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.
Beating someone who is strong socially: Try voting out their allies before voting out them since their allies are really the source of their power and they'll be a lot easier to vote out once their allies are gone. At the same time, if you're able to keep in the person who is strong socially for a while, they can act as a symbolism of power even though they might not actually have that much power with their allies gone which results in an effective shield for you. It's kind of like beating all the minions before defeating the boss while making everyone else distracted by the boss when you're the real threat.
Beating someone who is strong strategically: Even the best strategic players are going to need information in order to make their decisions. Try to pollute their sources of information which will misdirect them and give them the wrong information to act on. If they're strategic, but not social, you can turn their allies on them by planting seeds.
Beating someone who is strong physically: Plant paranoia seeds in people that they're just going to sweep challenges. This works better in Big Brother. Alternatively, you can use them as a shield or use them to make nominations for you and then depose of them when they're outgoing HOH or don't win immunity.
If they're good at two or more categories?? Good luck!!
I was already pretty good even when I just started out. I did get better with practice. Games such as GaW, I could type an answer just through sheer reflex since I've done that exact answer enough times before.
High WPM does help a lot, which I've already had when I started out
Tbh, to improve your challenge skill, I'd try out some brain training exercises. I have no logic or research to show this would be useful but, it's a random thought that I think has some validity to it
deletedabout 7 years
Give a tip on how to beat/get out:
Someone who is strong socially Someone who is strong strategically Someone who is strong Physically
1. Play in a lot of games. 2. Become familiar with common rounds in challenges. Ex: 8 P in the S S 3. I guess you can take Typing classes or spend more time online which will increase your speed.
To be honest, I would not spend your time on improving your Physical Game just because it's the least rewarding but perhaps the most time-intensive. A lot of great Survivor players aren't amazing at challenges. Spend your time on something more worthwhile imo, learning strategic/social can go a long way.
I always had a high WPM and I think I know a lot of like useless general knowledge stuff which helps for thinking challenges like Brazilian Shuffle. Because of this, I had a pretty good base for challenges.
Then through playing a shitt ton of games, I became really familiar with the challenges which increased my speed in a lot of the challenges.
For example, I have a bunch of random letter combinations memorized for Word Wizard and some common phrases in F'd Up or TISNF memorized.
I feel like physical game is the hardest aspect of your game to improve just because there is a bit of a skill cap involved which is your typing speed. The way to improve is to play a lot of games and to practice a lot, but that will take a lot of time. It's not something you can learn overnight.
I think the biggest problem that new players have and something that I had a huge problem with when I was new is that they subscribe too much to the meta of the lobby and they try super hard to vote out who they hear/think is the biggest threat in the game only to find out that they're the next biggest threat and get voted out right after them. By voting out the biggest threat, sometimes, you're not really helping out your own game, but actually helping out the floaters who are underneath you in the ladder.
Other common problems: Talking to people only when it's tribal makes it seem like you're only talking to them to get information from them or to see who they're voting for.
Honestly, I'd say allying the same people each time and not getting out of that bubble. It makes it very easy for the better players to systematically take you & your allies out, and also makes it hard for you to centralize yourself in the game or build a network
Yeah, I do think that voting for a winner in an ORG is different. Since ORGs take so much more time, your social connections are genuine. Looking at EM games, we have so little time to try to get to know people and our social game is a lot more intertwined with talking about game. Because of the additional time, I think social game is valued much more highly than the other aspects. Who actually took the time to get to know the jurors? Who didn't backstab me in the back after 2 months of playing?? These are all questions that jurors ask themselves which they don't ask in EM games. I still view physical the same as before, I don't think many people hold physical game in high regard.
tl;dr in ORGs: Social > Strategic > Physical. On EM, Social = Strategic > Physical
I feel like winning an ORG is more difficult just because you have to be on top of your A game for a few months. You also have to really get to know the people in your game and understand who they are as people which you really don't have to do on EM.
I think it goes Social > Strategic > Physical for me, but like HighSpace, I feel like a strategic player wouldn't be sitting next to a person who played the best social game at the end.
I'm probably better at ORGs just because I have a lot more time to get to know people better, but I prefer lobby games because I finish an ORG feeling drained. When I play in an ORG, it really consumes my life and once you finish the game, you almost have an empty feeling that you could have spent the time on something more productive; I don't feel the same way when I finish EM games.
Some bitter juries are more justified than others. For instance, bitter jury against Russell. Depending on your jury, some might need a greater degree of charming than others.
There are some juries, however, that can just be plain unfair. The players target you all game, you outplay them, and they can't handle it and refuse to vote for you, just because you outplayed them. They were never giving you a chance. Now that's a bitter juror that isn't okay with me. You can say that the player wasn't good enough socially, but let's just say... some people's standards are just ridiculous
deletedabout 7 years
Real question. I'm personally of the belief that if there are bitter juries then you just didn't smooth over the right people and that's on your social game for not winning them over. Yes it's ironic for me to say it but yeah my viewpoint has changed to that. What do you think of bitter juries?
