m0t0 maj1 wrote:The slow-poke is gone, and this isn't a chess tournament, its finding the overall best player. And that slow fuck ain't it.
What will happen to that slowpoke who got voted out (but is kickass at chess)?
0 Kudo
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor 20+
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows That Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs That Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 529 (12/29/08 11:01 AM) |
|
||
|
m0t0 maj1 |
|||
|
Posts: 707 (12/29/08 11:17 AM) |
The first running challenge did not determine the best overall player. Who knows, that person who was voted out is indeed the one.
That example just demonstrated that your system does not completely eliminate luck. |
||
|
JaniTholeMyDolly |
|||
|
Posts: 4701 (12/29/08 1:00 PM) Dicked....by Evel that is
|
This thread shall never die.
Guaranteed. |
||
 Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Posts: 7881 (12/29/08 2:14 PM) |
ArtieeLange wrote:No, what you seem to miss due to the fact that you can't understand that there are small details involved in Survivor is that if in that first challenge, you have six strong players and the 5th and sixth placers are within one second of each other, then that sixth placer is going to get voted out despite being only one second weaker than the person who survived. Second, your chees idea is dumb as hell because it's very hard to quantify that unless every player plays the same opponent, in which case it's not really Survivor so much as it is "play chess against some random guy". Plus, what if more than four players lose? Do you go by who lasted the longest? The only way that could change is if you have the players compete in one on one match-ups which would either be A. unfair due to the fact that random luck would factor into who faces who (purely 1v1), or B. too time-consuming due to everyone having to play everyone else (8 matches per player). Honestly, it's funny that the first time you actually give an example, it's proven as dumb as hell. No wonder you never give examples to anything while we do. It's because we can back our shit up and you can't. |
||
|
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Posts: 7882 (12/29/08 2:16 PM) |
ArtieeLange wrote:I just had to comment on this little bit specifically. We're "psychic retards" for saying what basic psychology and logic says would happen, yet you're "stating a guaranteed fact" by stating what YOU think would happen. I guess you wouldn't be winning that chess game in episode two, huh? |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 530 (12/29/08 5:42 PM) |
m0t0 maj1 wrote:Each challenge is a test designed to help the best overall player. Failing (esp the very first challenge, regardless of what it is) doesn't indicate "best". m0t0 maj1 wrote:My system removes the flaws of pre-merge current game, and keeps the perfectly designed post-merge current game. Your statement just proved (again, as if there was any remaining doubt) that there are no valid arguments against my system. |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 531 (12/29/08 5:52 PM) |
Kitty Pryde1 wrote:Yes, you and all the voices in your head are "psychic retards" because you miss everything that is already known, you certainly can't be expected to predict the unknown!  Here is another perfect example:
Kitty Pryde1 wrote:I guarantee what happens because I made the rules, I designed the system. You don't reven realize that you are agreeing with my guarantees,
you just don't like them. and the reason you don't like them is because in your little false
predictions, you don't take into account alliances you think players are computer programs who will
automatically vote out 'best of losers'. you also predict that 'best of the losers' can be
determinedand even if you're little false predictions are not based on
ignorance, it still doesn't matterbecause half the players still did better than that 'best of the
losers'.and that which is guaranteed by my rules still standswhoever gets voted out, tried, and failed. at both challenges, and the
social game. Every single time.
Guaranteed. |
||
|
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Posts: 7887 (12/29/08 7:06 PM) |
ArtieeLange wrote:Dude, you can design whatever the hell you want to design, but human nature is always going to screw that up. The original season, you had plenty of people who wanted to vote with their hearts and then Richard came along with his alliance and shaped the game. Your system fails because it completely ignores the fact that people are going to act in their own best interests, not in the best interests of the viewing audience. |
||
|
O2JamFreak |
|||
|
Posts: 146 (12/29/08 7:12 PM) |
JaniTholeMyDolly wrote:Oh boy...... |
||
|
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Posts: 7888 (12/29/08 7:22 PM) |
Artiee, let's say you're playing Survivor, you personally. Now let's say that you're at the start of the game and you lose a challenge. Now,
you're in the bottom eight with seven players who are known entities from having made it to the individual portion of the real show. Let's say the
bottom eight are you, Rudy, Tammy, Brian H., Sandra, Ian, Cindy, and Becky. Now, under your system, which player would you most likely vote for in order to
better YOUR chances of winning the game? Follow up question: suppose you're on a tribe with those seven players. Which player would you most likely vote
for in order to better your chances of winning the game?
|
||
|
tdugan333 |
|||
|
Posts: 9321 (12/29/08 8:42 PM) |
ArtieeLange wrote:Alliances won't matter because there won't be any alliances Artiee. Your system eliminates the need for them since it is solely based on challenges. Whoever finished the best out of the losing tribe each episode will be voted off. Again, it goes back to the question you won't answer. Why on earth would you vote out a weakling under your system? You would WANT weaklings so you have better odds of beating them and moving up to the winners tribe. eta: If I wanted this thread to die I'd stop posting in it now wouldn't I? (to those who say people discussing this with Artiee want the thread to die yet keep posting). Cheers. |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 532 (12/29/08 9:17 PM) |
Kitty Pryde1 wrote: .......
Kitty Pryde1 wrote:The entities only start to be"known" as the show progresses, and by then alliances are made (naturally and not based on artificial teams), and even then, they are never "known", since the challenges are never "known". Didn't you see Susie build her cards higher than Bob? Or are you saying that Bob threw that challenge because he trusted Sugar???????????????????///////? Again, your example fails because it is based on false assumptions. And again, even if they aren't false, it still fails. Lets say I lost the challenge, incredibly, and you also lost, obviously. I see you all alone and I say "lets allign!" and of course you agree. The next challenges, I win, and you lose, but I give you a simple "thumbs up" as you go back to suffer, and I go off the luxury. Then maybe you win some, or not, and if I lose again (lol) we are in the same camp. We are still aligned, but now we each know others, we strategize, and vote off the outsider. This is how it works in the real world, infinite examples of human nature always going to screw your predictions up. The social game will always exist, and always take care of itself, naturally, and unpredicatably. That is why the system must be designed with one thing in mind: a guarantee that each player is tested equally, and only those who fail (twice) get voted off.
Last Edited By: ArtieeLange
12/29/08 9:30 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 533 (12/29/08 9:21 PM) |
tdugan333 wrote:You think players are predictable computer programs who will automatically vote out 'best of losers'. you also predict that 'best of the losers' can be determined. and even if your little false predictions are not based on ignorance, it still doesn't matter because half the players still did better than that 'best of the losers'. and that which is guaranteed by my rules still stands whoever gets voted out, tried, and failed. at both challenges, and the social game. Every single time. |
||
|
PrettyGoodYear1988 |
|||
|
Posts: 1897 (12/29/08 9:29 PM) Registered user |
Artiee's unwillingness to host an ORG based on his system only proves that he's afraid it will suck when actually implemented.
Guaranteed. |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 534 (12/29/08 10:21 PM) |
tdugan333 wrote: Using the exact same scenario as Kitty Pryde1, but another example in the infinite unpredictable possibilities under my system, we meet up again at Tribal, but while I was at luxury camp, I cheated on Kitty, and made a promise with others. Now I end up at Tribal with some of my new friends, and this time I keep my new alliance and vote off the old one: Sorry Kitty but its time for you to go home. I have spoken. If you want to bitch about alliances, then bitch about something that just happened: In the most recent season, the first four players voted off post-merge were in one alliance, voted out by another alliance. Really exciting and unpredictable!!!!1  Really fair and not at all based on episodes one artificial team selection!!1
|
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 6983 (12/29/08 10:26 PM) Registered user |
^He actually has a point there.
|
||
|
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Posts: 7896 (12/30/08 12:30 AM) |
ArtieeLange wrote:Once again you ignore my point entirely. I didn't ask who you would align with. I didn't ask you to overanalyze things by saying "well you never know what the challenge is so you can't determine who's a threat from that." I asked you to specifically state who YOU would logically vote out in those two scenarios. We've seen how the players perform in tribal AND individual challenges, so the example would be based off let's say four rounds in which the players did on average as well as they did on the real show. So that's four rounds of the strong players doing well and the weak players doing poorly, only for the eight of you to fall into the bottom group during some challenge that doesn't favor anyone in particular, like a gross food challenge. Who would you vote off? Don't give me any of that bullshit as to why it would never happen. It's a simple question. Of the seven people you would be going to tribal council with (Rudy, Tammy, Brian H., Sandra, Ian, Cindy, and Becky) which one of those would you logically vote out in order to give yourself the best chance at winning? It's extremely simple. Just pick one of the seven names. The same goes for the tribal question. You go to tribal council with your tribe of yourself and those seven players after losing the first immunity challenge, which one would you vote out to give yourself the best possible chance at winning? Also, you complain about how one alliance dominated based on "artifical team selection". However that's no different than your one alliance dominating based on artificial challenge order or just plain challenge throwing. |
||
|
WoodstockZ |
|||
|
Posts: 510 (12/30/08 12:35 AM) Registered user |
Frankly, if I were playing the game I would vote out anyone not looking out for their own best interests, I mean just how more unreliable could anyone be?
Why is this thread not in the Dump yet? |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 535 (12/30/08 12:52 AM) |
Kitty Pryde1 wrote:You are confused because you are looking backwards, with hindsight. You are comfortably labeling players after watching their completed seasons, and after seeing all the challenges they performed in. In the middle of a game, there won't necessarily be "weak players" "strong players", especially since "you never know what the challenge is so you can't determine who's a threat from that" But I can tell what there will be: Alliances. Every player will have an alliance that always trumps anything predictable, and every player (including you, or me) would vote off the outsider to that alliance. And I already proved that could be you OR me, depending on the infinite possible alliances, determined by the players, not determined by a colored rock in a bag, or "schoolyard picks"
Last Edited By: ArtieeLange
12/30/08 12:55 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
ThrowMeGabon |
|||
|
Posts: 102 (12/30/08 12:58 AM) |
Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: But again, he can complain about the predictability of pagonging in the current system all he wants...that doesn't mean his system would help. I think pagonging would be worse. |
||
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor 20+
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows That Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs That Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
