Challenges: Wanna Know What YESSHUTUPJEFF

[SnideAsides]

I remember when these used to be brilliant. Now we're playing Survivor Mad Libs most of the time.

[kikismom]

i remembered the challenges of the first season...devolving into Palau's pathetic fire challenge tie-breaker. It all went downhill from there.

[KarateKate]

MrKate and I were talking about how they used to pick their teams via "schoolyard pick'em" versus "rock pick'em". Between that and the perennial challenge where survivors "won" chances to place strikes against one another to lose, the challenges had more impact on the game beyond the arena and immunity. 

[Way Wes Jr]

I miss the Rotu4 pecking order challenge.  They haven't had it for awhile because of the lack of reward challenges, (yet another reason to hate Redemption Island seasons.)

Can someone refresh my memory - didn't they do an Immunity Challenge (at least once) with a "three strikes" challenge?  Obviously it's totally unfair to folk who NEED to win immunity, but for some reason I have a feeling that they had to learn that the hard way.  (And perhaps, slowly as well.)

[henripootel]

I think the challenges have been, of late, fair but boring and repetitive.  Run through a maze (paddle a boat, climb some stairs), collect puzzle pieces, solve a puzzle.  Some of the puzzles have been pretty cool looking but they haven't exactly been straining themselves coming up with new ideas lately.  I suspect lower budgets, but having recently seen some old episodes, I will say their coverage of the challenges has gotten pretty good.  I'd say the photography in general has been pretty spectacular since then went to HD video. 

[SnideAsides]

I miss the Rotu4 pecking order challenge.  They haven't had it for awhile because of the lack of reward challenges, (yet another reason to hate Redemption Island seasons.)

Can someone refresh my memory - didn't they do an Immunity Challenge (at least once) with a "three strikes" challenge?  Obviously it's totally unfair to folk who NEED to win immunity, but for some reason I have a feeling that they had to learn that the hard way.  (And perhaps, slowly as well.)

From memory:

Marquesas - F9 Immunity

Thailand - F7 Immunity

Amazon - F9 Immunity

Pearl Islands - F9 Immunity

Pearl Islands - F7 Reward (the "Do it for Dead Granny Fairplay" challenge, the only usage of Newlywed Game questions)

All-Stars - F7 Reward (first appearance of "Who needs therapy?" questions instead of a local culture quiz)

Vanuatu - F9 Reward

Palau - F6 Reward

Guatemala - F7 Reward (last usage of local culture questions)

Panama - F7 Reward

Fiji - F9 Reward

Micronesia - F7 Reward

Tocantins - F7 Reward

One World - F8 Reward

 

And for the record, Jenna, Cassandra, and Kim are the only people to win the challenge then make the final Tribal Council.

Edited April 28, 2014 by SnideAsides

[Eggman]

Puzzles and balancing / endurance challenges keep the season from being a full on beefcake fest.   People still assume that a Big Strong Guy is an immunity threat, but the wimpification of challenges has made that not the case for years.

[Lamb18]

I can understand why there are balance challenges, but it's not too exciting to watch someone stand in place.

[SnideAsides]

I don't mind them, but not every week. Every so often, there's a brilliant endurance/stacking challenge (balancing the balls on the round tray was a good one, as was the seesaw table from last season's finale), but they're happening so often now that they just lose all meaning.

 

I don't know whether part of it is producers trying to build up a back-catalog after realising they really don't have enough good, small-scale, completely individual challenges to make Redemption Island work on a regular basis, but... yeah. Why they've decided to do it this way rather than going back to individual reward challenges after the merge befuddles me.

Edited April 30, 2014 by SnideAsides

[Way Wes Jr]

I wish they'd forgo the balance/endurance challenge's and give us a pure endurance one every once in awhile.  With Jiffy-Pop pulling out the enticements.  I understand that they're not that telegenic - but neither are the balancing ones by and large.

[KimberStormer]

Yeah, I personally love the pure endurance challenges, and I personally hate the balancing-balls ones.  I'm still mad that nobody won the Ian-Tom showdown, since Ian gave up.

[SnideAsides]

If nothing else, the last few episodes of this season really emphasised how well individual challenges worked when done properly, especially compared to how terrible all of the post-merge team challenges this season were. I hope by the time season 30 rolls around (if the rumours of 29 having Redemption Island are true), the show hasn't forgotten.

[ratgirlagogo]

I like the pure endurance challenges, but I also like the balance challenges.  The one with the dishes in China is one I especially liked.  I also have a perverse fondness for that house of cards one in Gabon.

 

Dalton Ross has said that he wished they'd go back to pure endurance challenges for the final immunity challenge, and that I really agree with.  It's cruel to the players, but so satisfying for the audience.

 

I'm still mad that nobody won the Ian-Tom showdown, since Ian gave up.

Wouldn't you have loved to see Tony and Woo repeat that one - and see if Tony could have guilt-tripped Woo into jumping?

[SnideAsides]

So... this season's challenges kind of suck. I don't know why I expected better for the show's 30th season, but here we are. How is it that the "make choices" first Immunity Challenge (which was a decent idea but incredibly flawed because it was readily apparent they hadn't actually timed anything to make it so the choices were anywhere near equal) is still the best one of the season?

[LadyChatts]

I have to agree that this season's challenges have been a bit of a bust.  I liked the very first one, and the RC that was shooting the balls at targets.  But beyond that, I've found them all to be pretty boring and forgettable.  They need a serious change up, maybe some brand new challenges.  There are a lot of challenges from seasons past that I enjoyed that I would like to see them bring back, that were only used once.  Maybe there's a good reason for them only using them once, but I don't see what that would be.  I like those that aren't purely physical, but I don't want them dumbed down, either.

Edited April 13, 2015 by LadyChatts

[enlightenedbum]

Yeah, I personally love the pure endurance challenges, and I personally hate the balancing-balls ones.  I'm still mad that nobody won the Ian-Tom showdown, since Ian gave up.

On the other hand, I kind of think that would have gone on until one of them had a legit medical emergency.  Ian quit at like 14 hours, didn't he?

[KimberStormer]

Yes, the way I picture it ending is one of them passing out and taking a beautiful arcing plummet into the depths of that lagoon.  I often think about that challenge and the logistics of its length.  We know they had to bring in lights, unexpectedly, and that Tom told them to get rid of the torches that were their first idea because the smoke was getting in his and Ian's eyes.  Did they give them water?  I imagine they had to, at some point, take a pee off the side of the buoys.  Or do people just pee their pants in those endurance challenges?  And what happens if Jeff in particular (who is eating normally and therefore must have normaller bathroom habits than our poor Survivors) has snuck off for a pee break when someone falls?   Probably this is the sort of thing we shouldn't really think about, like the fact that Stephenie was with a dozen camerapeople and producers when she was "all alone" at Ulong camp.

[NurseGiGi]

I think they need to do another mud challenge that causes Malcolm to lose his pants.  And bring him back for that sole purpose.  :)

 

Anyway, on a more serious note......I can't remember which one of Malcolm's seasons it was but I enjoyed the amount and variety of swimming challenges they had. But then I'm partial to swimming/water challenges and wonder why they don't do more since they're right there at a huge body of water.

[Lakewood27]

I have nothing to add, just that the title of this thread really made me giggle.

[NutMeg]

Dalton Ross has said that he wished they'd go back to pure endurance challenges for the final immunity challenge, and that I really agree with.  It's cruel to the players, but so satisfying for the audience.

 

Count me in. You need to EARN that place in the FTC, and if you haven't earned it socially before this point, this is your last chance. Show us how much you want it. Yes, I can be mean with people who've annoyed me all season - somehow it's fair play after they were mean to me the audience all season. 

[auchic]

I'll second that.  One I wish they'd do again was the final challenge in Thailand, where the contestants were put in these cages that forced them into a crouching stance, they had to hold coins between their fingers and whoever held their coins the longest won.  It may not as lasted as impressively long as Palau did, but I thought it was one of the best; one of the hardest, definitely.  I wonder if that's why they've never redone it.

[LadyChatts]

What's with all the individual endurance challenges this season?  Have their always been this many in one season?  I liked the reward challenge tonight.  I wish the other team had won, but those are the kind of challenges I like that require skill and not just brain or brawn.  I wish the IC would have those concepts.  I also liked the twist of having one man and one woman win immunity.  I wish they had introduced that earlier in the season, because this week it felt like they brought it in solely as a way to save Shirin and Mike.

[SnideAsides]

It used to be just the first or second immunity challenge after the merge, then the final challenge of the season (with a tribal one popping up about once every five seasons), but between a combination of terrible locations that don't give them much room to do anything, budget cuts that make it harder to do anything impressive, and sheer laziness, they've started turning up about every second week since Nicaragua. (It's also the same reason for the constant team obstacle courses and for why we haven't had a tribal gross food challenge since Samoa.)

[SlackerInc]

I thought the barrel challenge was actually really cool and creative.  I hope they bring that back.

 

Also, why has no one created an amusement park where people can go and try these challenges for themselves?

[ellie2205]

Man, if Survivor was on ABC instead of CBS, there totally could be a section of Disneyland where you could try out challenges and that would be awesome.

[KarateKate]

MrKate and I were talking about how they used to pick their teams via "schoolyard pick'em" versus "rock pick'em". Between that and the perennial challenge where survivors "won" chances to place strikes against one another to lose, the challenges had more impact on the game beyond the arena and immunity. 

Yes, I just quoted myself. So, two weeks in a row they did school yard picks, but we never see the pick order. C'mon, it can be edited to be less than 15 seconds, but pick order is very telling.

Of course, maybe that's why they don't show it. 

[ratgirlagogo]

 

But then I'm partial to swimming/water challenges and wonder why they don't do more since they're right there at a huge body of water.

According to Dalton Ross they've had a hard time with the ocean conditions in the Nicaragua location - too often it's not safe because of storms or dangerous tides.  I love the water challenges too and wish they would do more of them.

Edited May 2, 2015 by ratgirlagogo

[LadyChatts]

According to Dalton Ross they've had a hard time with the ocean conditions in the Nicaragua location - too often it's not safe because of storms or dangerous tides.  I love the water challenges too and wish they would do more of them.

 

I really missed the swimming challenges this year.  I had forgotten that was a reason they couldn't do as many of them as they probably would have liked.  I hope in their next location they can feature more of them.  I like the mix between land locked and water, as well as mixing it up with physical and logical.

[SnideAsides]

So... holy FUCK, this season's challenges suck. Do they even know challenges existed before Cagayan? Aside from the ones this mythical creature "Kelly" lost in, I mean?

[pennben]

Wait...what is this that you are telling me??!! Cagayan wasn't the only season to have challenges? Huh.

[Daisy]

i actually miss the go and memorize something in the village (or FEAST and then remember what you saw) challenges. 
Or memory (only because Lisi's faceplant never stops being awesome)

or just "this is where you lived for _____ days" challenges. 

 

Also- the challenges that they did in Borneo (Pearl Islands + Guatemala that I can remember specifically) where you are like human chess players. I like those ones and miss them too

 

and. man. some kind of final endurance. It doesn't have to be stand on a pole - but at least the Thailand one. Or the Amazon one. or the Vanuatu one. 

[Special K]

I know it's not the greatest TV, but I love the memory or knowledge challenges -- either facts about the country they're in or each other.

 

Just because they throw such a monkey wrench into the established challenge pecking order!

 

* Probably also because they're the only ones I'd have a prayer of winning!

[NutMeg]

I love the pecking order challenges - who is who on the totem pole, high or low, it more often than not lights a fire under some contestants' behind. Would be perfect this season. Like, now.  

[Guest]

I like the ocean challenges where there are underwater cameras.  

 

Pecking order is fun.  

 

I like the 'knowledge about each other' ones, or the survey ones- 'who did the tribe say they'd most trust their life to' and such.

 

I also like word puzzles.

[SlackerInc]

Special K and Winston, you both got a little of what you were looking for last night.  :)

Edited November 26, 2015 by SlackerInc

[Nashville]

My insomnia's kicked in again, so I'm feeling expansive on the subject of Reward Challenges tonight.  :)
 
First, we need to clarify what we're talking about.  There are distinct classes of Reward Challenges (RCs), each with varying levels of game impact (the labels applied here are my own:

• Tribal: pre-merge RCs won as a tribal unit, and enjoyed in the same manner.
• Individual: post-merge RCs won and enjoyed by a single player.  Can also include a Sacrificial option (2a) whereby the winner may be presented with the choice to forfeit his/her own enjoyment of the prize by transferring the winner's benefit to another player/set of players - most frequently, the set of all players other than the original winner.
• Exclusive: post-merge RCs won by a single player, but enjoyed but a subset of players selected by the winner.  Theoretically may also include a Sacrificial option (3a) similar to that described in 2a - but where only the original winner forfeits in a 2a scenario, a 3a scenario would involve the original winner selecting forfeiture on the part of the entire player subset originally selected for benefit.  [Note: I cannot recall whether 3a has ever been employed in actual game play, but the theoretical possibility of it popped immediately to mind as I was assembling this list.  It is included for completeness' sake in strategic consideration.]

Now - looking at each of these individually, in terms for positive/negative blowback to an individual player's game:
 
1 - Tribal
Simplest form.  Infinitesimal potential for negative individual blowback - which is to say negative blowback is not impossible; however, an individual player would have to display an unusually high level of incompetence to turn a Tribal positive into an individual negative.
 
2 - Individual
Second-simplest form.  Minor potential for negative individual blowback; any experienced is usually of the short-term "sour grapes" variety, with little potential for long-term negative game impact. 
- Occasional rare instances where the nature of the reward may appear it was custom-tailored to target a single player for benefit out of proportion to other players (ex. addressing or fulfilling a specific need/deficiency of that singular player not experienced by others, or at least not experienced to the same extreme degree). 
Under these circumstances, players other than the "singular player" might consider minimizing negative blowback by "throwing' the RC to the targeted player, or - if already won - offering to transfer the benefits of the win to the targeted player.  On these occasions, individual player considerations actually work out to be the same as those cited below for Individual Sacrificial (2a) RCs.
 
2a - Individual Sacrificial
On the surface, it would appear the response of a winner should be simple; basic gaming theory would seem to dictate the option which benefits the greatest number of players (i.e., forfeiting one's individual prize to permit its enjoyment by a number of others) would always be the best response.  In practice, however, this rarely seems to work as intended; the history of Survivor contains multiple examples of players who forfeited their prize for the benefit of the greater good, only to be sent packing at the next Tribal Council vote.  The primary ameliorating consideration is usually the condition of the winning player's pre-existing personal relationship with targeted players, or the tribe as a whole.  If these relationships are already degraded to the point of toxicity, such a goodwill response may be considered as little more than an attempt to buy favor by bribing the recipient.  Such an interpretation at best effectively negates any positive effect, and at worst could actually damage relationship(s) further.
In summary - past history appears to indicate individual RC reward sacrifice can bolster good relationships, but does little to repair bad relationships.
 
3 - Exclusive
The segregation of benefit in this class of RC creates an entirely new subcontext of strategic interpretations and implications.
To illustrate - brought over from another thread:
 

What I mean is, it's an impossible paradox for the picker.  "Don't take your close allies on reward, but if you don't take someone on reward, that means they're not your ally anymore."  If taking your close ally is wrong, then not being picked should be a sign of the closeness of your alliance, right?  You can't say that people shouldn't reveal their alliance structure through their picks and then also whine that you've been "wronged" by not being taken along.

 

why do people try to win individual reward challenges? (rhetorical question)
Unless it is for a clue or advantage (and you need it) then those are the challenges to lose (don't have to piss people off plus you don't seem like a threat)

 

In theory, you never want to win reward. Supposedly, they are so hungry & competitive they go ape crazy & can't help themselves.

 
Taken in toto, I believe these three quotes pretty accurately summarize the innate nature of an Exclusive Reward Challenge: it's a honey pot. 

It presents many temptations, but each has its own unique opportunities for negative blowback:

• Rewarding players with whom one is allied.  The most straightforward option, but one which carries with it the consequence of exposing the alliance.
• Rewarding players with whom one is not allied.  Superficially presents the opportunity to build new positive relationships, or repair existing damaged relationships.  The 'build new positive relationships' motivation, however, runs the risk of alienating those not-selected players with whom one already has a good relationship - including alliance partners - while the 'repairing damaged relationships' theory is subject to the same pitfalls described in 2a.
• Segregating opponents/enemies from the rest of the tribe for the duration of the reward.  Actually presents the best opportunity for benefit - but the fact that the RC winner will also be segregated is a significant disadvantage which must also be taken into account.  Should be pursued only if (a) the RC winner has trustworthy allies who can protect/extend the RC winner's interests at camp in the winner's absence, and (b) the RC winner has discussed this approach with his/her alliance members in advance.  As has been so ably demonstrated in both past and current seasons, failure to do so can generate significant confusion and mistrust with alliance members, to the RC winner's detriment in the game.

 

In summary: While the potential for benefit exists, the consistent potential for negative blowback reduces this class to representing the lowest risk/benefit ratio for any of the RC classes currently in active play.  Safer to avoid, relatively speaking.

 

3a - Exclusive Sacrificial
Caveat: Let me reiterate once again, I think this is a purely theoretical construct which Production has yet to actually introduce into real-world game play; if I'm wrong, please let me know. 

That being said - The worst of all possible options.  A peek-a-boo twist at the end of the RC presents minimal opportunity for positive relationship-building, and multiple opportunities to antagonize or damage existing relationships.  In its ultimate reduction, the question presented to the RC winner basically boils down to - which group do you mind offending the least?:

• The original RC winner's reward participant selections, who thought they were being selected for reward but instead were (perceptually, anyway) selected specifically for exclusion and/or punishment?
• Everybody else, who - although they ultimately end up enjoying the reward - may be feeling acute levels of butthurtiness over not being selected before the sacrificial component is introduced into the reward determination process?

In summary - the negatives far outweigh the positives.  Players should avoid winning such a RC at all costs - or, if they get caught in such a honey pot, pick their worst enemies at original selection.

 

Overall summary: Post-merge players should avoid winning individual RC challenges; in varying degrees, the negatives consistently appear to outweigh the positives.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Nashville

[KimberStormer]

3a is precisely the bullshit which screwed Brenda out of any chance of winning either the million or the hearts of America in Caramoan, because Dawn in true hateful Dawn style (n.b. I think Dawn was a diabolically brilliant Survivor player in Caramoan, as revealed especially in the Corrine vote-out immediately post-merge, where she emotionally bullied Corrine, of all people, into taking pity on her by revealing her entire plan, resulting in doom for Corrine and Malcolm) seemed to transfer all the rage she felt at missing out on the loved one reward ("I'm so angry I could SPIT," she growled, almost as scary to me as Brandon earlier that season) to Brenda, and any chance of Brenda being spared--which there wasn't much of, admittedly--evaporated.  Plus her very sacrifice was used as a convenient excuse by Sherri and Cochran to want to get rid of her.  And then of course Brenda re-transferred her own sour feelings at her betrayal by Dawn into the infamous Teeth Incident at FTC, which was unneccesary and spiteful and lost her much of the sympathy she'd gained.  And I feel must have something to do with her bizarre invisible edit.

 

Of course, Brenda couldn't know it was going to be 3a.  She thought she was picking Dawn to get rewarded, which could have saved her and certainly wouldn't have hurt her, since, as I've said, Dawn is an emotional bully and everyone was ready to give up their loved-one time for her EMOTIONAL NEEDS WHICH ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOURS.  A lot of people on the board came to the conclusion that she should have taken Dawn and said "Sorry guys" to the rest of the castaways, which is probably right, but it's an impossible thing to ask someone to make that counterintuitive calculation in the moment and the flush of happiness at winning reward with her dad, when their reunion brought tears to Jeff Probst's cynical eyes.

 

As I've said before, that wasn't a reward challenge.  That was a punishment challenge.

[Vicky8675309]

My insomnia's kicked in again, so I'm feeling expansive on the subject of Reward Challenges tonight.  :)

 

First, we need to clarify what we're talking about.  There are distinct classes of Reward Challenges (RCs), each with varying levels of game impact (the labels applied here are my own:

• Tribal: pre-merge RCs won as a tribal unit, and enjoyed in the same manner.
• Individual: post-merge RCs won and enjoyed by a single player.  Can also include a Sacrificial option (2a) whereby the winner may be presented with the choice to forfeit his/her own enjoyment of the prize by transferring the winner's benefit to another player/set of players - most frequently, the set of all players other than the original winner.
• Exclusive: post-merge RCs won by a single player, but enjoyed but a subset of players selected by the winner.  Theoretically may also include a Sacrificial option (3a) similar to that described in 2a - but where only the original winner forfeits in a 2a scenario, a 3a scenario would involve the original winner selecting forfeiture on the part of the entire player subset originally selected for benefit.  [Note: I cannot recall whether 3a has ever been employed in actual game play, but the theoretical possibility of it popped immediately to mind as I was assembling this list.  It is included for completeness' sake in strategic consideration.]

Now - looking at each of these individually, in terms for positive/negative blowback to an individual player's game:

 

1 - Tribal

Simplest form.  Infinitesimal potential for negative individual blowback - which is to say negative blowback is not impossible; however, an individual player would have to display an unusually high level of incompetence to turn a Tribal positive into an individual negative.

 

2 - Individual

Second-simplest form.  Minor potential for negative individual blowback; any experienced is usually of the short-term "sour grapes" variety, with little potential for long-term negative game impact. 

- Occasional rare instances where the nature of the reward may appear it was custom-tailored to target a single player for benefit out of proportion to other players (ex. addressing or fulfilling a specific need/deficiency of that singular player not experienced by others, or at least not experienced to the same extreme degree). 

Under these circumstances, players other than the "singular player" might consider minimizing negative blowback by "throwing' the RC to the targeted player, or - if already won - offering to transfer the benefits of the win to the targeted player.  On these occasions, individual player considerations actually work out to be the same as those cited below for Individual Sacrificial (2a) RCs.

 

2a - Individual Sacrificial

On the surface, it would appear the response of a winner should be simple; basic gaming theory would seem to dictate the option which benefits the greatest number of players (i.e., forfeiting one's individual prize to permit its enjoyment by a number of others) would always be the best response.  In practice, however, this rarely seems to work as intended; the history of Survivor contains multiple examples of players who forfeited their prize for the benefit of the greater good, only to be sent packing at the next Tribal Council vote.  The primary ameliorating consideration is usually the condition of the winning player's pre-existing personal relationship with targeted players, or the tribe as a whole.  If these relationships are already degraded to the point of toxicity, such a goodwill response may be considered as little more than an attempt to buy favor by bribing the recipient.  Such an interpretation at best effectively negates any positive effect, and at worst could actually damage relationship(s) further.

In summary - past history appears to indicate individual RC reward sacrifice can bolster good relationships, but does little to repair bad relationships.

 

3 - Exclusive

The segregation of benefit in this class of RC creates an entirely new subcontext of strategic interpretations and implications.

To illustrate - brought over from another thread:

 

 

 

 

Taken in toto, I believe these three quotes pretty accurately summarize the innate nature of an Exclusive Reward Challenge: it's a honey pot. 

It presents many temptations, but each has its own unique opportunities for negative blowback:

• Rewarding players with whom one is allied.  The most straightforward option, but one which carries with it the consequence of exposing the alliance.
• Rewarding players with whom one is not allied.  Superficially presents the opportunity to build new positive relationships, or repair existing damaged relationships.  The 'build new positive relationships' motivation, however, runs the risk of alienating those not-selected players with whom one already has a good relationship - including alliance partners - while the 'repairing damaged relationships' theory is subject to the same pitfalls described in 2a.
• Segregating opponents/enemies from the rest of the tribe for the duration of the reward.  Actually presents the best opportunity for benefit - but the fact that the RC winner will also be segregated is a significant disadvantage which must also be taken into account.  Should be pursued only if (a) the RC winner has trustworthy allies who can protect/extend the RC winner's interests at camp in the winner's absence, and (b) the RC winner has discussed this approach with his/her alliance members in advance.  As has been so ably demonstrated in both past and current seasons, failure to do so can generate significant confusion and mistrust with alliance members, to the RC winner's detriment in the game.

 

In summary: While the potential for benefit exists, the consistent potential for negative blowback reduces this class to representing the lowest risk/benefit ratio for any of the RC classes currently in active play.  Safer to avoid, relatively speaking.

 

3a - Exclusive Sacrificial

Caveat: Let me reiterate once again, I think this is a purely theoretical construct which Production has yet to actually introduce into real-world game play; if I'm wrong, please let me know. 

That being said - The worst of all possible options.  A peek-a-boo twist at the end of the RC presents minimal opportunity for positive relationship-building, and multiple opportunities to antagonize or damage existing relationships.  In its ultimate reduction, the question presented to the RC winner basically boils down to - which group do you mind offending the least?:

• The original RC winner's reward participant selections, who thought they were being selected for reward but instead were (perceptually, anyway) selected specifically for exclusion and/or punishment?
• Everybody else, who - although they ultimately end up enjoying the reward - may be feeling acute levels of butthurtiness over not being selected before the sacrificial component is introduced into the reward determination process?

In summary - the negatives far outweigh the positives.  Players should avoid winning such a RC at all costs - or, if they get caught in such a honey pot, pick their worst enemies at original selection.

 

Overall summary: Post-merge players should avoid winning individual RC challenges; in varying degrees, the negatives consistently appear to outweigh the positives.

 

 

Great write up.

Team reward: a player should totally try to win and exhibit good sportsmanship after winning (or losing); no excessive celebration in front of the other tribe

Individual reward: throw the challenge so that you don't win however if it is for an advantage then it gets trickier**

 

**advantages seem more complicated. When they are advantages to help win an IC then they seem ok to win. However when they are for something like a double vote (Dan), steal a vote (Stephen) or hints for hidden immunity idols (Malcolm) then they are more dangerous and it seems like one would not want to win (unless you were in a "Mike" situation where the entire tribes hated you and there was nothing you could do to change their minds).

[Guest]

 

Overall summary: Post-merge players should avoid winning individual RC challenges; in varying degrees, the negatives consistently appear to outweigh the positives.

Did you factor in the positive benefits of getting more food, which can (in theory) help players win immunity?  

 

Also there are the advantages of having time to schmooze or scheme with a new subset of players than you get to around camp, and the disadvantages of those you left behind getting to do the same, behind your back.  

[Vicky8675309]

3a is precisely the bullshit which screwed Brenda out of any chance of winning either the million or the hearts of America in Caramoan, because Dawn in true hateful Dawn style (n.b. I think Dawn was a diabolically brilliant Survivor player in Caramoan, as revealed especially in the Corrine vote-out immediately post-merge, where she emotionally bullied Corrine, of all people, into taking pity on her by revealing her entire plan, resulting in doom for Corrine and Malcolm) seemed to transfer all the rage she felt at missing out on the loved one reward ("I'm so angry I could SPIT," she growled, almost as scary to me as Brandon earlier that season) to Brenda, and any chance of Brenda being spared--which there wasn't much of, admittedly--evaporated.  Plus her very sacrifice was used as a convenient excuse by Sherri and Cochran to want to get rid of her.  And then of course Brenda re-transferred her own sour feelings at her betrayal by Dawn into the infamous Teeth Incident at FTC, which was unneccesary and spiteful and lost her much of the sympathy she'd gained.  And I feel must have something to do with her bizarre invisible edit.

 

Of course, Brenda couldn't know it was going to be 3a.  She thought she was picking Dawn to get rewarded, which could have saved her and certainly wouldn't have hurt her, since, as I've said, Dawn is an emotional bully and everyone was ready to give up their loved-one time for her EMOTIONAL NEEDS WHICH ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOURS.  A lot of people on the board came to the conclusion that she should have taken Dawn and said "Sorry guys" to the rest of the castaways, which is probably right, but it's an impossible thing to ask someone to make that counterintuitive calculation in the moment and the flush of happiness at winning reward with her dad, when their reunion brought tears to Jeff Probst's cynical eyes.

 

As I've said before, that wasn't a reward challenge.  That was a punishment challenge.

 

great example of 3a! Brenda got screwed by winning that challenge.

 

Below is just some babbling about Survivor: Caramoan's Brenda, Dawn, etc...

 

I didn't start watching Survivor until 5 or so years ago and binged them all in a short period of time. I didn't pay that close attention to them and was likely influenced heavily by the edit. After watching the past 2 seasons in real time more closely and reading about them here, I've paid closer attention to the show, strategy, and edit. I've recently re-watched some of the seasons.

 

Brenda and Dawn are interesting players and both seem like flawed humans but I don't think either are "good" or "bad" but a mix of good and bad (just like all humans). I recently re-watched "Fabio's" season and Caramoan. It wasn't until the very end of Caramoan that I realized that Brenda was from Fabio's year and that she was one of the kind-of-mean girls who was best friends with Naonka (she laughed with Naonka about amputee Kelley and while not overtly cruel she was passively cruel imo and IIRC). However on Caramoan she redeemed her image until FTC (teeth thing) however I understand her motives at FTC and while I don't think it was totally out of spite but more to show that Dawn was lying. I liked Brenda in Caramoan but not in Nicaragua. She wasn't extremely prominent in Caramoan since she more more low-key until toward the end. Plus there was so much other drama going on that she wasn't directly involved in.

 

Dawn couldn't have won against Brenda and so I can understand her getting rid of her however her game was so bad (get to the end but can't win) that I don't know what she could have done different at that point in the game except play for #2 and keep Brenda. Maybe in Dawn talked to Eric and said, we can't win against Brenda and I can't vote against her but you may want to….not sure.

 

Dawn annoyed me but I understand her. I think she was similar to Brendon in that she couldn't control her emotions. She released them by crying and she was emotionally unstable. I don't think she intentionally cried and she ended up seeming to others like she was a basket case and emotionally manipulative. Imo she came across as selfish--so wrapped up in her emotions and ignored the impact they had on others. I guess she ran into the jungle to cry alone so she wasn't 100% selfish. What's strange is that for a woman so worried about how she appeared to others (dentures or partials or whatever teeth thing) she didn't realized how bad it would look for her to cut Brenda even though strategically it made sense (but didn't make sense in that she couldn't' win the game with or without her imo). I guess she wasn't self aware enough to realized she couldn't win if she got to the end with any of them (unless it was just a finale two and it was her and Sherri but it wasn't a final two). Maybe she could have gone for a scenario where at F4 the others pick her over Brenda but still, I don't see how she could have won since she couldn't win against Cochran and is she cut Cochran then it would almost be as bad as her cutting Brenda (Cochran was her therapist).

 

Dawn didn't bully Corrine. Corrine came to Dawn wanting Dawn to switch to be #5 or 6 of a 5 or 6 person alliance). Corrine approached Dawn and why wouldn't Dawn tell her alliance about it since she is in a better spot with her own alliance and then they could thwart the flipping of the bottom (Malcolm, Reynold, Eddie, Corrine). Plus Corrine did the same with Sherri and both Sherri and Dawn told on Corrine. When watching it I was disappointed since I didn't like Phillip and I like watching the bottom flip however I think Dawn and Sherri made the right call for their game.

 

Cochran played an awesome game and his speeches/answers at the FTC were great. The first time watching that season I didn't appreciate what a great game he played.

 

Why did Erik have medical problems? He went to every reward, had rice and beans and survivor is only 39 days long. They implied starvation but I don't see how he was starving with all the rewards.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Vicky8675309

[Vicky8675309]

http://survivor.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Recurring_Challenges

For me, the most entertaining challenges to watch are Basket Brawl, Battle Dig, Kicking and Screaming. However they are not challenges that favor my favorite players (the Cochrans, Spencers, etc…)

[Nashville]

Did you factor in the positive benefits of getting more food, which can (in theory) help players win immunity?  

 

Truthfully, I consider that a wash. Two main reasons why:

• One good meal isn't going to significantly counter the effects of several days/weeks of starvation rations. When your body is in starvation mode, it does not process food in the same way as when it is not in starvation mode (proteins going to rebuild muscle mass, sugars and carbohydrates boosting energy levels, etc.) - everything initially goes to replenish body stores - specifically, fat. The player may feel better, to be sure - but other than giving that player deeper replenished reserves to draw on for the next day or two, the actual functional difference will be minor. Dump enough food in to overwhelm the body's store replenishment capacity, and you might get some of the food input going to operative body systems instead of stores - but there you run the risk of accelerating Reason #2 (below).
• For efficiency's sake, your body adapts to its regular diet - it maximizes its ability to extract usable energy from what it has to work with. Take someone whose diet over the past few days/weeks/months has been primarily rice with some incidental minor protein (eggs, fish, shellfish, whatever), dump a truckload of rich food (pizza, hamburgers, desserts, etc.) into them, and what's the predictable result? Massive diarrhea. Your digestive system is suddenly loaded with food types its current adaptation isn't geared to process. Your digestive system can re-adapt fairly quickly to a new diet, over the course of 2-3 days - but not over the course of a single meal. So initially, any way, the body's response will be to let the new unrecognized stuff slide on through. Hand-in-hand with the diarrhea goes dehydration - an effect which will be further exacerbated by any of the alcohol which frequently accompanies these rewards. End result being, physiologically speaking, it's possible to return to camp in worse shape than when you left.

By no means am I saying there's absolutely no benefit to winning a food reward. I'm just saying *I* suspect (a) the advantages aren't nearly as significant as Production plays them up to be, and (b) the advantages are very short-lived - a day to two at best. Which, yes, may be all a player needs to succeed at that next crucial Immunity Challenge.

Also there are the advantages of having time to schmooze or scheme with a new subset of players than you get to around camp, and the disadvantages of those you left behind getting to do the same, behind your back.

Part of what I was trying to describe as an advantage/disadvantage to the segregation motive behind winning an Exclusive RC.

[Nashville]

3a is precisely the bullshit which screwed Brenda out of any chance of winning either the million or the hearts of America in Caramoan

THANK you. The option seemed logically obvious enough to me when I was writing the original post, but at 5:00 AM my memory recall was pretty much shot to the point I couldn't recall any specific examples.

Of course, Brenda couldn't know it was going to be 3a.  She thought she was picking Dawn to get rewarded, which could have saved her and certainly wouldn't have hurt her, since, as I've said, Dawn is an emotional bully and everyone was ready to give up their loved-one time for her EMOTIONAL NEEDS WHICH ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOURS.  A lot of people on the board came to the conclusion that she should have taken Dawn and said "Sorry guys" to the rest of the castaways, which is probably right, but it's an impossible thing to ask someone to make that counterintuitive calculation in the moment and the flush of happiness at winning reward with her dad, when their reunion brought tears to Jeff Probst's cynical eyes.

 

As I've said before, that wasn't a reward challenge.  That was a punishment challenge.

The biggest disadvantage behind any/either of the Sacrificial variations, which I didn't really address, is the "gotcha" factor - you don't know know you're in it until it's too late, you've already won the RC, and you've already made selections in terms of the "normal" vs. the variation. Which leaves you with a new decision to be made when you're already physically and mentally exhausted from the RC - and in the case of the Exclusive Sacrificial, quite possibly emotionally exhausted from your initial round of reward recipients.

Which, IMHO, is yet another example of why you should avoid winning RCs at all costs. Better to let someone else win it, then - if absence from Camp doesn't pose a significant problem/issue - beg them to take you along . :)

[Hera]

I think players can spin most of their reward inclusion choices to the excluded players (though not all do that successfully), except when they've excluded a player they previously promised to include (or give up reward for). Witness Chase and multiple people in Nicaragua or Carolyn and Rodney in Worlds Apart.

 

I get why it happens—people are tired and hungry and they lose track of what they've said to whom or the reward is so good that in the moment, they can't bear to give it up. But if "never try to win an individual reward challenge" is going to be an axiom for good players, then it should definitely come after, "never promise to take anyone on reward or give up a reward for anyone, no matter how good an idea it seems at the time".

[SnideAsides]

I'm so sad we had a season of recycled challenges with a "second chance" theme, with Terry in the cast, and didn't get a repeat of the WHAMBULANCE! counting challenge.

[Bryce Lynch]

http://survivor.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Recurring_Challenges

For me, the most entertaining challenges to watch are Basket Brawl, Battle Dig, Kicking and Screaming. However they are not challenges that favor my favorite players (the Cochrans, Spencers, etc…)

I love Basket Brawl. It should be a professional sport. I find the combination a stratey, skill and brutality fascinating and entertaining.

[Bryce Lynch]

I hated seeing Brenda screwed by winning the RC and doing the right thing.

I think the smart move in such a predicament would be to very loudly make it clear to the tribe that you want to give up the reward, but will only do it if the person in Dawn's position is OK with it.

If Dawn says no, you get the reward, and some of the goodwill with the jury for being willing to sacrifice, the tribe hates Dawn, and Dawn doesn't hate you.

If Dawn says yes, you still get most of the goodwill, but Dawn also gets some, making her less spiteful and also putting less of a "she's a huge threat with the jury for sacrifing her reward" target on your back.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[SVNBob]

I re-watched the Pearl Islands finale earlier this week, and the F4 IC that season hasn't been repeated yet.  But I think it should.

As a reminder, the IC in question was a "local knowledge/survival guide" trivia challenge - first to 5 points wins, but with with a twist.  It took place at TC, and the jury also competed in the challenge as a single unit.  If the jury won (which they did), no-one was immune from the vote.

After this re-watch, I did realize that the jury had an unfair advantage.  Since the 5 of them were working together to come up with one answer, they were practically guaranteed to get every question correct.  (They did miss one, and Fairplay got it right because the correct answer was the smart-ass answer.  But they nailed the rest.)  Meaning the best the members of the F4 could realistically hope for was a tie with the jury, which would probably go to a tiebreaker in the same format, 5 vs 1.  And the jury would probably win that.  So I came up with a variation on this challenge and I'd like to get feedback.

Do the challenge the same way, but have the 5 jury members answer separately instead of as one.  If the majority of the jury is correct (3 or more), then they get the point.  This still tests everyone's knowledge, and gives weight to the jury members' performances, but is more fair to the players still in the game.

I also decided on the best time to run this challenge; at F5.  The jury is typically at 5 members at F5 now, plus F5 is usually the last chance to play an HII.  So even if the jury wins the challenge and nullifies the main II, there's still the chance for the HII to be a factor.

[Guest]

I think they gave up the local trivia and most other knowledge/brain-based challenges long ago based on viewers finding them dull.  I always liked them.  

[cherrypj]

5 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think they gave up the local trivia and most other knowledge/brain-based challenges long ago based on viewers finding them dull.  I always liked them.  

They did it in Second Chances. Stephen won.