Strategies - Which Ones Have PROVEN to Work, Whether You Like Them or Not? in Survivor Sucks Forum

0 Points

Strategies - Which Ones Have PROVEN to Work, Whether You Like Them or Not?

Started By	Comment
ArtieeLange		#61	[-]
Posts: 1343 12/23/11 01:09 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Mateui wrote: ArtieeLange wrote: Mateui wrote: There is no universal strategy that will guarantee you success. The obvious strategy reflects how flawed the game of Survivor is: According to the producers "teams" on day one, form an alliance with 5 random people. On day one = you aren't outplaying or outwitting anyone. That's how Parvati won, that's how Sophie won, that is how countless players won. The game needs changing to prevent this nonsense. The game doesn't really need changing to prevent this. They simply need to reintroduce tribal swaps back into the game. When players get separated from their initial alliance they're forced to make a new one with other people to survive and this leads to more social interactions and strategy post-merge when everyone needs to decide whether they want to jump back to their old alliance or stick to the new one. That's what I've been saying for years. "Solution: eliminate the two randomly selected artificially forced "teams". Artificiality has no place in a game of outwit, outplay, outlast, it does not work, and it leads to undeserving survivors. Have dynamic teams based on the best and worst performers of each challenge. Each player is individually ranked, the top performers go home (to the 'winners camp'), while the bottom performers go to Tribal Council (and then to sleep in the 'losers camp') .Specifically this will automatically remedy some flaws in the game. During challenges, a player who wants to quit has no reason not to quit first. When Jeff brings out food, there is nothing holding the quitter back, unless they want to win. With my system when each player is ranked, each player has incentive to not just win, but incentive to compete and do the best they can, better than as many as they can. My system tests all players, equally and identically. All the victors emerge and are rewarded, guaranteed. All the defeated are penalized, guaranteed. Thus, they are trained to appreciate personal victory and its rewards (judging by some of the pathetic fucks make it through casting, probably for the first time in their life). What happens next, what the players do next, decide next, is the basis of an unpredictable, entertaining show that makes the current version of Survivor look like childs play." Last Edited By: ArtieeLange 12/23/11 01:11 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
Fart Party		#62	[-]
Posts: 604 12/23/11 01:46 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Nothing works like a charm. It's a lottery on what kind of jury you get. It's a lottery on what kind of tribe and alliance you get. Going under the radar could ruin you or help you, just like playing strategy could do both. I mean Sandra's an example of a good player but also an example of the good circumstances you need to win. After 23 seasons I'd have to say the show has proven to ultimately just be a contest, not a game. Every style of move you can make, no matter how you make them, is worthless in the end if you don't have luck on your side about other factors.
ArtieeLange		#63	[-]
Posts: 1343 12/23/11 08:11 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Fart Party wrote: It's a lottery on what kind of tribe and alliance you get. "Lottery" has no place in a game of outwit, outplay, outlast, it does not work, and it leads to undeserving survivors. Eliminate the two randomly selected artificially forced "teams", and you eliminate undeserving winners. Guaranteed.
AhiddenIdol		#64	[-]
Posts: 892 12/24/11 01:35 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	There are no proven strategies (no, not even Sandra's sit back and don't do shit strategy). There are so many factors including luck, producer-thrown-in twists, people making unpredictable/retarded moves, etc that you can't have a strategy that is proven. It will change every season and change depending on which tribe you're on, what twists are in place, and what changes the producers decide to make during the filming of the season.
Mateui		#65	[-]
Posts: 5892 12/24/11 11:06 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ArtieeLange wrote: Mateui wrote: ArtieeLange wrote: The obvious strategy reflects how flawed the game of Survivor is: According to the producers "teams" on day one, form an alliance with 5 random people. On day one = you aren't outplaying or outwitting anyone. That's how Parvati won, that's how Sophie won, that is how countless players won. The game needs changing to prevent this nonsense. The game doesn't really need changing to prevent this. They simply need to reintroduce tribal swaps back into the game. When players get separated from their initial alliance they're forced to make a new one with other people to survive and this leads to more social interactions and strategy post-merge when everyone needs to decide whether they want to jump back to their old alliance or stick to the new one. That's what I've been saying for years. "Solution: eliminate the two randomly selected artificially forced "teams". Artificiality has no place in a game of outwit, outplay, outlast, it does not work, and it leads to undeserving survivors. Have dynamic teams based on the best and worst performers of each challenge. Each player is individually ranked, the top performers go home (to the 'winners camp'), while the bottom performers go to Tribal Council (and then to sleep in the 'losers camp') .Specifically this will automatically remedy some flaws in the game. During challenges, a player who wants to quit has no reason not to quit first. When Jeff brings out food, there is nothing holding the quitter back, unless they want to win. With my system when each player is ranked, each player has incentive to not just win, but incentive to compete and do the best they can, better than as many as they can. My system tests all players, equally and identically. All the victors emerge and are rewarded, guaranteed. All the defeated are penalized, guaranteed. Thus, they are trained to appreciate personal victory and its rewards (judging by some of the pathetic fucks make it through casting, probably for the first time in their life). What happens next, what the players do next, decide next, is the basis of an unpredictable, entertaining show that makes the current version of Survivor look like childs play." The problem with the "decide who goes to tribal based on a challenge" idea is that if the weak castaways are smart they'll always band together and vote out the person who did the best in the challenge but still lost. Overall it's a bad idea.
	Remove this ad
aboutbreakingrules		#66	[-]
Posts: 1955 12/24/11 02:37 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ArtieeLange wrote: Sandra won because she is a minority with a hero soldier husband, that's called luck, not strategy. Russell is the greatest player in the history of Survivor, he got to the end twice by making big moves. He failed to address the jury with the blunt reality that their bitterness is a direct result of his superiority, and thus he deserves the vote. The obvious strategy reflects how flawed the game of Survivor is: According to the producers "teams" on day one, form an alliance with 5 random people. On day one = you aren't outplaying or outwitting anyone. That's how Parvati won, that's how Sophie won, that is how countless players won. The game needs changing to prevent this nonsense. You wouldn't do too well on Survivor. You might get in front of the jury, but the winning vote would never have your name. And Russell didn't get to the end by big moves, but by being a useful goat to particular players. If he wasn't of any use to anyone, he'd be the first one out of the tribe by whatever means. Especially if they'd had the chance to see him in action.
39th Step		#67	[-]
Posts: 188 12/24/11 03:29 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	If you are not a lucky s.o.b, and you do not have natural likeability, and your opponents don't mess up, and you are not Brian Heidik, and Russel Hantz is not in the final with you, chances are you will never win Survivor. If you posess at least one of these attributes, you are a contender.
dell301		#68	[-]
Posts: 371 12/24/11 10:12 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Pagonging. Let's face it. Easy win stratgies as seen in the past two seasons show that coasting through the merge just by picking off the other tribe while keeping your own tribe in check really helps your chances in winning. Pagonging works. But its so boring.
ArtieeLange		#69	[-]
Posts: 1343 12/25/11 02:27 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Mateui wrote: ArtieeLange wrote: Mateui wrote: The game doesn't really need changing to prevent this. They simply need to reintroduce tribal swaps back into the game. When players get separated from their initial alliance they're forced to make a new one with other people to survive and this leads to more social interactions and strategy post-merge when everyone needs to decide whether they want to jump back to their old alliance or stick to the new one. That's what I've been saying for years. "Solution: eliminate the two randomly selected artificially forced "teams". Artificiality has no place in a game of outwit, outplay, outlast, it does not work, and it leads to undeserving survivors. Have dynamic teams based on the best and worst performers of each challenge. Each player is individually ranked, the top performers go home (to the 'winners camp'), while the bottom performers go to Tribal Council (and then to sleep in the 'losers camp') .Specifically this will automatically remedy some flaws in the game. During challenges, a player who wants to quit has no reason not to quit first. When Jeff brings out food, there is nothing holding the quitter back, unless they want to win. With my system when each player is ranked, each player has incentive to not just win, but incentive to compete and do the best they can, better than as many as they can. My system tests all players, equally and identically. All the victors emerge and are rewarded, guaranteed. All the defeated are penalized, guaranteed. Thus, they are trained to appreciate personal victory and its rewards (judging by some of the pathetic fucks make it through casting, probably for the first time in their life). What happens next, what the players do next, decide next, is the basis of an unpredictable, entertaining show that makes the current version of Survivor look like childs play." The problem with the "decide who goes to tribal based on a challenge" idea is that if the weak castaways are smart they'll always band together and vote out the person who did the best in the challenge but still lost. Overall it's a bad idea. I already went over that in my epic thread , they will TRY, within the losing group, but then everyone will be desperate to align, again very entertaining. You need to think about these things, this system works. Being forced to make short-lived alliances is again more challenging for the players and more entertaining for the viewers. Will they be short, or will they last? It's all a mystery, unlike now. Now, a player can't break that alliance to get on the winning side in order to be safe. With my system they have that freedom. And what happens when there are only 9 people left in the game, they will have to start fighting or start breaking alliances. All more entertaining than now. Guaranteed.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Strategies - Which Ones Have PROVEN to Work, Whether You Like Them or Not?