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.
That depends on your cast. The most reliable approach is to position yourself in such a way where taking you out is detrimental to everybody else's games. If you can achieve THAT, you're golden.
I may vote for someone that coasted through the entire game, but it would not be a vote for them, but a vote against the other finalist. Here, I don't want a 'coaster' to be confused with a 'floater' because one has a game and the other doesn't.
ORGs add a layer of social game that isn't seen much in EM games, which involves having convos about stuff unrelated to the game. But I don't really value that part of social game. The social game I care about is how much you can make someone trust you and you ability to influence people through persuasion or just b/c they want to make you happy.
I think winning a trophy game is more difficult, but less impressive. There's more players, so your odds of winning are lower, which makes it more difficult to win. It's less impressive though, because the drawn-out style of ORGs reduces the variance of the game and possible mishaps just because you didn't have enough time to talk to x or y. It's a lot harder to have things just magically line up correctly for you in ORGs because everyone has time to strategize and campaign, etc.
deletedabout 7 years
As someone who is interested in playing in an ORG, what do you believe is an optimal strategy?
Would you vote for someone who coasted through the entire game?
deletedabout 7 years
do you view voting for a winner in an org the same as voting for a winner in an EM game? e.g. do you take into account social/strategic/physical the same way, or, for example, does physical in an org mean more to you than physical in an EM game?
which do you think is more difficult/more impressive, winning an org or winning a trophy game?
The best strategic game, to me, is the most deserving of a win. But we're kinda in a paradox, because how does the best strategic game not manage to take out the best social game? Did they forget that jury is a thing?
Anyway, strategic game implies planning your path to the end, and that's what I value the most in games of survivor
Agreed with Rob. You're allowed to be bitter. I will respect you less as a player if you're unable to deal with someone outplaying you, but it's not against the rules.
The earlier jurors happen to know less, and since they didn't get to see much of the game the finalists played, they can only base it off the few days of interactions they had. And chances are, most of their interactions are with their closest allies.
What kind of gameplay do you feel would be the most deserving in a F3 tribal council: the one who played the best social game, the one who played the best physical game, or the one who played the best strategic game?
I think juries are allowed to be bitter, especially in ORGs since you spend so much time on a game. I feel like if you spend so much time on a game only to be voted out/backstabbed, it's definitely warranted for you to be bitter. Even though I don't agree with it, I see where they're coming from.
As for your second question, I feel like earlier jurors know a lot less about what happened in a game, so they usually don't really have a great sense of who is "most deserving" since they haven't been in the game for such a long time. All the jury speeches are going to look the same so more often than later jurors, they're going to base their vote off of how they feel about the finalists which usually means voting for people who they worked with pre-merge/people who they know/people who they are friends with and had positive interactions with. It usually can justified by saying that they had a good social game with them.
I think the strategic game would remain, but the social is the question mark. Because, your level of comfort between how you interact irl and on the internet may not be the same, which would hinder your social game. There's also tone, facial expression, and a new layer of lying and detecting lies involved now that body language is in the mix, and that's not something that can be tested here.
In some cases, the winner didn't deserve to win. I'd like to bring in the poker analogy again. Say someone goes all in, and then you call with 7 2 off suit. You end up lucking out and win. Clearly, you made a stupid decision, but you got lucky. I can't say you deserved it. The person that didn't know what they were doing was rewarded.
In survivor, it's very much possible that a player is clueless in what they're doing, and just flop their way to finals. Say the most hated player took them to the final 2 with them. So, the clueless player wins. But they didn't plan any of it. It was all an accident to them. Can I say they deserved to win? No way. The players that deserve to win are the ones who consciously played well.
The winning game is also not the best game by default. It was the correct game to play for that season, which is why it won, and that holds a huge difference compared to 'the best game'. The best game will be the game that made the best decisions and came up with the most effective plans and courses of actions throughout the game, whether through social gaming or physical dominance - out of all the players that played the game. But it might not end up winning, because maybe even the best game out of the cast wasn't strong enough to have a 100% success rate of making it to the end. So that's where it's possible a player that didn't play as well would make it to the end over them. They put themselves in many more opportunities to get voted out, but it just didn't happen, and that's why they're at the end.
Yeah, this is something that I've been wondering a lot myself. To be honest, I'm not sure. A lot of strong social and strategic players online could burn out really quickly in real life because maybe they're a lot more comfortable with talking to people in real life with a screen separating them. I feel like a lot of guys on EM are going to be more comfortable with talking to girls than they are in real life. Another example would be strong EM players having no survival skills or being a huge physical liability for their tribe irl.
Then, you also have to consider how online, you can have "Secret" alliances since people don't actually see you talking with other people; it's a black box. In real life, you're not going to be able to make as many alliances or final 2 deals as you do online because people will notice if you talk a lot with other people. There's only so many times you can say you're going to take a shitt with another player before others get suspicious.
All in all, it depends on the person and whether their skillset online will be adaptable/extendable to real life.
The winner is always deserving, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were "more deserving" than the other players in FTC.
The winning game is always going to have some pros to their game because they got a majority of the jury to vote for them. However, that doesn't mean that other players didn't play a great game either. Juries can be biased so I feel like the winning game isn't necessarily the "best" game.
The one where whalerus votes you out with Final 4 POV when you didn't receive a single vote in the Survivor stage of the trophy game and weren't a final nom once in the big Brother stage and then reveals himself to be VWXYZ.
I prefer Survivor by a large margin because the strategy makes a lot more sense to me. In Big Brother, challenges decide who GOES home whereas in Survivor, challenges decide who DOESN'T go home which is a big differentiation. In Survivor, if my target wins immunity, I'll just invoke a backup plan and vote out their ally or someone else. If my target wins HOH in Big Brother, I might get nommed and my ally or I could go home which sucks. Big Brother is a lot more prone to Minorities being able to flip around a game if they can win key HOHs/POVs and for a player who tries to plan around literally everything like me, that makes Big Brother a lot more volatile and I don't really enjoy that. I also think that Big Brother puts too much emphasis on physical game because of how much more important HOHs and POVs are. Final 4 POV is super sh*tty as well.
In Big Brother, there's a lot less paranoia because once noms are made, all but 2 people in the house know that they're going to be safe. I love manipulating paranoia in games and I can't do that as much in Big Brother. Meanwhile, in Survivor, everyone is paranoid af of getting blindsided since only 1 person is safe at any time. One good thing about Big Brother is that you're able to campaign to people to get them to save you whereas in Survivor you can't really do that since everything is a blindside in fear of idols being played.
That is dependent on what happened at Final 3. If everyone played optimally and to their win condition, then yes, but that doesn't always happen. To add onto what HighSpace is saying, the player playing the best game may also win immunity at Final 3.
My favourite twist to play... none come to mind, but I'll say cliques. I just enjoy that extra layer of grouping to the game.
My favourite twist to watch was the twin twist in BB5. The way the twins had to switch out without really knowing what their twin did the previous day, and only having 15 minutes to recap with each other and understand their standing in the game, their allies, etc. It was all great to watch. The reveal was fantastic too.
