Yuku free message boards

ArtieeLange wrote:

---

lemurwrench wrote:

---

an alliance can be formed on the winners camp and can systematically throw challenges to boot the others not in the alliance

Which can also happen under the current system, so your argument automatically fails.

actually, you've got it all wrong artiee. thats exactly why my argument SUCCEEDS. you see, my argument is simply showing you that the very flaw you claim to get rid of IS STILL EXISTANT in your system. in otherwords, this flaw is present in both systems. thus, your system does not correct the flaw. thus, your system is IRRELEVANT

in fact, your system makes the flaw more pronounced because players in the current system are limited to only eliminating the contestants on thier tribe. this is not true in your system.

However your "own arguments reinforce my theory. I'd like to see a player that is forced to eat maggot-rice at loser camp, and sleep on dirty leaves, decide to stay there.

I'l just take this time to point out that this is an unfair aspect of your system, as the original losers now have a disadvantage going into the next challenge. making the challenge unequal.

also, any player who isnt an idiot wouldnt mind doing this if they knew it was the best way to win. aka its predictable aka not entertaining.

I'd like to see if that player can convince anyone else to do so willingly,

once again, easy to do. anybody with half a brain would see its the best way to go.

or would there be no one to convince since the challenges vary so much that the winning and losing camps vary as well.

this makes no difference at all, because the alliance would be formed at a specific winner's camp. future challenges dont affect this.

I'd like to see if they remain loyal, or if one, two, three of them, finds a challenge to flip, for luxury and for guaranteed immunity.

for a third time, reasonable people wouldnt do this knowing it could lead to them losing.

I'd like to see if alliances can cross between winner and loser camp.

the very nature of the alliance requires that this be so, so theres no surprise in that

I'd even like to see the unlikely merge of two alliances, one the well-fed, well-rested group of challenge winners, and then the losers, starving, suffering half-dead zombies.

if the alliance is performed correctly, it has majority at merge so it doesnt matter how well fed they are.

What matters is they decide their own fate, and they determined their outcome. Not luck. Whatever happens, they have earned it."

maybe so, but the point is that in your system, the best way to advance is throwing challenges. a challenge throwing contest is not entertaining

Also, using the additional twists, it is not only unlikely, but impossible: "Now we don't only have an overall better designed system, but additional twists for that system as well. You can start the game with my system, then a few challenges in, add this aspect of not allowing the players to see each others progress during the challenges like the "Prisoner's Dilemma", another psychological twist the current game has been completely missing. Then later during a certain challenge let all players vote, not just the losing camp. This, plus any immunity island / immunity idol, and you have a game where challenge throwing is no longer a valid likely strategy (but still, let em try if they want, it would end up like Lord of the Flies at the merge )"
if you dont let player see eachother's progress, this eliminates the possibility of challenges in which players must interact with eachother.

limited challenge possibilities=not entertaining.

and if its only a one time twist, then at best the alliance might vote off one of thier own once, no big deal, still majority at merge.


as far as having everyone vote, why not just do that all the time?

ArtieeLange wrote:

---

lemurwrench wrote:

---

if your gonna go that way, fine...your system may get rid of one flaw

Are you crying, lemur?

You should be, because that statement took you over one hundred pages to understand and admit.