manipulating people to vote with you in #Survivor to me.
People seem to hate on players who do nothing but win immunity to rely on their safety. But who says that being able to convince people to vote your way is better than fighting to win immunity yourself? It's all equal to me. You're doing what you need to do to be safe, whether you create an alliance, or go on an immunity streak. It's the exact same thing. Why is it now some rule that the person who is more "strategic" is the better player than the person who fought hard to win immunity?
And this has nothing to do with social game. Strategic and social games are two different things. This is strictly about Strategy vs Physical.
I feel like if Person A manipulated every person into voted their way the entire time, sat in a final 2 with Person B who was a target every round but won immunity and never voted with the majority, Person A would be considered the "better player" over Person B strictly because Person B relied on immunity. But that's what immunity is for. You can argue Person A has a better social game by getting people to vote with them, but Person B can be just as well liked by everyone, but targeted strictly because they're a jury threat, so that cancels out any argument someone can bring up over a social game imo.
What do you think? Is a strategic and physical game even?
Comments
Because ICs come down to luck. It's impossible to be able to control what ICs appear at what time. With manipulating people, everything is within your own hands.
A prime example of this is Bob in Gabon - if the F8 and F7 ICs are switched (which production could have easily done), Bob goes home in 8th place.
flamingjoe What if someone is good at every challenge? Survivor is good at combing Endurance, Skill, Physical, and Puzzle challenges and even combining them all in one. How is it lucky to be good at competing in a competition that anyone can win if they try hard enough?
Timster It's impossible to be good at every single challenge because they're also varied. No one ever has been good at every single one, and no one ever will be.
I didn't say the actual winning of the challenges was "luck"; I said the overall process of winning Immunity ultimately comes down to look because it's production who choose what challenges are used when.
TimsterFlamingjoe Your strategic game also comes down to luck regarding who you get out on a tribe with. How other people are playing might force you to play a certain way and ultimately imo it's also sort of luck of the draw.
Like those people who play with strategies that have worked for others in the past, only to be voted off early instead.
Renegade628 The game of Survivor is hugely affected by luck in a number of different ways. Once you reach the merge portion of the game, like what we're talking about in regards to winning Individual ICs, you should be fully aware of the people whom you're playing with and how they act and behave.
I dont think its fair to say IDs are about luck.... especially if you go on an immunity run. The odds that they will be mainly the same concept are highly unlikely. So for me I look at someone like Tony as a strategic threat and Bob Crowley as a physical threat. Two winners who won the game these 2 ways.
I guess its fair to say that from China and beyond, it was always either a winner that was dubbed the most physical or strategic whereas before it seemed that it was mainly social. You can look at most of the first 14 winners (7/14) and say that they won because of a mainly social game.
Well I was just speaking in reference to the first 14 seasons however I do not think Natalie is an exception because as Erik stated in his jury speech that her qualities were nice, loyal, and talkative. This doesn't necessarily mean a full out social game. I can see why you think that though. I think Russell over shadow her in this season.
The reason a strategic game is valued higher is because you have to come up with the strategies, convince the people, and try to keep them into your manipulation. It's a longer and more tedious process, whereas winning immunity is like a sliver of your day on Survivor and all you have to do is sit around if you want to to stay safe because you have 0% chance of going home.
In strategy, you have to keep yourself safe while taking out the biggest threats.
In physical, you have to win challenges.
That's why I view strategy as a better game, but I see points for all.
A prime example of this is Bob in Gabon - if the F8 and F7 ICs are switched (which production could have easily done), Bob goes home in 8th place.