An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
ArtieeLange		#1961	[-]
Posts: 380 (11/27/08 6:19 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Except with teams, thats the difference, stupid. ^ lemurwrench wrote: is your system meant to help players with good social strategy? My system isn't meant to "help" anyone, it is designed to find the best overall players, by having the worst overall players fail to secure safety for themselves through challenges and social strategy.
Dan Down Under		#1962	[-]
Posts: 3856 (11/27/08 7:11 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Except with teams, thats the difference, stupid. ^ OMG! Varying challenges? WITH teams!? Isn't that what they already have on that Survivor show?
Olmec Donald		#1963	[-]
Posts: 61 (11/27/08 7:23 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	So Artie, what's your plan for challenges? Would you keep them the same as the current format after the merge, or would you vary it up by running/puzzle/swimming/memory/survival skills etc. and rotate between them more frequently than they currently do?
lemurwrench		#1964	[-]
Posts: 296 (11/27/08 7:27 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: it is designed to find the best overall players, by having the worst overall players fail to secure safety for themselves through challenges and social strategy. how does that statement ArtieeLange wrote: lemur, your opinions on when players need to have "social strategy" are not just irrelevant, but boring. not contradict with this one?
PrettyGoodYear1988		#1965	[-]
Posts: 1257 (11/27/08 8:06 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Are we at 100 pages yet? Oh, and Artiee, you still haven't answered my question about the value of helping your team work better together. Don't you think that shows strength? I mean, there have been tribes that had stereotypically weak people on them (Chuay Gahn, Casaya, Aitu), who beat the more physical, dominant tribes by learning to work together and overcoming their weak points. The flaw in your system is that it does nothing to reward teamwork, which is a fundamental part of building a new society, which is what the show was originally about, remember? ETA: 100 PAGES, BITCHES! That's it, I'm done.
Olmec Donald		#1966	[-]
Posts: 63 (11/27/08 9:17 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Feel proud, Artie. 100 pages and this thread is still going strong.
oh ehm gee		#1967	[-]
Posts: 1792 (11/27/08 9:55 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: oh ehm gee wrote: Good question, delusional. Those shows don't need improvement, for example American Idol is split into two segments: The cast of judges first separate the contestants, and then everything else is up to the callers. There is no ambiguity, it is designed to pick the American Idol, and the system guarantees the winners of the first segment is who the judges select, and the winner of the second segment is the one who consistently avoids getting the least amount of votes. Guaranteed. Lolz at even suggesting that AI has a fair system of judging Lolz at confusing fair with best. American Idol is about finding the most popular, its system is by definition perfectly suited for its stated goal. Lolz at ignoring the blatant producer manipulation which makes the 'most popular' moniker questionable at best (and downright farcical at worst).
Drboboosh2		#1968	[-]
Posts: 26 (11/27/08 2:05 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Artie, I finally took the time to read through this entire thread. Twice actually. I've come to the conclusion that your system would be a welcome change. The ratings have been declining and Survivor's days are numbered. Adding your system probably would jump start the show again. These little twists aren't enough, the show needs a major change. Your system puts the control into the player's hands, and would seriously up the competition of the challenges and the entire show as a whole. I would love to watch all the people in the weak camp suffer each week. They may stay in the game a long time, but they'd still lose and be miserable. So Artie, you finally convinced me. Congrats, sorry it took me so long to come around. I'll be your loyal ally on this thread. Fighting the good fight. I think it's only a matter of time before other people see the light, and the tards who don't will eventually leave. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
mundo446		#1969	[-]
Posts: 1250 (11/27/08 2:16 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Drboboosh2 wrote: Artie, I finally took the time to read through this entire thread. Twice actually. I've come to the conclusion that your system would be a welcome change. The ratings have been declining and Survivor's days are numbered. Adding your system probably would jump start the show again. These little twists aren't enough, the show needs a major change. Your system puts the control into the player's hands, and would seriously up the competition of the challenges and the entire show as a whole. I would love to watch all the people in the weak camp suffer each week. They may stay in the game a long time, but they'd still lose and be miserable. So Artie, you finally convinced me. Congrats, sorry it took me so long to come around. I'll be your loyal ally on this thread. Fighting the good fight. I think it's only a matter of time before other people see the light, and the tards who don't will eventually leave. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. You my friend, have absolutley no life. That is beyond pathetic.
emjoi		#1970	[-]
Posts: 1099 (11/27/08 3:54 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	So this thread is going to head to a happy ending then? Everyone finally agrees with Artie, and falls in love with him. Group Hugs. Forgiveness. Anal Sex. All of that. Jeff hands Artee the million dollar cheque, that stupid pretentious world music band plays it's stuff, and the season ends.
lemurwrench		#1971	[-]
Posts: 299 (11/27/08 4:09 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	no
emjoi		#1972	[-]
Posts: 1100 (11/27/08 4:11 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Oh. Oh well. Just askin'
ArtieeLange		#1973	[-]
Posts: 381 (11/28/08 5:54 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dan Down Under wrote: ArtieeLange wrote: Except with teams, thats the difference, stupid. ^ OMG! Varying challenges? WITH teams!? Isn't that what they already have on that Survivor show? OMG! Yes, they do, and guess what?!? Teams is why the current system fails, stupid! Last Edited By: ArtieeLange 11/28/08 6:00 AM. Edited 1 times.
ArtieeLange		#1974	[-]
Posts: 382 (11/28/08 6:08 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: ArtieeLange wrote: it is designed to find the best overall players, by having the worst overall players fail to secure safety for themselves through challenges and social strategy. how does that statement ArtieeLange wrote: lemur, your opinions on when players need to have "social strategy" are not just irrelevant, but boring. not contradict with this one? The first describes what my system is designed for, the second describes what you think a player should do. Your opinions on what a player should do are quite irrelevant. My description of my system generates a 100 page thread, because there are no successful arguments against it. Each of your say-nothing posts like "how does that statement not contradict with this one?" provide additional evidence to that fact.
Fizzmix		#1975	[-]
Posts: 187 (11/28/08 8:06 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	This is long, but it destroys your proposition entirely. Who decides who the "top performers" are each challenge? Lets use challenge where they rolled the balls down the hill as an example. Dan and Ace are trying to stop the balls. Randy and Sugar are the callers. Corinne, Bob, Marcus, Charlie, Suzie tossing their ball, Ken, Crystal, GC, Kelly, and Matty tossing their's. Kota won. But like you said, not all players are equally deserving of the victory, only the ones that performed the best. So let's pick Randy and Dan because they were the winning caller-stopper combo. We'll also say Sugar and Ace aren't top performers. Which 5 of the other 10 were the top performers? And in a situation like this under your suggestion, if the tribes came in exactly as they did, and the loser tribe was the Fang tribe and the "top performers" tribe was the Kota tribe. Who in their right mind would volunteer for the caller or stopper position? I doubt Ace would have, everyone would have wanted to be one of the obviously less culpable ball rollers. === Let me further show your why your suggestion is trash. What if the first episode challenge was completed, and the 9 players of the winning tribe made an alliance. Why not have 5 to 8 of the alliance members tank the next challenge? Hell, what if they just sat out, or immediately gave up. That's the easiest way to get to the loser camp. Have the 3 alliance members most well suited to the challenge perform well. Well they don't even have to perform that well, they just have to beat out 3 members of the "loser tribe" that episode. The alliance tanks on purpose so that they have the advantage on the loser tribe for numbers. They always make sure that at least a majority of the loser tribe consists of their alliance. They vote off one of the people not in their alliance. They continue this strategy until the 9 of them have made the Final 9. Alright, you have 9 players who can make the claim that they are the strongest. You've also just lost all of your viewers and your show gets cancelled because people don't want to watch a tribe make a mockery out of challenges for 9 episodes. === To make things really easy to understand, I'll use this season as an example. I'm just going to pick who I think are the strongest and weakest players. First challenge happens, and Jacquie, Ace, Dan, Marcus, Charlie, Matty, Randy, Bob, and Corinne prove they're the best in some sort of baseline challenge to determine first camps. This means that Michelle, Gillian, Paloma, GC, Kelly, Crystal, Sugar, Ken, and Suzie end up on the loser tribe. One gets voted out (and of course it's going to be the strongest of these, so let's say GC). The winning tribe makes a pact to go to the Final 9 together. They think that maybe they could just all stay together on the same tribe and collectively win every challenge for the whole game! I mean, they proved that they're the best, it should be a piece of cake! But wait, not every challenge tests the same skills. They worry that in a challenge that requires a lot of strength that Ken could potentially outperform Corinne. Maybe it will be a mental challenge, and Ken will move to the "top performer" tribe for sure! We don't want to lose Corinne or anyone else in our alliance, for that matter! Let's play the game so that we won't EVER have to worry about losing a member of the alliance. NO MATTER WHAT. So second challenge rolls around. When it starts, Jacquie, Corinne, Bob, Randy, and Charlie immediately quit. Ace, Dan, Marcus and Matty, unsurprisingly, wipe the floor with the entire loser tribe. So the new tribes are Ace, Dan, Marcus, Matty, Ken, Crystal, Michelle, and Kelly for the winner's tribe. And Jacquie, Corinne, Bob, Randy, Charlie, Sugar, Suzie, Paloma, and Gillian for the loser's tribe. (I'm assuming that the when the number of players is not equal as they are here with 17 players, that the top 8 players would be safe, and the bottom 9 would be in trouble, for sake of always having even tribes whenever possible). The majority alliance members who have deliberately made their way to the loser's tribe votes out Suzie. Wash, rinse, repeat. The alliance members who go to the losing tribe swap out each challenge if possible, so that they don't lose their strength from staying at the loser's camp. This strategy is also incredibly versatile and allows for a large margin of error. In the above example, you only need TWO members of the alliance to beat TWO members not in the alliance. If the unthinkable happened, and only Marcus and Matty were among the top performers, and Sugar and Paloma SOMEHOW beat Ace and Dan, you would have an even greater majority of the alliance on the losing tribe. You still get to vote out either Suzie and Gillian. You have a Pagonging from the very first episode.
Drboboosh2		#1976	[-]
Posts: 27 (11/28/08 11:44 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fizzmix wrote: Kota won. But like you said, not all players are equally deserving of the victory, only the ones that performed the best. So let's pick Randy and Dan because they were the winning caller-stopper combo. We'll also say Sugar and Ace aren't top performers. Which 5 of the other 10 were the top performers? ZOMG, Artie's system only has individual challenges, and everyone would have to do the same thing in each challenge. So they're all on the same playing field. So it would be easy to measure performance, well you might have trouble because you're retarded or something.
Mike8787		#1977	[-]
Posts: 544 (11/28/08 11:58 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	FizzMix, your complaints are faulty because they rely on a series of very specific choices by the Survivors and the producers: One, that the nine people in the top performing tribe would think to align, or get along well enough to chose to. Since the producers go out of their way to find people they think might clash, this is unlikely, if not completely improbable. It is also unlikely that, thrown a twist like this, any of them would have the foresight to do this immediately after the first immunity challenge, before inevitably the top nine will change. Two, it requires a large portion of said nine person alliance to agree to suffer - to throw the challenge so they can go to the crap camp and "save the alliance" -- likely again and again as they are labeled "the weak part of the alliance". It also requires them to be humble and accept being labeled. That never works out well. Wouldn't it just be easier to vote out the stronger people and then get into the good camp themselves? Three, if the way the game is set up changes, so would the challenges. The ranking system would be reflected in the challenges they chose for the game. You act like this suggestion is a failure because you assume the producers wouldn't think up new challenges. So, yes, if the survivors all ate humble-pie, they didn't mind suffering, didn't mind being called weak, had the foresight to make a huge, unprecedented alliance in the first episode, didn't care who was in their alliance, maintained that first day fledging massive alliance without trying to vote out threatening players, if the first day "weak camp nine" didn't catch on to the plan and start throwing challenges themselves, yes, this plan would fail. But even Marcus couldn't deepthroat that many ifs. You did touch on a good point, though: why not just throw the challenge with your entire alliance every week and vote out someone else. Five people in an alliance tossing the challenge each time could do it. Last Edited By: Mike8787 11/28/08 12:03 PM. Edited 2 times.
Fizzmix		#1978	[-]
Posts: 188 (11/28/08 1:58 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ZOMG, Artie's system only has individual challenges, and everyone would have to do the same thing in each challenge. So they're all on the same playing field. So it would be easy to measure performance, well you might have trouble because you're retarded or something. I considered this, but then I didn't think it could be the case, since they could then just have one tribe of 18 instead of two tribes of 9. That way, the top 9 performers were immune in the first episode, and it worked sort of like his suggestion anyway in terms of protecting the best players, just less convoluted. One, that the nine people in the top performing tribe would think to align, or get along well enough to chose to. Since the producers go out of their way to find people they think might clash, this is unlikely, if not completely improbable. It is also unlikely that, thrown a twist like this, any of them would have the foresight to do this immediately after the first immunity challenge, before inevitably the top nine will change. That's the thing in his version of the game. I just thought of it after reading his suggestion, why wouldn't at least one of the nine in the game think of it? I know that if I saw my surest path to victory was allying with the other 8 strongest members, I would absolutely do it because it guarantees my safety until 9. Two, it requires a large portion of said nine person alliance to agree to suffer - to throw the challenge so they can go to the crap camp and "save the alliance" People choose to suffer over getting voted out, all the time. Like in challenges where Jeff offers rewards to quit. And there are 9 people in the alliance, and in the first 3 episodes, only 5 people from the alliance have to tank. So no one would ever have to tank more than two challenges in a row. And what is a "crap camp"? I mean, people have lived in some truely awful camps, and did fine. It's especially fine, since your allies who are basically helping you compete are getting the luxury camp. Wouldn't it just be easier to vote out the stronger people and then get into the good camp themselves? It would not just be easier to vote out the stronger people because almost no one is good enough physically to be confident that they can place in the top half of every type of challenge. Even if I'm strong, agile, brilliantly smart, maybe I can't hold my breath well under water, or maybe I can't injest gross food without puking. These are things I would consider, and would certainly accept a strategy to insulate myself from the danger. So, yes, if the survivors all ate humble-pie, they didn't mind suffering, didn't mind being called weak, had the foresight to make a huge, unprecedented alliance in the first episode, didn't care who was in their alliance, maintained that first day fledging massive alliance without trying to vote out threatening players, if the first day "weak camp nine" didn't catch on to the plan and start throwing challenges themselves, yes, this plan would fail. But even Marcus couldn't deepthroat that many ifs. Eh, alliances like this have been made in Big Brother, and if they could have controlled the outcome of who was immune, I'm sure they would have stuck together (like the ex-boyfriend/girlfriend season). So if these things came true, the show would be literally ruined, though. It's a lot of ifs, but it's too big of a risk for producers to take because it IS a viable strategy that would make the first 9 episodes a complete write-off. The show as it is now does not allow for a bunch of LOGICAL ifs to ruin it entirely. You did touch on a good point, though: why not just throw the challenge with your entire alliance every week and vote out someone else. Five people in an alliance tossing the challenge each time could do it. It could even be a four person alliance with an add on. The Onions+Bob could have done it. It's not too crazy to think that THAT alliance could have started on the first day, and they decided to do this every time. Is there supposed to be a merge in this scenario, where after all of the strong remain they have proven themselves and can duke it out? If there is, then this makes it even more hilarious, because whichever group of five from the first day decides to establish itself will be guaranteed Final 5.
CSCin3D		#1979	[-]
Posts: 10404 (11/28/08 2:00 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I want to see Artiee's system implemented ^_^
ArtieeLange		#1980	[-]
Posts: 383 (11/28/08 2:03 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Mike8787 wrote: FizzMix, your complaints are faulty because they rely on a series of very specific choices by the Survivors and the producers: aka "The Kitty Wyde1 Defense", endless false assumptions, yet still resulting in an outcome designed by the players, guaranteed better than the current system which is designed by luck of the team-selection. Mike8787 wrote: why not just throw the challenge with your entire alliance every week and vote out someone else. Five people in an alliance tossing the challenge each time could do it. That alliance would not only have to start immediately, but it would also have to start eating itself once there are 10 players left. This would be obvious to the players, not only preventing it from forming in the first place, but it would encourage players to flip since the less players trying, the easier it is get into the top half. Also, the same players on the losing team also results in the same players on the winning team. Post-merge, you end up with two alliances; one well-fed, well-rested, strong as possible, and the other weakened to a state of near-exhaustion If that's the strategy they want, let them try it. Under my system the players can do whatever they want, and the winner will always be the best, not the luckiest.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals

Quick Reply