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

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
lemurwrench		#2081	[-]
Posts: 339 (11/30/08 8:07 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: lemurwrench wrote: your system "does not find the weak or the strong" just like you claim the current system doesnt. Incorrect. See below for your correction: lemurwrench wrote: your system punishes tyhe challenge losers and rewards the challenge winners. Correct. Just like the current-system after the merge. those two statements dont contradict eachother winner=/=strong loser=/=weak which is something you admitted yourself, when you said that the varying challenges prevent there being a strong/weak so punishing the losers/rewarding the winners does not find the strong/weak and you have yet to explain how doing so doesnt make the playing field unequal nice try. Last Edited By: lemurwrench 11/30/08 8:12 PM. Edited 1 times.
lemurwrench		#2082	[-]
Posts: 340 (11/30/08 8:10 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: 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. don't pretend you know psychology. people arent really like that.
lemurwrench		#2083	[-]
Posts: 341 (11/30/08 8:11 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	also, i didnt really join into the argument here at page one, just sayin. Last Edited By: lemurwrench 11/30/08 8:14 PM. Edited 1 times.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2084	[-]
Posts: 6182 (11/30/08 8:12 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Artiees hypothesis is that his system will lead to an increase in ratings because he believes casual fans think of it similar to a sport. 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). From what I recall, viewers in season 2 had no problem watching a weakling such as Elisabeth. Oh sure, Colby was a favorite, but that has only a little to do with his challenge prowess. Just as Borneo had fan favorite Rudy being somewhat of a weakling by your standards anyway because heis eldest. Also, it can be argued that Terry was popular not due to his challenge prowess, but his underdog status.
SwineForkbeard		#2085	[-]
Posts: 1911 (11/30/08 8:33 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, Dr Will? You could write the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address defending the teams concept on Survivor, and he'll never concede anything or let you have the last word. Why do you need to fight about this in the first place? If somebody is dissatisfied with the show, that's his problem, not yours. And envisioning the perfect reality show is a strictly subjective thing, there is no right or wrong. That's why this flame war is so retarded. So why don't you remove your head from your ass for once and stop giving the troll what he wants?
Olmec Donald		#2086	[-]
Posts: 84 (11/30/08 8:33 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	JaniTholeMyDolly wrote: So to break this thread down to bare bones: I have an idea. I am right. It's dumb. You're wrong. No, I am right. Wrong. Right. Wrong. Right. Wrong. Right. Wrong. You suck. No, you suck. You suck. No, you do. You. No, you. You. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. and on and on and on and on. Am I right? Just FOAD. Now. Thanks. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out. SwineForkbeard wrote: What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, Dr Will? You could write the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address defending the teams concept on Survivor, and he'll never concede anything or let you have the last word. Why do you need to fight about this in the first place? If somebody is dissatisfied with the show, that's his problem, not yours. And envisioning the perfect reality show is a strictly subjective thing, there is no right or wrong. That's why this flame war is so retarded. So why don't you remove your head from your ass for once and stop giving the troll what he wants? Because, Swine, some of us look past the flame war and attempt to argue based on logic and reasoning. That's why this continues. Last Edited By: Olmec Donald 11/30/08 8:43 PM. Edited 1 times.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2087	[-]
Posts: 6184 (11/30/08 8:39 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SwineForkbeard wrote: What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, Dr Will? You could write the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address defending the teams concept on Survivor, and he'll never concede anything or let you have the last word. Why do you need to fight about this in the first place? If somebody is dissatisfied with the show, that's his problem, not yours. And envisioning the perfect reality show is a strictly subjective thing, there is no right or wrong. That's why this flame war is so retarded. So why don't you remove your head from your ass for once and stop giving the troll what he wants? Because I believe that he, on some level, is actually serious about his idea. I actually find the idea in itself interesting, I just don't want it to replace Survivor. He is right on some levels and patently wrong on others. It is interesting to try to get to the root of this guy and see how long it will be until he budges. People accuse me all the time of having bullheaded opinions(check out my debate with Screerider in the Mole forum), but I honestly believe in them and believe they have an internal consistency, Artiee just may be some poor idiot savant for all we know.
Olmec Donald		#2088	[-]
Posts: 85 (11/30/08 8:45 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Because I believe that he, on some level, is actually serious about his idea. I actually find the idea in itself interesting, Amen. If the idea were not interesting, this thread would not be over 100 pages long. I respect your opinion, Will, even if I think it's wrong. lemurwrench wrote: you presented arguements claiming why it wouldnt work, and i refuted those arguements below. (until you are able to refute my refutions) I refuted it on his behalf. Your refutions have been refuted. lemurwrench wrote: now, one of the refutions i used was to your argument that the alliance would have to eat eachother at 10, when i said "this is the same in the current system, irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!" i was simply pointing out that all alliances must eat themselves alive when it comes down to only them. all alliances realize this, and yet alliances survive in the current system. the same would happen in your system. i also point out the irrelevancy when you say that players can flip in your system, this is also true in the current system so it bears no weight. Did you not read what I posted before? Artie obviously likes seeing players flipping, and alliances eating themselves. Thus he took those features and included them as components of this system. He is trying to revitalize the game, not create a new reality TV show. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: From now on, I'm only going to debate this subject with Olmec because he actually has some idea of what the fuck he's talking about. Congrats Olmec, you've successfully taken over this topic for a failure. You're like Dick Cheney to Artiee's George W. This isn't the best thing to hear ahead of a hunting trip, but thanks, I'll take it as a compliment. Though the idea of contestants making it further based off their own merits is more classic conservatism than the current Administration's neocon agenda. tdugan333 wrote: What Artiee has never realized (other than the meaning of luck of course ssts) is that his "strong" people would all be voted out tout de suite under his version. Who in their right mind would keep strong people who ended up for whatever reason (bad luck maybe? double ssts) on the loser tribe? What idiot other than Artiee would actually vote to keep someone around stronger than they are who might beat them in the next challenge forever keeping them from the winning tribe? Because if the contestants have the brains to create an alliance of the strong, as many people have suggested, they should also have the brains to realise that under the system the type of challenge will vary wildly from one episode to the next. The reason that Ozzy, Tom Westman and Terry (the 3 biggest immunity whores in recent Survivor history) won so many challenges is because the challenges in their (original) season were almost exclusively based on their own strengths: swimming for Tom and Ozzy, and land-based physical challenges for Terry. Terry and Ozzy both ended up losing endurance challenges. Typical physical immunity whores in general may struggle on memory and survival skills challenges. Again, in ASS, Rob, Amber and Rupert, the three biggest immunity whores, could not survive the first individual endurance challenge, and nor did they come anywhere near winning the firemaking challenge the episode after. Point is, different challenges reward different strengths. Physically strong people get targeted in the current format because most challenges are physical. Greater variety means that things are more competitive. lemurwrench wrote: multi quoting=too time consuming And yet you accuse Artie of being lazy in responding. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. Last Edited By: Olmec Donald 11/30/08 9:15 PM. Edited 3 times.
SwineForkbeard		#2089	[-]
Posts: 1912 (11/30/08 9:37 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: It is interesting to try to get to the root of this guy and see how long it will be until he budges. Do you remember about 2 pages ago: You: "What would be a valid argument?" Artiee: "There are none." He's already told you he isn't going to budge no matter what you say, that's the point. Threads like this illustrate why some people define insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You're not debating a fellow truth seeker with a different point of view, you're feeding a troll. You voted Artiee the most annoying Sucks poster, didn't you? You've already awarded him with the highest trolling accolade. If he's already managed to annoy you more than anybody else here, I guarantee he'll continue annoying you as long as you keep posting in here.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2090	[-]
Posts: 6189 (11/30/08 9:43 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I'm going to give it a few more months and see what happens, it's not like anything else is going on here. Why don't you say the same thing to KittyPryde?
Fizzmix		#2091	[-]
Posts: 195 (11/30/08 10:33 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fizzmix wrote: Olmec Donald wrote: Fizzmix wrote: Fizzmix wrote: 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. Again, I'll say it, you're making a lot of assumptions here. Is there a possibility that this situation could occur? I guess so, but Artie can give you a better response, I'm sure. What's the possibility of it occuring? Very small. I'd say less than 10%. Again, I'll say it. 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. Flaw. In the game design. There is no way you can say with any authority that it has less than 10% chance of happening. Let's say it doesn't happen though, for your argument's sake. Let's see why else this system is garbage. You'd like to think that after 8 people had been voted out, the 10 strongest would be there. But no. With episode 2, there would be 9 people coming from the strong tribe, 8 people coming from the weak tribe. I'd bet that the majority of people from the weak tribe will lose the immunity challenge. Let's say that all of them do. If we're evening out the tribe numbers every second episode (so in the second episode, the top 8 people in the challenge are safe and the bottom 9 are in danger) that means that every second episode, a person who is likely stronger than the rest of the weak tribe will end up on the weak tribe and be voted out. Like, the 8 people that were at tribal council the week before, and the 1 person who was on the strong camp in the first episode would be on the weak tribe in episode 2. They're OBVIOUSLY going to vote out the strong person. So literally every second episode, someone stronger than most or all of the weak tribe from the previous episode will be voted out. Even if not ALL of the weak members lose the challenge, the majority will almost certainly. They are the weaker people. This will become more and more true with each episode of the same people getting the luxury treatment, and the same people eating maggoty rice. And even in the episodes where the tribes are equal, and no member that has historically been on the strong tribe finds themselves on the losing tribe (provided the strongest people from episode one win every challenge), the weak tribe will just vote out the strongest player each time so that the rest can try to move up to the stronger tribe. You know, provided camp life at the loser tribe is as awful as you say it would be. What you'll be left with at the Final 10 is roughly the 5 strongest players and the 5 weakest players in the whole game. The 5 strongest players are the ones who did not lose challenges at all, and the 5 weakest would be the ones that lost all of the challenges and allied together to vote out all of the stronger members in hopes of moving up. So finally, you're left with this: Every second vote is absolutely predictable. Every other vote is probably quite predictable. Every single episode, the very strongest members must win the challenge, or they go home. The Final 10 will be completely inequal in terms of strength and competitiveness. If we're merging at 10 and the game plays out like a normal game of Survivor would, we're evenly split, and the strong member better damn well hope that they can beat the weak member in a firebuilding contest. If they can't, guess what we have. The five weakest players in the entire game as the final 5. Huh. Of course, this is assuming that the 5 weakest players ally. But, isn't this likely, since they will be the recurring people on the weak tribe and will bond, and would ally because they know that they can count on each others votes every episode? The reason we don't see more "weakest member" alliances in Survivor as it is now (and we do see quite a few of these anyway), is because people don't want to go to the merge with fewer numbers, so they want to preserve strength. In your iteration, there is NO reason to preserve strength.
ArtieeLange		#2092	[-]
Posts: 406 (11/30/08 11:22 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: He is right on some levels and patently wrong on others. My system prevents artificial teams from effecting everything in the game, including giving advantages to untested/lesser players and allowing them to progress at the expense of tested/better players. That's the only "level" you need to be concerned with. The current game is artificial, according to the forced initial team-selection. My game evolves naturally, according the players will. My game is survival. Last Edited By: ArtieeLange 11/30/08 11:24 PM. Edited 1 times.
JaniTholeMyDolly		#2093	[-]
Posts: 4448 (11/30/08 11:40 PM) Dicked....by Evel that is Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SwineForkbeard wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: It is interesting to try to get to the root of this guy and see how long it will be until he budges. Do you remember about 2 pages ago: You: "What would be a valid argument?" Artiee: "There are none." He's already told you he isn't going to budge no matter what you say, that's the point. Threads like this illustrate why some people define insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You're not debating a fellow truth seeker with a different point of view, you're feeding a troll. You voted Artiee the most annoying Sucks poster, didn't you? You've already awarded him with the highest trolling accolade. If he's already managed to annoy you more than anybody else here, I guarantee he'll continue annoying you as long as you keep posting in here. He has a point here. He said it all with the "valid" argument line. He will determine what's "valid" and the only thing he will consider "valid" is what he considers right.
lemurwrench		#2094	[-]
Posts: 342 (12/01/08 12:26 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: lemurwrench wrote: you presented arguements claiming why it wouldnt work, and i refuted those arguements below. (until you are able to refute my refutions) I refuted it on his behalf. Your refutions have been refuted. and i refuted your refutations for my refutations. did you miss that post? lemurwrench wrote: now, one of the refutions i used was to your argument that the alliance would have to eat eachother at 10, when i said "this is the same in the current system, irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!" i was simply pointing out that all alliances must eat themselves alive when it comes down to only them. all alliances realize this, and yet alliances survive in the current system. the same would happen in your system. i also point out the irrelevancy when you say that players can flip in your system, this is also true in the current system so it bears no weight. Did you not read what I posted before? Artie obviously likes seeing players flipping, and alliances eating themselves. Thus he took those features and included them as components of this system. He is trying to revitalize the game, not create a new reality TV show. but that is exactly WHY its irrelevant. we are comparing two systems. if each has a good quality about it, then they dont factor into which is better. artiee said this HIMSELF. look at his earlier post. he sais point blank that if something occurs in both systems, it is irrelevant. I'm only using artiee own argument. you can't use an argument but say its not a valid argument when i use it, thats called a double standard. tdugan333 wrote: What Artiee has never realized (other than the meaning of luck of course ssts) is that his "strong" people would all be voted out tout de suite under his version. Who in their right mind would keep strong people who ended up for whatever reason (bad luck maybe? double ssts) on the loser tribe? What idiot other than Artiee would actually vote to keep someone around stronger than they are who might beat them in the next challenge forever keeping them from the winning tribe? Because if the contestants have the brains to create an alliance of the strong, as many people have suggested, they should also have the brains to realise that under the system the type of challenge will vary wildly from one episode to the next. The reason that Ozzy, Tom Westman and Terry (the 3 biggest immunity whores in recent Survivor history) won so many challenges is because the challenges in their (original) season were almost exclusively based on their own strengths: swimming for Tom and Ozzy, and land-based physical challenges for Terry. Terry and Ozzy both ended up losing endurance challenges. Typical physical immunity whores in general may struggle on memory and survival skills challenges. Again, in ASS, Rob, Amber and Rupert, the three biggest immunity whores, could not survive the first individual endurance challenge, and nor did they come anywhere near winning the firemaking challenge the episode after. Point is, different challenges reward different strengths. Physically strong people get targeted in the current format because most challenges are physical. Greater variety means that things are more competitive. so what about the yau-mans of challenges? there have been other immunity whores who are physically strong. rafe is a good example. but more importantly, what about threats in other aspects of the game? why wont those people be targeted? lemurwrench wrote: multi quoting=too time consuming And yet you accuse Artie of being lazy in responding. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. i acuuse artiee of ignoring me. theres a difference. youve missed some of my posts too. im still waiting for a response
Mike8787		#2095	[-]
Posts: 580 (12/01/08 12:43 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The way to fix everything these people are complaining about is to make it so the people on the winners tribe get to vote who is removed from the losers tribe. It would be completely unlike Survivor, but it would remove anyone throwing challenges, and giant alliances and so on.
JaniTholeMyDolly		#2096	[-]
Posts: 4455 (12/01/08 12:49 AM) Dicked....by Evel that is Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Mike8787 wrote: The way to fix everything these people are complaining about is to make it so the people on the winners tribe get to vote who is removed from the losers tribe. It would be completely unlike Survivor, but it would remove anyone throwing challenges, and giant alliances and so on. See there? A good solution 5,000 posts later. I am learning that Mike is the voice of reason and intelligence in most threads.
ArtieeLange		#2097	[-]
Posts: 407 (12/01/08 12:56 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Mike8787 wrote: The way to fix everything these people are complaining about is to make it so the people on the winners tribe get to vote who is removed from the losers tribe. It would be completely unlike Survivor, but it would remove anyone throwing challenges, and giant alliances and so on. I brought that up here as one of the 'twists' - You can start the game with my system, then a few challenges in, add this aspect of not allowing the players to see each others progress during the challenges like the "Prisoner's Dilemma", another psychological twist the current game has been completely missing. Then later during a certain challenge let all players vote, not just the losing camp. This, plus any immunity island / immunity idol, and you have a game where challenge throwing is no longer a valid likely strategy
lemurwrench		#2098	[-]
Posts: 343 (12/01/08 1:37 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	theres a difference between makeing it a twist and having it be that way the whole time. as a twist it only helps for one round, but your system would work if it implemented that the whole game. otherwise, no. although, mike is suggesting somehting else besides what your talking about. he is saying only the winners vote (right?)
Kitty Pryde1		#2099	[-]
Posts: 6827 (12/01/08 1:48 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Mike8787 wrote: The way to fix everything these people are complaining about is to make it so the people on the winners tribe get to vote who is removed from the losers tribe. It would be completely unlike Survivor, but it would remove anyone throwing challenges, and giant alliances and so on. Except it's no different from the problems with Artiee's current system. In fact, it's exactly what would happen if you let the winning tribe in the current system vote someone from the losing tribe in the current system. They would just vote out the strongest possible player to keep their strength and weaken their opponents.
ArtieeLange		#2100	[-]
Posts: 408 (12/01/08 2:09 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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

Quick Reply