Welcome to UAQ With HighCarry: carrying you so high, you reach the top! AKA
Unfrequently Asked Questions with HighSpace and HardCarry!
Emile and I love talking about Survivor gameplay and we also feel like a lot of you may have questions about how we approach different aspects of the game so we decided to create this thread where we answer any questions you may have.
Q1: I don't think it's "smart" to win HoH d1, but it's not stupid either. A lot of people have this idea that winning d1 HoH makes you a huge target, but how often do you see them get booted early game? People want to avoid winning HoH early because they want to be invisible.
I think you should only win HoH if you want to make something happen. Aka, change the dynamics of the game so that it lands you in a much better spot. There is almost always a specific nomset that can achieve the change you're looking for. Try less to think about "who needs to leave" and think more about "how will the players feel about each other once the week is over?" For example, in a 2-sided game, if you were to nominate the 2 strongest players from the other side, are you really changing anything? All you did was reduce their numbers by 1, but the people in the middle are still thriving, and you're not much safer than before. You want to create a nomset that forces the majority of the house to make a difficult decision and potentially reveal their connections or hints of their gameplan.
So yeah, a successful HoH is one where, at the end of it, you're in a splendid position. Deals can help make your position better. However, deals aren't that reliable, the players will tell you what they want to hear to stay safe. What I would rather focus on getting from players are not promises, but information. Get them to spill you information, because that's something you can actually use for later in the game
I think adding the last prejuror is the best solution here.
I can't think of situations that should allow for extensions. It slows down the game and how can you tell a real excuse from a fake? Sometimes, an unusual thing can happen that makes you unable to submit in time. It's part of how things go. Only do an extension if it seems the entire game needs it. For instance, in EMBB2, after we saw that the jury questions would take a long time to answer, we gave the finalists an extra 24 hours to respond.
I would compare watching the show to attending a class. You will learn things, and there may be a few lessons that will stick in your memory. But if you don't study or practice what you've learned, I can't say it'll make you a much better player than if you haven't watched
There's two types of secret alts: the one that poses as a new player, and the one that people suspect is an alt. People play differently around you depending on which alt you are.
I feel like alts are a double-edged sword. You have meta information on everyone, but you also don't have any meta connections, so you're starting from scratch. I have often played with secret alts throughout the years, because sometimes I enjoy playing games without everyone knowing they're playing with HighSpace.
I have no problems with alts, it's up to the players to realize they're playing with an alt, and adjust their strategy accordingly. If your cover is blown, I would say you're now at a disadvantage. Sure, people have no information on you, and that's exactly why you will have trouble navigating through this game. The players will have this natural inclination to distrust you and make assumptions about you that may not be true.
I don't understand? Why would the juror ask the question if they don't want it answered? If you feel like revealing a particular thing about your game is going to lose someone's vote, then ask yourself: is there anything to gain from this? (aka votes from other players).
Agreed with HC. You design a strategy based on what you think is the best course of action after assessing the situation. How can you have a strategy if there's nothing to observe?
I'll use a chess analogy here. Sure, you can have an initial approach, but are you going to stubbornly keep moving the pieces the way you planned it out at the start, regardless of what your opponent is doing?
deletedabout 7 years
Do you think it is smart to win HoH Day 1? When do you think it is an appropriate time to win HoH, if not?
What do you consider to be a well-used HoH? What do you consider to be an unwell-used HoH?
Should you or should you not use your HoH/PoV wins to make deals? This is something I struggle with a lot.
Thanks in advance for the response guys! Love reading your opinions :) keep up the good work
I'd also add that on EM, our f2's are more based in meta where maybe we try to compensate for the acceleration of pace by including past games/outside of game social relationships in our decisions on who we can trust and Final 2.
I guess the point that you're trying to make is: Why make Final 2's if they're purely symbolic and if they don't really mean anything since most players would backstab their final 2 if it was in their best interest?
My counter to that is that most players aren't able to backstab their Final 2. I agree with you on the symbolic aspect. I wish players on EM didn't make their f2's so early and I wish the whole idea of saying "F2" explicitly was omitted because it doesn't really mean anything.
EM: However, I do think it's different on EM. I believe that physically saying the words "final 2" and when you make your final 2 does make a difference on EpicMafia. I feel like because of the acceleration of the pace, you don't have as much time to make genuine connections with people, so the best early indicator of how much a person is willing to work with you may be a Day 1 final 2, especially since you can assume that they probably didn't ask multiple people for a Final 2 Day 1. Making a Final 2 early on EM opens up a lot of doors because you now have somebody who can provide you with information and it's somebody who you can rely on early. Moreover, I do think that because of our community's obsession with early f2s, you risk being a fake final 2 later on. It just seems like Final 2 deals on EM are more "binding" than they are in ORGs.
Finally, I'd like to address your question of why I feel it's important to make Final 2 deals. I guess I should clarify Final 2 deal to mean being the closest ally of somebody else. In that sense, I believe it's essential to have strong social connections with other players in the game and it's integral to my strategy. I would never Final 2 somebody who I didn't talk a lot with or somebody who doesn't have the same goals as me. I feel like there's a perception that I multi f2 a lot for the sake of multi-f2ing and covering my bases, but I almost never do that. I only f2 as more of a symbolic gesture of my trust in our relationship. If I've talked a lot with a person and I believe that I'm their closest ally or if both another player and I need to vote out the same people to get to the end, I have no problems with offering them a Final 2. In ORGs, I would never ever offer a Final 2 early, but on EM, I'm more inclined to do so just because of the acceleration of the game.
Ya, I guess I just misunderstood the "my gameplay is heavily built upon creating F2 deals" part. But ya, that's definitely the way I feel about it in orgs because actions will always speak louder than words. And I've had people talk to me about how they got offered F2's very early in orgs even on day 1 and that has always confused me 'cause I don't understand the reasoning behind trying to make a deal like that so early in the game.
Response to hedger (I couldn't quote it because I kept going over 2000 characters) :
Right, this is actually a really good question, and I'm not sure of the answer myself. Let me split up my thoughts into 2 categories: ORGs and on EM.
ORGs: I think that physically saying the words "Final 2" is not necessary at all and if you do ask/say it, it's purely symbolic. If somebody randomly asked me for a Final 2 when we don't really trust each other, that's not really going to change how I view them and it's not definitely not going to make me trust them more just because they weakly threw out a Final 2 deal and I expect the same if I did the same thing to others. I feel like Final 2 deals have to be backed up by a real, genuine connection and at that point, like you said, you don't even need to physically say the words "Final 2" to solidify it, so I guess a Final 2 deal per se is pretty unnecessary and is just more a symbol of our relationship at that point. I don't think it's important at all to make a Final 2 deal early in ORGs just because the most genuine connections are formed through several weeks of conversation, not 3 minutes into a conversation. In Ganges, I had multiple Final 2s, but that was because I was 3 different people's closest ally and I think even if they hadn't asked to go to the end with me, I would have still trusted their intentions because of their actions and how much we talked.
I think they give an advantage, but it's not as big as you may think it is. New players are more likely to get targeted early and not as many people are going to talk to them in the earlygame so you have to take a lot more initiative to start social conversations. Also, I think being on an alt isn't too big of an advantage for players who don't have a negative reputation.
Overall, I think alts are fine; they're a part of the game and I'm sure that it's interesting to see how games play out without meta attached to you. I do think that most alts beat meta if people can't figure out who you are, but sometimes, you might be bombarded with new meta. For example, now you may be assumed to be a new player so people think you suck at the game or if you're a new player who suddenly destroys everyone in xelfeR, now everyone thinks you're HardCarry even when you may not be.
Uhh..probably?? You need to be able to read your jury and figure out which argument will give you the best chance of winning. Also like figure out which jurors' votes you have a chance of getting and which jurors you don't and be willing to sacrifice answers which maybe the jurors that don't like you are not looking for for answers which jurors that do like you are looking for.
Question in response to Rob's thought about creating F2 deals as part of his strategy.
I guess after playing EM games for so long, F2 deals are just a common part of the game. I know I actually make deals less and less these days than I did a few years back but going into orgs, I just seem to find the idea of an F2 deal to the point of irrelevance.
I guess when you have to play the game over a 2-3 month period, you get the time to actually develop actual relationships with people and the thought of just saying "yeah, I'll take you to the end" doesn't mean that much. Like in SSORG, alice asked me for an F2 at F7 or F8 or something like that but the deal itself felt like it changed absolutely nothing in the game as to whether I could trust her, whether I wanted to change my gameplan based on that and I guess even the same with Tobi, I felt like he trusted me more I suppose than if he had never told me he wanted to go to the end but it never changed my consideration that I wanted to always take Yuujin to the end of the game. And in the latest org or any of my other orgs for that matter, I never felt like at any point I had to go out of my way to say "would you like to F2" because I felt the connection was that genuine that there was no point to actually make it a thing especially not until the very late stages of the game when you've had the most amount of time to consider your end game plan.
I guess my question is why do you think it's important to make F2 deals especially early in a game (or at least that's what I got out of your response, but even if I was mistaken about that, the question still stands about F2's in general). And how much weight do you put towards the F2 deals you make during a game. I'd break an F2 towards the end of a game if I felt like it was in my best interests, and I would expect nearly anyone to do the same in an org when you actually need to consider how you're gonna win at the end to a larger extent than EM games.
how do you think hosts should handle ftc ties? in an f2 situation. for example if a player walks while in jury phase and is not allowed to be a juror due to this (*glares at rob for making blake walk*) should they allow a revote? should they cut off the first juror? or add the last evicted before jury knowing that they wont have much insite into the game? would any of these options even be fair?
~ what do you think about extentions? how lenient should the hosts be? how much of real life has to happen for it to be considered?
~ last one for today hehe do you think watching bb and survivor is neccisary to play orgs and minis either at all or successfully? do you think watching the shows helps or makes the game harder or doesnt affect at all? (#hasntwathchedasingleepisodeandisobsessed)
in ftc i have a theory that i have yet to have had the chance to put in place.
in your jury speech, don't answer questions the jurors don't want answered. only bring up points the jurors care about even if there might be a part of your game that could show you are a good strat or social player in that game but might hurt your chances with a certain juror becasue they don't enjoy to learn that aspect of your game.
do you think this would better one's chances in ftc? wont make a diff or maybe be more detrimentle to your chances of winning?
Yeah, I agree, you should tailor each game to the cast around you, but there are intangibles that will stay from each game. You should probably give a rough outline. So, for example, this was what I put in my app for The Ganges:
"My gameplay is heavily built upon creating personal relationships with the other castaways and creating final two deals. I then can maneuver my way through alliances through my personal bonds with the other castaways while eliminating the people that will present themselves as a threat to my game. In my game, I have been very good at creating paranoia and painting targets on other castaways so that I can be safe. Above all, my connections will not tether me to my allies and I will have no trouble with cutting people who I may consider as my friend if I feel like they can beat me"
I don't really have a set strategy, but I basically said that I was going to be able to play cutthroat if need be.
for the app question, i didn't mean thats what exactly i would put like i definatley would elaborate but rather iwhat i was wondering is your thoughts on the concept that one sholdnt have a set strategy before the game because the cast mmight require a completley diff strat in order for your game to be optimle
You overplay. You also don't spend enough time considering other people's moves and can only see what you want to do which may also be flawed itself.
I'd use an analogy of you being a chess player who plans like 6 moves ahead, but you don't consider your opponent having Checkmate in 2 moves.
You also don't know how you come off to other people sometimes, especially when trying to convince others to do something. You can come off as brash or dictatorlike. When you convince other people to do something, you need to make it seem like they're coming to the decision on their own and that it's good for their game as well, not just your's.
Yeah, I agree with this mostly. However, if a player had a good social/strategic game and also won challenges, you shouldn't be penalizing them for it.
There are also situations where a bad player who depended on immunity challenges might not actually be that bad in comparison to the players they're sitting next to. For example, if Player A voted out a bunch of challenge threats because they were threats and then left Player B as the only challenge threat left and Player B ended up winning every challenge even though they were going to be voted out if they lost, then it is also Player A's fault for voting out all the people that could beat them in challenges.
Finally, I'd argue that if every player was playing optimally, then in the tribal council right before FTC, you do need to depend on a challenge win, regardless of whether you were a good or bad player. The player playing the best game needs to win immunity to survive while the player playing the 2nd best game needs to beat the player playing the best game in the immunity challenge to win. In an ideal scenario, you bring a player playing the strongest game who is also bad at challenges to Final 3/4 and then vote them out in the tribal right before FTC by beating them in the challenge.
I don't have any one that stands out entirely, so I'll list out all the things that annoy me.
a) Players who don't play to win/players that are content with getting a silver or bronze trophy/players that are happy with making jury/players happy with 2nd place. If you're spending so much time on an online game, why are you not playing to win??
b) Players who vote out the biggest threat and then get voted out right after.
c) Entitled jury members, especially those who are misinformed and didn't really understand what was going on.
d) Players who make the game personal through personal attacks or bullying.
If you're not a well-known ORG player, you're going to need to stand out in your application and really elaborate on your answers. Even if "it depends on the cast" is true, you can add more to it than that.
Well, I don't think you can accurately predict it always. So the example i'll use is Bang a Rang All-Stars where I didn't know a single person in the game and I was on the bottom of literally every single tribe until the last one, yet I ended up finishing 2nd.
Agree with HighSpace for answer to Q3, but also would add that you should probably play less ORGs simultaneously which may increase your success rate.
Agree with HighSpace mostly, but I'd also add that it's important to assess your allies and to see if they're people that would flip on you because you have an idol. So for example, if I'm in a really good position AND I have an idol, I'd probably be less inclined to share it with other people because if they realize that I'm in a good position, then if they're playing optimally, they would want to flip on me at some point. If I'm in a bad position, I'd be more likely to share it with other people who are in bad positions because we probably have the same goals and an idol can help increase our trust and efficacy. It's better to tell them about the idol than to tell them later on or to play it suddenly without telling them.
It might also help to assess if your allies are rational. For example, if I didn't tell my ally about an idol originally but then told them later on when we need the idol to survive, a rational player wouldn't really mind me telling them later. An irrational (and bad) player would get mad and try to vote me out because of it.
Playing around idols: Blindsides. Make the player that you're trying to blindside comfortable and don't really change your behavior around them. There are other things like planting false information to their allies, but that's situational.
Well, you say it's a recent problem, and I haven't seen you play recently. From what I remember though, you would often get in more alliances and f2s than you can handle. You also like to leak things. Sometimes, your ideas work, sometimes they blow up in your face.
Ultimately, you often play a dangerous game. Could that be why things are going wrong nowadays? Is your game so dangerous that you just faceplant each time?
