proves that.

-- RWM
Author:  MitchWolf [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
zog741 wrote:
I also coulnd't match the hint with ski on the Wyoming question,


Should been Shwsssssh instead of Shssssh.
Author:  poman [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
That kind of reminded me of the very first few weeks of Trendalicious when the game debuted. You didn't really have to know the answer to the question, you just had to play off the clue in the question. Fortunately they've toughened up the game a little since then, as it would be a waste to play it the way it was tonight.

But I doubt anyone would've scored very well without the hints tonight...it was an educational game if you're interested in quirky facts. (Since I'm a geek, I actually enjoyed learning some of those). But it doesn't seem like it merited a trivia game.

I completely blew past the "Listen Up" clue on Hawaii question and just tried to answer it as a regular trivia question...so I quickly lost interest after missing that one.

On the Pennsylvania one, my father-in-law taught me that it's illegal to catch a fish in this state with your hands. However, it is legal to catch a fish with your teeth. Blowing right past the clue, I was looking for hands or teeth on that one.

Got a big :lol: on the NY one.
Author:  teverett [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
I was one of the perfects and I really was not paying attention as I was in a conversation about live trivia...You are so right - that game was a waste of time...
Author:  kaufman [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
Well, the game would have been pretty darned impossible without the Jeopardy! clues. You'd have something like:

In Tennessee, what aren't you allowed to carry in your pocket?
1) A dog
2) Raisins
3) A gun
4) An ice cream cone
5) A dictionary

I mean come on! Without the clue, who would know that aside from random guessers? And what's the fun in that?

And this game wasn't all gimmes; there was Q15 to separate the men from the boys, which to paraphrase was:

Which celebrity once served as Mayor of Carmel, California?

Not that difficult, but at least real trivia.

And I did admire the game-writer's editorializing in equating New Jersey and Oregon's ban on self-service gas with laws preventing you from tying an alligator to a fire hydrant.

But I hope a lot of you enjoyed your free Gold Medals; we at Hard Times certainly did, even if it din't show on the boards.
Author:  zog741 [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
kaufman wrote:
Well, the game would have been pretty darned impossible without the Jeopardy! clues. You'd have something like:

In Tennessee, what aren't you allowed to carry in your pocket?
1) A dog
2) Raisins
3) A gun
4) An ice cream cone
5) A dictionary


An ice-cream cone. I didn't need a built-in hint on that one. The Trendalicious category was "Outragious Laws"; and we all knew it a month in advance. There was no reason for the lollipop questions and the 95 perfect scores; that was just plain ridiculous.

Quote:
And this game wasn't all gimmes; there was Q15 to separate the men from the boys, which to paraphrase was:

Which celebrity once served as Mayor of Carmel, California?


Clint Eastwood. Got that one for 1000; maybe not a complete "gimme", but I suspect most decent trivia player would nail that. And I don't recall "mayor" as being part of the wording of that question. But he did cause the repeal of a dumb law that I can't recall just now.

In summary, I thought the subject was interesting, so I apporached the game like I approach a Topix that I consider interesting. I came to the game prepared, and given the questions would have scored 12K or more without the built-in clues. And while the game was interesting, BT's attempt at dumbing down the questions was a disappointment, but life goes on.

A compromise here would have been to have the built-in clues for five of the questions.

-- RWM
Author:  -BO- [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
Since when do games count down by 6's? There were 95 perfs, then 4 scores of 14994, 8 scores of 14988, 3 scores of 14982, 6 scores of 14976, etc.

But here's where it may get very interesting, scores go down by 6 through 14958, then you have only 1 score of 14951, and that just happens to be a non-registered player. Then down by 6's again for a spell, eventually scores get a bit separated probably due to bleeding on multiple questions, but then 2 scores of 14842, both by non-registered players.

So obviously scores counted down by 6 in this game, is this now commonplace during all BT games? If so I certainly wasn't aware of it. Secondly, could it be possible that the timer counts down differently for registered players vs. non-registered players? It sure seems like it in this game. It's a set of data that rarely comes up because of the simplicity of the game, but should probably be saved for further study.

BO
Author:  -BO- [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
zog741 wrote:
A compromise here would have been to have the built-in clues for five of the questions.

No way, built-in clues can suck me. I'm sick and tired of everything catering to the fucking ignorant.

BO
Author:  zog741 [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
-BO- wrote:
zog741 wrote:
A compromise here would have been to have the built-in clues for five of the questions.

No way, built-in clues can suck me. I'm sick and tired of everything catering to the fucking ignorant.

BO

And I would have had no problem with fifteen real questions on last night's game. But I think Buzztime still asks one or two dumbed-down questions to increase interest in the game, and given that some of these laws are obscure for most potential new players, I think the built-in clues for a few questions would have been okay by me. But not the entire game!
Author:  whales [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
Looks like the clocking mechanism for non-perfect question scores has been changed. The upcoming Steenking Badges are probably the reason.

I played Glory Daze this week cutthroat against one other person. We got identical bloodied scores on questions enough times to be noticeable for the first time ever, after the third occurrence he commented. So the quantum levels of available non-perfect scores has likely gone down. Maybe the synchronization has improved, maybe not.

A little later I had a perfect game going through 11,000 and when I bled on #12 I got ... 988. So the days of 999 on a question are probably gone.

It is now either a tiny bit easier or a tiny bit harder (more likely easier) to get 1000 on a question. And down the line, the separators will probably become less interesting and ties a little more frequent.
Author:  Gogetem [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
whales wrote:
Looks like the clocking mechanism for non-perfect question scores has been changed. The upcoming Steenking Badges are probably the reason.

I played Glory Daze this week cutthroat against one other person. We got identical bloodied scores on questions enough times to be noticeable for the first time ever, after the third occurrence he commented. So the quantum levels of available non-perfect scores has likely gone down. Maybe the synchronization has improved, maybe not.

A little later I had a perfect game going through 11,000 and when I bled on #12 I got ... 988. So the days of 999 on a question are probably gone.

It is now either a tiny bit easier or a tiny bit harder (more likely easier) to get 1000 on a question. And down the line, the separators will probably become less interesting and ties a little more frequent.

You're probably right about this. The most that I have ever gotten when bleeding points is '997' and that was in 'Countdown'. It's nowhere close to this in BT.
Author:  kaufman [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
zog741 wrote:
kaufman wrote:
And this game wasn't all gimmes; there was Q15 to separate the men from the boys, which to paraphrase was:

Which celebrity once served as Mayor of Carmel, California?


Clint Eastwood. Got that one for 1000; maybe not a complete "gimme", but I suspect most decent trivia player would nail that. And I don't recall "mayor" as being part of the wording of that question.

That's why I said "paraphrase". The question essentially boiled down to that. And if you recognized that, there were 1000 points waiting for you.
Author:  spotes [ Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Easy Six-style Trendalicous on Outrageous Laws 2-24-12
-BO- wrote:
Since when do games count down by 6's? There were 95 perfs, then 4 scores of 14994, 8 scores of 14988, 3 scores of 14982, 6 scores of 14976, etc.

But here's where it may get very interesting, scores go down by 6 through 14958, then you have only 1 score of 14951, and that just happens to be a non-registered player. Then down by 6's again for a spell, eventually scores get a bit separated probably due to bleeding on multiple questions, but then 2 scores of 14842, both by non-registered players.

So obviously scores counted down by 6 in this game, is this now commonplace during all BT games? If so I certainly wasn't aware of it. Secondly, could it be possible that the timer counts down differently for registered players vs. non-registered players? It sure seems like it in this game. It's a set of data that rarely comes up because of the simplicity of the game, but should probably be saved for further study.

BO


Point value count cycles are the same for registered and non-registered alike. I've played under non-registered handles that timed perfectly with my registered ones during games of various length and design.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/