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

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
Kitty Pryde1		#2001	[-]
Posts: 6771 (11/28/08 7:10 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Mike8787 wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Uh, how is someone who excels in EVERYTHING except holding his breath "overall worst"? Your system votes out the best. The current system votes out the worst. If you really want the game to encourage competition, then you need to make tribes last longer, rather than making the game individual at the merge. That way the worst are consistently voted out as weak links in challenges, rather than the best being voted out as threats to win. I don't know what show you're watching, but the best at challenges have never lasted. Yes, the first few episodes weed out the weakest, but then the strongest go. You end up with some other weaker players in the finals, at least a few who slid under the radar. That's why it's called "under the radar". That's because the show turns individual at the merge. Once the game turns individual, then the best players are naturally going to be targetted more because of how strong they are in challenges. During the tribal portion, the only way a tribe will vote out a strong member is if that player is a complete douchebag, and even then, the tribe would have to be stupid to do so. Note how tribes that vote out their strongest members tend to do poorly. This is a deterrent to booting the strong. There's no deterrent to booting the strong under Artiee's system.
Fizzmix		#2002	[-]
Posts: 189 (11/28/08 7:59 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Mike8787 wrote: FizzMix, your complaints are faulty because they rely on a series of very specific choices by the Survivors and the producers: aka "The Kitty Wyde1 Defense", endless false assumptions, yet still resulting in an outcome designed by the players, guaranteed better than the current system which is designed by luck of the team-selection. Mike8787 wrote: why not just throw the challenge with your entire alliance every week and vote out someone else. Five people in an alliance tossing the challenge each time could do it. That alliance would not only have to start immediately, but it would also have to start eating itself once there are 10 players left. This would be obvious to the players, not only preventing it from forming in the first place, but it would encourage players to flip since the less players trying, the easier it is get into the top half. Also, the same players on the losing team also results in the same players on the winning team. Post-merge, you end up with two alliances; one well-fed, well-rested, strong as possible, and the other weakened to a state of near-exhaustion If that's the strategy they want, let them try it. Under my system the players can do whatever they want, and the winner will always be the best, not the luckiest. No, it would have to start eating itself at 9 players left. And isn't that what most every tribe strives for? It's certainly what Koror tried to do, and would have were it not for the twist where both tribes voted someone out. And like already mentioned, an alliance of 5 could do it starting the second episode. It would wear on them a bit more, but who cares? They literally can't be stopped from reaching the Final 5 unless a twist mucks it up, or people somehow are able to quit the challenge EVEN FASTER. Unless you're telling me that there's no merge at all, in which case the alliance of 5 wouldn't work as easily, but the alliance of 9 is still impossible to beat. Look, it's a terrible idea because it gives people THE ABILITY to do this. The way the game works now, there's no unfair advantage a player can gain through throwing a challenge. All they can do is cut members from their own tribe, which are all potential allies. In your way, the alliance of 5 wins. Check the diagram if you don't understand. 1's are the strong, non-alliance members. 2's are the weaklings. X's are the alliance members. 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 X X X X X 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 X X X X X 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 X X X X X 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 X X X X X 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 X X X X X 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 X X X X X 2 1 1 1 1 2 X X X X X 2 MERGE: X X X X X 1 1 1 1 2.
lemurwrench		#2003	[-]
Posts: 310 (11/28/08 8:02 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: lemurwrench wrote: you also said the need for docial strategy is irrelevant do you have a developmental disability???????? What I said, douchial, was that your opinion of when a player needed social strategy is irrelevant. 1. typo, dont even give me that 2. if you are saying that when someone needs social strategy is irrelevant, you are saying that it doesnt matter when someone need ssocial strategy. you said that if some doesnt have social strategy then they are voted out, but since it doesnt matter when you need social strategy. this comment is irrelevant thus, you are saying social strategy is irrelevant. 3. you saying that when players need social strategy is irrelevant is FALSE if a challenge winner doesnt need social strategy, then challenge performace>socialstrategy in your system so either you are contradicting yourself or you admit that your system finds the best challenge performer rather than the best overall player pick your poison.
Fizzmix		#2004	[-]
Posts: 190 (11/28/08 8:02 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	So I guess if they merge at 10, I was wrong, they would still be split in a tie vote. Ran out of time, will be back later.
ArtieeLange		#2005	[-]
Posts: 389 (11/28/08 9:08 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: 2. if you are saying that when someone needs social strategy is irrelevant lemutard, I said " your opinion of when a player needed social strategy is irrelevant" because your opinion of when a player needed social strategy is irrelevant.I'd like to clear things up now and add that your opinion of when a player needed social strategy is irrelevant.
lemurwrench		#2006	[-]
Posts: 311 (11/28/08 10:12 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	its the same thing unless you prove me wrong about when people need social strategy, then my opinion on when people need social strategy IS when people need social strategy really artiee, people dont like it when your difficult with them
agentpf1101		#2007	[-]
Posts: 396 (11/29/08 3:36 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	hey aritiee i have a point that will SINGLE HANDEDLY debunk once and for all that your system does not work. *you like to suck 6 cocks in a row, on a daily basis. i rest my case
DenverDiva		#2008	[-]
Posts: 121 (11/29/08 4:02 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	This artie guys act is for shits and giggles if you all simply ignore this thread he will quit.
Olmec Donald		#2009	[-]
Posts: 68 (11/29/08 7:41 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	token lunatic wrote: The strongest goes huh. The strongest who has played a shitty social and political game goes. Tom W, Colby, Aras, Brian H, Ethan, all went on to win. I debunk you. None of the contestants you mentioned played shitty social and political games. And Colby didn't win. FAIL Fail bonus: You call Colby a smart player, and yet he made the second-dumbest move in history, per AnomyBC. Last Edited By: Olmec Donald 11/29/08 8:24 AM. Edited 1 times.
Olmec Donald		#2010	[-]
Posts: 69 (11/29/08 7:58 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fizzmix wrote: Lets use challenge where they rolled the balls down the hill as an example. Dan and Ace are trying to stop the balls. Randy and Sugar are the callers. Corinne, Bob, Marcus, Charlie, Suzie tossing their ball, Ken, Crystal, GC, Kelly, and Matty tossing their's. You're comparing a team challenge to Artie's system of individual challenges? That's comparing apples and oranges. lemurwrench wrote: my opinion on when people need social strategy IS when people need social strategy I'm sorry, Survivor God. I must have missed your coronation ceremony. Fizzmix wrote: Let me further show your why your suggestion is trash. What if the first episode challenge was completed, and the 9 players of the winning tribe made an alliance. Why not have 5 to 8 of the alliance members tank the next challenge? Hell, what if they just sat out, or immediately gave up. That's the easiest way to get to the loser camp. Have the 3 alliance members most well suited to the challenge perform well. Well they don't even have to perform that well, they just have to beat out 3 members of the "loser tribe" that episode. The alliance tanks on purpose so that they have the advantage on the loser tribe for numbers. They always make sure that at least a majority of the loser tribe consists of their alliance. They vote off one of the people not in their alliance. They continue this strategy until the 9 of them have made the Final 9. That sounds fine in theory, but it is unlikely to work in practice. For a start, all the strong players are not necessarily going to align. They could see one another as threats. You want examples? JP got voted of in Cook Islands because Adam realised that he was a threat to his own power. Ditto for Joel and Mikey B in Micro. They also might just not get along on a personal level. Cirie refused to ally with Jonathan in Micro for both these reasons. But let's say that your situation does occur, unlikely though it is, and the strong all agree to form an alliance, and tank in turn. Who determines who will tank when? You mention that the alliance members most suited to the challenge will perform well, but it has to be worked out beforehand. They don't see the challenge until they arrive for it, and by that point it's far too conspicuous (and late) to strategize. They could try to anticipate it based on treemail, but contestants have read it wrong before. Even if they work out who will do well, some of these people might find the challenge is harder than it looks. Note the firemaking challenge Susie won. Randy noted that most of his alliance were adept at making fire, and Susie wasn't. Players not in this alliance of the strong may find the strength to beat the alliance if they know their ass is on the line. Observe Shii Ann in All-Stars. She won the endurance challenge and nearly won the firemaking challenge after that (note that nearly all of the strong alliance did even worse at this than Becky and Sundra and couldn't start a fire with matches). This requires grit and determination and makes for better TV than some shitbag being carried through the tribal stage on the backs of their better-performing tribemates. Oh and making sure that the alliance of the strong dominates the loser tribe numerically at TC doesn't always work out. Kota had the advantage in both tribes after the second switch, and they're getting Pagonged now. Your assumption that the alliance will definitely hold through 9 TC's has been proven wrong time and time again, and is completely blown to smithereens by someone like Parvati, who is great at driving wedges into alliances, worming into them and rotting them from the inside. Fizzmix wrote: That's the thing in his version of the game. I just thought of it after reading his suggestion, why wouldn't at least one of the nine in the game think of it? I know that if I saw my surest path to victory was allying with the other 8 strongest members, I would absolutely do it because it guarantees my safety until 9. Yeah, one of them will probably think of it. Pulling it off is a whole 'nother story. It needs incredible diplomacy to stop all of the strong people from butting heads. I can only think of one contestant who is that great at diplomacy, and that is Yul Kwon. And he needed the Hidden Immunity Idol to help him with that. In short, you guys don't seem to realise that every episode of Survivor reinforces Artie's theory. Last Edited By: Olmec Donald 11/29/08 8:42 AM. Edited 3 times.
Olmec Donald		#2011	[-]
Posts: 70 (11/29/08 8:31 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Your system votes out the best. The current system votes out the worst. If you really want the game to encourage competition, then you need to make tribes last longer, rather than making the game individual at the merge. That way the worst are consistently voted out as weak links in challenges, rather than the best being voted out as threats to win. You don't grasp the fact that Artie's criticism of the tribal stage is based on the trend that the worst are already progressing. Extending the tribal stage does nothing to halt this. All fine in theory, Kitty Pryde1, but lacking in reality.
lemurwrench		#2012	[-]
Posts: 313 (11/29/08 12:56 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: token lunatic wrote: The strongest goes huh. The strongest who has played a shitty social and political game goes. Tom W, Colby, Aras, Brian H, Ethan, all went on to win. I debunk you. None of the contestants you mentioned played shitty social and political games. And Colby didn't win. FAIL Fail bonus: You call Colby a smart player, and yet he made the second-dumbest move in history, per AnomyBC. you just proved his point, minus colby, all those STRONG contestants won because they had good social games aka, they didnt get voted out at the tribal stage even though they were strong like you said. dont know why he said colby won though, but thats beside the point, he still got final 2, as have EVEN MORE
Kitty Pryde1		#2013	[-]
Posts: 6798 (11/29/08 1:06 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Your system votes out the best. The current system votes out the worst. If you really want the game to encourage competition, then you need to make tribes last longer, rather than making the game individual at the merge. That way the worst are consistently voted out as weak links in challenges, rather than the best being voted out as threats to win. You don't grasp the fact that Artie's criticism of the tribal stage is based on the trend that the worst are already progressing. Extending the tribal stage does nothing to halt this. All fine in theory, Kitty Pryde1, but lacking in reality. But the worst are MORE likely to advance in the individual stages, which is what Artiee supports. Worst Players under the current system: Either their tribe wins immunity or they're major choices to be voted out. Worst Players under Artiee's system: They don't need to do anything at all because they'll never be major choices to be voted out.
lemurwrench		#2014	[-]
Posts: 314 (11/29/08 1:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: lemurwrench wrote: my opinion on when people need social strategy IS when people need social strategy I'm sorry, Survivor God. I must have missed your coronation ceremony. lolz, key words : unless you prove me wrong. SOMEONE'S opinion has to be right. so if you dont agree with my opinion, offer me a better one, otherwise i have no choice but to assume that im right Fizzmix wrote: Let me further show your why your suggestion is trash. What if the first episode challenge was completed, and the 9 players of the winning tribe made an alliance. Why not have 5 to 8 of the alliance members tank the next challenge? Hell, what if they just sat out, or immediately gave up. That's the easiest way to get to the loser camp. Have the 3 alliance members most well suited to the challenge perform well. Well they don't even have to perform that well, they just have to beat out 3 members of the "loser tribe" that episode. The alliance tanks on purpose so that they have the advantage on the loser tribe for numbers. They always make sure that at least a majority of the loser tribe consists of their alliance. They vote off one of the people not in their alliance. They continue this strategy until the 9 of them have made the Final 9. That sounds fine in theory, but it is unlikely to work in practice. For a start, all the strong players are not necessarily going to align. They could see one another as threats. You want examples? JP got voted of in Cook Islands because Adam realised that he was a threat to his own power. Ditto for Joel and Mikey B in Micro. They also might just not get along on a personal level. Cirie refused to ally with Jonathan in Micro for both these reasons. they could, but its the easiest way to get to the final 10, and what are they threats in? challenges? big whoop at merge only one person wins immunity, and depending on how early you form the alliance, you could dispose of any one challenge god (which by the way would be very hard to predict who it is seeing as how the challenges are going to vary) when you have a good enough majority. and also, there will be multiple opportunities to start the alliance, as i explained to artiee. But let's say that your situation does occur, unlikely though it is, and the strong all agree to form an alliance, and tank in turn. Who determines who will tank when? You mention that the alliance members most suited to the challenge will perform well, but it has to be worked out beforehand. They don't see the challenge until they arrive for it, and by that point it's far too conspicuous (and late) to strategize. They could try to anticipate it based on treemail, but contestants have read it wrong before. if they're smart, they will decide together. and it really doesnt matter what the challenge is, all they have to do is throw it, not that hard. and whats stopping them from deciding it before the challenge? if they can control the vote it doesnt matter how conspicuous they are. also lolz at what you are saying, you are basically admitting that people will vote out the strong because they are threats in artiee's system. isnt that what artiee's system is supposed to prevent? Even if they work out who will do well, some of these people might find the challenge is harder than it looks. Note the firemaking challenge Susie won. Randy noted that most of his alliance were adept at making fire, and Susie wasn't. Players not in this alliance of the strong may find the strength to beat the alliance if they know their ass is on the line. Observe Shii Ann in All-Stars. She won the endurance challenge and nearly won the firemaking challenge after that (note that nearly all of the strong alliance did even worse at this than Becky and Sundra and couldn't start a fire with matches). This requires grit and determination and makes for better TV than some shitbag being carried through the tribal stage on the backs of their better-performing tribemates. i tonly takes one non-alliance member to fail, that will happen alot more often then none of them failing, and they will still make merge with majority. Oh and making sure that the alliance of the strong dominates the loser tribe numerically at TC doesn't always work out. Kota had the advantage in both tribes after the second switch, and they're getting Pagonged now. Your assumption that the alliance will definitely hold through 9 TC's has been proven wrong time and time again, and is completely blown to smithereens by someone like Parvati, who is great at driving wedges into alliances, worming into them and rotting them from the inside. same thing applies in the current system. irrelevant!!!!!!!! Fizzmix wrote: That's the thing in his version of the game. I just thought of it after reading his suggestion, why wouldn't at least one of the nine in the game think of it? I know that if I saw my surest path to victory was allying with the other 8 strongest members, I would absolutely do it because it guarantees my safety until 9. Yeah, one of them will probably think of it. Pulling it off is a whole 'nother story. It needs incredible diplomacy to stop all of the strong people from butting heads. I can only think of one contestant who is that great at diplomacy, and that is Yul Kwon. And he needed the Hidden Immunity Idol to help him with that. um lolz at yul having the best diplomacy of any survivor/ the same thing applies to the current system. irrelevant!!!!!!!!!! In short, you guys don't seem to realise that every episode of Survivor reinforces Artie's theory. reinforces its flaws maybe.
Fizzmix		#2015	[-]
Posts: 191 (11/29/08 2:48 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: Fizzmix wrote: Lets use challenge where they rolled the balls down the hill as an example. Dan and Ace are trying to stop the balls. Randy and Sugar are the callers. Corinne, Bob, Marcus, Charlie, Suzie tossing their ball, Ken, Crystal, GC, Kelly, and Matty tossing their's. You're comparing a team challenge to Artie's system of individual challenges? That's comparing apples and oranges. lemurwrench wrote: my opinion on when people need social strategy IS when people need social strategy I'm sorry, Survivor God. I must have missed your coronation ceremony. Fizzmix wrote: Let me further show your why your suggestion is trash. What if the first episode challenge was completed, and the 9 players of the winning tribe made an alliance. Why not have 5 to 8 of the alliance members tank the next challenge? Hell, what if they just sat out, or immediately gave up. That's the easiest way to get to the loser camp. Have the 3 alliance members most well suited to the challenge perform well. Well they don't even have to perform that well, they just have to beat out 3 members of the "loser tribe" that episode. The alliance tanks on purpose so that they have the advantage on the loser tribe for numbers. They always make sure that at least a majority of the loser tribe consists of their alliance. They vote off one of the people not in their alliance. They continue this strategy until the 9 of them have made the Final 9. That sounds fine in theory, but it is unlikely to work in practice. For a start, all the strong players are not necessarily going to align. They could see one another as threats. You want examples? JP got voted of in Cook Islands because Adam realised that he was a threat to his own power. Ditto for Joel and Mikey B in Micro. They also might just not get along on a personal level. Cirie refused to ally with Jonathan in Micro for both these reasons. But let's say that your situation does occur, unlikely though it is, and the strong all agree to form an alliance, and tank in turn. Who determines who will tank when? You mention that the alliance members most suited to the challenge will perform well, but it has to be worked out beforehand. They don't see the challenge until they arrive for it, and by that point it's far too conspicuous (and late) to strategize. They could try to anticipate it based on treemail, but contestants have read it wrong before. Even if they work out who will do well, some of these people might find the challenge is harder than it looks. Note the firemaking challenge Susie won. Randy noted that most of his alliance were adept at making fire, and Susie wasn't. Players not in this alliance of the strong may find the strength to beat the alliance if they know their ass is on the line. Observe Shii Ann in All-Stars. She won the endurance challenge and nearly won the firemaking challenge after that (note that nearly all of the strong alliance did even worse at this than Becky and Sundra and couldn't start a fire with matches). This requires grit and determination and makes for better TV than some shitbag being carried through the tribal stage on the backs of their better-performing tribemates. Oh and making sure that the alliance of the strong dominates the loser tribe numerically at TC doesn't always work out. Kota had the advantage in both tribes after the second switch, and they're getting Pagonged now. Your assumption that the alliance will definitely hold through 9 TC's has been proven wrong time and time again, and is completely blown to smithereens by someone like Parvati, who is great at driving wedges into alliances, worming into them and rotting them from the inside. Fizzmix wrote: That's the thing in his version of the game. I just thought of it after reading his suggestion, why wouldn't at least one of the nine in the game think of it? I know that if I saw my surest path to victory was allying with the other 8 strongest members, I would absolutely do it because it guarantees my safety until 9. Yeah, one of them will probably think of it. Pulling it off is a whole 'nother story. It needs incredible diplomacy to stop all of the strong people from butting heads. I can only think of one contestant who is that great at diplomacy, and that is Yul Kwon. And he needed the Hidden Immunity Idol to help him with that. In short, you guys don't seem to realise that every episode of Survivor reinforces Artie's theory. I can break it down even further if you'd like. The game of Survivor is built in such a way that a tribe member can't gain anything by throwing a challenge. I know that people would argue that throwing a challenge can help you get rid of a player you don't like if you have a majority on your tribe, and technically increases your odds to win the prize. But it can and usually does have negative impacts at merge, when a tribe may come in 4-6 and be Pagonged. Maybe one member of the 4 can make it far in to the game, but Game Theory scenarios come in to play here. Essentially, Survivor would never change the format to one that made throwing every challenge a viable strategy. Whether you think it would be implemented or not is irrelevant. It would be a flaw in the game design, it would be exploited in some capacity at least once, and it would ruin the show. Maybe I missed it, but why not just have one tribe right off the bat? Everyone can strategize with everyone, we could have the same challenges suggested by the OP, and we could give immunity to the Top 9 (in the first episode, for example) or however many the "winning tribe" would normally have. It's a significantly better system than the OP's.
lemurwrench		#2016	[-]
Posts: 315 (11/29/08 3:54 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	also, one more thing, the very time it happens, everyone will see it its success and it will become the new cool thing to do. the same thing happend in the original survivor with hatch. if we hadnt seen an alliance implemented successfully in borneo, who knows how many seasons we wouldve had before it became the staple of survivor strategy. so if your lucky you might a couple of season before it turns up, but its not too hard to come up up with especially considering alliances are already an automatic idea. once that happens it will only become more formulaic and become a contest of throwing challenges.
ArtieeLange		#2017	[-]
Posts: 390 (11/29/08 5:17 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fizzmix wrote: why not just have one tribe right off the bat? Everyone can strategize with everyone, we could have the same challenges suggested by the OP, and we could give immunity to the Top 9 (in the first episode, for example) or however many the "winning tribe" would normally have. One tribe is too much of a drastic change, also less interesting. Someone else suggested that under my system, you could have all the players vote at Tribal. Olmec Donald wrote: you guys don't seem to realise that every episode of Survivor reinforces Artie's theory. They also don't realize their own arguments reinforce my theory. I'd like to see a player that is forced to eat maggot-rice at loser camp, and sleep on dirty leaves, decide to stay there. I'd like to see if that player can convince others to do so willingly, or would there be no one to convince since the challenges vary so much that the winning and losing camps vary as well. I'd like to see if they remain loyal, or if one, two, three of them, finds a challenge to flip, for luxury and for guaranteed immunity. I'd like to see if alliances can cross between winner and loser camp. I'd even like to see the unlikely merge of two alliances, one the well-fed, well-rested group of challenge winners, and then the losers, starving, suffering half-dead zombies. What matters is they decide their own fate, and they determined their outcome. Not luck. Whatever happens, they have earned it.
finishthemoff		#2018	[-]
Posts: 13101 (11/29/08 5:29 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I'm starting to think that you are a spy or a plant. If you are, I strongly recommended a nasty twist that ALL of the starting players should have HII!
Drboboosh2		#2019	[-]
Posts: 28 (11/29/08 6:36 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Yeah, plus they could just not let the players see each others' progress during the challenges, that would make coordinating a big challenge throwing fest harder to do.
lemurwrench		#2020	[-]
Posts: 321 (11/29/08 10:24 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	i like how you've totally ignored my argument about that artiee. here il repost it for you becaus4e im nice like that lemurwrench wrote: ArtieeLange wrote: That alliance would not only have to start immediately, actually no, at any given time any given half of the players on the winning tribe can form an alliance and they'r already up one member. also, even though the winning tribe gets smaller as the game goes on, so does th losing tribe, so the winning tribe alliance need less people to control the vote. but it would also have to start eating itself once there are 10 players left. this is the same in the current system, irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!! This would be obvious to the players, not only preventing it from forming in the first place, but it would encourage players to flip since the less players trying, the easier it is get into the top half. ZOMG!!! false assumptions! and there are plenty of motivations for players to flip in the current system, more irrelevancy!!!!! Also, the same players on the losing team also results in the same players on the winning team. Post-merge, you end up with two alliances; one well-fed, well-rested, strong as possible, and the other weakened to a state of near-exhaustion If that's the strategy they want, let them try it. umz, if its the original winning tribe of ten that made the alliance in the first place, and they switch who's on the winning tribe, then when the merge comes its that same original alliance of ten that is there (if merge isnt at ten, correct me) and if the alliance is formed later in the game, then thats still an alliance that consist of half the total player at that point in the game, so if the alliance is formed pre-merge and continue to be successful in thier strategy and vote non-alliance players out until merge, than they have majority at merge the only exception to that being if a winning tribe of five when there are eleven people left form an alliance one round before the merge, and thats only if the winning tribe in your system is smaller than the losing tribe when there are an odd number of players (is it?) but even if that happened, since they were the last winning tribe, THEY would be the well fed tribe and in all other cases, the alliance has the majority assuming they are succesful pre-merge, and just as it is in the current system, 4 ~~morons~~ malnourished players can vote off 3 ~~rocket-scientists~~ well fed players. so being well fed does nothing for you if your in the minority. except a possible immunity run, but then that player better hope all the post-merge IC's are endurance wait, you said the challenges would be varied, scratch that, it doesnt help at all. Under my system the players can do whatever they want, you know you need to stop being a hypocrite artiee, because you keep on being irrelevant and the winner will always be the best, not the luckiest. i am currently preparing undeniable proof that your system is in fact designed so that it is easier to be lucky, lemurowage coming soon to a 100+ page thread near you soon. although it would only being adding insult to injury, as i've owned the rest of your points already, with the exception of one loophole ive provided you with myself, but even with that after you try to use il be ready to re-own you again, so I'l be waiting. please TRY and refute it. also, having one tribe would be AMAZING. imagine, a tribe of twenty, it would be nearly impossible to only have two alliances, making it more unpredictable. also winning immunity doesnt cut you out of the vote, which means theres no incentive to throw the challenge. and with any half of them possibly winning immunity, the unpredictability grows even more. thats entertainment your sustem is a challenge throwing contest=not entertaining your system makes people suffer=not entertaining Last Edited By: lemurwrench 11/29/08 10:30 PM. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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

Quick Reply