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

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
ArtieeLange		#881	[-]
Posts: 158 (08/04/08 9:37 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Every tribal council they survive is either a testament to their ability to either help their tribe win challenges Uh...if they are voted off first it means the team lost the challenge, thats the point. The TEAM lost, but only one player gets penalized = Fail. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Under a team-based system, there are dozens of reasons to keep a strong player in the game, but under your system, there is absolutely no reason to do so You still don't get it. Under my system, there is no reason to keep a better player because the better players are keeping themselves safe by earning their own immunity. This is clearly way beyond your understanding, you are still thinking like the players are "owed" something, and the only way they get to stay is by kissing ass. That system ends up with weaklings and shit ratings. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: And I love how your secondary solution basically removes the strategy aspect of the game entirely because it basically turns into "Player A has 8 votes, Player B has 1 vote...time to have a challenge to determine which one stays". That would be great. Player B would be so pissed at whoever voted for them. Then they compete, and the real loser goes home, not the one that everyone "h8s!"
SFC		#882	[-]
Posts: 437 (08/04/08 10:45 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: And I love how your secondary solution basically removes the strategy aspect of the game entirely because it basically turns into "Player A has 8 votes, Player B has 1 vote...time to have a challenge to determine which one stays". That would be great. Player B would be so pissed at whoever voted for them. Then they compete, and the real loser goes home, not the one that everyone "h8s!" Oooh... great idea completely eliminate the power of blindsiding. Blindsides make the show, if the two bottom players have to face off, there would never be any power shifts or need to try and form a new alliance, under your system perfectly played blindsides would be ruined just because someone couldn't answer a question correct, just imagine in Marquesas. Jeff: John has been voted out , but since Sean has the second highest amout of votes you two must face off. John wins Jeff: Well the first power shift in Survivor almost happened, but since Sean couldn't answer that last question the Rotu 4 will continue to dominate the game. The Highest rated Survivor episodes are the ones with great blindsides; John, Deena, Christy, Rupert, Leann, Gregg, Jamie, Judd, Nate, Edgardo, James, Ozzy, and Erik's. Not the ones that have the strongest players competing in Challenges; That may be what YOU want, but not the average viewer.
Kitty Pryde1		#883	[-]
Posts: 5184 (08/05/08 12:50 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Every tribal council they survive is either a testament to their ability to either help their tribe win challenges Uh...if they are voted off first it means the team lost the challenge, thats the point. The TEAM lost, but only one player gets penalized = Fail. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Under a team-based system, there are dozens of reasons to keep a strong player in the game, but under your system, there is absolutely no reason to do so You still don't get it. Under my system, there is no reason to keep a better player because the better players are keeping themselves safe by earning their own immunity. This is clearly way beyond your understanding, you are still thinking like the players are "owed" something, and the only way they get to stay is by kissing ass. That system ends up with weaklings and shit ratings. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: And I love how your secondary solution basically removes the strategy aspect of the game entirely because it basically turns into "Player A has 8 votes, Player B has 1 vote...time to have a challenge to determine which one stays". That would be great. Player B would be so pissed at whoever voted for them. Then they compete, and the real loser goes home, not the one that everyone "h8s!" So you think that it's fair for one player to win let's say 7 challenges in a row and fall into the bottom group on the eighth. Despite being one of the stronger competitors, that player would be voted out because A. every intelligent person would think they were a threat and B. they would have little if any interaction most likely with the other "losers" thus, no alliances could be formed to save themselves. Under your system, all that happens is the strongest loser is voted out unless one of them happens to be extremely irritating and unlikable. Please explain how someone you consider weak, like Chet, would EVER get voted out. I've asked you to explain that many times, and yet you always ignore the question.
ArtieeLange		#884	[-]
Posts: 159 (08/05/08 7:36 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SFC wrote: great idea completely eliminate the power of blindsiding It doesn't eliminate anything, the two with the most votes are forced to compete, and one of them goes one. It gives the players one more chance to "Survive", kinda what the game is about. You would understand if you didn't identify so much with weaklings, or weren't so threatened by strong players. Do you have a physical disability?
SFC		#885	[-]
Posts: 438 (08/05/08 11:47 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: SFC wrote: great idea completely eliminate the power of blindsiding It doesn't eliminate anything, the two with the most votes are forced to compete, and one of them goes one. It gives the players one more chance to "Survive", kinda what the game is about. Yes it does, why would anyone risk changing the tides when the same people will always be facing off. The same result would happen. John gets totally blindsided Sean has some extra votes, the face off, or Sean gets voted out as planned and John has some votes, they face off. You still can't seem to grasp that this game is based more on the social aspect than the physical aspect, and it's the social aspect that gets the fans. Most fans I know don't give a rats ass about the Challenges.
kenc333		#886	[-]
Posts: 2942 (08/05/08 6:30 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Well to be fair, most fans do care about the challenges, but the way the game of Survivor works is that people use their social and strategic skills to get ahead. If they are in danger, winning the physical challenges would be the last resort to survive. It's kinda like why Tina beat Colby... as she said, she didn't need to rely on immunity to get her to the end. And I think Artiee believes that the only adapting to do in Survivor is physical, whereas if a player isn't able to socially adapt and fit in with a group of strangers, they'll be an early boot even if they are physically stronger. (Eg. Chicken in China)... Compatability is always more important than capability in Survivor.
Us Kids Know		#887	[-]
Posts: 7370 (08/05/08 10:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	This thread is 45 pages long?!?
GnarlsInCharge		#888	[-]
Posts: 1961 (08/06/08 1:31 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I know it should be 145 pages. Amirite ?
trickmind		#889	[-]
Posts: 48 (08/06/08 4:51 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I don't care about challenges. I would prefer a winner who is weak and lazy and vomits a lot.
tdugan333		#890	[-]
Posts: 5127 (08/06/08 5:53 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Artiee this thread is nothing without actual examples* from you of past seasons with actual players that got reamed for being "strong" to back up your claim. Hence why Kitty Pryde is currently wiping the floor with you. It's a pretty simple request mr oh so brilliant. Name names* and actual scenarios* where someone got voted off during a season who would have otherwise comprised the finals if it had based on your "idea" thus proving that your "idea" would actually improve Survivor going forward. Oh wait you can't so instead you respond with random insults and smiley faces. Here. I'll put it in bold type because every time you are asked it seems you miss the question (I'm a giver like that). Because gee Artiee it's almost like you are avoiding this question which surprises me because with one fell swoop you could nail all of us assholes who think you are full of shit. Then we would be forced to bow down to your infinite wisdom and re-name the board after you. What are the examples of past players* and scenarios* from actual seasons* (that means name names* dummy) that didn't comprise the finals who would have under your "idea" in order to show us that it would improve Survivor going forward? Kitty and many others have whipped out about 5000 or so to your zero in this thread so I'm sure a man of your intelligence and savy should have absolutely no problem with doing it as well. *See Kitty Pryde's posts for examples in case this part is confusing for you.
FWPFan		#891	[-]
Posts: 60 (08/06/08 5:58 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	weeek peoprle are veri veri not grood and charrenges so dey lose qurickly zomg i have many surviver tips 4 u kray?
ArtieeLange		#892	[-]
Posts: 160 (08/06/08 6:26 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	kenc333 wrote: most fans do care about the challenges Of course, challenges and TC are the most entertaining parts of the show. kenc333 wrote: if a player isn't able to socially adapt and fit in with a group of strangers, they'll be an early boot That only works socially when there is one group of strangers. You know, like in my system, the losing half. In the current system, it doesn't work when there are two randomly separated groups, that compete as a team, but only for half the game, knowing they will have to compete against eachother individually.
agentpf1101		#893	[-]
Posts: 186 (08/06/08 2:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Nah man i think if you dick with the formula too much it becomes lopsided. I think what would be good is instead of having 1 challenge, present the players with 2 challenges or 2 different ways to complete a challenge a'la amazing race. For example a more physical option thats harder to do but quicker, and a more brainy route thats less physical but may take longer if all chalenges were this way then the more physical people wouldnt be seen as so much of a"threat" after the merge, infact it would be a level playing field.
trickmind		#894	[-]
Posts: 58 (08/07/08 4:18 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	agentpf1101 is funny and has great ideas too! <3
oh ehm gee		#895	[-]
Posts: 1204 (08/07/08 7:10 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	900 ways this idea blows (or 900 times I've laughed due to the stupidity of some of these posts), depending on who you are.
ArtieeLange1		#896	[-]
Posts: 130 (08/10/08 1:40 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	agentpf1101 wrote: \present the players with 2 challenges or 2 different ways to complete a challenge a'la amazing race. For example a more physical option thats harder to do but quicker, and a more brainy route thats less physical but may take longer if all chalenges were this way then the more physical people wouldnt be seen as so much of a"threat" after the merge, infact it would be a level playing field. And how is that a better idea than to combine all that into one challenge, and then having the top half get immunity?
agentpf1101		#897	[-]
Posts: 191 (08/10/08 6:31 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: agentpf1101 wrote: \present the players with 2 challenges or 2 different ways to complete a challenge a'la amazing race. For example a more physical option thats harder to do but quicker, and a more brainy route thats less physical but may take longer if all chalenges were this way then the more physical people wouldnt be seen as so much of a"threat" after the merge, infact it would be a level playing field. And how is that a better idea than to combine all that into one challenge, and then having the top half get immunity? Challenges are only PART of survivor, tailoring immunity around the people who excel at them would be an unfair system and would NOT weed out the "weaklings" as effectively as you think it would. Think about it: -Having different sets of people going to TC each week would make alliances difficult to make and maintain -If you were in the bottom half without an alliance who would you vote for to ensure yourself a better shot next time? The strongest person there of course -Therefore the weakest person in that group would not be voted out but the strongest person in that group, and more likely than not one of the "better" players will wind up in the bottom half at least once before the merge, where you can imagine they'll have a giant target on their back. There's a couple more flaws with your system but i cant be bothered writing more about it, my point was not to change the structure of the game but the challenges themselves. -
ArtieeLange1		#898	[-]
Posts: 131 (08/10/08 2:54 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	agentpf1101 wrote: Challenges are only PART of survivor, tailoring immunity around the people who excel at them would be an unfair system - But thats exactly what happens now. Winning "teams" get immunity. Some deserve it. Some don't. Losing teams go to TC. Some deserve it. Some don't. My system, everyone who gets it, deserves it. Thats more fair. agentpf1101 wrote: -Having different sets of people going to TC each week would make alliances difficult to make and maintain Exactly, now you're starting to get it .More challenging, more deserving, more entertaining. agentpf1101 wrote: -If you were in the bottom half without an alliance who would you vote for to ensure yourself a better shot next time? The strongest person there If you were in the bottom half with an alliance, you would vote for someone not in your alliance. Don't forget that socializing is part of Survivor.
kenc333		#899	[-]
Posts: 3034 (08/10/08 2:57 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: Don't forget that socializing is part of Survivor. Irony in its purest form.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#900	[-]
Posts: 4303 (08/10/08 5:26 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	tdugan333 wrote: Artiee this thread is nothing without actual examples* from you of past seasons with actual players that got reamed for being "strong" to back up your claim. Hence why Kitty Pryde is currently wiping the floor with you. It's a pretty simple request mr oh so brilliant. Name names* and actual scenarios* where someone got voted off during a season who would have otherwise comprised the finals if it had based on your "idea" thus proving that your "idea" would actually improve Survivor going forward. Oh wait you can't so instead you respond with random insults and smiley faces. Here. I'll put it in bold type because every time you are asked it seems you miss the question (I'm a giver like that). Because gee Artiee it's almost like you are avoiding this question which surprises me because with one fell swoop you could nail all of us assholes who think you are full of shit. Then we would be forced to bow down to your infinite wisdom and re-name the board after you. What are the examples of past players* and scenarios* from actual seasons* (that means name names* dummy) that didn't comprise the finals who would have under your "idea" in order to show us that it would improve Survivor going forward? Kitty and many others have whipped out about 5000 or so to your zero in this thread so I'm sure a man of your intelligence and savy should have absolutely no problem with doing it as well. *See Kitty Pryde's posts for examples in case this part is confusing for you. X

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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

Quick Reply