Yuku free message boards

ArtieeLange wrote:

---

The best reality game shows are... Real World vs Road Rules...

ArtieeLange wrote:

---

The idea of allowing two players to compete against eachother before being voted off is why Bunim/Murray will always be Mark Burnetts daddy.

ArtieeLange wrote:

---

they offer a solution which guarantees that no one gets voted out unless they deserve it

___________________________________________________

In the current system, it is often the weakest players who get immunity, not by earning it but only because on episode one, during artificial team selections they were lucky enough to land on team of players good enough to win.  The current system fails because it rewards the weak and punishes the strong through the good luck or bad luck of this initial team selection, which determines the outcome of the entire game. If you were to do-over the initial "rock paper scissors" and "schoolyard picks" of episode one, the winners change, because those who make it to the finals change, because those that get voted off change, because those that go to tribal change, because alliances change and challenge results change, all because the teams change.  This determines the game and where the players rank, not outwit, not outplay, not outlast. Just who is forced onto which team on episode one.

1) The current system allows weak players to "coast" on the backs of stronger players, not by doing anything at challenges, and not by doing any strategizing. Just because of the team they were put on. These weak players are protected by being on a stronger team.

Kitty Pryde1 wrote:

---

Current System:
Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe

2) The current system allows strong players to get voted off or to struggle in a loser camp, based not on their own skills but simple bad luck of being on a weak team. Strong players on weaker teams are likewise vulnerable targets because they were unlucky enough to have been put on those teams.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:

---

Pre selected tribes do give disadvantages to certain players

This flaw with the current system is that the players are positioned by luck, instead of by their own merit. We never learn what they are capable of until post-merge, and by then only the lucky ones remain, as do their artifically influenced alliances.

Kitty Pryde1 wrote:

---

you have no way of knowing whether or not she benefited from team selection

Precisely, it is impossible to say who is a strong or weak player in the current system, because they are untested.

When the term "weak" is used, it refers to a player in the current system who does nothing for their team in challenges, and does nothing at all for theirself with alliances, and may still manage to remain safe in the game by being advantaged. How are they advantaged? On episode one they were artificially selected to land on a team with players whose performances are good enough to win their team challenges, thus they avoid tribal. Worse, they even remain advantaged once the merge starts since they have a larger alliance of team-members remaining.

When the term "strong" is used, it refers to a player in the current system who does everything for their team in challenges, and does everything possible for theirself with alliances, and may still manage to get voted out in the game by being disadvantaged. How are they disadvantaged? On episode one hey were artificially selected to land on a team with players whose performances are not good enough to win their team challenges, thus they are always at tribal. Worse, they even remain disadvantaged once the merge starts since they have a smaller alliance of team-members remaining.

Not knowing some players, not testing some players, not requiring that some players earn their place of safety and comfort, is the result of the flaws in the current team system. Under my system, and under the current individual segment, you will know all players, test all players, and require that all players earn their immunity, or suffer with vulnerability.

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.

Kitty Pryde1 wrote:

---

you can never guarantee who you're going to end up with in either the winning or losing camp.

Exactly, this not only makes the game less predictable for the players, but also the viewers. The players now have a much more difficult time forming bonds, they can't sit back on their asses. If they fail to win a challenge, a whole new game is on, every episode, more competition, more struggle, less predictable, exponentially more entertaining for the audience.

More effort physically outplaying, more effort psychologically outwitting, more entertaining for the viewers. My system removes luck, levels the playing field and insures that those who advance, do so deservedly, and those who don't, also do so deservedly. The result is everyone gets an equal chance, and weaklings are not in the finals.

No matter what happens under my system, the player who fails to win a challenge will suffer, and the player who fails to win a challenge and social strategy will get voted off, and that player will be responsible for their fate. The player who competes and succeeds, will be rewarded, and will be responsible for their comfort. And every player gets a new chance to succeed at every single challenge.

___________________________________________________

Another reason the current system fails. What the current game does is run a team-based competition at first, and then an individual competition. Since the team-players are AWARE of this, they will not focus on winning as a team. The weak will target the better players to vote off, because they are thinking of the merge and the individual challenge. If the game remained team-based throughout, they would keep their better players. If the game was always an individual based game, the better players would have the chance to save themselves. But having it both ways favors the mobbed up weaklings, and results in a final of weaklings, which you have in every single season, including this one. It has nothing to do with "outplay, outwit, outlast", it is simply "outluck, outnumber". The improvements: The stronger, smarter performers will advance. There will be no "team giving up" on challenges in order to go to TC and vote someone off. Two, the players won't be able to easily latch onto an alliance and get carried along, as "outwitting" and aligning will require much more effort. There will be more uncertainty, more interactivity, and it is more likely that the best at physical challenges, puzzles, and social strategy will advance. In last season, we had two of the weakest, most pathetic players in the history of game, safe. They were safe because they were used as pawns to vote out stronger players. And then they no longer served that purpose, they simply quit. Outquit is not part of Survivor. Meanwhile the players they were used to vote off wanted to be there, and wanted to compete. That defines a failed system. Again proved  with Susie, and Kelly being saved instead of Jacqui.

And again proved, with NaOnka and Purple Kelly quitting, pathetically, after being used as pawns to vote out more deserving players

___________________________________________________

Another way to increase the competition and thus the entertainment, is to do with Dana White did on his reality show, "The Ultimate Fighter". He was tired of weaklings getting through, only to give up, quit. So instead of selecting 16, they initially select 32, force them to fight, and then they have their final 16.

What Survivor can do is the same, get 32, and give them all one of the FINAL immunity challenges ofthe past seasons.  The weakest 16 drop off, resulting in the final 16 who past the last test and earned the right to play the game.
____________________________________________________