URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID2
Thread Number: 4750
[ Go back to previous page ]

Original Message
"Three tribes in retrospect ..."

Posted by SnowBunny on 02-02-04 at 11:56 PM
Since Australia, I have been hoping they would mix up the format to create three tribes as an answer to the pagong issue. Needless to say, I was very excited to see this format for All-Stars. It may be a little early to determine how well the three tribes concept works out this season, but it might be worthy of some consideration even after the first show. I, for one, am starting to question this as an alternative.

1. Does it make for better television?
Drawing a storyline for three different tribes in the same one-hour format might make things seem choppy, out of chronological order, or even confusing. Imagine if these were 18 people we haven't seen before. Would it work?
At the same time, though, we hear a great deal about the boredom they suffer most of the time they are there. Having three dramas to edit might get better footage for television in the end. Less air time about chasing chickens and stinky socks.

2. Is it still all about alliances?
It may practically eliminate the power alliances from forming early in the game. Clearly, Richard Hatch did the math for season 1 and the formula worked for many more seasons despite MB's efforts to shake things up with swaps and such.
However, it may force people into early alliances in order to stay in the game. With the smaller number of 6 people per tribe, your odds of being the one booted are better. Fewer interesting outsiders or couples?
Perhaps this may just be the nature of the castaways chosen for this season, though. "We're all paranoid."

3. When to merge?
Imagine a tribe performs particularly bad in the first three IC's (it has happened before!). How much fun would it really be to see two tribes sit three people out each? Six people (out of 15 total) sitting on the sidelines during an immunity challenge doesn't sound all that entertaining.

Any other observations?


Table of contents

Messages in this discussion
"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by Naked on 02-03-04 at 01:06 AM
SnowBunny,

Great analysis. I will reply to this later on, but it should, and probably will be moved over to the fanatics board as it doesn't contain any spoilers.


"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by SnowBunny on 02-03-04 at 10:16 AM
Thanks. I wondered about the fanatics forum myself, but it didn't seem to fit with the other discussion topics I see in that forum.

"Spoilers"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 02-03-04 at 06:08 AM
It might make spoiling more difficult for us if we have a three-tribe setup because we wouldn't get as much time focused on each of the tribes. You're right, we wouldn't get as much stupid stuff like talking about stinky socks or chasing chickens, but we would also see more 'rushing through' without really seeing alliances or situations develop in a tribe.

Once they merge, it'd then become back to normal, but I imagine the early few episodes would become more difficult to pick up spoilers.




"RE: Spoilers"
Posted by Brownroach on 02-03-04 at 10:46 AM
And just to state the obvious, it's harder to determine the challenge winners/losers.



"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by Blow by Blow on 02-03-04 at 11:22 AM
The primary thought I had after the first ep was, "these tribes are really small." With only six people it's much harder to form a meaningful 4 person alliance. And 3-way alliances are inherently dangerous because each person will be paranoid that the other two have formed a pact. I think Rupert's 4-way alliance won't hold up if they go to another TC.

I'm curious to see what the other tribes are up to and maybe we'll get that chance in Ep2.

-BbB


"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by kary1371 on 02-03-04 at 11:47 AM
I thought I read somewhere a while back something about three tribes merging into 2, before the final merge.
Anyone heard something to that effect?

"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by Loree on 02-03-04 at 01:08 PM
>
>3. When to merge?
>Imagine a tribe performs particularly bad
>in the first three IC's
>(it has happened before!).
>How much fun would it
>really be to see two
>tribes sit three people out
>each? Six people (out
>of 15 total) sitting on
>the sidelines during an immunity
>challenge doesn't sound all that
>entertaining.
>


I think if one tribe drops down quickly we may see more challenges where the smaller tribe has to reuse members rather than others always sitting out. Like they rotate more and drink more bad blender shakes, or shoot more arrows, etc.


"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by mavsfan on 02-03-04 at 11:12 PM
I'm leaning towards the 3 tribes being a bad idea.

I think the weaker tribes will quickly get picked off once the teams merge. This just starts the pagonging earlier in the game.


"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by dabo on 02-03-04 at 11:16 PM
It can't last forever. Game structure dictates that if one tribe loses four members there has to be a merge of the three tribes into one or two tribes. I expect there will probably be only two tribes by episode 4 or 5.

"If all machines were to be annihilated at one moment, so that not a knife nor lever nor rag of clothing nor anything whatsoever were left to man but his bare body alone that he was born with, and if all knowledge of mechanical laws were taken from him so that he could make no more machines, and all machine-made food destroyed so that the race of man should be left as it were naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")


"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by speedyforme on 02-03-04 at 11:34 PM
i disagree about the LOSING tribe having to be picked off, if it were me, ban the 2 weaker/lesser members together to pick on the BIGGEST tribe...

IMHO the number game would work...unless ppl hated each other from diff teams...therefore, losing at least one member before the merge is good...unless u get all 6 to last until the final 10 merge (IF IT IS 10)


"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by dabo on 02-03-04 at 11:37 PM
Or it could be a complete reshuffle with members of all three tribes having to take their chances. If I was EPMB that's what I'd do with this bunch.

"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by mavsfan on 02-03-04 at 11:39 PM
<< Game structure dictates that if one tribe loses four members
<< there has to be a merge of the three tribes into one or two
<< tribes. I expect there will probably be only two tribes by
<< episode 4 or 5.

Exactly, once a tribe is down to 2-3 players they will be forced to merge the tribes. Spoilers indicate the team with 2-3 players will be absorbed into the larger tribes.

So the 2-3 players appear to get swallowed up into a numerically superior tribe. This will almost certainly seal the fate of the 2-3 players that were absorbed. They will be pagonged. Unless they have TC immunity, but how fare is that? Get TC immunity because they were on an incompetent team?

So the 3 team concept will probably lead to pagonging at the reshuffle semi merge, rather than at the actual merge to 1 tribe.


"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by GetMeOuttaHere on 02-03-04 at 11:44 PM
I wanted to see three tribes too,but this is not working.
TPTB need to break up the alliances in the future,and we need to see more of the people playing the game to get interested.

"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by GlassJax on 02-04-04 at 00:45 AM
How can you say "this is not working" after one episode. Give it a few eeks before you pass judgement.

Too judgemental

"RE: Three tribes in retrospect ..."
Posted by CaptainP on 02-04-04 at 04:45 PM
Yeah, I'm willing to wait until after the second episode to make a judgment call. I'm suprised how at this point, I don't love the three tribe concept. When I heard about it, I thought it was really cool but after seeing the first episode...

To me it just seemed like the teams were TOO small. As someone pointed out above, it's hard to form a meaningful alliance with only six people around. And if your team does crappy at the early challenges, you can pretty much kiss your ASS goodbye come the first merge when the stronger tribes swallow you whole.

I just kinda feel like we're waiting for the three to merge into two so the REAL game can begin... but I'm willing to see hold judgment until after the second episode.


"Merge options"
Posted by Blow by Blow on 02-04-04 at 06:53 PM
I'm just hoping that come merge time (into two tribes) they try to balance the former tribes within the new tribes. Example:

Mogo Mogo has 5
Chapera has 5
Saboga has 4

So they do it this way:
Tribe 1: 2 mogo, 3 chap, 2 sabog
Tribe 2: 3 mogo, 2 chap, 2 sabog

In those new tribes there wouldn't be a clear dominance and in fact the tribes with fewer members would be inclined to partner with the other minority tribe. Or maybe tribe loyalty will play an even smaller role this time around.

Just talking out loud here.

-BbB


"RE: Merge options"
Posted by Loree on 02-04-04 at 07:57 PM
I think the fact that the players all know each other may completely change things. Instead of staying with your original tribe you may ally with your buddies from before the show.