You are incredibly stupid, Artiee.oh ehm gee wrote:omg u retard, the way she "managed" that was to bond with other weaklings, and outnumber the threats.
Tracy managed to get Mary and Mikey out despite the old people being a clear minority.
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
TW After Life |
|||
You are incredibly stupid, Artiee.oh ehm gee wrote:omg u retard, the way she "managed" that was to bond with other weaklings, and outnumber the threats. |
|||
m0t0 maj1 |
|||
ArtieeLange wrote:Tracy bonded with Chet and Kathy, that makes them three. How did they outnumber 7 others. You sir, and this idea of yours: FAIL. |
|||
SW5SkittlesBrownfield |
|||
|
This system actually encourages throwing challenges. The first group to do so would have 100% control of the game... and I'd bet my left nut they
wouldn't go after the weakest...they'd take out the strongest they could get.
How fun! Instead of pagonging post-merge...you can have an alliance pick off the other 14 people from Day 1!!! WEEE! |
|||
ArtieeLange |
|||
SW5SkittlesBrownfield wrote: Same thing could happen now, tard, with much less effort or risk. It doesnt, and it won't, because they would have to vote off themselves.
Next. |
|||
SFC |
|||
ArtieeLange wrote: The way it is right now, you are stuck with the people on the same tribe, so the numbers dwindle. In your system, throw a Challenge; boot a threat, Next time; throw a Challenge and get rid of the person that fell to the back of the pack. You still haven't answered my question: How does your Ideal Scenario for this format go if it was in Micronesia. If you know please answer, if not...Next. |
|||
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
m0t0 maj1 wrote: I noticed that you skipped this post when making your witty reply to Skittles. In short, you continue to ignore any post that proves you wrong and pick and choose what you want to agree with. You also seem to ignore the fact that typically, the first four boots under the current system ARE the weakest players in the game. Let's look back (And note that I'm not including quits or the pick 'em boots from Palau): Borneo: Sonja (Oldest woman in the cast), B.B. (Oldest player on his tribe), Stacey (Not exactly strong), Ramona (Sick for the first week or so) Australia: Debb (Not necessarily weak, but Kucha was a physically strong tribe), Kel (Strong player), Maralyn (Oldest woman in the game), Mitchell (Weakest man in the game) Africa: Diane (Older woman and sick early on), Jessie (Sick early on), Carl (Wasn't anything special), Linda (Weakest older woman on Samburu) Marquesas: Peter (Strong player), Patricia (Old and fat), Hunter (Strong player), Sarah (Weak and lazy) Thailand: John (Strong player), Tanya (Sick early on), Jed (Strong player), Ghandia (Weak and mentally unstable) Amazon: Ryan (Nothing special), Janet (Old and sick), Daniel (Nothing special), JoAnna (Nothing special) Pearl Islands: Nicole (Nothing special), Ryan S. (Weak male), Lill (Weak older woman), Burton (Strong player) All-Stars: Tina (Weak older woman), Rudy (Oldest man in the game), Rob C. (Physically weak man), Richard (Strong Player) Vanuatu: Brook (Tribe of strong men, doesn't make a difference), Dolly (Nothing special), John P. (Tribe of strong men, doesn't make a difference), Mia (Nothing special) Palau: Jolanda (Strong player), Ashlee (Weak quitter), Jeff (Strong player), Kim (Weak player) Guatemala: Jim (Old and injured), Morgan (Nothing special), Brianna (Lazy and uncaring), Brooke (Nothing special) Exile Island: Tina (Strong player), Melinda (Out-of-shape), Misty (Nothing special), Ruth Marie (Oldest woman in the game) Cook Islands: Sekou (Strong player), Billy (Physical liability), Cecilia (Nothing special), JP (Strong player) Fiji: Jessica (Nothing special), Erika (Nothing special), Sylvia (Weak and old), Liliana (Strong player) China: Chicken (Nothing special), Ashley (Sick early on, but a strong player), Leslie (Weak older woman), Dave (Nothing special) Micronesia: Jon (Weak and injured quitter), Mary (Nothing special), Yau-Man (Nothing special), Mikey (Strong player) First off, that's 64 players in total. Of those 64, only 15 could really be considered strong players that shouldn't have been voted out. That's less than one fourth. Interesting to note is what happened to the tribes that booted those fifteen players. Ogakor booted Kel and went on a three-round losing streak for immunity. Maraamu booted Peter and Hunter and they never won a single challenge. Chuay Ghan booted John and took four episodes before they were able to come back. Sook Jai booted Jed and wound up blowing a massive numbers advantage. Drake booted Burton and didn't win a single immunity challenge from that point on. Mogo Mogo booted Richard and didn't win a single immunity challenge from that point on. Ulong booted Jolanda and Jeff and never won a single immunity challenge at all. Tina was an exception as her original tribe was dissolved shortly after she was booted, but without her, Casaya never would've won any challenges. Hiki booted Sekou and almost lost the next immunity to a team that was throwing it. Raro booted JP and down the line, they got owned by Aitu. Fiji is another exception, as the haves/have-nots twist basically meant the haves would always win (and they did, aside from one challenge). Zhan Hu booted Ashley and to a lesser extent, Chicken, and got owned. Mikey is the third exception, given that a swap happened just after he was booted. So basically, the way the game is set up now, it's smarter to keep the stronger players until the merge and boot the weaker players early on. Just because someone like Courtney or Chet made it past the first four boots doesn't mean that's how the game always works. You're just being a troll by ignoring large chunks of Survivor history AND ignoring intelligent arguments that prove you wrong. Under the current system, the "strong" as you put it, are beneficial to the weak to keep around, and the only reason a strong player may be voted off under this system is in the event that they cause conflict in the tribe, or they simply don't bother forming bonds with people. Under your system, there are absolutely no benefits to keeping the strong in the game, since the strong to nothing to help out the weak. Thus, if a "strong" player happens to have the misfortune of falling into the "weak" group, then it's a no-brainer that the strong player will be voted out. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Unless you give a good reason as to why the strong would NOT be voted out upon losing a challenge under your system (aside from changing the rules to make it even less fair), then you have absolutely no rational argument. |
|||
Dan Down Under |
|||
ArtieeLange wrote:I hate Joel, but calling him "weak" while calling Mary a "threat" really emphasises how retarded you are. |
|||
SucksSucks |
|||
Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Anyone actually read through all this? |
|||
pinoyako |
|||
|
Of course I would read it. Don't you know KittyPryde?
|
|||
oh ehm gee |
|||
|
I did, and it's a fairly well-reasoned argument that he probably won't pay attention to.
Srsly? "Survivor" is an ambiguous term; whether it means surviving the elements, surviving your tribemates or surviving until the end depends on the person watching. As I said before, Survivor is not a fucking scholarship; it's sole purpose isn't to give people cash for hanging out on some hole for 39 days. It. Is. A. Show. For. Entertainment. Sure people bitch, but that's always going to happen; there really hasn't been a universally loved winner. If viewers had enough of it, then the ratings would've dropped a lot more than what they had (the decay that I've twice explained as not simply black and white), so please do not presume that you represent the average viewer since A) you troll a message board, which means you're a lot more invested in the show and B) look at the responses to the thread. But just out of clarification, which dimwits/bimbos/losers actually won Survivor? If you're referencing Jenna/Amber/Parv, that's something to take to LTS AND NOT HERE. In conclusion, this plan is gay and retarded, just like you. The fact that you assume that detractors are just stupid shows that you don't care nearly enough about the audience of the show to even consider pitching ideas just so that you can actually watch the show because you like it*. Jackass. * rather than to make fun of their stupidity on Sucks, which I've found to be the more enjoyable experience |
|||
m0t0 maj1 |
|||
m0t0 maj1 wrote:I'm still waiting for my answer to this scenario. And for you to boardcide. |
|||
mattg591971 |
|||
victalac wrote: Thanks. It would definitely be interesting to see who takes the bait and how that affects the end game. |
|||
Quiddity |
|||
Anyone actually read through all this? I did! KP was spot on in all aspects, as usual. As for Artie, I think there's little doubt that he'll act like KP never posted it. Boardicide already you turd! |
|||
phoenixtobootcamp |
|||
|
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 |
|||
SFC wrote:Yeah, which makes throwing challenges much, much less risky. SFC wrote: 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 |
|||
ArtieeLange wrote: 1. LOL? You fucking kidding me aren't you?
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 |
|||
RageBot wrote: Are you retarded? RageBot wrote: Are you retarded? 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 |
|||
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. 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 |
|||
|
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 |
|||
|
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?
|
|||