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

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
ArtieeLange		#2101	[-]
Posts: 409 (12/01/08 2:12 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: They would just vote out the strongest possible player a) There is no "strongest" player, Kittard. b) They would vote out those not on their alliance. Next
lemurwrench		#2102	[-]
Posts: 345 (12/01/08 2:38 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: lemurwrench wrote: theres a difference between makeing it a twist and having it be that way the whole time. Yeah, one way its unexpected and alliance-shattering. My way. Next. that doesnt shatter an alliance. it gets rid of one of thier members at best. alliance still has majority, alliance still wins. but if you keep it one tribe the whole time, everyone is already voting so challenges are unrelated to strategy other than possibly stopping a target from getting immunity. also multiple alliances can develop (not just two) which would cause frequent changes in the majority. your way still has two tribes, and will thus almost always result in two alliances. not so with one tribe.
lemurwrench		#2103	[-]
Posts: 346 (12/01/08 2:40 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	also artiee, address my whole post, not just one line. and you really need to respond to other things of mine that you've skipped over kthx
ArtieeLange		#2104	[-]
Posts: 410 (12/01/08 2:50 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: your way still has two tribes, and will thus almost always result in two alliances. Yeah no, my tribes are not permanent teams, they are dynamic, and dependent on the players. Olmec Donald wrote: Artie obviously likes seeing players flipping, and alliances eating themselves. Thus he took those features and included them as components of this system. Those features are inevitable consequences of any Survivor-type game, so are not purposely included or excluded. The difference is that under my system, the players and their alliances are not influenced by the artificially forced team selection, but by what the players do, and what the players want.
agentpf1101		#2105	[-]
Posts: 397 (12/01/08 3:54 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	every night before i go to sleep i pray this thread would die
lemurwrench		#2106	[-]
Posts: 347 (12/01/08 4:02 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: lemurwrench wrote: your way still has two tribes, and will thus almost always result in two alliances. Yeah no, my tribes are not permanent teams, they are dynamic, and dependent on the players. Olmec Donald wrote: Artie obviously likes seeing players flipping, and alliances eating themselves. Thus he took those features and included them as components of this system. Those features are inevitable consequences of any Survivor-type game, so are not purposely included or excluded. The difference is that under my system, the players and their alliances are not influenced by the artificially forced team selection, but by what the players do, and what the players want. yes, but the players are still limited to the players on thier tribe to form an alliance with. there will be people whom players are with more. two main alliances are bound to form around the players that are on the loser tribe more and the people who are on the winner tribe more. there are two distinct spots in which alliances will be polarized, not so with one tribe.
SuperJude		#2107	[-]
Posts: 11936 (12/01/08 4:32 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Of all threads that should be this big, it's a shame so many died while this fucking atrocity keeps chugging along. My vote for "most intelligent" may have to change as my original choice has wasted too much of their time in this thread Because, you know, me adding these posts is really going to help kill this thread, right? Right? :P -SJ™
ArtieeLange		#2108	[-]
Posts: 411 (12/01/08 5:24 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: two main alliances are bound to form around the players that are on the loser tribe more and the people who are on the winner tribe more. Maybe, two ineffective alliances with those few players. Or maybe not. None of this has to do with anything, unless you are already stating my system is better than the current one, and now want to discuss how to make my system even better.
Dan Down Under		#2109	[-]
Posts: 3950 (12/01/08 6:07 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: They would just vote out the strongest possible player a) There is no "strongest" player, Kittard.
m0t0 maj1		#2110	[-]
Posts: 680 (12/01/08 6:44 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Do you people have day jobs?
SuperJude		#2111	[-]
Posts: 11941 (12/01/08 6:50 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	m0t0 maj1 wrote: Do you people have day jobs? It's like they're on a months long LSD, coke, crystal meth binge and can't wind down from the high. -SJ™
Kitty Pryde1		#2112	[-]
Posts: 6828 (12/01/08 7:06 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: They would just vote out the strongest possible player a) There is no "strongest" player, Kittard. b) They would vote out those not on their alliance. Next If there's no strongest, then there's no problem with the current system, because every person is voted out because they deserve it, not because, as you put it, they're ganged up on by a "mob of weaklings". As a result, the current system doesn't need to change because it's more competitive and fairer to all players.
ArtieeLange		#2113	[-]
Posts: 412 (12/01/08 8:18 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: If there's no strongest, then there's no problem with the current system The problem with the current system is there is no "strongest", because the current system doesn't test all players equally. Mine does.
token lunatic		#2114	[-]
Posts: 22322 (12/01/08 8:24 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	agentpf1101 wrote: every night before i go to sleep i pray this thread would die Love the Jayhawks.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2115	[-]
Posts: 6194 (12/01/08 8:49 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: If there's no strongest, then there's no problem with the current system The problem with the current system is there is no "strongest", because the current system doesn't test all players equally. Mine does. Wheres that data?
ArtieeLange		#2116	[-]
Posts: 413 (12/01/08 8:58 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Wheres that data? Wheres your brain? Forced random permanent teams = some players advantaged, untested. Removal of forced random permanent teams = all players equal, tested.
Kitty Pryde1		#2117	[-]
Posts: 6834 (12/01/08 9:00 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Wheres that data? Wheres your brain? Forced random permanent teams = some players advantaged, untested. Removal of forced random permanent teams = all players equal, tested. Uh, no. You have no proof that your system equalizes all players and tests them all given the many counterexamples given. Under the current system, the weak are voted out because they're weak. Under your system, the strong are voted out because they're strong. It's that simple.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2118	[-]
Posts: 6196 (12/01/08 9:06 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Wheres that data? Wheres your brain? Forced random permanent teams = some players advantaged, untested. Removal of forced random permanent teams = all players equal, tested. No, where is the data that shows this would increase ratings.
pinoyako		#2119	[-]
Posts: 3731 (12/01/08 9:07 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	GOD. JUST STOP RESPONDING.
ArtieeLange		#2120	[-]
Posts: 414 (12/01/08 9:39 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: No, where is the data that shows this would increase ratings. No, where is your memory? 1) I have designed a superior system based on the removal of artificial teams and their impact on a game called Survivor. To date, there are no effective arguments against my system. 2) I have also admitted that my fair game will not be popular with current couch-whales who identify with weak players that need lucky advantages. 3) I also believe that the steady decline in ratings is due to the original Survivor viewers getting tired of weaklings making the finals due to the lucky advantages outlined. This point has no relation to point 1), which is the subject of this thread.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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

Quick Reply