Jump to content

Internet Game Show beta2


Darren Kitchen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recently I’ve been hanging out in IRC and re-purposing some old Hak5 live equipment for what I’ve called the Internet Game Show. Yeah, I suck at names. Regardless, this little project is far from professional but fun indeed.

Here’s my second attempt. It’s the returning champion from Ireland Rkiver vs the new challenger from the USA, GCS8.

http://www.darrenkitchen.net/internet-game-show-beta-2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the most:

  • Darren's ability to be easily confused by everything
  • Pen and paper score board that was incorrect at most times
  • The question categories
  • Darren's inability and inconstancy of finding various ways to count from or to 15 to or from 0

Category idea: Rip off the prices right but with computer hardware and software.

Other category idea: Tech Support questions

Other category idea: Logic questions rather fact questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has potential, but I also see room for cheating and abuse with the whole IRC participation. 1st thing you should do though, is maybe like you said, have a second person helping out to keep score and to do screen switching.

Also, there needs to be some way to keep contestants from sitting in IRC while being asked questions, because it seems that even if they aren't using their IRC 15 second option for help, if they are sitting in the channel and someone calls it out, they could easily just be cheating by reading it off the screen without even having to ask for help.

Maybe instead of IRC in general, they have specific channel for people participating in the show so they are aloud to answer only when called upon -or- for lifeline questions maybe via skype but in a group conversation, so the lifeline is a special skype group conversation of people only for the show and moderated to see when they are giving the answer. If someones lifeline blurts out the answer without being called upon, the person they are there for loses a point, so as an incentive to keep them from cheating.

If IRC at large is following along, then the contestants shouldn't be aloud in the same channel at the same time, or they could be fed the answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well having done two, I loved both. It was fun.

My only idea, as I mentioned, was have each question worth 2 points, but if the person cannot answer it, then offer it across to the other for 1 point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well having done two, I loved both. It was fun.

My only idea, as I mentioned, was have each question worth 2 points, but if the person cannot answer it, then offer it across to the other for 1 point.

I like it except for the fact that is contestant A doesn't know the answer, and there is no penalty for a wrong answer, then there is no incentive to skip, or pass the question along to contestant B. A wrong answer in this case would be better than no answer at all. Make sense?

Of course we could just say if you get it wrong we pass it on to your opponent for 1 point, but then the opponent would have an advantage of knowing it wasn't the wrong answer just provided.

Also, I like the idea of keeping contestants out of channel unless they're using their IRC lifeline. Ultimately there is no way of keeping everyone honest. A third party could be private messaging answers, but that's simply the nature of the beast and some level of trust needs to be established.

The 4 second delay with ustream aids somewhat. A longer delay would be nice, except for when an IRC lifeline is used. Regardless, increasing the delay isn't technically feasible as far as I know.

I'll be giving it another go tonight. My goal is to bring it down to a fast paced engaging 20-25 minutes. I'll be separating it into blocks with an intro round to establish the leader who will get first pick on the second round, and a sudden-death game-changer round at the end with higher stakes.

Again, my simultaneous hosting and engineering abilities need to improve massively -- and I'm sure they will with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it except for the fact that is contestant A doesn't know the answer, and there is no penalty for a wrong answer, then there is no incentive to skip, or pass the question along to contestant B. A wrong answer in this case would be better than no answer at all. Make sense?

Of course we could just say if you get it wrong we pass it on to your opponent for 1 point, but then the opponent would have an advantage of knowing it wasn't the wrong answer just provided.

Also, I like the idea of keeping contestants out of channel unless they're using their IRC lifeline. Ultimately there is no way of keeping everyone honest. A third party could be private messaging answers, but that's simply the nature of the beast and some level of trust needs to be established.

The 4 second delay with ustream aids somewhat. A longer delay would be nice, except for when an IRC lifeline is used. Regardless, increasing the delay isn't technically feasible as far as I know.

I'll be giving it another go tonight. My goal is to bring it down to a fast paced engaging 20-25 minutes. I'll be separating it into blocks with an intro round to establish the leader who will get first pick on the second round, and a sudden-death game-changer round at the end with higher stakes.

Again, my simultaneous hosting and engineering abilities need to improve massively -- and I'm sure they will with time.

Well I didn't mean that the player 1 offers it across. If they get it wrong then the other person gets a chance to answer it, but only for one point. True they'd have the advantage of knowing that the answer given by player 1 was wrong. Now they get it right, get 1 point. They get it wrong, lose a point. Or they can just decide to not take the chance.

How about that?

As for IRC, that is the risk taken, we just have to ask people to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I didn't mean that the player 1 offers it across. If they get it wrong then the other person gets a chance to answer it, but only for one point. True they'd have the advantage of knowing that the answer given by player 1 was wrong. Now they get it right, get 1 point. They get it wrong, lose a point. Or they can just decide to not take the chance.

I like that idea. Especially the bit about losing a point if they get it wrong. Good stuff!

I think from now on I'm going to keep an instance of calc.exe open under each VNC'd skype window.

Will probably give it another go tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...