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

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
oh ehm gee		#881	[-]
Posts: 1204 (08/07/08 6:10 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		#882	[-]
Posts: 130 (08/10/08 12:40 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		#883	[-]
Posts: 191 (08/10/08 5:31 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		#884	[-]
Posts: 131 (08/10/08 1:54 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		#885	[-]
Posts: 3034 (08/10/08 1:57 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		#886	[-]
Posts: 4303 (08/10/08 4:26 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
ArtieeLange1		#887	[-]
Posts: 132 (08/11/08 1:50 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	kenc333 wrote: ArtieeLange1 wrote: Don't forget that socializing is part of Survivor. Irony in its purest form. kenc333: Gay in its purest form.
SFC		#888	[-]
Posts: 443 (08/11/08 2:19 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: kenc333 wrote: ArtieeLange1 wrote: Don't forget that socializing is part of Survivor. Irony in its purest form. kenc333: Gay in its purest form. Wow.........Great Comeback
agentpf1101		#889	[-]
Posts: 193 (08/11/08 5:31 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SFC wrote: ArtieeLange1 wrote: kenc333 wrote: ArtieeLange1 wrote: Don't forget that socializing is part of Survivor. Irony in its purest form. kenc333: Gay in its purest form. Wow.........Great Comeback ArtieeLang1e displays his mastery of the comeback arts,a subtle yet devastating rebuttle. Hats off to you sir! Oh by the way ,your idea still sucks.
oh ehm gee		#890	[-]
Posts: 1232 (08/11/08 6:25 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: kenc333 wrote: ArtieeLange1 wrote: Don't forget that socializing is part of Survivor. Irony in its purest form. kenc333: Gay in its purest form. Though kenny's sexuality is dubious as best, this still sucks. I'm alol @ how the thread's turning out though. Srsly, Archie? Really?
ArtieeLange1		#891	[-]
Posts: 133 (08/11/08 12:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	oh ehm gee wrote: kenny's sexuality is dubious as best The only thing dubious about kenc333 is if hes a pitcher or catcher. Its the fem types like this who are carried along in the game, thus the disdain for my system (and his irrelevant comments without any follow ups, which did merit my response) oh ehm gee wrote: lol @ how the thread's turning out though. Ignoring gay kenc433, the first 3 posts on this page (10) are very specifically debating the details of the game. Still waiting for a reply from agent, although I will consider his silence a sign of acquiescence.
ArtieeLange1		#892	[-]
Posts: 135 (08/11/08 6:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	agentpf1101 wrote: bla You're another typical brainiac with the big ideas...who backs down and shuts up after being challenged: http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/reply/3300404/t/-idea--improve-Survivor---weaklings-dont-comprise--finals.html#reply-3300404
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#893	[-]
Posts: 4329 (08/11/08 9:20 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Still waiting or that empirical evidence...
agentpf1101		#894	[-]
Posts: 196 (08/12/08 5:45 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: agentpf1101 wrote: bla You're another typical brainiac with the big ideas...who backs down and shuts up after being challenged: http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/reply/3300404/t/-idea--improve-Survivor---weaklings-dont-comprise--finals.html#reply-3300404 Relax bro your ideas alright i just disagree that it would be "fairer". Its just good to see things from different perspectives (which i was trying to provide) before commiting to an opinion, i think the only reason why your hanging on to this like a ball and chain is that you came up with it yourself. Why dont you let in some criticism and if you still feel as strongly as you do, agree to disagree. i dont like the dynamics your idea creates. Things are getting complicated enough, when really survivor should be keeping it more simple. Team dynamics at the start of the game are imortant for comraderie and a sense of "us versus them" mentalilty. Having different people go to TC throws this ot the window as essentially its "every man for themsleves" straight off the bat - personally i dont like the "feel" of that. Its hard for relationships to build when things are being switched up like that, youd lose alot of good moments. If you want to watch the best of the best go watch some sports. The show is about different sets of pesonalities surviving social dynamics, their envoronment so on.... Having the top half get immunity would benefit (depending on type of challenge which 9 out of 10 is based on physical ability) the more physical people, and if that what your trying to do, sure it would work. But love em or hate them the "weaklings" you speak of make the show. They are the villains, underdogs, coatail riders, outcasts etc..... these are the random elements that make watching this show like a train headed for derailment - or could be something else entrirely- brillant television. I couldnt stand to watch a season left with Toms and Terrys, it would make me sick. I do think your idea would be good as a ONCE off twist, though.
Zesty66		#895	[-]
Posts: 768 (08/12/08 5:47 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Weaklings FTW <3
ArtieeLange1		#896	[-]
Posts: 136 (08/12/08 12:38 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	agentpf1101 wrote: Team dynamics at the start of the game are imortant for comraderie and a sense of "us versus them" mentalilty. Having different people go to TC throws this ot the window as essentially its "every man for themsleves" straight off the bat - personally i dont like the "feel" of that. Its hard for relationships to build when things are being switched up like that, youd lose alot of good moments. With my system, what happens when player A and player B win the first challenge together, bond at camp, but then only A wins the second and they are on different teams? Does their bond remain? Yes? No? You don't know. The reason you don't know is that the players are less limited in their decisions, not being on random semi-permanet teams . That's just one reason why my system is more interesting. agentpf1101 wrote: the "weaklings" you speak of make the show. They are the villains, underdogs Do you watch the show? The current system guarantees that the weaklings are not underdogs, that's why even the weakest (Chet Kathy) don't get voted off, and what remains at the endgame are mostly weak. agentpf1101 wrote: I do think your idea would be good as a ONCE off twist, though. It would be the highest rated season in years.
SFC		#897	[-]
Posts: 444 (08/12/08 2:00 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: agentpf1101 wrote: the "weaklings" you speak of make the show. They are the villains, underdogs Do you watch the show? The current system guarantees that the weaklings are not underdogs, that's why even the weakest (Chet Kathy) don't get voted off, and what remains at the endgame are mostly weak. The current system makes them underdogs, under your system no one would ever target them. In simple terms; Tribal play = Generally Boot the Weak players Individual Play = Generally Boot Strong players So since your system is all individual, who would be the first targets? ArtieeLange1 wrote: It would be the highest rated season in years. Once again you think that your preferences are what everyone else thinks. I agree with agentpf1101, it would be good for a one episode twist, kinda like Fiji Episode 9, but basing the whole season around that twist wouldn't work.
tdugan333		#898	[-]
Posts: 5431 (08/12/08 3:12 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: kenc333: Gay in its purest form. And Artiee proves my post to be completely correct in one fell swoop (and in bold no less!).
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#899	[-]
Posts: 4335 (08/12/08 5:52 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: agentpf1101 wrote: Team dynamics at the start of the game are imortant for comraderie and a sense of "us versus them" mentalilty. Having different people go to TC throws this ot the window as essentially its "every man for themsleves" straight off the bat - personally i dont like the "feel" of that. Its hard for relationships to build when things are being switched up like that, youd lose alot of good moments. With my system, what happens when player A and player B win the first challenge together, bond at camp, but then only A wins the second and they are on different teams? Does their bond remain? Yes? No? You don't know. The reason you don't know is that the players are less limited in their decisions, not being on random semi-permanet teams . That's just one reason why my system is more interesting. Maybe from a game perspective, but casual viewers care less about game dynamics and more about character. This shit belongs in LTS. Have you read the Winners Analysis thread? You're a damn troll, but I'd enjoy your input
ArtieeLange1		#900	[-]
Posts: 137 (08/13/08 3:07 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: ArtieeLange1 wrote: With my system, what happens when player A and player B win the first challenge together, bond at camp, but then only A wins the second and they are on different teams? Does their bond remain? Yes? No? You don't know. The reason you don't know is that the players are less limited in their decisions, not being on random semi-permanet teams . That's just one reason why my system is more interesting. Maybe from a game perspective, but casual viewers care less about game dynamics and more about character. The "casual viewers" are abandoning Survivor at a rate of one million per season. Character and game dynamics are only mutually exclusive in a pea-sized mind. Give the viewers both, with my system.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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

Quick Reply