+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Ways To Shake Up Future Seasons

  1. #11
    FORT Fanatic Danger Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by pixie98642
    I have thought for a while now that it would be fun if instead of immunity challenge that is won by a single person they should have the last person to complete the immunity challenge is out and has to leave right then. But that would eliminate any need for a Tribal Council I guess, so maybe that wouldn't work. I am so tired of the lazy a** ones staying and staying and staying. There should be some immediate penalty for not giving it your all. This is the game of Survivor after all!
    How about the top four not only get immunity they are the only people that get to vote? When the number of people left get's down only the top three get to vote, etc. Basically more people get immunity (make it random team challenges even) and the people who don't do well don't get to vote.

    or...

    Only one person gets immunity and they are the only person who gets a vote. But, the challenge is set up so that people can interfere with other people -- that way the people who are unlikely to win can act as "blockers" (for lack of a better term) to aid an alliance-mate.

  2. #12
    FORTified Chach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by pixie98642
    I have thought for a while now that it would be fun if instead of immunity challenge that is won by a single person they should have the last person to complete the immunity challenge is out and has to leave right then. But that would eliminate any need for a Tribal Council I guess, so maybe that wouldn't work. I am so tired of the lazy a** ones staying and staying and staying. There should be some immediate penalty for not giving it your all. This is the game of Survivor after all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Danger Bunny
    How about the top four not only get immunity they are the only people that get to vote? When the number of people left get's down only the top three get to vote, etc. Basically more people get immunity (make it random team challenges even) and the people who don't do well don't get to vote.

    or...

    Only one person gets immunity and they are the only person who gets a vote. But, the challenge is set up so that people can interfere with other people -- that way the people who are unlikely to win can act as "blockers" (for lack of a better term) to aid an alliance-mate.
    I don't like the idea of eliminating tribal council. So much of the appeal of this game is in the strategy and alliances - which revolves around voting. I do like the idea of having it set up so that the bottom two or three finishers don't get to vote. Anything to make the competitions more competitive is a good thing.

  3. #13
    1/3 Fonzarelli kungfuhippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    451
    I'm a believer in Survivor's format, I don't think it needs to drastically change. Some of these ideas sound interesting, but I have a bit of a problem with weigh the scale too much towards the super strong and athletic. I like competitors like Tom and think he was full value for his win, but I liked the game play of Survivors like the Amazon's Rob C and even some of the strategic moves that Neleh and Pascal, or Kim from Africa made. In general these contestants were not strong enough to win many challenges (though I think they did win a few) but they provided some great moments. I just wouldn't want it to become an athletic competition alone.

  4. #14
    FORTified Chach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by kungfuhippie
    I just wouldn't want it to become an athletic competition alone.
    I agree. If it becomes just an athletic competition, I'll just switch to an NBA game and watch real athletes. I do want people who are competitive, though, but the strategic part of the game is the best part. Rich Hatch is still the best Survivor, and he's no athlete.*

    *That's Rich from season one, not All-Stars.

  5. #15
    FORT Fan ev700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    27
    Posts
    246
    I think they should stay in tribes until the final 7. They should start with three tribes of 6 (18 players), then two of 8 (16), 3 of 5 (15), 2 of 7 (14), 3 of 4 (12) 2 of 5 (10), 3 of 3 (9), 2 of 4 (8), then merge. It would scramble the players up so much that they would have a hard time forming alliances.

  6. #16
    JR.
    JR. is offline
    Drummer / Model JR.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    42 22' N 71 2' W
    Age
    42
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Danger Bunny
    How about the top four not only get immunity they are the only people that get to vote?.
    I've always thought it would be a good idea to have multiple winners in random ICs after the merge. That could really screw with people's plans.

  7. #17
    FORT Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9
    How about mixing up the teams, then a merge, then mix them up again. Keep shaking up the teams to make it harder for alliances to form.

  8. #18
    Mom and *Nana* WebDivaJulie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    McHenry, IL
    Age
    57
    Posts
    30

    Ways....

    How about married couples, on different tribes?
    All the wives on one tribe, the hubby's on the other tribe......
    It could be interesting.

  9. #19
    FORT Fogey razorbacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,231
    Quote Originally Posted by ev700
    I think they should stay in tribes until the final 7. They should start with three tribes of 6 (18 players), then two of 8 (16), 3 of 5 (15), 2 of 7 (14), 3 of 4 (12) 2 of 5 (10), 3 of 3 (9), 2 of 4 (8), then merge. It would scramble the players up so much that they would have a hard time forming alliances.
    Constant changing & remixing the tribes would get rid of some of the steadfast alliances & is one thing I would like to see.

  10. #20
    FORT Fanatic Oceansands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    666
    razorbacker:
    Constant changing & remixing the tribes would get rid of some of the steadfast alliances & is one thing I would like to see.


    Great idea, I'll drink to that.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.