|
Max posted:Probably "X Drew a rock." But there is no way in my mind that people's loyalties would be that solid pre-merge to force a rock draw. I could see it if there is a tribe swap before the merge and both sides are 3-3 or 4-4.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
Just finished Kaoh Rong. Weakest of the three won, but that season still gave us "I'm not playing the idol." and old man FBI leisurely winning a challenge, so I'm fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
I think a lot of people would say fun season, weak winner. To her credit, Michele spent about two hours on Rob's podcast machine, and to hear her tell it sounds almost Parvati-like and respectable. The editors just never sold that to us, so who knows?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:I think a lot of people would say fun season, weak winner. To her credit, Michele spent about two hours on Rob's podcast machine, and to hear her tell it sounds almost Parvati-like and respectable. The editors just never sold that to us, so who knows? Post merge, she was the only one I didn't know the name of until like, the final 7. I almost had no idea she existed until then, but the show was basically Tai/Jason/Scot/Debbie up until then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Either the editors sucked or she just wasn't an interesting character but was a good player.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Max posted:Either the editors sucked or she just wasn't an interesting character but was a good player. Or Survivor has a extremely high degree of chance where players of low skill can occasionally win, and the better players can be felled by something they had no way to forsee or counter (bad initial tribe situations, unlucky swaps, random people deciding to get rid of them because of a "feeling", chance immunity outcomes). Because as much as I love Survivor, the game mechanics don't push the best to succeed. One of the biggest sources of randomness in the game is the pressure on players to "not be a threat". One can make the argument that being a threat while not appearing to be one is a key skill to winning the game, but more often than not it involves the ultimate winner making a bunch of accidental missteps that mean they aren't the biggest target at any given time. A big reason Adam was able to win last season was that he lucked into loving up at just the right time, with the jar thing and generally getting on peoples nerves (but not to the point that they booted him for it), hiding him among players who hadn't hosed up as much and were thus "bigger targets". Otherwise great players can not have the fortune of accidentally loving up at the right time, and get targeted as threats. If you don't ever piss people off, you're a "social threat". Which people don't really take seriously (though they should). But if a "social threat" who hasn't pissed anyone off does, like, anything that is seen as a "move", they'll instantly become targeted as a big threat. So it's totally possible that Michele lucked into winning, despite not being good at Survivor. It really depends on how conscious she was of how others would be perceived; if it's clear that everyone hates everyone, sitting back and floating into the final because "everyone can beat you" when in reality the hatred everyone has means that any game players won't win, well then it's a valid strategy. As Sandra has demonstrated twice. Someone who understands this can win, even if they don't grasp the wider strategic concepts of Survivor. Mildly goating yourself has always been the optimal strategy in Survivor because you can get other people to want to take you to the end which eliminates so much of the effects of the randomness, which means pretty good money (since Survivor pays its high place finishers pretty well), and a chance of actually winning the thing after all if all the game players actually hosed up just a bit too much (resulting in everyone hating them, and giving you, the goat, the money). Every other strategy involves, at some point in the game, leaving things up to chance (because otherwise you're playing too hard), and things can go either way. Arcanen fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Bolivar posted:and I really would prefer to spend my free time doing something other than watching Cirie year after year. Bolivar posted:Ok now the whole scene with "I'm off to find an idol, WOOWOOWOOWOO" sounds funnier Your hot takes are awful -You talk like Ciera has ruined previous seasons, how exactly did she do that? -Cirie hasn't played in 14 seasons -Please tell me you were joking that you can't tell Ozzy and Malcolm apart?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 05:24
|
|
I was happy to see Ciera gone right away before she can ruin the season, but Tony could have stayed a bit longer for sure...
|
I think part of it is also that 'passive' winners are generally looked down upon - also see Natalie from Samoa, where the best thing she did was make friends with people and Not Be Russell. Michele had more of an active role, since she actually did win a couple key immunities and wisely took out Neal (though the move was overall unneeded), but people don't view her in the same light as someone like Sandra, despite the latter following the 'hey just give me a name, I don't care as long as it's not me' strategy. Honestly I don't mind Michele as a winner (plus bonus points that she actually used the word 'malarkey'). It's really Scot and Jason that soured the whole thing for me. The last stretch was actually alright. Meanwhile I've actually cooled off on Millenials versus Gen X; it's a good season devoid of ugliness, but on reflection there are way too many weak players post-merge. I don't have that high of an opinion of most of them other than David, Jay and Ken; Zeke/Adam/Hannah got way too gamey for my liking, and Sunday/Bret/Chris/Will were just kind of... there. Say what you like about Ken's social game, but his strategy would actually have been good ten or so seasons ago - win challenges, show loyalty to one to two people. He just wasn't outgoing or endearing enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
i guess i'd have to watch it again with the knowledge of how it plays out but i'd probably rank MvG as one of my favorites. top 5 at least. there were actually numerous people in the post merge cast that i'd have been quite happy with as a winner (the eventual winner being one of them), which is a considerable improvement over only really rooting for one or two. and david definitely became one of my favorite players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
I'm actually a big Natalie White defender. She did what she had to do to win her season, and she certainly did things. The one thing I can definitely credit to Michele's game is her maneuverability. She got shaken around a fair bit and managed to find a foothold, and win when she needed to. She actually reminds me of Danni from Guatemala.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Max posted:Either the editors sucked or she just wasn't an interesting character but was a good player. She had a Reddit AMA recently, and said she wished she'd known to play more to the cameras, especially in confessionals. I'm convinced it was the latter, and my ire is reserved mostly for the producers, editors, and maybe a little for Debbie for being a lunatic. I think there was a similar thing, except to the max, going on with Wiglesworth in Cambodia. She gave them nothing to work with, but apparently she was really well-liked, and there were good reasons she was targeted. Low drama social players aren't impossible to film, but the camera crew out there is almost all men. I figure, if they had more women, and also more female editors, they'd have less of a problem. Spatula City fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Am I the only one happy to have Aubrey back? Really love her gameplay and think she was definitely shafted by a pissy jury.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:She had a Reddit AMA recently, and said she wished she'd known to play more to the cameras, especially in confessionals. I'm convinced it was the latter, and my ire is reserved mostly for the producers, editors, and maybe a little for Debbie for being a lunatic. The editing in Cambodia was pretty poor. Way too much time spent on Spencer for starters, and then lots of characters were invisible, even people who made it to the top 6 like Kimmi and Tasha. They do get points for roasting Fishbach at every opportunity. Narcissus1916 posted:Am I the only one happy to have Aubrey back? Really love her gameplay and think she was definitely shafted by a pissy jury. Nobody would have complained if Aubry won, but I don't think she got shafted. One thing to keep in mind is that the viewers see things the contestants don't, and vice versa. Maybe Aubry pissed off people more than we thought, or they didn't see some of the moves we did. Jury management IS a crucial part of the game. It's like how people would grill some contestants, like Denise from Philippines, for condescending attitudes (which we might not even see). Both Aubry and Michele had a good path to the end, but Michele had a better read of the room. Kind of like how the whole jury figured Hannah was a slam dunk to sit against last season, even though a lot of us saw some good moves she made. Or how the jury didn't see a lot of Wentworth's moves in Cambodia til they actually watched the season. Some juries will respect big moves, some respect social game. You have to be able to pander to either if you want to be an adaptable winner. You're the one putting them there, after all. ApplesandOranges fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Michele is just completely average. She's not bad, not exceptional. She's a competent game player but not anything revolutionary. I wouldn't say she was undeserving but I also don't think she would've been in any way slighted by not winning. She was there and okay and it is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Some jurors react badly and vote badly but most of the time you know its going to happen a mile away and the finalist really deserves some blame for not doing a better job avoiding it. The best players are always the ones who do the extra work to make sure that some jury member they screwed over doesn't go into the jury bitter. The ones who lose and whine about being screwed by a bitter jury are often the ones who kicked the jurors on the way out the door.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Some jurors react badly and vote badly but most of the time you know its going to happen a mile away and the finalist really deserves some blame for not doing a better job avoiding it. Yeah, basically this. The only 2nd place person I can think of who can really make an argument that the jury was bitter and it was out of their hands to control that was Neleh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Yeah I don't mean the game was rigged or anything. My complaint stems mainly from the editing, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
garthoneeye posted:Yeah, basically this. The only 2nd place person I can think of who can really make an argument that the jury was bitter and it was out of their hands to control that was Neleh. Well, I do think the jury treated Twila really, really unfairly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Well, I do think the jury treated Twila really, really unfairly. I forgot about Twila, you're right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
I'd support that if it wasn't for the fact Twila went completely scorched earth in that final tribal council. If they treated her like poo poo and she had some compelling rebuttals that justified her actions the jury would look a lot more jerky and bitter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Twila going scorched earth was partially from Chris' influence though. He conned her into calling people out by saying he would take any poo poo and that she shouldn't either. He then did the complete opposite, kissed everyone's rear end, and won. Twila might have been hated enough that Chris was going to win anyways but he played the social game he was dealt perfectly while still getting just lucky enough. It really is one of the most amazing post merge results in the history of the show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
I think someone like Aubry was screwed by the jury much more than Russell. With Russell, we saw him blatantly antagonize multiple jury members, constantly being goaded into picking fights with others, and generally annoying everyone for no good reason especially in the last few days. It made sense that the jury didn't want to reward that. But with Aubry, the jury vote is much harder to understand. We never saw Aubry antagonize anyone, and multiple jurors were constantly saying how much they liked and respected Aubry (including Scot, Jason, and Debbie, who all ended up voting Michele over Aubry). I guess maybe the edit just didn't capture what Aubry did, but even in post-game interviews no one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain why Aubry lost and some (most notably Jason) even seemed to indicate some regret for their vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
mancalamania posted:I think someone like Aubry was screwed by the jury much more than Russell. With Russell, we saw him blatantly antagonize multiple jury members, constantly being goaded into picking fights with others, and generally annoying everyone for no good reason especially in the last few days. It made sense that the jury didn't want to reward that. Honestly, I think the jury just liked Michelle more. It's one of those things that is unsatisfying to strategy minded viewers, but a lot of people when required to give someone a million dollars are just going to go with personal friendliness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:I'm actually a big Natalie White defender. She did what she had to do to win her season, and she certainly did things. Yeah, Natalie is a much better winner than Michele because getting to the end next to Russell is a much better strategy for winning than getting to the end next to Aubry Sophie from Samoa has been a big critic of the increased emphasis on "resume building" that has led to more chaotic seasons recently, and I definitely agree with her from a gameplay standpoint. Sometimes you only need to make one or two moves to put yourself in the best position to win. That's better gameplay than mucking poo poo up just to Do Something and hoping you come out unscathed in the end
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
I also think Natalie can point to the first vote after the merge as one in which she had major influence on its outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:I'm actually a big Natalie White defender. She did what she had to do to win her season, and she certainly did things. Yeah she was pretty much the "#2" of the Foa Foa Four and had plenty of input in strategy while keeping her hands clean, worked her rear end off in challenges, and was liked by everyone
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
The other thing with Russell is that you may have a great strategy, but when a player like that is around most of that goes out the window and the very clear winning move at that point is "Sit next to him at the end." You can pretty much coast the rest of the game and stay off his radar enough and you'll get the Million. Like, when it became clear they couldn't get rid of him in HvV, I'm sure everyone instead tried to find ways to convince Russell to keep them around. Sandra just did the best job of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Yeah, it goes back to the reality that a lot of Survivor is about luck and adaption. If you go into things with some grand plan then its probably going to get screwed up by the tribe, a twist, a challenge, or the rain. Its why so many gamebots and super fans self destruct because they can't get out of their own heads and how they think the game is "supposed" to go. You've got to move with the game and adjust to the things that get thrown at you, and sometimes that means just laying back and letting others take the hits. The rub for us as viewers is that if the editors don't show those players actively voicing that strategy than a lot of the time it can come off as passive and floating. But its hard for us to know if it was there and we didn't see it or if they really were "just floaters".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Hatch actually said as much during his recent AMA. He said that a majority of players still don't really play strategically, in that they aren't flexible with what's going on, and do exactly what you said. They just self-destruct when their plan is clearly not going to work out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Yeah, I think its become a really noticeable thing with the way that the show has made "super fans" a consistent casting each season. You get a lot of people who really think they "know the game" because of how much they've watched and grasp the strategic moves. But a lot of them miss the simpler social moves and need to "play the hand you're dealt" and it tends to blow up spectacularly and/or get foreshadowed by the player being overconfident/smug going in. Its why we sometimes see some recruits catch on better because they grasp the social aspects quickly and can move with the game better without any preconceptions of how the game works, even if they have no idea how idols works or who Parvati is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Basically we need more Matts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
ApplesandOranges posted:Both Aubry and Michele had a good path to the end, but Michele had a better read of the room. Kind of like how the whole jury figured Hannah was a slam dunk to sit against last season, even though a lot of us saw some good moves she made. Or how the jury didn't see a lot of Wentworth's moves in Cambodia til they actually watched the season. garthoneeye posted:Honestly, I think the jury just liked Michelle more. It's one of those things that is unsatisfying to strategy minded viewers, but a lot of people when required to give someone a million dollars are just going to go with personal friendliness. So sometimes it's just the path the game takes, this situation necessitates this move which necessitates that move which means that this type of juror isn't going to vote for you. And those voters aren't necessarily "wrong" but you didn't necessarily do anything wrong either, other than not having been in a totally different game situation. Other jurors in Scot and Jason or Debbie's position might have stopped and decided well Aubry was the better player and voted Aubry, but sometimes people won't too... what can ya do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
It's also why I appreciated Brett's play in the past season. He at least had the intuition to recognize he couldn't just walk back to camp and do that thing where he gets really huffy and refuses to engage with people. It didn't work for him in the end but I bet if Brett blew up after Chris was voted out he would have been out a lot sooner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Hate to interrupt, but I can't find a Big Brother thread that's working. Anyone know of a way to watch BBCAN5 in the US that isn't :files:?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Previously on... Survivor
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
#DropYourBuffs
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Man third tribe gets hosed bad. At least last time they got an extra person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I missed everything before JT idol digging and "JT is screwed." Anything important happen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I missed everything before JT idol digging and "JT is screwed." Anything important happen? Swapped into three tribes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
Lone Goat posted:Swapped into three tribes. drat now I am going to be confused as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:15
|
|