Y2R's NFL Trivia Game - The Revival

[young2rice]

3 no's!

 

[FirstTimer]

3 no's!

This is getting ridiculous ha. I mean there's trivia then there is naming ambiguous clues and having people just throw guesses out as there are numerous players who fit the description.

I mean Al Toon fits, but it's wrong? I mean there has to be some reward for actually guessing someone that meets the criteria to a "t" but isn't the guy.

I like this game but it just seems silly sometimes.

 

[Senser81]

This is getting ridiculous ha. I mean there's trivia then there is naming ambiguous clues and having people just throw guesses out as there are numerous players who fit the description.

I mean Al Toon fits, but it's wrong? I mean there has to be some reward for actually guessing someone that meets the criteria to a "t" but isn't the guy.

I like this game but it just seems silly sometimes.

Yeah, I think you should get half-credit for finding a player who fulfills the criteria...you get full credit for reading Y2R's mind.

 

[Aso]

Does Largent fill the criteria?

 

[FirstTimer]

Yeah, I think you should get half-credit for finding a player who fulfills the criteria...you get full credit for reading Y2R's mind.

Yeah that's where I see this taking a bad turn. People will just start throwing out random names just to try and hit the bullseye while wearing a blind fold. Jerry Rice and Steve Largent don't meet the criteria at all(Rice may meet the consecutive games with a rec part) but they are "names" and people throw them out for the hell of it.

 

[FirstTimer]

Does Largent fill the criteria?

-No
-Maybe
-No

 

[young2rice]

-No
-Maybe
-No

Exactly. Which is my argument for changing the way its done. If you actually follow the criteria than there aren't many people, there are very few guys who have 35-consecutive games with a catch, and set franchise records. Plus...as always, after 7 a clue is given that pretty much narrows it down to make it super easy if you pay attention.

Like when this first started and there were 10 guesses and people started saying that the way its done needed to be changed because of so many correct answers..well..no..actually only 1 of those 10 guesses at the time fit the criteria. It's just people may pick 1 or 2 of them and be like "it fits!" but..not the 3rd or 4th clue.

Or they'll just come in and toss out a random name of the most popular guys at that position during the time.

Plus I think if 3/22 aren't guessed that's pretty good.

 

[Senser81]

Next Player

Player - #22
========================
Year - 1988 Season Completed
Pos - WR
Facts
-Set a franchise receiving record in 1988.
-Enters next season with 35 successive regular-season games with at least 1 catch.
-Has led his team in receiving for 3 straight seasons.

Eric Martin

 

[FirstTimer]

Exactly. Which is my argument for changing the way its done. If you actually follow the criteria than there aren't many people, there are very few guys who have 35-consecutive games with a catch. Plus...as always, after 7 a clue is given that pretty much narrows it down to make it super easy if you pay attention.

Like when this first started and there were 10 guesses and people started saying that the way its done needed to be changed because of so many correct answers..well..no..actually only 1 of those 10 guesses at the time fit the criteria. It's just people may pick 1 or 2 of them and be like "it fits!" but..not the 3rd or 4th clue.

Or they'll just come in and toss out a random name of the most popular guys at that position during the time.

I see your point and I agree with the criteria stuff but honestly at least some credit should be given for guesses that are correct but aren't the guy you had in mind. it becomes tougher for people to want to follow when you know the guy/do the work to research it, find the guy and put in the guess only to be told "no" because we couldn't read your mind.

It just seems a tad lamez and outside the spirit or intent of the game to not award people for getting correct guesses but not being able to read your mind.
But meh whatever.

Nice guess Senser.

Will you be able to pull off the Carnac?

 

[young2rice]

I see your point and I agree with the criteria stuff but honestly at least some credit should be given for guesses that are correct but aren't the guy you had in mind. it becomes tougher for people to want to follow when you know the guy/do the work to research it, find the guy and put in the guess only to be told "no" because we couldn't read your mind.

It just seems a tad lamez and outside the spirit or intent of the game to not award people for getting correct guesses but not being able to read your mind.
But meh whatever.

Nice guess Senser.

Will you be able to pull off the Carnac?

As I said before I do this because otherwise this game simply becomes...who is online when I put up the question with profootballreference.com open in another window. (with more narrow clues)

If I use clues like "In year X he had Y yards" or something, then it's just "who can go to that year and sort the yardage list, and be like "Oh it was Jerry Rice." Instead I give you facts that narrow it down to around 10 or so players at most, and you have 7 chances before you are given a clue that probably narrows it down to about 3-5, and you have 3 guesses to get it.

Then if I reward people pts for guessing somebody that meets the criteria then it tends to devalue the actual correct answer selection.

I still believe the proof is in the pudding, and that pudding is that only 3 out of 22 haven't been guessed (12%) then it's on target. If my facts were so broad that 1/2 of the players were being thrown out because nobody could get I could see.

 

[FirstTimer]

As I said before I do this because otherwise this game simply becomes...who is online when I put up the question with profootballreference.com open in another window. (with more narrow clues)

If I use clues like "In year X he had Y yards" or something, then it's just "who can go to that year and sort the yardage list, and be like "Oh it was Jerry Rice."

I get that and I agree with you there. I like the way you are presenting the clues and criteria.

I guess I just feel, like Senser does, that people who giess one of the few guys that meets the criteria and is technically "right" gets at least half credit or something.

Then if I reward people pts for guessing somebody that meets the criteria then it tends to devalue the actual correct answer selection.

I don't see it that way as the correct answer is still worth 10 pts and the questions aren't easy but your game your thing I guess.

If my facts were so broad that 1/2 of the players were being thrown out because nobody could get I could see.

I wasn't arguing that they were too broad. In fact I feel quite the opposite. I like the narrowness of the game but even as narrow as it is multiple players still fit sometimes.

 

[young2rice]

I get that and I agree with you there. I like the way you are presenting the clues and criteria.

I guess I just feel, like Senser does, that people who giess one of the few guys that meets the criteria and is technically "right" gets at least half credit or something.


I don't see it that way as the correct answer is still worth 10 pts and the questions aren't easy but your game your thing I guess.


I wasn't arguing that they were too broad. In fact I feel quite the opposite. I like the narrowness of the game but even as narrow as it is multiple players still fit sometimes.

If there was points then it'd probably have to be restricted to 1 pre-clue guess allowed, because then you could just guess twice and then it doesn't matter. Which is where I was thinking it'd de-value it.

We could try a trial run of doing so with the next player.

 

[FirstTimer]

If there was points then it'd probably have to be restricted to 1 pre-clue guess allowed, because then you could just guess twice and then it doesn't matter. Which is where I was thinking it'd de-value it.

I agree with that.

 

[young2rice]

Then again that'll also slow the game down a lot for the 'regulars'.

And i'm wondering if I should change the post-clue Points? Since if it was that case then post-clue points (currently 5) would be the same as guessing pre-clue criteria meeting but incorrect person.

 

[Senser81]

Less talk, more action

 

[dell71]

Call me stupid, but for receivers when you say a guy set a record or led his team or whatever in "receiving" could you at least specify receptions or yards?

 

[FirstTimer]

Call me stupid, but for receivers when you say a guy set a record or led his team or whatever in "receiving" could you at least specify receptions or yards?

Yeah that kind of threw me off too.

 

[young2rice]

Yeah that kind of threw me off too.

..lol

yeah I specifically didn't say the franchise record in yards, receptions, or td's...because if I said say... "TD's" it narrowed it down to 1 guy.


But yeah as for 'leading team in receiving' i meant Receptions.

 

[Senser81]

Still awaiting response on Eric Martin.

 

[young2rice]

oh i was implying it was a no by skipping over haha...so...NO!.. 2 more 'til clue.