What I jacked were quotes literally from Dan and Regina, respectively.In post 47, xRECKONERx wrote:None of this happened.
So, no.
What I jacked were quotes literally from Dan and Regina, respectively.In post 47, xRECKONERx wrote:None of this happened.
Yeah, I considered this today. I think limiting FTC speeches to a wordcount and limiting jury questions and responses would be a good start so people dont feel the need to ahve 10 page long bitchfests.In post 49, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:Those are good points Reck! I hadn't thought about how juries lately have been punishing risky play, although that may be a result of jury members not caring as much and voting for who they like more. Either way, a large part of it is jurors making everything about themselves. I think this could be countered by only allowing each jury member 1-3 questions like we did in RSX.
Oooooh boy there's a lot to unpack here and really I should be modding my other game, so gonna keep this brief:In post 47, xRECKONERx wrote:However, the meta has settled again, it seems. And the new meta is some version of "I don't care that people made moves or whatever, I'm going to be mad that people took risks." That's the biggest problem with the modern meta. People don't want to take risks. And if they do -- and those risks pay off -- they're still lambasted for "taking risks". It means that it enforces this meta where people are scared to be the ringleader, scared to make moves, etc. And then, of course, specs & mods are disappointed when their games are boring and nobody's doing anything. It's a vicious cycle.
In order to break the old boring majority alliance/pagong meta, it took some games designed specifically with the aim of breaking that meta. At the tail end of that meta people were constantly complaining and eyerolling about it. And after that meta kinda broke, we got games like Conclave, DW, NAH, Arkham, PSV, Eon. Good, solid games with good, solid winners.
It's gonna take some doing but I think the main issue now is a compounding of multiple problems.
- F3s have become more common and that means people are reacting to this. In F2 meta, you could take someone else with you who had also fucked people over and force the jury to choose. Now, juries seem to just default to picking the person who was the least controversial in a F3.
- For some reason, the idea of being an iconic juror who really gives it to the finalists has become some kinda goal, even for finalists who weren't bad, making it just toxic.
- Juries for so long have disincentivized risky or aggressive play, and now that's what the meta has reacted to, resulting in fairly meh characters making it far.
I'm sure there are other things to this as well but I think it's worth noting that when metas get stale, we see a droop, and we have to actively work to fix it.
Honestly I'd be in favor of "Juror gets a single post, each finalist gets a single response" (basically what I did in Medevac).In post 52, xRECKONERx wrote:Yeah, I considered this today. I think limiting FTC speeches to a wordcount and limiting jury questions and responses would be a good start so people dont feel the need to ahve 10 page long bitchfests.In post 49, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:Those are good points Reck! I hadn't thought about how juries lately have been punishing risky play, although that may be a result of jury members not caring as much and voting for who they like more. Either way, a large part of it is jurors making everything about themselves. I think this could be countered by only allowing each jury member 1-3 questions like we did in RSX.
In what world did that happen this game?In post 54, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:Yeah, I'd definitely say the reason I find it hard to keep modding is that players who maintain the status quo and just play with their friends keep being rewarded, and while I don't think that's not a valid way to play or anything, it's boring to watch it play out every game. I don't know if anything really needs to change though, and I could very well be the problem; my views of what makes an enjoyable game simply don't align with most of the community.
He means like in game friends, not ms friends. That's an issue we should not get into here plz plz plzIn post 58, BROseidon wrote:In what world did that happen this game?In post 54, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:Yeah, I'd definitely say the reason I find it hard to keep modding is that players who maintain the status quo and just play with their friends keep being rewarded, and while I don't think that's not a valid way to play or anything, it's boring to watch it play out every game. I don't know if anything really needs to change though, and I could very well be the problem; my views of what makes an enjoyable game simply don't align with most of the community.
Yeah, I did. And I've said publicly my toxicity to the final jurors was bullshit and that, even though I'm glad Shaco won, I hate the fact that he won basically simply because Shaco was less offensive.In post 62, Shadoweh wrote:Reck, you voted for Shaco. Don't you have some sort of idea why the least controversial/not risky/'nicest' person gets votes? It's certainly not because the jury cares less.
Besides, the winner of this game wasn't that type of player, and DBZA/Medevac happened. Y'all might be overreacting a bit.
(PSV and Eon are terrible examples of pagongs going out of style imo with Bluebell and Reinbow stronk )
even for finalists who weren't bad meaning finalists who weren't OTT toxic and awful and deserving of ridicule and scornIn post 67, BROseidon wrote:1) Lying in the background has risks, too. Look at players like Rizz and Steve and Maddie who didn't make it to the end, or the countless other "floaters" or "non-entities" in the game who got picked off pre-merge. There's always risk in not doing everything you can to keep yourself in the game/not making moves. Inaction is still a decision, and one thing Juno articulated reasonably well how she approached that.
2) Can you really say that, though, after how many big moves this game had? How many big moves DBZ had? How many big moves (early) that Nexus had? People aren't actually afraid of making big moves, and not every round has to be a Regina boot.
4) Yeah there's clearly a line. Until someone is saying "pick a number" for realzies (because memeing it the way Kelly did in 2nd chances is lulz), we aren't across it. Like, I'd argue that even Valla's "hot guys pls" question had merit to it in the sense that it was asking the three finalists how well they knew her (granted, through a really bizarre lens but yeah)
5) "even for finalists who weren't bad" is what I'm paraphrasing.
6) For one, Alexis never really got close to losing. For Kawazu, there were clear, identifiable things he did that nearly cost him the game because he was trolling "for the lulz" (and I still contest that the aesthetics of Zeno winning would have been absolutely amazing). Hermione almost didn't win because she lost jury votes at FTC that were up in the air.
But in the end, "almost" doesn't really matter in Survivor. Brian only won 4-3, but he's considered one of the most dominant players of all time.
Kilby, I'm going to be nice when I say this.In post 72, hiplop wrote:Im quitting because the meta sucks right now and Juno doing so well confirmed that to me. Nothing against juno.