I'm really craving this challenge to come back. Not only is it important to Survivor history, but it gives players some insight to where they stand on the tribe and push them to making a move.
I know they could just game the system, but there must be some way to avoid this. Maybe have it partially take place during confessionals, so they aren't aware that they are playing?
i think turn it into an immunity. the reason everyone fell over themselves to give it to missy in sjds was because it was low risk/high reward for that alliance to give it to her. if it’s an immunity, they’re incentivized not to throw it, to win it for themselves, and to block the people who they don’t want to see get immunity (thereby signaling where people stand). eta plus it would be cool to see an immunity challenge rely fully on social game + game strategy
As an immunity anything "subjective" or that can be gamed out to beat one person is inherently awful design. Love them or hate them but if Mike or Ben or Rachel or Gen or Tom lost an immunity cause everyone just ganged up and played to take them out it would be the Kenzie/Liz thing times 1000.
i only sort of agree with this. i think this would need to be a pretty early merge immunity to work for the reason you mentioned. that way there are plenty of targets and some room for alliance/game fluidity. but i mean collaborating on a f5 immunity challenge that’s intended to be individual just to take out the last big threat of the game is completely different from having, say, 10 people left in the game battling via social game and allowing for game fluidity. i think some people may find it more engaging to see early merge power structure shakeups than watch an uncontested immunity run and dominant vote outs. so yes, your point is well taken, but imo if safeguards are in place to make it more dynamic than a late stage blowout, it could be a really fun challenge.
It was already an immunity in The Amazon.
forgot about this! i still think this would be a good way to fix the issue that got it removed
You know, people say this all the time. Name one time besides Marquesas that it actually pushed people to make a move.
It worked once out of several dozen times. Every other time, it's just been an excuse to bully the person who was already on the outs. Touchy Subjects is one of those things that old school fans say they want, and then they'll rage about it the moment their favorite person gets even the slightest amount of criticism during it.
I agree that the outcome hasn’t really changed much, but in theory it should have. Alicia in all-stars and Courtney in Exile Island got a lot of negative “awards” which should have been a warning sign, but they didn’t do anything about it.
courtney flipped to terry after touchy subjects
Earlier seasons used to do the restaurant reward where the better you did in the challenge, the better your meal would be. Winner got steak and lobster, second place was a burger and fries, third was spaghetti, and soon down the line. Last place got some rice and well water.
The weird thing is that they never paired up the Touchy Subjects/Coconut Chop challenge with this style of reward. Maybe that's how you make this viable again.
I don't think the challenge should be a surprise to them
Making it a really good reward with a safety without power or possible advantage for the immunity challenge might make people more willing to ruin relationships. People are starving so they're already not thinking straight. Bribe them with food.
Also the questions might need to be changed. Say there are 10 people left in the game. Give everyone a board with ten questions and everyone has to match a name with a question (most social, most likely to find an idol, most likely to betray an ally, etc.) Everyone gets points based on how many times they answered "correctly" (i.e. with the plurality).
Every player has five "hitpoints". After scoring, everyone reveals at once where they chose to allocate these points to decrease hitpoints. Whoever still has at least one hitpoint gets to continue to smaller rounds until a sudden death round (3 or fewer player remaining).
Sudden death goes to the "jury". Every single one of them votes for someone to win the challenge.
Maybe just bring it back in a non-blood vs water season. Jeff is so dramatic.
Literally. I think it was bold to try it on a Blood vs. Water challenge, but i’m not shocked that it played out like that. Just bring it back, it would also surprise the hell out of players
Please remind us what happened.
Eh, I feel like any smart alliance would probably do the same thing after seeing how they did it in SJDS, regardless of family relations
Only Baylor had a vested interest in Missy specifically winning out of the other alliance members
You could eliminate the cutting people out part. Maybe just make it most points win. That way there’s no teaming, since it causes boring television.
Point based scoring instead of elimination based
No chopping, first person to get _ correct answers is the winner, just like it was in Amazon
Make people play long enough to form strong opinions about their fellow castaways.
The best way would be to not bring it back and never mention it again because it was always a terrible challenge and miserable/boring to watch.
I guess make it a high stakes reward
Also it was huge missed opportunity that they didn’t bring it back for 46
Style it as more of a Newlyweds game where before the game starts, the players answer a series of questions about themselves. Then at the challenge they have to match the answers with the player.
So less about their perception of one another but what is actually factual about them and what they have learned in the time spent in the game.