The current system fails because it rewards the weak and penalizes the strong, by introducing luck:
1) The current system allows weak players to float by, by doing absolutely nothing at challenges or at strategizing, just simply being lucky enough to be on a strong team. Weak players are protected by being on stronger teams that they were lucky enough to have been placed on.
The problem 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. Susie remains because of luck, she grazes and gets fatter because of luck, she has done nothing to earn her stay (therefore may be considered "weak").
Matty is where he is by bad luck, he has done everything to earn his stay, constantly working, struggling, starving (therefore may be considered "strong").
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 "teams". Random 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') . 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 "Big Brother". 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 in this season, with Susie, and Kelly being saved instead of Jacqui.
1) The current system allows weak players to float by, by doing absolutely nothing at challenges or at strategizing, just simply being lucky enough to be on a strong team. Weak players are protected by being on stronger teams that they were lucky enough to have been placed on.
Kitty Pryde1 wrote: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.
Current System:
Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe
The problem 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. Susie remains because of luck, she grazes and gets fatter because of luck, she has done nothing to earn her stay (therefore may be considered "weak").
Matty is where he is by bad luck, he has done everything to earn his stay, constantly working, struggling, starving (therefore may be considered "strong").
Kitty Pryde1 wrote:Precisely. 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.
you have no way of knowing whether or not she benefited from team selection
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 "teams". Random 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') . 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 "Big Brother". 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 in this season, with Susie, and Kelly being saved instead of Jacqui.
