Can you make an argument that everyone has the same strategy in survivor?
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Pineapple 81 |
Re: Winner Analysis | ||
|
Or adjusting your strategy because of your logistics.
Can you make an argument that everyone has the same strategy in survivor? |
|||
RavuRules |
Re: Winner Analysis | ||
Quote: Well. I sorta did do that. Listing the winners' luck that is. And I consider the other "important factors of luck" covered with "etc." haha It's not that I'm giving losing an excuse but an explanation. It accurately explains why good players are sometimes outlasted by lesser players. It also explains the drastic results between the original seasons and all-stars. However, on the whole, luck CAN be mitigated somewhat by skill. So hopefully, on the whole, Survivor is dominated by good players as opposed to being a crap-shoot Quote: Those were just instinctual ratings and mainly based on their performance within their season as opposed to a comparison against players from other seasons. And as I mentioned, some winners might have more skills than they showed, but didn't have to use because of good luck or whatever |
|||
Unregistered(d) |
RE: | ||
|
Don't get me wrong, it's very well written.
BUT, I mean, come on, when people talk about the greatest players ever, usually, the first names that come to mind are: - Hatch - Brian - Tina I mean, some of the names above them: Amber, Sandra, etc. Nobody mentions them when people discuss THE greatest player of all time. I mean, there are even some "non-winners" who should be mentioned as better players than Amber and Sandra. Jonny Fairplay. Boston Rob. |
|||
Pineapple 81 |
Re: RE: | ||
|
Here's a scenario:
If a previous winner won using UTR, but plays Survivor again and wins again using OTT, does the person's strategy change? Isn't the main strategy of the game of Survivor to find a way to win? |
|||
RavuRules |
Re: RE: | ||
|
Again, I'm totally open to changing my ratings! But give me concrete reasons, not just, "But everyone else says..."
What really determined my ratings was the level of competition. Hatch faced a laughable cast. Tina faced a more modern cast, but if you look at my analysis, she won with lots of luck (most notably Mike falling in the fire). All-Stars did not help her case. If you can give me some good reasons to bump her up, and/or bump others down, I'll do it Also, as a relative newbie to Sucks, I really don't understand why Hatch, Tina, and Brian are so golden. I really think it has something to do with emotional attachments to early seasons Sandra didn't really impress me at first either, but after looking at her voting record and inspecting the moves she made, I realized she was very proactive. Fairplay and her single-handedly caused all the twists and turns that made PI so enjoyable to watch. She initiated some of those twists on her own without Jon too. She was inherently UTR, but she utilized it as a weapon, as opposed to Vecepia who was more passive and reactive with it BTW, thanks for being diplomatic with your criticisms guys. I do appreciate it |
|||
Pineapple 81 |
Re: RE: | ||
|
My point is, you can't limit a winner's strategy based on luck. If Tina played on Borneo, and won. Was she more lucky?
|
|||
WylDawg |
Re: RE: | ||
Quote: The biggest huge-ass post I've seen and this is the final ranking it amounts to?? Sad. ETA: Countdown until this turns into another "Rank the winners" thread.... |
|||
Pineapple 81 |
Re: RE: | ||
|
My biggest argument with strategy is people begin with an assumption that players can only play based on their personality. That's the wrong assumption.
In any game, be it chess or poker, you can mix up your gameplay depending on your situation. But it doesn't change the strategy. Survivor is a game. |
|||
Unregistered(d) |
RE: | ||
Quote: There is no emotional attachment to Thailand. It is widely considered one of, if not, THE worst seasons ever. But certainly, I think Borneo will always be special because it was THE first ever season and Hatch was the first winner ever. OUTBACK was another season that people liked. |
|||
Captain Honky |
Re: RE: | ||
|
while I don't really agree with the outcome.
I really admire the fact that alot of intelligence went into your process, more often than not Intelligence is a lost art when making comments here at Sucks. |
|||
RavuRules |
Re: RE: | ||
Quote: Yeah, I know. That's why I really don't understand that one. I mean, I just re-watched Thailand (which was painful), and I still can't understand why everyone thinks he's some genius. If the cast was as smart as modern seasons, then I'd praise his game control. But Chuay Gahn were a bunch of tools! Maybe it's his calculating interviews that make people think he's so smart--I don't know. I mean, he BARELY won that season. Against redneck Clay |
|||
Unregistered(d) |
RE: | ||
|
Listen, Brian was not a likeable guy. I mean, remember how he called himself "Mr. Freeze" on one of the episodes?
He is indeed a very cold person...but he was an amazing player. Kathy made the point that he would have been the PERFECT person to face off against Mariano on All-Stars. But listen, people on other sites have also said he was an amazing player...not just here at Sucks. |
|||
Kirblar |
Re: RE: | ||
|
You've got to adapt playing Survivor to your own personality. You also have to adapt to the personalities surrounding you and adjust your behavior. Good poker players change gears during tournaments, and the same thing is true of good Survivor players.
Brian's an odd case, where he was never really in danger at any point in the season. It's not like he was ever really tested because his F3/F2 pacts kept him safe. From how he interacted with SJ post-merge, he may have been in trouble if some of the younger players had ended up on CG instead. |
|||
RavuRules |
Re: RE: | ||
Quote: Okay, but what did he actually do?! I understand he's a rational player who can be all business. But nowadays, there's a lot of players who can do that. Vecepia did it. Sandra did it. Danni did it. What separates him? Why the amazing reputation? I might agree, but explain it to me! |
|||
Captain Honky |
Re: RE: | ||
|
Best point when discussing the greatness of Brian :
When he won the reward challenge and got to watch his video from home. C.C all but destroyed his game, showing off his cars and his house and mentioning that she wanted him to bring home the money so they could go to Fiji. Brian had to do some fierce damage control after that. afterall how many times in Survivor history have you heard someone say in their voting confessional "you don't need the money" ? Thats just 1 of the reasons Brian was awesome |
|||
Pineapple 81 |
Re: RE: | ||
|
Yes, Kirblar. But because you change gears in poker or Survivor, your personality doesn't change.
Survivor just happens to be a social game, and that causes an overlapping of criticism to gameplay and personal being. And there are indeed players who start the game ignoring these dynamics. Can you make an argument to assume these players selected that particular gameplay because of their personality? |
|||
RavuRules |
Re: RE: | ||
Quote: Okay, I just watched Survivor 5 episode 9 to verify this claim, and...Brian did absolutely nothing (but sweat haha). Based on TV (don't know what's happening off-screen), the tribe didn't even seem mad, although Helen interviewed that if she was against him, he'd be in trouble. The tribe is too focused on booting Ken at this point. I swear, people are embellishing the facts |
|||
beatles20147 |
Re: RE: | ||
Quote: Yeah, but what does twisting the game up and making it enjoyable to watch have to do with anything? Jonathan caused a bunch of twists and turns on CI and I don't think he ever had much of a shot at winning after the final nine (probably earlier). If anyone twisted the game up in Pearl Islands, it was Lill anyway. Just a couple of notes on some other stuff (aside from the All Star stuff that I still think should be left out): -It's considered good luck that the goat Brian had planned on taking to the final two for the duration of the game "sucks"? Of course Clay sucked, that's why Brian took him to the end. If Clay had won the last IC, I think this would be a more fitting argument. -Good luck for Jenna--men didn't boot her at F5 when she wanted out. -Sandra gets a B for strategy? I love her just as much as the next person but to say that "As long as it isn't me" was a stroke of brilliance that was respected by the jury is overselling things a bit. -Vecepia gets a C for challenges, with two individual wins and a poor tribal record, but Amber gets a D with one individual win and a great tribal record? -I don't want to say that there's an extreme bias for Yul here but...ok, I really can't think of what else to say then. Having the idol and being immune at every TC isn't good luck? Likewise, Ozzy and Sundra not forcing the idol out at F5? The Cook Islands cast = "intelligent, game-centered"? Yet Rich, Tina, Ethan, and Brian are penalized because they faced "weak" competition? Come on. The S13 cast is probably the weakest after Borneo and arguably Thailand. "Smartest and strongest opponents ever"? Huh? Yul's grades (1) Survival = B - makes sense (2) Strategy = A - I would agree if he weren't the only winner given this grade. As much as the hidden idol helped him out, he did use what he had to his advantage at every point. But to give him an A and not Tina, I can't agree there. (3) Social = A - See above. Overall, he's an A but I don't think he was penalized as much as Tina and Ethan were for similar social games--just about everyone came out liking them so what's the problem there? Then again, I'm not getting why Amber gets an A in this category since she was looked at as merely the lesser of two evils by the jury. (4) Challenge = A - Come on, he was strong in tribal challenges, but he didn't win a single individual one. Challenge-wise, he's much closer to Ethan than Tom. One thing I would point out, I'm not sure why anyone should be penalized for having good luck. Part of strategy is finding your advantages and capitalizing on them. You've done a great job with this, but it kind of feels like you came up with a ranking first and then listed all this stuff to support it instead of the other way around. I'll say one thing, you've definitely caused the best debate Sucks has seen in a long time so you get points for that. RavuRules Intelligence - A Debating Skills - A Including performance in All Stars to negatively impact past winners' scores - F :P |
|||
Pineapple 81 |
Re: RE: | ||
|
Take Ravu's arguments for example, he started this thread to clearly list luck as a factor, yet ignores lucky factors completely in his list. Is he just trying to ignore the facts? Or is there something obviously missing in his argument.
|
|||
Kirblar |
Re: RE: | ||
Quote: Tom definately had a strategy tailored to his personality. He formed close relationships with players and later used those relationships to either strong-arm players into making moves that would get him deeper in the game. He was definately NOT going into the game unaware of Survivor strategy (His "Why are you telling ME this" comment to Caryn definately showed that.) He was just very methodical about protecting his hero image. Fairplay and Rob knew their personalities and both played up the "Joker" aspect pre-merge while post-merge they both went with the free agent strategy. In order to FlipFlop on people and not get burned by it, you have to show that it's completely game-related and de-personalize it as much as possible. If you're going to be unable to do that, it's probably not a good strategy to use. |
|||