|
holy poo poo
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Tony didn't dominate anything. He ended up in a good alliance. That's it. He made one single move to vote someone out, and it wasn't even a good one. He simply did it because he fell into the usual "I heard my name come up from you, so now I must be bull-headed and vote you out." which almost lost his trust with Sarah. He wasn't voted against because he wasn't a threat to anyone. He was the jester, not the player. He made a single good call about Natalie possibly having an idol and it was the only time anything he brought up made any sense and was right about. He was blown off because, again, no one took him seriously of felt he was a legitimate player. 90% of Tony was his alliance. this might be the most absurd take i've ever seen in a survivor thread and that's saying something
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Tony didn't dominate anything. He ended up in a good alliance. That's it. He made one single move to vote someone out, and it wasn't even a good one. He simply did it because he fell into the usual "I heard my name come up from you, so now I must be bull-headed and vote you out." which almost lost his trust with Sarah. He wasn't voted against because he wasn't a threat to anyone. He was the jester, not the player. He made a single good call about Natalie possibly having an idol and it was the only time anything he brought up made any sense and was right about. He was blown off because, again, no one took him seriously of felt he was a legitimate player. 90% of Tony was his alliance. source you're quotes
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Tony didn't dominate anything. He ended up in a good alliance. That's it. The Sophie move was huge because Sophie had a lot of social power and wasn't part of Tony's inner circle, and she could have controlled the numbers to take him out down the line. He struck first and then successfully kept Sarah on his side. He perfectly used Jeremy as a shield until it was time to cut him loose. Let's also not forget the Kim move. An actual challenger emerged that was trying to rally people against Tony, and he flipped multiple people at Tribal and knocked her out. If you value Nataile's physical game on the Edge then you also have to value Tony's multiple immunity wins. While I can see a glimmer of argument in your perspective, it's really alien to I think most Survivor watchers/players.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
I cooked my lunch on these hot takes.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
I don't think Natalie's EoE experiences don't count or anything like that, but she needed the perfect thing to really cap it off to convince a lot of the Jury (In this case taking out Tony somehow, who Natalie herself told people was the frontrunner to win) and just couldn't pull it off. Tony said on RHAP that he had even heard that Rob had been giving everyone on EoE firemaking lessons to win the F4 challenge (Take this with a grain of salt of course), so its perhaps not too surprising that Rob was disappointed to see Nat just sit it out like that. Raxivace fucked around with this message at 18:41 on May 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
chris really did set that bar quite high on how to play as an edge returnee
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
These takes are no spicier than people who now claim Sarah is the second best of all time.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Tony didn't dominate anything. He ended up in a good alliance. That's it. He made one single move to vote someone out, and it wasn't even a good one. He simply did it because he fell into the usual "I heard my name come up from you, so now I must be bull-headed and vote you out." which almost lost his trust with Sarah. He wasn't voted against because he wasn't a threat to anyone. He was the jester, not the player. He made a single good call about Natalie possibly having an idol and it was the only time anything he brought up made any sense and was right about. He was blown off because, again, no one took him seriously of felt he was a legitimate player. 90% of Tony was his alliance. This is a really good troll post. It's not possible for someone to actually believe all this nonsense. A player built up a solid alliance, kept it running through the end game, making moves only when they needed too? Sounds like a good deserving winner...
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
I would have enjoyed a Natalie win but I don't think she got robbed. I think most Survivor/Big Brother fans see it as a giant cop out but I genuinely believe the #1 point of the game is convince that jury to vote for you so it doesn't matter to me that Tony did my scheming and Nat did more challenges. The one that convinced the jury to reward them "deserves" the win and Natalie had plenty of opportunity to convince the jury and didn't. Maybe one decision or gust of wind would have changed that but it is what it is. Survivor winners always get a little lucky here or there. But I also think making this about elevating Chris' game is a terrible mistake. First of all, Chris' jury wasn't Nat's jury. Different players interpret things entirely different ways and its entirely possible Nat's game would have worked with his jury and his game wouldn't have worked with Nat's. But it ignores the obvious case of Chris eliminating his biggest threat. The idea would have more legs if Nat had successfully eliminated Tony and lost to Sarah, or if Sarah had eliminated Tony in the fire challenge and won. But Nat losing to Tony feels more like the "What If?" if Chris had taken immunity at F4 and Devins had won the fire making challenge. It reinforces that Chris needed that firemaking vanquish of Devins to win but we always knew that. Drawing more than that feels wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:But Nat losing to Tony feels more like the "What If?" if Chris had taken immunity at F4 and Devins had won the fire making challenge. It reinforces that Chris needed that firemaking vanquish of Devins to win but we always knew that. And we knew that Nat had to do the same thing to have a chance, and she didn't. That's why it elevates Chris's win. Because he identified exactly what he had to do to have the best chance of winning and took it into his own hands to do it instead of playing it safe like Nat did. He's still not a good winner but the conclusions people are drawing from his success and Natalie's failure isn't wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:And we knew that Nat had to do the same thing to have a chance, and she didn't. That's why it elevates Chris's win. Because he identified exactly what he had to do to have the best chance of winning and took it into his own hands to do it instead of playing it safe like Nat did. Only if you assume she would have lost to Sarah. Which its fine if you do, but I don't and I don't think there's any clear evidence of that. She had 3 plays. 1) The one she did, hope Sarah beats Tony but eliminate a threat either way. 2) Hope Michelle beats Tony and it doesn't elevate her enough to become a threat. 3) Risk her game trying to beat Tony. People who are high on Chris' move and low on EoE feel she should have chosen #3. I get that. Rob's comment and the vote gave support to that. But there's other ways that could have played out and we'll probably never know those results. Chris needed to take out Devin himself in the firemaking challenges. Did Nat need to do the same for Tony or it would have been enough for someone else to do it? Either way it pans out the same that Nat failed to do what she needed to do and Chris pulled it off. But equating the moves, seasons, jury, or game situations feels to me completely wrong about the nature of this game. And underselling Tony's game which I think was stronger than Devins'. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 21:37 on May 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Rob upset she didn't make fire against Tony is ridiculous. She won the immunity so that she didn't have to. Now tell me the jury voted wrong. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Tony didn't dominate anything. He ended up in a good alliance. That's it. He made one single move to vote someone out, and it wasn't even a good one. He simply did it because he fell into the usual "I heard my name come up from you, so now I must be bull-headed and vote you out." which almost lost his trust with Sarah. He wasn't voted against because he wasn't a threat to anyone. He was the jester, not the player. He made a single good call about Natalie possibly having an idol and it was the only time anything he brought up made any sense and was right about. He was blown off because, again, no one took him seriously of felt he was a legitimate player. 90% of Tony was his alliance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
1) Tony was better than Devens although I’m unsure if the juries saw it that way. 2) Sarah and maybe Michele for that matter were better than Gavin and Julie. 3) Nat knew who the #1 threat was, and unlike Chris, didn’t take him out. 4) Chris had a round without his own immunity and played Lauren into giving him her idol. 5) Chris got Devens to give him back an idol half (as opposed to coming back into the game with a functioning idol). 6) Nat turned a section of EOE against her and possibly lost their votes. Chris really did play an absolutely outstanding game when he got back from the Edge, we just didn’t know who he was and it was stupidly late in the game, and the jury armed him up with intel. Natalie despite doing less than Chris still got 4 votes up against one of the best games of all time. EoE is really bad the way they’ve been doing it and I’m very glad it’s gone.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I would have enjoyed a Natalie win but I don't think she got robbed. I think most Survivor/Big Brother fans see it as a giant cop out but I genuinely believe the #1 point of the game is convince that jury to vote for you so it doesn't matter to me that Tony did my scheming and Nat did more challenges. The one that convinced the jury to reward them "deserves" the win and Natalie had plenty of opportunity to convince the jury and didn't. Maybe one decision or gust of wind would have changed that but it is what it is. Survivor winners always get a little lucky here or there. Yep. Both Tony and Nat played at the top of the difficult (sub) game they were given. Can't blame Nat for the game she got (EOE) or that she won it...it was a hella achievement. That Nat failed at the overall social game and lost the jury vote is on her, though in theory that last bit should have been an easier task*. I would have been happy if she'd have won. Pretty sure EOE should go far away in the future, but maybe an island trading "economy" might be a fun addition for the future. *Though hanging around EOE for a month together sans schedule may have been social hell for all of them. Which, now that I think about it, a "winner" could have overcome. Conclusions: flip a coin for the winner, but don't blame either of them for playing the game they were given, imo.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
What they should do with EoE is just make it a 'losers' bracket. They could continue to do the stuff they did this season with challenges/fire tokens, but instead of letting the player back into the game, they could play a final challenge for a bonus prize equal to say second place money. I feel like players should only have one chance at the final prize and if they get voted out, they lose that chance and that's why I don't like EoE. If they do want to force a player to return into the game, then it should be probably be more like the redemption island stuff from the past where the player has to compete in a game every single time someone else is voted out and the winner stays on the island. edit - Like I feel like the main reason they started EoE is just to allow the producers favorites to get a little bit more screen time in the event that they get voted out early as well as the chance for those favorite players to get back into the game. The first version was so obviously set up to let Joe back into the game and then he got out-Joe'd. TMMadman fucked around with this message at 00:14 on May 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
If anything the stuff we heard about EoE makes it sound like there was some "game" there with some players saying Nat was distancing herself and her saying she was doing it for strategic reasons. Who knows since we're only getting bits and pieces of information from unreliable narrators but there's probably some game being played on EoE from the players like Natalie who are seriously looking at going back. Even stuff we did see like Nat buying Tyson an idol or Rob lying about the tokens he found are all "game" stuff. Nat did seem like she was more "in the game" than someone like Amber and she says she gave the idol to Tyson and not Jeremy because Jeremy seemed "out of the game". So its all probably a lot more complicated and nuanced than we know and the "sat out the game" people say. But again, it all comes down to 2 things. Getting to the end and convincing the Jury. Nat did one, she failed on the other. Tony pulled off both. That's how one "deserves" to win.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Oh just my general hangup about EoE that I will never get over. Vic got screwed over more than anyone by the Edge and I think she's the likeliest winner of the season if the edge had ended with Rick's return that season. If Chris doesn't come back, then at F5, Julie wins immunity, Lauren and Rick have idols, and it's the last Tribal they can be played. The only options are Gavin and Victoria, and Victoria is far more likely to go home; Lauren had a working relationship with Gavin so she likely breaks the tie if there even was one. If they used the F5 immunity challenge instead, then Rick wins immunity, Lauren has an idol, and let's say Rick plays his idol on Gavin like what actually happened. The only options are Julie and Victoria, and since everyone wanted Julie as a goat, Victoria goes home. She was drawing dead once Aurora got eliminated.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
I wonder if the same people arguing about this jury's voting decisions were on the same or opposite side of the same argument from ten years ago when it pertained to Russell?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
Otteration posted:Yep. Both Tony and Nat played at the top of the difficult (sub) game they were given. Can't blame Nat for the game she got (EOE)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:I wonder if the same people arguing about this jury's voting decisions were on the same or opposite side of the same argument from ten years ago when it pertained to Russell? I'm now fully convinced Russell should have won his first season, just so we could see him get absolutely destroyed this season.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
Anyone watched survivor South Africa or NZ? I need something to distract me right now and survivor seems to hit the spot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
Dugong posted:Anyone watched survivor South Africa or NZ? I need something to distract me right now and survivor seems to hit the spot. Season 2 of NZ is by all reports great and worth going out of your way for, but the show got canceled so that's it for that one.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
Final fire has broken the game, but in a good way. I can't imagine a season without it now.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
Final Four Fire, Edge, Redemption Island. All ideas trying to preserve a very specific type or player. We’re in the longest streak of male winners ever in the show’s run.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
Everybody should be able to make fire after 35+ days. Should know how before even going out there.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
The Fire Challenge defender has logged on.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Never said I liked it but ok. Firemaking challenges have been part of the show for over a decade so everybody should be prepared for it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
Zesty posted:Final Four Fire, Edge, Redemption Island. All ideas trying to preserve a very specific type or player. Late-game idol reintroduction too I think both the fire challenge and the planting of another HII at F5 played out in a pretty compelling fashion this season and they're still both dumb as poo poo; let people play the game at the end.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
I just barely understand going on survivor with no swimming ability or having to hold your nose to jump in water ANYONE can practice fire making
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
It's funny because the quality of the winner didn't do all that much to color my impression of a season early on in Survivor. Only two people can make it to the end, threatening people are inherently gonna get cut if they don't play a masterful game. But the more game mechanics they've introduced to create a path for a "deserving" winner, the more frequently I've been turned off by someone who gets to the end on the back of a bunch of gimmicks
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
I don't know that fire making favors any one player over another and at this stage the fire making challenge has been around long enough that honestly, yeah, not knowing how to start a fire is as much of a failure of preparation as anything else. But again, its not as robotic as the better fire maker winning. Tony seemed less prepared than any of the women in the F4 but Sarah just got beat. Realistically fans who want the game to be "purer" are just always going to be at war with Survivor because production just cares about what makes the best show. And all these late stage changes and tinkering obviously are all done in the name of avoiding that thing where Tony goes into Final 5 in total control with an idol and the finale is boring and inevitable. And like, sometimes it works because that was a really fun finale seeing Natalie and Michele rage against the dying of the light even if it probably didn't change anything.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
also they can't name seasons after locations anymore, so...
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
I’d be more ok with these changes if they actually canned the ones that didn’t work. The two tribe to three tribe swap was exciting and surprising the first time but I don’t think it’s doing anything now. I don’t want a redo of Borneo but trying a season with no swaps or a season with no idols would catch players out more than some crazy advantage at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
I think the tribe swaps are actually probably the most effective and justifiable case of tinkering. It keeps the early part of the game fluid and creates a lot of mini relationships, alliances, and rivalries. I think its actually pretty crucial and effective to the game largely eradicating "pagongings."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I think the tribe swaps are actually probably the most effective and justifiable case of tinkering. It keeps the early part of the game fluid and creates a lot of mini relationships, alliances, and rivalries. I think its actually pretty crucial and effective to the game largely eradicating "pagongings." Yeah, pagongings feel like they're kind of a thing of the past? I don't know how much of that is swaps and how much is just newer players having some cognizance about their standing within their own "old tribe" and knowing they'll go once the other tribe is gone, which makes them more likely to "flip". I'm also basing this on a gut feeling of the last ~5 seasons so idk if the data backs it up
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
I think part of its definitely just the evolved game where there's always someone looking to shake things up or get out from the bottom or undermine their buddy before they can undermine them. But I think we're seeing in recent years that "alliances" are largely a thing of the past and its all about pairings of 2 or 3 coming together in convenient voting blocks for the moment. And I think a lot of that is owed to the constant shaking up of the tribes. It keeps those large dominant tribes or alliances from building up trust and comfort with each other, it delays rivalries and battles that would have been dealt with if they hadn't been separated earlier, and it opens up more relationships so there's a greater chance of working with someone who you have a past and a relationship with than someone you just met at the merge. Like, to have a "pagonging" you need a solid, battle tested group of 5-8 players who are comfortable enough with each other they're not going to buck, and the odds of getting that after multiple swaps just goes down a lot. We saw that this season where people kept trying to nail down "the alliance" or "the majority" when the truth is there just wasn't one. It was free moving based on players' immediate concerns. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 23:56 on May 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Like, to have a "pagonging" you need a solid, battle tested group of 5-8 players who are comfortable enough with each other they're not going to buck, and the odds of getting that after multiple swaps just goes down a lot. We saw that this season where people kept trying to nail down "the alliance" or "the majority" when the truth is there just wasn't one. It was free moving based on players' immediate concerns. It's why the Tony/Sarah/Ben group was so powerful over the course of the season. The three of them knew they wouldn't vote against each other, but they were free to work with other people to get out whomever. Sarah was working with Sophie until Tony used Jeremy/Nick to blindside her.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 00:41
|
|