Re: A dozen Survivor twists I'd like to see...
- From: Kenny Blankenship <blank@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:14:40 GMT
In article
<237630dc-db55-4e7f-9eff-62cfcc11e646@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ed Stasiak <estasiak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
The Multi-Switch
16 --- 2 tribes of 8,8
15 --- 3 tribes of 5,5,5
14 --- 2 tribes of 7,7
13 --- 3 tribes of 5,4,4
12 --- 3 tribes of 4,4,4
11 --- 2 tribes of 6,5
10 --- Merge
Oh god, please no!
I don't want to see one switch, let alone seven! I understand the
desire, mix the tribes up to weaken the tribal alliances, but I think it
could be done so much better by having both tribes share one camp.
Tribal switches are a solution to a problem (arbitrary tribal alliances)
created by arbitrarily assigning the players to tribes to start with,
better to do away with the tribes than make more arbitrary decisions.
Stick all sixteen players in one camp for two days, then allow then to
chose up tribes to compete in the challenges.
Or stick them all in one camp and randomly select teams to compete in
the challenges. At set points (e.g. once every three days, say just
before the immunity challenge) make an offer to allow up to half the
players to form a separate tribe and go to a new camp -- if they want
to. If the tribe splits, then that split remains until the merge.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A dozen Survivor twists I'd like to see...
- From: Ed Stasiak
- Re: A dozen Survivor twists I'd like to see...
- Prev by Date: Re: NG VOTE
- Next by Date: Re: Big Survivor Cast Party January 9
- Previous by thread: Re: NG VOTE
- Next by thread: Re: A dozen Survivor twists I'd like to see...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|