|
|
Post by Yoggington on Sept 3, 2016 4:18:45 GMT
A new Season is on us  And yes, this is happening. Scoring is going to stay mostly identical to last year. However, there could be a few minor tweaks where needed or wanted. There is definitely an overhaul of the trading system in the works so keep your eye out for that when it arrives. Between now and the beginning of the Season, we're looking to see if you felt any of the current scores were too generous or not generous enough - should teams that win immunity get a bigger boost? Should sit-outs get shafted? All that sort of thing. The old scoring system is hidden away for tidyness' sake but can be accessed at this link. Any outright brand new suggestions also welcome - e.g. "5 Points to be given to the Survivor that gives the Episode Title quote", that kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by gerbil on Sept 3, 2016 5:13:31 GMT
I remember participating in another game similar to this one once where, in addition to the usual scoring methods, Survivors also scored a small amount of points for crying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Waka on Sept 3, 2016 19:16:08 GMT
tbh the "initial pricing" always seemed a bit iffy to me. It's really subjective. I would rather just say everyone costs 3 pre-game, you can pick 5 people (at least 2M 2F and a captain of choice) and let things evolve from there.
I still think episode namer deserves points. Nobody ever really dominates the episode names I don't think, and those who do get more than others aren't always the people that do well in other point avenues.
I think that tribal challenges should earn more points, or at least distribute points differently. I don't like that sitting people out penalizes the larger team for points total. It should just split the full points among the participants with the sit-out still receiving nothing.
Potential bonus +1 or -1 for any time Probst comments on your challenge performance (in a positive or negative way respectively) This might be too annoying to score but i'm just posting all ideas.
There should be extra scoring rules for generic "advantages" such as vote steal/doubler and jury removal
Hashtags should be removed since they aren't consistent across all viewing platforms.
Exile Island scoring should be removed or changed. Minus points? why.
Pre-intro confessionals should be counted normally, but I think double points for First/Final Confessional or something like an unusually placed confessional (such as in the middle of a challenge) could be a good alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoggington on Sept 3, 2016 19:33:03 GMT
tbh the "initial pricing" always seemed a bit iffy to me. It's really subjective. I would rather just say everyone costs 3 pre-game, you can pick 5 people (at least 2M 2F and a captain of choice) and let things evolve from there. Oooh, I don't like this at all. There are always obvious people like Zeke for instance, who are guaranteed camera & point hogs, versus people like.. Michele, who just aren't in the same price bracket. If everyone cost the same, it could lead to all teams being 90% identical as everyone goes for the same obvious big scorers. The prices will evolve soon enough, and even if we don't pitch em right at first, sure it's an even market for all players. All the rest of the post though, good ideas keep em coming. |
|
|
|
Post by Waka on Sept 4, 2016 5:48:43 GMT
tbh the "initial pricing" always seemed a bit iffy to me. It's really subjective. I would rather just say everyone costs 3 pre-game, you can pick 5 people (at least 2M 2F and a captain of choice) and let things evolve from there. Oooh, I don't like this at all. There are always obvious people like Zeke for instance, who are guaranteed camera & point hogs, versus people like.. Michele, who just aren't in the same price bracket. If everyone cost the same, it could lead to all teams being 90% identical as everyone goes for the same obvious big scorers. The prices will evolve soon enough, and even if we don't pitch em right at first, sure it's an even market for all players. All the rest of the post though, good ideas keep em coming. Fair. What about finding a pre-season popularity poll somewhere (or hosting your own, but that could lead to "strategic votes") and basing the initial prices based on that? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoggington on Sept 4, 2016 9:55:57 GMT
Oooh, I don't like this at all. There are always obvious people like Zeke for instance, who are guaranteed camera & point hogs, versus people like.. Michele, who just aren't in the same price bracket. If everyone cost the same, it could lead to all teams being 90% identical as everyone goes for the same obvious big scorers. The prices will evolve soon enough, and even if we don't pitch em right at first, sure it's an even market for all players. All the rest of the post though, good ideas keep em coming. Fair. What about finding a pre-season popularity poll somewhere (or hosting your own, but that could lead to "strategic votes") and basing the initial prices based on that? Go nuts: strandedaustralia.proboards.com/post/395050/thread  I asked a few others to give me rankings but there's about a day before we decide and so far there is just me/Mods/Ethan. |
|
|
|
Post by Waka on Sept 4, 2016 16:47:56 GMT
ugh, stop being so reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duck on Sept 5, 2016 20:39:11 GMT
How can someone get points for winning an advantage but then lose points for winning a challenge with that advantage. That seems off to me. The advantage is a good thing for the player, yes. So why hurt their score because they used it right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoggington on Sept 5, 2016 20:46:14 GMT
How can someone get points for winning an advantage but then lose points for winning a challenge with that advantage. That seems off to me. The advantage is a good thing for the player, yes. So why hurt their score because they used it right? That's a good point actually. I guess the deduction inherited from the old scores was just to show a win without needing an advantage is worth more than having to rely on one. That is -5. And gaining an advantage, is either +20 if you pick it up in auction, or +10 some other way. But these also cover things like gaining Tai/Stephen's double vote thingie, or Michelle's kill-a-Juror advantage. Everything in the game that's not an idol. Still, I'd be inclined to wipe the -5 for winning while needing one. It's counterproductive. I'll talk to Modesty & Macka before I just do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Modesty on Sept 5, 2016 22:50:03 GMT
How can someone get points for winning an advantage but then lose points for winning a challenge with that advantage. That seems off to me. The advantage is a good thing for the player, yes. So why hurt their score because they used it right? That's a good point actually. I guess the deduction inherited from the old scores was just to show a win without needing an advantage is worth more than having to rely on one. That is -5. And gaining an advantage, is either +20 if you pick it up in auction, or +10 some other way. But these also cover things like gaining Tai/Stephen's double vote thingie, or Michelle's kill-a-Juror advantage. Everything in the game that's not an idol. Still, I'd be inclined to wipe the -5 for winning while needing one. It's counterproductive. I'll talk to Modesty & Macka before I just do it. Agreed. the -5 is a grandfathered rule that I actually missed in the re-write, stoopid Ghost rule. Happy to ditch it. |
|
|
|
Post by TMM on Sept 15, 2016 6:26:28 GMT
If I don't use a trade in Week 1 and use one in Week 2, would that count as my rolled over Week 1 trade, allowing me to still use two the following week, or would that count as the Week 2 trade?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoggington on Sept 15, 2016 10:09:26 GMT
That would be your Week 2 Trade.
I was going to put a half dozen scenarios in the how-to thread, but the exact wording here should cover it:
You will be allowed make two free-trades, only if, you did not use a free-trade in the previous week.
i.e. Looking back at your question in week 3, it must have been the week 2 trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macka on Sept 15, 2016 14:25:04 GMT
Still, I'd be inclined to wipe the -5 for winning while needing one. It's counterproductive. I'll talk to Modesty & Macka before I just do it. All in favour! |
|
|
|
Post by Snakewing on Sept 15, 2016 22:40:01 GMT
Still, I'd be inclined to wipe the -5 for winning while needing one. It's counterproductive. I'll talk to Modesty & Macka before I just do it. All in favour! Sure why not? |
|
|
|
Post by Duck on Sept 16, 2016 0:03:59 GMT
That wording is bad. To say "win while needing" implies that they won't win without it when it's reasonable enough to assume they still had the chance to win. It's stupid to reward getting something but penalise the use of it.
As for the trades roll over thing. If I've interpreted it simply, if you don't use a trade, you get two trades the next week. But you never hold more than two trades.
|
|
