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

0 Kudos

Started By	Comment
phoenixtobootcamp		#281	[-]
Posts: 338 (05/21/08 6:34 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I finally read the thread. Just to understand how its 15 pages long now. Hate to agree with Kitty Pyranoid but Artiee your system pretty much causes a hierarchical standard for Survivor. With only one advantage: people will fight harder in challenges to stay in the game. And many cons: 1) Loser mob as many already mentioned 2) Simplified strategy. Stronger vs. Weaker. People would want to take out the strongest to make it another week 3) The games become calculated and predictable 4) No flexibility in alliances. The strong would want to keep strong [to keep the target off themselves]. Weak would want weaker, to bond with and take out bigger targets. I am sure I can come up with more. But you see what I mean? The way you are setting it up will make for entertaining challenges surely and maybe you place a lot of weight on challenges. To me OUTPLAYING is only partially about challenges and more about the manipulation and social aspect of the game. I think the biggest reservation you are facing from people here is because your set-up puts emphasis on Physical/Challenges and takes away from the much loved [and more entertaining IMO] aspect of survivor that is, interpersonal and strategical bonding.
ArtieeLange		#282	[-]
Posts: 7 (05/22/08 4:24 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	SFC wrote: The way it is right now, you are stuck with the people on the same tribe Yeah, which makes throwing challenges much, much less risky. SFC wrote: How does your Ideal Scenario for this format go if it was in Micronesia. The problem with your thinking is that there is an "ideal" scenario, when you miss the entire point that the ideal scenario is whatever one plays out when there is a level playing field and everyone has a fair chance, without fear of being seen as a threat and being voted off simply because they are outnumbered. The ideal scenario is for a true Survivor to outplay, outwit, and outlast everyone, not someone who gathered a bunch of terrified losers, bims, and dimwits. Because thats boring, and boring is why the ratings continue to drop with every season, resulting in the lowest. ratings. ever. in the season you just saw. No one cares anymore. Its broke. Fix it.
RageBot		#283	[-]
Posts: 119 (05/22/08 7:06 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ArtieeLange wrote: SFC wrote: The way it is right now, you are stuck with the people on the same tribe 1. Yeah, which makes throwing challenges much, much less risky. SFC wrote: How does your Ideal Scenario for this format go if it was in Micronesia. 2. The ideal scenario is for a true Survivor to outplay, outwit, and outlast everyone, not someone who gathered a bunch of terrified losers, bims, and dimwits. Because thats boring, and boring is why the ratings continue to drop with every season, resulting in the lowest. ratings. ever. in the season you just saw. 1. LOL? You fucking kidding me aren't you? It is hell-a-lot safer to throw challanges, since if you begin with a group of 20 (or less), and merge at 10, your group is safe even if you lose every fucking challange. Why? Check this - let's say there is the losers tribe, and five players form an alliance, all they have to do is to convince someone to vote with them, and then they are fixed for the rest of the entire fucking game!!! Why? i'm gonna go round-by-round in this example. Challange number 1 - two tribes of ten, one tribe loses and go to TC. TC 1 - Six pepole vote against the strongest of their group. Challange number 2 - one tribe of ten, one of nine, the tribe of nine loses on purpose. TC 2 - Five pepole alliance vote the strongest. Challange number 3 - one tribe of eight, one of ten, the tribe of eight loses, and, according to your system, get into their tribe the sweakest member of the winnin tribe. TC 3 - Five person alliance vote the strongest of their tribe. Challange number 4 - one tribe of nine, one of eight bla bla bla bla bla Until... Challange number 9 - one tribe of seven, one tribe of five, the tribe of five loses, gets the weakest of the winning tribe. TC 9 - they vote him off. Challange number 10 - one tribe of five, one tribe of six - the tribe of five loses, probably. TC 10 - one of them is voted off. Merge - 4 weak, 6 strong. At this point, the 4 weak just join the weaker of the strong and vote all of the other strong pepole, then they vote the strong one that they have joined. And why won't the strong vote out the weak? Just because they are weak. Case closed. 2. Actually, that's boring for you! not for the other 13+ million viewers. Why did this show has the lowest ratings ever? because every fucking show on the TV had the same thing, if it was only survivor, then you could've been right, but you're just too much of an idiot to realise even how stupid you are.
ArtieeLange		#284	[-]
Posts: 9 (05/22/08 7:57 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RageBot wrote: Challange number 1 - two tribes of ten, one tribe loses and go to TC. TC 1 - Six pepole vote against the strongest of their group. Are you retarded? You think six people who just met are going to align, let alone throw a challenge? RageBot wrote: Challange number 2 - one tribe of ten, one of nine, the tribe of nine loses on purpose. TC 2 - Five pepole alliance vote the strongest. Are you retarded?Why would nine lose on purpose when 4 of them aren't in an alliance? Even in your retard-fantasy land, six would not form an alliance when each of them know that they could be next to be voted off, since one of them must eventually be voted off. What is more likely, and more interesting, is they will claim to be in an alliance, claim to throw a challenge, and then skate to victory and immunity, watching the losers go to tribal. After that, no one will throw a challenge again. Either way, more interesting than now.
oh ehm gee		#285	[-]
Posts: 928 (05/22/08 9:25 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	The ideal scenario is for a true Survivor to outplay, outwit, and outlast everyone, not someone who gathered a bunch of terrified losers, bims, and dimwits. Because thats boring, and boring is why the ratings continue to drop with every season, resulting in the lowest. ratings. ever. in the season you just saw. No one cares anymore. Its broke. Fix it. Again, you do not represent the average viewer. Please do not attempt to speak for the average viewer. Also, READ THROUGH THE DAMN THREAD! I've explained twice why you can simply go by ratings number to say that the show needs fixing. Moreover, how can you be certain that the gameplay is the reason why the ratings keep dropping? Maybe they don't like Probst. Maybe people don't like the alphas coasting to the end. Maybe they don't like the assholish characters making it to the end. Maybe, just maybe, they're watching something else because Thursday nights offer many television alternatives. And considering your lack of knowledge of the television industry, I would hardly count on you to change something, especially something that still has good ratings after 16 editions (and honestly, 12 million viewers is still (about) 12 million people who watch the ads, and that is what's important). How would this increase the number of viewers? Wouldn't these changes make the show even more dependent upon routine watching, which would make it even harder for newer viewers to follow given the constantly changing tribes? SERIOUSLY, JUST STOP. NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU.
Kitty Pryde1		#286	[-]
Posts: 4256 (05/22/08 11:59 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Artiee, you're an OBVIOUS troll, given that you completely ignore anything that you can't come up with ass backwards logic to refute, so why don't you just shut the fuck up and go back to Off-Topic or some shit.
mattg591971		#287	[-]
Posts: 20 (05/22/08 12:38 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Hey Artiee, what did you think of the Super Bowl? Were you throwing things at your TV because a "weak" team like the Giants beat the alpha team in the Patriots?
ArtieeLange		#288	[-]
Posts: 11 (05/22/08 3:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	mattg591971 wrote: Hey Artiee, what did you think of the Super Bowl? If Survivor were the Super Bowl, you would have the first place team to all of a sudden play the last place team, instead of the two best teams. But unlike Survivor, luck is not a factor in football. Get it?
mattg591971		#289	[-]
Posts: 21 (05/22/08 3:31 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ArtieeLange wrote: mattg591971 wrote: Hey Artiee, what did you think of the Super Bowl? If Survivor were the Super Bowl, you would have the first place team to all of a sudden play the last place team, instead of the two best teams. But unlike Survivor, luck is not a factor in football. Get it? OK, I shouldn't respond to this, but if you don't think luck is a factor in football,or any sport, you need to shoot yourself now. You're trying to tell me that on the Giants final drive that clinched the game, Eli Manning breaking out of a sure sack, throwing a pray over the middle of the field, and David Tyree catching it on his helmet with Rodney Harrison draped all over him was not luck??????????????? Are you serious???????? And you're trying to tell me the Giants were the best team in the NFC??????????? When did you start watching, the playoffs?????? What the fuck are you smoking...it should be outlawed immediately!!!!!
tdugan333		#290	[-]
Posts: 3756 (05/22/08 4:58 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'm still waiting for your "oh so perfect fix" to Survivor to be applied to actual scenarios. Are you afraid to actually put your theory into play? No one is listening to you because you aren't actually saying anything other than "Next". Put your money where your mouth is, choose any season you want and put your theory into play to show us how the outcome would have changed by not having teams and it being challenge based. Please. Calling you out dumb fuck. Put your money where your mouth is. I don't think you can do it.
ArtieeLange		#291	[-]
Posts: 12 (05/22/08 5:25 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	phoenixtobootcamp wrote: your set-up puts emphasis on Physical/Challenges and takes away from the much loved [and more entertaining IMO] aspect of survivor that is, interpersonal and strategical bonding. 1) The ratings are getting worse with each season, because loser weaklings are ending up in the finals, not just the final 2 but the final 6. 2) On the last 5 of 6 episodes of this last season, the ONLY interesting aspect was the challenge, and who would win. Everything else was boring (except Tribal, thanks to that dimwit Eric). The only people who want to see losers win...are losers. And their numbers seem to be dwindling because this last season was the lowest rated one in the history of the show.
Quiddity		#292	[-]
Posts: 2600 (05/22/08 5:50 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	1) The ratings are getting worse with each season, because loser weaklings are ending up in the finals, not just the final 2 but the final 6. The ratings are getting worse with each season because WITH RARE EXCEPTION THE RATINGS ARE GETTING WORSE ON EVERY FUCKING SHOW ON NETWORK TELEVISION. You fail. 2) On the last 5 of 6 episodes of this last season, the ONLY interesting aspect was the challenge, and who would win. Everything else was boring (except Tribal, thanks to that dimwit Eric). The post-merge of Micronesia was probably the best post merge in the history of the show. I bet many Sucksters would agree with that statement. Fail again. The only people who want to see losers win...are losers. And their numbers seem to be dwindling because this last season was the lowest rated one in the history of the show. The only people who want to see boring alpha males like Terry win are dumbass fanboys and dateless females. A statement taken to the extreme with nothing to back it up, but I'd say its less baseless than your claim. RAMONE!!!!!!! THE MOVIE OUTBREAK WAS FILMED INSIDE OF ARTIE'S ASSHOLE!!!!!!!
Dan Down Under		#293	[-]
Posts: 2463 (05/22/08 5:58 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Artiee, you said that the Micronesia post merge was filled with "losers". Can you actually clarify what exactly a "loser" and a "winner" is?
ArtieeLange		#294	[-]
Posts: 14 (05/22/08 6:21 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Dan Down Under wrote: Artiee, you said that the Micronesia post merge was filled with "losers". Can you actually clarify what exactly a "loser" and a "winner" is? I sure can, Dan! Losers are those who would not last on a level playing field, where everyone has an equal chance and where failure is penalized and success is rewarded. I just described my system, which is why it would weed out these weaklings. The current system is not equal at all, since not only are the teams permanent for half the season, but the players selected to them are random, and even worse, the teams eventually dissolve after most of the threats are voted off so by the time individual immunity comes around you are stuck with the worst of the worst. Does that clarify things for you, Dan?
oh ehm gee		#295	[-]
Posts: 933 (05/22/08 7:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	1) The ratings are getting worse with each season, because loser weaklings are ending up in the finals, not just the final 2 but the final 6. You're sniffing paint if you think that television in 2000 is in any way comparable to television in 2008. IT ISN'T. QUIT TRYING TO MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT. And fun fact, ratings on the whole increased for ASS. Why would that be? There really wasn't a change in the game dynamic between PI and ASS. What's there to say that the game dynamic is the cause of the ratings decline.* * This, of course, has been a point I've made to you for 3 posts now. Perhaps we're not the ones who can't understand your improvement, rather, perhaps you cannot (or are unwilling) to accept valid criticism, something that you will encounter should you decide to pitch this to EPMB. Also, Survivor's not long for this (US) world anyway, so quit worrying about it.
doc		#296	[-]
Posts: 3 (05/22/08 10:27 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Why don't you look Survivor history? Micronesia was an unusual season. One tribe really had no weakies, the other tribe started the individual game too soon, letting 2 weakies go farther than they should have. Vanuatu was unusual, since the male tribe had a 5-4 advantage over the older men, and they probably thought they didn't need the younger guys against the girls. Pretty much every other season the weakies get targeted right away. Look at Pearl Islands, Savage targets Skinny Ryan and Lil from the start. What happens when a weakie squeaks through to the merge? Do they become a target? No, they are kept like Jan, Lil, and Scout and make the F3 or F2. When a tribe a being Pagonged, they go from the strongest player to the weakest. So why would anyone get rid of Skinny Ryan, and Lil. There's your PI final 2, Skinny Ryan wins, joining Kathy (gratz Kathy), Chicken, Janu, Billy, Scout, BB, Mad Dog, etc. Another thing, these people that are always in the losers tribe are going to find strong bonds, just like Chet, Kathy and Tracy. They're going to major players. Cirie would actually probably do well there. The other losers would be like her pawns. One thing they should do is improve casting/recruiting, and about a week before contact them and ask Is your girlfriend/wife pregnant? Has family member or close friend of yours died recently? Is a family member or close friend of yours very sick? Are you sure you can handle 30 days living outside? Make sure they're mentally, emotionally and physically ready to go. We just had 2 pretty good seasons to make up for 3 lackluster ones. The show is doing fine. If the strike had lasted longer (or shorter) it would have done even better.
ArtieeLange		#297	[-]
Posts: 15 (05/23/08 3:00 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	doc wrote: people that are always in the losers tribe are going to find strong bonds, just like Chet, Kathy and Tracy. They're going to major players. Cirie would actually probably do well there. The other losers would be like her pawns. Except there won't be a "losers tribe", since only a fool would give up a 50% chance for immunity, and the challenges (and therefore the winners) will vary. Chet Kathy and Tracy bonded in the current system, so at the very least my system benefits the players who compete and win in the top half by rewarding them with immunity. The losers will only be able to vote out other losers.
oh ehm gee		#298	[-]
Posts: 935 (05/23/08 6:25 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	The fun thing is that this season really couldn't happen any other way. It's not like you could say "Oh, Chet and Kathy were on Thailand" and bullshit their way onto the Favorites tribe. Hence your criticisms really don't mean anything since the Chet/Kathy issues were casting's fault* rather than a flaw in game logic. Quite simply, Mikey played too hard too fast (unfortunately). Joel was an asshole whose challenge strength was not enough to detract from this (recall that in the IC of his boot, Joel fucked things up by going over Chet). The fact that you have yet to come up with any other example proves this. I also find it funny that your system emphasizes putting everyone on an even starting field, however, the only possible way of doing this would be to have some sort of challenge. Considering that it would be nearly impossible to find a challenge with all the different components of games found on Survivor (physical prowess, mental ability, endurance, speed, concentration, etc.), regardless of the type of challenge you're doing someone gets shortchanged, and would have to be in the losing group, forced to either vote someone out or be voted out. Sound familiar? It's the first episode. Unless you have the first TC be nonelimination*, the first boot still* doesn't get a chance to prove themselves. * this is in the hypothetical, because KB is awesome this could actually be an awesome twist - it would certainly jack up the tribal tension Also, way to continually shortchange Tracy's strategy. What difference is there between the alliance of old people bringing in others to get rid of Mikey (who, you'll recall, was eliminated 6-3, therefore, you can't really complain about them) or OriginalAitu voting off Billy or Tagi taking advantage of Dr. Sean's strategy to get rid of Jenna? None, really. Additionally, way to emphasize challenge ability. Parvati won because she was able to make such good relationships with the jury. Actually winning challenges would mess up her game. Same with Todd - his strategic aptitude combined with being decent in challenges would have make him a much bigger target. Here's something to consider - if the ratings were really bad, Survivor would've been pulled by now. The fact that it's got the 18th season ordered shows the CBS has faith in Survivor and it's ratings. If you don't like how it's played, no one is forcing you to watch**. You have the internet; find something else to watch. It's that simple.
mattg591971		#299	[-]
Posts: 22 (05/23/08 9:38 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ArtieeLange wrote: doc wrote: people that are always in the losers tribe are going to find strong bonds, just like Chet, Kathy and Tracy. They're going to major players. Cirie would actually probably do well there. The other losers would be like her pawns. Except there won't be a "losers tribe", since only a fool would give up a 50% chance for immunity, and the challenges (and therefore the winners) will vary. Chet Kathy and Tracy bonded in the current system, so at the very least my system benefits the players who compete and win in the top half by rewarding them with immunity. The losers will only be able to vote out other losers. Amazing! 16 pages and you still don't understand what you are saying plays right into a Chet/Kathy/Tracy/Cirie loser alliance controlling the game.
doc		#300	[-]
Posts: 5 (05/23/08 11:55 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ArtieeLange wrote: doc wrote: people that are always in the losers tribe are going to find strong bonds, just like Chet, Kathy and Tracy. They're going to major players. Cirie would actually probably do well there. The other losers would be like her pawns. Except there won't be a "losers tribe", since only a fool would give up a 50% chance for immunity, and the challenges (and therefore the winners) will vary. Chet Kathy and Tracy bonded in the current system, so at the very least my system benefits the players who compete and win in the top half by rewarding them with immunity. The losers will only be able to vote out other losers. The same people will be on the bottom alot. Almost all chalenges have have some physical element to them. Alot of the puzzle ones require strength. The only pure mental one was Survivor trivia, but they did have those heavy wheels with the answers, probably too much for Chet.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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