Welcome to UAQ With HighCarry: carrying you so high, you reach the top! AKA
Unfrequently Asked Questions with HighSpace and HardCarry!
Emile and I love talking about Survivor gameplay and we also feel like a lot of you may have questions about how we approach different aspects of the game so we decided to create this thread where we answer any questions you may have.
I guess to expand on my statement here... If you can GUARANTEE your safety by winning a comp, why not do it? It's safer than social game or strategic game, because no amount of stupidity can get you voted off.
A lot of people see comps as not part of the game though, because the core of events in the game are through the organization of votes and navigating alliances, which is all social and strategic.
There's something about physical game that people seem to ignore though: You can win immunity not to save yourself, but to prevent someone else from winning it. Also, in tribes, how can you keep a strong group moving forward? And have the numbers? You need to win tribe immunities. Which depend on nothing but physical game
The people who, for reasons beyond me, throw their games away by blindly following someone else and are content with the runner up finish because they were 'just playing to have fun' or whatever.
I fail to see how much fun one can possibly have by being nothing more than a lapdog for 8+ hours.
When people make stupid decisions. My game often relies on people doing things that make sense, because that's how I ultimately outwit them. When they refuse to use their brain, I may end up setting myself up in such a way where I get out even if it was bad for their games.
Q1: I think you need to expand on it if you want a better shot at being cast? For example, if I had to answer that question on an app, it would go something like this...
Although that depends on the cast, I do have general guidelines I plan to follow. I focus on the moves of the game, and I put much less care into social relationships. I do not care how many people trust me or who's currently in power. If I can constantly set up the game in such a way where taking me out is nowhere near anyone's best strategic option, then I'm golden. To do that, I'll often focus on controlling information flow and perception so that the players do the things I want them to do
Q2: Not really. The most you can predict is the strength of each player. So, I guess you can judge how strong you'd be compared to the cast as a whole, but not your placement.
Q3: Because you play a game that the jury doesn't feel like awarding.
That is situational. The idol is a tool that can be used many different ways. What's important is you need to know what's going to happen depending on how you use it. What's going to happen if you tell x person about your idol? What's going to happen if people find out you had one but you never told them? A good strategic game constantly asks these questions so they know what to do moving forward.
Consistency. If you want people to perceive you a certain way, you need to talk and act the way that would make people associate you with whatever perception you're trying to give of yourself. You want to appear like someone that doesn't know too much? Act like it. And I don't understand your second question
Oh, yeah absolutely everything will change. I think that you're now introducing meta into the game and people are going to have the mentality of "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me." They're going to adjust their gameplay based on what happened in the previous game whether it's targeting allies in the past game or not trusting certain players because of how they played.
first scenario is them knowing the outcome of the game. as in. if you gathered the same cast and got them to play again with everything the same. all the challenges and twists the same but the cast is aware of what happened in the game they played previously.
how would you strategise around an idol? do you think idols should be kept secret or told to use against someone but at a risk of people trying to blindside you due to fear of it? or what?
I think my original response was misguided for your last question so I'm going to edit it.
An under the radar game first and foremost needs to be differentiated from a goat's game. The jury must not think that you were a goat and must instead think that you played UTR. Oftentimes, that may entail demonstrating instances where you didn't always listen to players who played flashier than you. You also have to demonstrate that you played UTR because there were other flashier players who had the same goals as you so you just freeloaded off of them and then when your goals diverged, you stopped "following" them. You need to explain how your play impacted the game at the end during FTC. Last but not least, you need to be "rootable" and have strong social connections with the jury.
For your first part of the question, I don't mean to get all nerdy on you, but that depends. Are events A and B independent? That is, if I took a cast and simulated a game with that cast and then repeated the experiment, am I assuming that they don't know the outcome of the first game and won't change their decisions based on the outcome of the first game?
I think that if you threw a twist into a game, that would absolutely change/affect the outcome of the game. Survivor has a lot of luck in it and you can only put yourself in the best possible position to win; sometimes, that isn't enough due to luck or a twist. Mutinies, Redemption Island, Idols, Swaps, etc. are all huge. Of course they would change the outcome of a game.
I believe that HighSpace and I think very similarly so a lot of the time, he can predict what I'm going to do or figure out what I'm trying to do which can be really annoying. I feel like this relationship goes both ways, it's really fascinating to see tbh, but also super annoying.
Finally, an under the radar game first and foremost needs to be differentiated from a goat's game. The jury must not think that you were a goat and must instead think that you played UTR. Oftentimes, that may entail making a big move at the end or flipping on a big name to do so. You need to explain how your play impacted the game at the end during FTC. Last but not least, you need to be "rootable" and have strong social connections with the jury.
I define overplaying as doing actions which are extraneous or unnecessary. So one example that I would have of this is a player making multiple alliances or making multiple final 2 deals just for the sake of doing so. Like yes, you cover more bases, but you also make yourself more vulnerable to being exposed and having to choose between multiple sides. You usually can tell when somebody is overplaying because you get the vibe that they're a huge tryhard. If they're trying hard to make a big move happen in the beginning of the game when it's not necessary, they're probably overplaying.
For your 2nd question, it really depends on your playstyle. Some players tend to ally more people than others and there are pros and cons to each playstyle. For example, I tend to ally a lot of players while HighSpace tries to ally a very select few.
Pros to Allying a lot of people: Cover more bases, collect more information, more "outs" Cons: Easier to get exposed, you have to spend more effort on cultivating all the relationships that you've started, very easy to end up spreading yourself too thin resulting in an OK relationship with a lot of people but not a GREAT relationship, probably more cutthroat
Pros to Allying less people: You can focus on your energy on these few allies and make them strong, avoid awkward situations where you're in the middle of 2 opposite alliances pre-merge. Cons: Allies are less expendable, more reliant on your allies for information
hs you've talked a lot about image in orgs. Could you expand on your philosophy about how in orgs whats needed is to give off a certain image? and how do you think one or yourself might be able to show such an image?
hc: If the same cast was cast again do you beleive the outcome would be the same or differerent and how different do you think it might be? what if you traveled back in time and threw in a twist that wasn't there before? do you think it would have any sort of impact on the results of the game or on how the game would have progressed?
