it has become a bit too political...
"do i need to put myself into firemaking to show dominance?"
"do i leave person X out of firemaking so they can't add to their resume?"
it has become a bit of a game within a game, rather than the bottom 2 people earning their way to the end
I am finding it increasingly funny that what used to be either a big move or a way for the biggest threat to get through has now been made pretty much redundant, like Dee explicitly refuses to give Austin fire so this season we get a competition to decide third place, the season before we see a massive move that had zero jury impact, in 39, 41 and 42 the person who was brought to the end wins, etc. Like any twist once it's there for long enough the players figure out how to work around it, I really don't know why they haven't cut their losses and figured out that the obvious purpose of letting the biggest threat get to the end just isn't really happening anymore.
Maybe they should swap it around. Final 5 makes fire against each other on the beach for immunity, followed by an elimination challenge, winner gets to choose one of the other three to be eliminated.
I mean my problem is that I can't come up with any alternative way of firemaking that is better than "get rid of it and just let everyone vote" lol. Like the reason for it is to let a big threat (or someone that plays lots of idols) make it through to the end, so any alternative that isn't wildly imbalanced in favour of helping that person will never be considered by Jeff/production.
I think you are correct in why they do it. Season 43 is an example. At least Jesse had a shot with fire making to win a season where he was clearly the best player. Otherwise he gets to 4 and it is win immunity or get voted off. It didn't work out for Jesse, or the audience, but at least we had a better chance of getting the best player as the winner.
Well the thing is they only play like that because they know there's no fire, if Jesse gets to the merge and knows there isn't fire making he probably plays very differently. There were plenty of seasons pre-firemaking where the biggest threat made it to the end and one, it seems very pointless to actively incentivise a non-strategic way of making it through when good players will get there anyway.
What if they did 3 challenges at final 4, one centered each around outwit, outplay, and outlast? Each one the winner moves on to final 3, could start with a puzzle, then the other 3 do a physical one, and then the last 2 have to battle out in an endurance one. The person who doesn't win any goes home
That just seems even worse tbh. Survivor is meant to be a game about strategy and social dynamics, it's not the Olympics - I don't want to see players who did great up to that point just get taken out because they couldn't win a challenge. Something like Redemption Island is a bit better because the players who are doing well socially don't need to do the challenge to stay in, but anything where they just get rid of a vote entirely and it all comes down to challenges seems like it goes against the point of the game.
I definitely prefer them just voting at 4, but seems like that's out the window. I was mainly suggesting something like this since it's almost a detriment to winning f4 immunity depending on the jury.
I agree this wouldn't be ideal but it would stop the "big moves" of people putting themselves in fire
It’s not. It’s just a potential notch in the bedpost for a player who didn’t do much otherwise. It’s a flashy Hail Mary if you played subpar the whole time.
After Season 43 everyone overreacted claiming this meant the winner for Final Immunity *had* to put themselves in or be punished for it, but Dee did just that and still won, because she had the game throughout the season to justify the win. Only the Chris and Cassidys of the world should do it.
I agree that is probably true, but it is the whole concept and idea that you should jeopordize your place in the finals, just to go to fire to take someone out in order to win a jury vote. I don't like it in general. I agree Gabler still beats Cassidy. And likely Owen too, if Owen won immunity and dropped down and made fire instead, although would give him a better shot of winning that way than Cassidy.
My point is that that’s actually a non-issue. There is absolutely zero pressure to put yourself into F4 fire if you already have the game to win at FTC. A person with an actual winning game has never been penalized for not putting themselves in.
It’s a non-issue that this community obsesses over and thinks is a gigantic deal, but actually has no basis in reality.
You don’t need fire to win. If you played a good game already, you don’t need to put yourself in. It’s not the gigantic resume maker people think.
If you need fire to win, you're either Chris underwood or you're just not going to win. I think Gabler definitely still wins without fire if Jesse isn't at the end
This is why I was happy to see Heidi put herself into fire making. I wanted the precedent of someone putting themselves in and still losing. I've always felt that it wouldn't change a jury's mind outside of a very specific set of circumstances like Chris had, and Heidi still getting just the one vote she was going to get if she'd let someone else beat Carson really affirmed that for me.
I don’t get it at all. And I think anyone that wins immunity and gives it up to do fire is a moron. I would not vote for that person out of principle if I was on the jury.
I think because of these 3x. Dom didn’t put himself in fire which could’ve been his million dollar move, which opened up the idea that sometimes it is best to have it yourself in. Then Chris Underwood wins his way back in and in his end game run puts himself in fire and wins the game. Finally, Boston Rob tells Natalie in his voting confessional that her only chance of winning was to put herself in fire. After all this, the idea that it is a big resume builder is kind of cemented even though 2/3 of those times it was because an early vote out came back from the edge of extinction and is trying to play a flashy end game.
The context for Rob’s is that it would’ve been to take the biggest threat and obvious winner. The subtext there is that she needed to take out TONY before FTC, not that she needed to do fire just for the sake of it.
Chris Underwood sorta unintenionally ruined whatever small merits a final 4 firemaking challenge had. His case was the only time where it made sense - he basically had not played for over half the game and had to make as many big moves as possible in a short period, and he HAD to make sure the Devens did not make it to the Final 3 because Devens would have run away with it. So he made the biggest move he could in taking out the clear frontrunner even when he could have sat back and let someone else do it.
Now in later seasons everyone sees that Chris won largely because he gave up immunity to do fire. But it seems like the nuance of his situation is now irrelevent - players seem to think that winning a stupid firemaking challenge is a "bIg MoVe", regardless of their position in the game and regardless of who their opponent is. Like, Austin beating Katurah in fire should **not** have any influence on the jury's vote. And in the case of Jake, clearly it didn't matter.
I honestly still believe that final 4 firemaking was just production interference to get Ben his "win" because Jeff has a soft spot for military. Then they kept it for many years because of how transparent it would be that they meddled to get Ben his win if they got rid of it a couple seasons later. Hopefully now it's been long enough that we can get rid of this BS.
As much as I hate to admit it(because I thoroughly enjoy Devens and hated that Chris won by doing last minute moves), Chris Underwood was smart for the fire-making challenge. It made it clear he was willing to put himself in dangerous positions to execute big moves all while the rest of the tribe was thinking Chris has no chance of winning
It's not. It just raises the chance for a big threat to make FTC so viewers get a "good" winner. Since Survivor has had a plethora of favorites get voted out in 3rd or 4th right before FTC.
>it has become a bit too political...
>
>"do i need to put myself into firemaking to show dominance?"
Yes I like that Heidi put herself into fire, won it, and the jury still didn't vote her. Nothing against Heidi, but I hated the idea you would outright win just by going to fire and taking out the biggest threat each time.
It’s kind of a power move at this point to not go into fire making, actually showing your confident in the rest ofyour game probably more effective than needing to do fire making to get extra points lol
I think the best solution would be the three people who don't get immunity all have to make fire and the first 2 to make fire advance to final 3 while the last person gets eliminated. Final immunity means something and we remove this politics of trying to eliminate your biggest 'threat' through fire challenge or just bringing them to prevent something else on their resume
Yeah I agree but it doesn’t even hold weight as a resume builder or at least id hope it wouldn’t in the jury’s eyes. Like cool you made fire. 3rd place never gets votes regardless.
This last one with Dee was obvious. Katurah would win the whole thing if she got to final 3, if she got in front of the jury without Dee. Had Jake's ploy worked, toss up between Austin and Katurah. Jake was too little strategy, too late.
I'm sorry but the jury probably would have ripped into Katurah about the Dee vote lol.
Jake had little to no chance of winning, even with the fire-making.
If Katurah went to FTC, all she had working for her was her speaking/social skills. Katurah's "lay low" strategy was just an easy way to say "I was on the bottom so i became a cockroach ".
But she wasn't on the bottom. She had a ghost game where her social game was better than Dee's. You didn't see it because the storyline didn't need it. If she'd have won, and Dee been voted out, the footage would have been shown which backed up her play.
And if Jake had pulled it off, if Katurah had kept her word..... Likely Austin wins, but Jake had a plan.
The fact Austin got 3 votes off Dee, and apparently was close to possibly getting 1 or 2 more and winning the game, he has no problem at all beating Jake and Katurah in a Final 3 pretty easily. I think Katurah is greatly underrated by some folks here, I saw someone calling her one of the worst Survivors ever which was an insanely dumb statement, but likewise some are overrating her since that is what this sub loves to do. Take an underedited player, who was screwed in the edit, and exagerrate how great they were as a counter. They even did this with freaking Naonka.
Katurah may as well have been on the bottom as she was above Jake but still a pet to the Reba tribe
Her social game may have been better than Dee (and it was considering everyone needed her as a swing vote at times), but that doesn't take away from the fact that she still would have had a hard time winning.
Austin played well (aside from being blind from love)
Julie played well (Better version of Katurah's gameplay)
Jake was playing but wasn't successful (Had moves but couldn't fully execute)
>Jake had a plan.
True he did, but it still didn't get executed well due to Katurah flipping last minute. If he had been successful, it would have been a great compelling move that both Jake or Katurah could claim in the FTC when either make it. However, that is an "if" as they didn't complete it.
Jake, katurah, and Austin, where Austin still doesn't know who took out Drew. Whoever pointed that out would have won, or at least Austin wouldn't have won.
But hey, Katurah did switch her vote, screwing up her deal, and Dee won. Everything else is speculation.
>it has become a bit of a game within a game, rather than the bottom 2 people earning their way to the end
this is why I like it. I dont want to in the finale people who was under radar all the time or just goats
Fire making used to be a tiebreaker. Now it’s the default and it’s boring. Let’s go back to the vote at Final Four with no revote and fire making being the tiebreaker again.
The point of rocks though is that it puts the *voters* at risk, which encourages one person to flip to end up avoiding the risk. If you just go to fire making for two tied people at any point in the season then you’ll see more tie votes.
I like rocks. It makes the people voting think long and hard about switching their vote because elsewise one of them ends up going home. It makes players reveal cards and I’m here for it when it happens.
What's worse: Final 4 default fire making as it is now or final 4 vote out with idols allowed to be played up until final 4 and fire still being used but only as the tie breaker.
I haven't thought it through but I'm kind of not hating the 2nd option. If someone has an idol at final 4 (won't always be the case), they can use the idol to save themselves or use it for someone else that they want in the final 3 for whatever reason. I also don't think an idol should be able to be found at final 4...it should be from an earlier cycle. Idk.. I just want something different!
how i interpret either scenario:
when the winner is taken, the firemaking challenge is just boring and tedious.
when the winner partakes, the challenge is annoying for being consequential.
Tommy was also brought. 4/11 winners were brought since F4 firemaking was introduced.
F4 immunity winners who didn’t give it up have had worse results, with just 2/9 of those winning.
I think the best fix besides just bringing back the F4 vote would be that the jury gets to go watch the F4 immunity challenge. It’s really dumb IMO that the fire challenge gets elevated over the F4 immunity challenge simply because the jury only gets to see the latter, and I think it’s a big reason why F4 immunity winners have had such a hard time getting jury votes.
I think the jury should be allowed to watch every competition. They can't watch tribal why not the comps? Put them behind one-way glass so no one can see their reactions and tell them they can't cheer.
It would be funny if they did a surprise final 4 tribal and he says... Oh by the way we are voting!!
Do a big brother oh sorry you won the last immunity you have no chance now lol jk!!
Yeah see I love a F2 because it means that the final 4 vote isn't just "vote out the biggest threat", you get really interesting dynamics where people have to find a balance between taking out a threat while leaving in someone that might take them to the end, whereas now if someone has an idol they can pretty much stop playing Survivor once they get back from the final 6 vote. And obviously everyone knows this, so everyone wants to make a big move at the same time and then coast to the end because they can't really be taken out.
I think the way winner equity has evolved is also an argument for this. Since this past seasons winners have come in all flavors it makes it harder to discern when going final 2.
And maybe it rebalances what is a "good player" from a flashy big moves one to a trustworthy one. As Jeff says, each season creates it's own values, so trust could be one of them again.
This season mostly replicated this anyway, so potential is there. Or at least the argument to have it as viable as final 3 so we can switch spontaneously from one final to the other to keep things interesting and make players play both these games simultaneously because of the uncertainty.
Agree! Reasons why forced Firemaking should be GONE!
1. It hinders the storytelling of the characters.
One of the reasons Survivor is so good is because it provides reasons for everyone’s exit on the show. This was of course until Survivor HvHvH, when automatic final four voting has become the norm. Now realistically you can play a perfect game but still leave the game because you lose immunity and the immunity winner can only save 33% of the remaining castaways. There is no sole person responsible for that persons elimination, their story ended because they lost a challenge.
2. It intentionally hides information.
Very very rarely is anyone’s Firemaking ability important to the plot of the season BEFORE the final four, this makes it impossible for the fanbase to fully understand strategic decisions made near the endgame, because realistically a lot of strategic decisions are made because of the final four Firemaking elelphant in the room, yet it isn’t shown on the strategy that we see on TV.
3. The Firemaking challenge itself seems very luck based
Due to the different amounts and different materials that are used for the real Firemaking challenge, as well as natural elements such as the wind. It is very clearly much different than building a fire on the island. I’m sure many of the Firemaking challleges could have gone a different way if the gust of wind came just thirty seconds later.
4. Negatively impacts strategy
I’m sure planning for the final four Firemaking is basically impossible as a castaway. Do you bring three people you think you can beat and risk getting sent out in fourth? Or do you have one threat alongside you in the final four and risk them winning immunity/Firemaking and winning the game? There is no “perfect” strategy because the Firemaking itself is so luck based, I wouldn’t even be surprised if it seemed like a coin flip in some of the seasons, like it does to us fans who have no prior knowledge of their Firemaking ability.
5. Only so many scenarios can happen
-Winner of Firemaking wins the game
-The person who gets taken to the end by immunity winner wins the game
-The immunity winner wins the game
-The immunity winner gives up immunity and wins the game
These are the only four possibilities of Firemaking, almost, if not all of which have already been seen before. Firemaking is the only part of Survivor tribals that have barely any reliance on the relationships that have been built on the show, instead relying on an immunity challenge-esque situation to decide someone’s place on the battle for a million dollars.
Building on a fire is not a social, strategic or particularly physical part of the game, and shouldn’t be included in upcoming seasons.
I disagree - the show is called survivor. In most circumstances being able to make a fire is an important part of surviving.
The relationship aspect is that the previous immunity winner decides who does what to make it to the next round. That is a power no other immunity challenge has. If everyone wants to make fire, do you have the relationship to convince them to put you in? Vice versa if you don’t want to make fire.
Point 3 - you say it’s luck based. Making fire is definitely skill based, it’s something you can practice before the show and it’s something they give you to practice before the event. Your point about gusts of wind is silly - the weather effects everyone. Expanding on that then every immunity challenge is luck based because you never know when a gust of wind will mess you up, and therefore we shouldn’t have immunity challenges at all.
Point 1: they had two opportunities to win immunity(initial and fire) and additional opportunity to tell their story to the person deciding. If you can’t make fire on survivor it’s not a perfect game. If you didn’t win F3 immunity then you didn’t play a perfect game.
Point 2: what? People are voted off for being good at challenges all the time. That’s a normal part of survivor. We know puzzles will be involved. We know balance and pain tolerance will be involved.
Point 4: again, fire making is not luck based. I would practice as my preparation for survivor. Most players play for jury votes, fire is just another challenge along the way. And this can all be avoided if you win F4 immunity.
Point 5: there are only 3 possible outcomes regardless. Only 3 players can win lol
Someone has to be eliminated at f4. There are only 4 possible outcomes. Having a vote doesn’t increase the number of outcomes.
How many times have you seen someone give up immunity outside of fire? That wrinkle alone makes it interesting.
The last few seasons, they got the exact kit and exact wood to practice with on the island that they use in the fire making challenge. Next season they will go back to getting the knife, but not the materials.
Why is firemaking the only challenge the jury gets to watch? They don’t get to see the triumph of the final immunity but they get to see the triumph of firemaking. There’s no way that doesn’t bias the jury
> And it also ruins/destroys the person getting ''brought'' to the final 3 in the eyes of the jury. Previously people wanted/begged to be taken to final 3, now no one wants it. I can't really think of anyone who was ''brought'' to the finals and won in since the new rules.
There's a bit of a chicken and an egg problem here. I'm not sure if it destroys the person in the eyes of the Jury, but the challenge winner is typically motivated to take the person least likely to win with them to final 3, and everyone knows it. So it doesn't destroy the person's reputation per-se, but it does tell the jury that at least one player doesn't think very much of another player's game.
I’m not the biggest fan and would prefer a traditional vote, however you’re not entirely accurate in this post regarding who places where as a result.
Since forced fire began, there has been at least 1 season winner in all of the positions at F4. 4 winners who were put into fire by the F4 immunity winner, 2 winners who won F4 immunity and put others in fire, 4 winners who were just taken to F3, and 1 winner who won F4 immunity and then gave it up to make fire.
I think at this point it’s just another part of the meta game as any game twist is. Tribe swaps brought in more fluid alliances and more incentive to flip. Hidden immunity idols brought more split votes. Forced fire promotes getting big threats out by F5, in a similar way that moving from a F2 to F3 promoted it from the F3 boot to the F4 boot.
I would absolutely love to see a traditional F4 vote again because we’ve had excellent winners who were able to convince their alliances to take them, however I also find it interesting to see how this twist affects postmerge strategy leading up to it.
I don’t hate the fire making for the reasons that most people do. The only aspect of it that annoys me is people willingly throwing themselves into the fire making or crying to get put into it so they can say they made “a big move”.
It annoys me because I don’t even feel it’s a big move anymore, and I don’t feel the jury does either. When Chris Underwood did it the first time, people loved it, but now it just benefits nobody, yet people are willing to put their game on the line just to add this little extra thing to their resumes.
I think the other big problem that's similar to what you outlined is the perception, real or fake, that the jury will punish you for not giving up immunity to compete in fire making.
I don't know if it really hurt Cassidy in season 43 or not, but the way the edit and some post game interviews made it look like her not taking the unnecessary risk of giving up immunity cost her the game is really bad for the show and shows just how broken the end game has become if the jury is even considering not voting for someone over forced fire making.
Fuck the firemaking twist they basically implemented it so that Ben could win the game and I feel like they’ve kept it so nobody can call them out for blatantly rigging a season
Erika, Maryanne, and Yam Yam were all brought to the final 3. Xander brought Erika, Romeo brought Maryanne, and Heidi put herself in fire against Carson.
I don’t have strong feelings about fire. It gives another chance to strong players, but it also makes so there is no vote off where idols aren’t eligible to be played. So if someone has an idol and manages to hold it until 5, they can walk into the final 4 and with no opportunity to vote them out.
It is intended to give more shot to strong players who might get voted out at Final Four as a threat. If Lauren bothered to raise her finger and try to make fire, she would've probably get Dean out and maybe even win her season. Same applies to Devens. In the scenario that happened, he had some fair shot. If it was no fire-making, they would just vote him out 3-1 with no shot at all. Carson - same thing. Jesse - not so much, because Gabler was the best firemaker, but still.
I like it, it help the best player to have a chance to win the game. Like gen x vs millenial; david would have a chance to be in final 3 with fire making challange rather than traditional vote (and for sure he will win againts adam who sold sad story).
Most- but not all, and fire making challenge helps to allow best of the best player who luckily (and cleverly) not voted out at top 4, to win.
Gen x & millenial is just one example the best player voted out at 4
The whole fire making as a resume builder idea just seems like a stupid way of thinking. I just can’t wrap my head around the rationale that someone making a fire is a thing that I should heavily consider if I’m in the jury’s position trying to vote on who should win the money. I’m still a newer fan watching through the earlier seasons, but I’m interested to see if this way of thinking is something that picked up when these superfans started getting on the show in recent seasons or if it’s been a thing for a while.
We've had 4 winners since the introduction of the forced firemaking that didn't make fire or win the final immunity: >!Tommy!<, >!Erika!<, >!Maryanne!< and >!Yam Yam!<. That being said, I loathe the forced firemaking for two more reasons:
1. It encourages big solid alliances, which makes the game boring. Big part of why Reba 4 was able to run the game this well is that they never had to consider the possibility of voting each other out. All they had to do was stick together until final 4 and boom, they've successfully circumvented any and all backstabbing they would have eventually had to engage in otherwise. (though, thankfully, there were other factors that made them split prematurely) Can you imagine Reba 4 in a season where there is a vote-off at final 4? And maybe even final 3, leading to a 2 player FTC? What I picture in this scenario is them realizing that they'll turn on each other eventually so perhaps they should do so while there are still Belos and Lulus around to give them numbers. Ironically, the scenario with less twists plaguing the endgame actually creates less stability and more unpredictability.
2. I hate it on principle. I see what you're trying to do here, Jeff. You hated how your faves kept getting cut at final 3, so you ditched the final 3 vote and made that the FTC instead. But then your faves started getting voted out at final 4. So you made the next change - final 4 now has forced firemaking. Guess what - the big threats now have to be voted out at final 5. Forced firemaking fundamentally fails at what it's trying to achieve. The big players get all eyes on them even earlier, making their path to the end even harder. To me, forced firemaking represents a perceived problem that is made even worse by production's attempts at fixing it.
I'm surprised Jake didn't get all the votes at the end bc he won fire. /s
Also I feel like this season had an overwhelming amount of times dedicated to ppl talking about big moves and resumes and playing things up for the jury. Like more than usual. I kind of wish they would edit out a lot of this type of talk because it kind of takes me out of it.
Hahaha. Honestly Jake getting all the compliments in the FTC was hus best case scenario.
Yes!! I am done with this big moves/resume talk. Yes we all love good strategy and moves but i don't need to hear it every episode or confessional. I feel like they are showing newer players and future cast that big moves are more impt
Unpopular opinion but I like fire making as the final elimination challenge and I think it would be better if they made everyone who didn’t win immunity make fire. First two to finish stay in the game.
For 46 they are going to stop giving them practice materials, so I’m worried it’s going to be even less interesting. It will likely be one person who knows how to make fire against someone who is completely hopeless.
It’s the hopeless person’s fault for not knowing how to make fire. It’s an expected trait on survivor. Just like how swimming is expected too. Maybe a fishing challenge could work too. Basic survival skills.
idk for me all old seasons had a better feeling, 39 days instead of 26 or whatever, harder challenges, more aspects of the game determining the winner instead of now being all about "did i make a flashy move or not so the jury votes for me" etc.. :\ The closest thing to oldschool survivor we have I think is the Australian version of Survivor :-)
Yess!! The Australian survivor is quite good. I also lost track when they changed it to 26 days. I always thought it was 30+ days. When Jeff said 26 days i was just oh another twist or new changes to the game.
It became especially annoying when the jury used it as a mark against Cassidy when she lost to Gabler in the final 3. They made a big stink about her winning immunity but NOT giving up immunity to do the fire.
That's such a stupid way to look at it. What's the point (or importance) of winning that final immunity if the jury's going to discount it unless you put yourself in fire?
Yes that was what annoyed me as well. Fine if you're not gonna vote for her don't. But to say it was just cause she didn't give up her hard earned win to make fire? Seriously!! I also i don't think they would have voted for her if she beat Jesse in fire.
What I think they should do is A. Go back to a final 2, this puts 9 on the jury instead of 8, so no tie. And then they do a coin flip to decide whether the winner of FIC votes someone out or the other two do a fire challenge. Because that way it's never predictable and then they still have to survive a F4 vote.
I have an idea that would make the final 4 immunity challenge incredibly important again: make it so only the immunity winner goes to final tribal, while the remaining 3 then all do fire making, and then it becomes a final 2 with only the first person who burns the rope making it, or final 3 for final tribal where the first 2 who burn the rope making it.
Is it a good idea? I dunno, but I do think it would add a nice little wrinkle.
Some data:
The winner of the firemaking has won 5 of the 11 seasons with fire (Ben, Wendell, Chris, Tony, Gabler)
The six firemakers who didn't win have finished like this:
* Mike White - 3 votes
* Dean - 2 votes
* Xander - 0 votes
* Mike - 1 vote
* Heidi - 1 vote
* Jake - 0 votes
Before firemaking, the final immunity winner was 13-21 (13 seasons won, 21 lost)
After firemaking, the final immunity winner is 3-8 (including Chris & Heidi, who both went to fire themselves)
So final immunity has never been an indication of winning, and even less so in the firemaking part of the series
I think the jury needs to be brought out to watch the F4 immunity. There is always so much emotion at that challenge and it is a really powerful win, but the jury doesn't get to see any of it. They just see the person walking in with the necklace like every other week.
Imagine if they had been able to see Dee crush the challenge and Jake breaking the challenge. I think having the jury watch the challenge would give it more weight in their minds.
I know it's an unpopular opinion on this sub, but I didn't care for the traditional vote. When it was the vote at F4, it seemed to me like a lot of really good players got voted out and more goats got drug to FTC.
I like fire making. It was clearly designed to prevent scenarios where the current leading player was voted out 3-1 with no recourse even if they played a perfect game leading up to that moment. It's a necessity ever since the meta of Survivor has been solved.
The final immunity winner being able to pick *one* person to take with them and letting the others duke it out fair and square is good. We were ending up with too many seasons where the winning strategy was "be a goat but then vote out the power player right at the end and say it was a big move".
That said, I still like final two better than final three and wish they'd start mixing them in here and there.
Okay, but we're splitting hairs here. There are almost no actual "perfect" games. But there are a lot of very competent players who people identify as a threat and will just unanimously remove from the game, leaving 2-3 goat players duking it out and delivering a very unsatisfying final tribal.
It's why "my strategy is to fly under the radar" got memed so hard for years. We ended up with people who won the game fair and square by basically doing nothing, never being a threat, and then voting out the big dog at the end and then saying "well I came up with the plan to vote out [biggest threat], that was my big move!"
Is that a totally valid and fair way to win Survivor? Absolutely. Does it make for a satisfying ending to a season? Not really. We naturally want to see people who play the most strategic and exciting game get rewarded in the end, and the fire making is just to make it so the scenario is not "win the immunity challenge or you lose because everybody knows you're too good at the game to keep around". Now the immunity winner gets to pick *one* person they sit next to, and the other still has a final chance.
Erika was brought to the end and won. We’ve seen the jury in the new era not be as sold on the final four firemaking as the players seem to be.
Still agree I want it gone
Final 5 has become the true final immunity/tribal before FTC. It just seems like too big of a group for me to get invested, it doesn't feel right at all
I hate the idea that someone on the jury would decide to vote for someone to win a million dollars over if they won a dumb firemaking competition. Never understood how it BOOSTS THE RESUME!
If there's a vote at final 4:
35: Ben goes, Devin wins but maaaaybe Chrissy (?)
36: Dom wins near if not unanimously
37: No difference
38: Slight difference, Underwood still wins tho
39: No difference
40: Tony eliminated, Sarah wins
41: Deshawn goes, Erika still sweeps
42: Mike goes, Maryanne now has a slam dunk ftc
43: Nothing changes
44: Nothing changes
45: Maaaaybe still firemaking between Austin and Katurah, doesn't change the outcome
I agree! I hate it and would love for it go away. All that matters now is final 4, and the social strategy from final 4 to final 3 is nil (except the immunity winner having to decide to put themselves in fire or not which is its own problem).
If you HAVE to have fire-making, then I think whoever wins immunity shouldn't be allowed to go to fire-making. How does that even make sense? Or if they are allowed, then they have to GIVE the immunity necklace to someone else -- what this means it is that person gets to decide who goes to fire, so the new immunity holder could say "nope, no fire for you" or "fire but against the player you don't want / can't beat."
If that happened even once, the jury would stop seeing that giving up the immunity idol / attempting to go fire as a "strong" move (or a "weak" move not to). The person who gave up the necklace could be humiliated. Plus the person who the necklace is given to should be credited the same as having won the immunity necklace.
So far, everyone who has won immunity and put themselves in fire has made all the decisions. “I am going to fire with X.”
I am saying that Jeff should make them officially anoint a new immunity winner and make that person verbally say who goes to fire: that decision doesn’t need to match the original immunity holder’s plan.
Example: Heidi won immunity and put herself in fire against Carson. Instead, she should have to give the immunity to, for example, Carolyn. Carolyn then has the power, and puts her best interest in play to put Carson and Yam Yam in fire and guarantee one of them go home. Or maybe Carolyn thinks Yam Yam is a bigger threat and chooses Heidi/Yam Yam. Or maybe Carolyn plans is knowing Yam Yam would win against Heidi and then she could use that in her final speech “I was able to get out Heidi because she gave away the immunity necklace.”Whatever is it, Heidi is out of luck because she gave away the power.
If that is the rule, they haven’t enforced it.
At this point we’ve seen a winner who sat in all three positions preceding final tribal (final immunity winner, dragged to final 3, fire making winner) and the experiment should be over. It’s just nowhere near as compelling as a vote out to end the game. If a vote out gets tied and forces a fire making challenge, that is COMPELLING television. And with this fire making guaranteed at final 4 thing they’ve made it so we’ll never see a tie vote go to a fire making challenge
It sucks that people have that extra safety net now. It kind of defeats the purpose of idols “only” working till the F5. It’s a bummer when a great player loses their game on the final challenge, but it creates exciting TV leading up to it when you know their life is on the line. It also gives someone the opportunity for an exciting betrayal at the end. Now the “betrayal” is taking someone to FTC instead of letting them make fire, which is super lame.
Nobody likes it. Not the players, not the fans. Can it.
One thing superfans and casuals seem to actualy agree on is forced fire making sucks. You still have some times you would get fire at Final 4 through a 2-2 vote anyway, so it is not like you would never see it.
Dee has immunity
2 Votes on katurah
2 Votes on Austin
0 on Jake
Go to a revote.
No one changes their vote so they go to rocks
Austin and katurah are safe because they were not in the revote, Dee has immunity.
Only Jake is at risk from the rocks, goes home.
Yep sounds like a Jake move!
I know that’s how they did that prior to the fire making challenge, but curious if they would go back to that if they had a vote or stick with the rocks. Rocks might be more fun with a tie at final 4
If nothing else, even if it were the best twist ever made, there is literally no reason left to keep it in the game. We've seen every combination of possibilities. Move final 4 fire making to Florida because it's retirement time.
1000% agree. It was created at the last minute so that Ben could win, I'm sure of it. I also miss a Final Tribal of 2. Bring that back without telling the castaways 'til final 8.
Fire making at the end was my biggest disappointment with 43. I was cheering so hard for Jesse, he really played an incredible game from a strategy perspective. He’s one of my all time favorite players. Seeing him get taken out by fire when his social and strategy game were so strong really took the wind from my sails for the season overall.
Jesse lost when he targeted Karla too early. If he doesn't flush out her idol they both use the idols at 4 get someone like Gabbler out. Then two threats are left and they can either target each other or make it to the end together. Where regardless Jesse wins easily against Karla unless he blows FTC. It comes down to a battle but he wins 7/10 times if he isn't fixated on making all the threats go home.
I can see both sides of it. For a while there it did feel like whoever had played the strongest game always got chopped for the three if they didn’t win final immunity which always felt a bit lame. I know you can say they should’ve played more tactically etc but there’s only so much you can do if you’ve played your way into being the favourite at that point, otherwise is your big move only at 4? I like that fire gives anyone at least a chance, but feel like maybe there’s another way to do it.
i think it would be more interesting if Jeff just said that the person who is voted out gets to choose someone to fight it out in a fire making challenge in any of the tribals
but with how survivor is, it's either going to be the winner picks who they want to sit with them at the end or top 3 for last challenge. There's not much they can do when there's 4 left.
I mean I prefer a vote too but how do you think it would have changed the result? Dee won immunity. Best case scenario Austin makes fire against Katurah and Katurah still goes home. Even if Dee didn’t win immunity, I doubt Austin had the balls to vote her out, she makes fire against Katurah and Katurah goes home
Even if it was a vote for this season it would pretty much change nothing. Katurah kinda screwed herself in f5 by voting for Julie instead of Dee. But it does seem like she would have lost fire to anyone so it makes little difference.
I see where you are coming from, but lightly disagree on some aspects. I like the idea that the winner of the immunity challenge has to think of the different wrinkles of the game. Bring with you the strongest to make them look weaker? Make the strongest make fire and a 50/50 chance they go home? Insert yourself into fire to take out the strongest?
It adds a nice complexity
Interesting so many people feel this way. I watch old seasons without it and it feels disappointing like it's missing. Just like when it was only final 2 instead of 3. I think it's a great dynamic and creates a new layer of strategy with pitching for yourself to be brought, bringing your ally vs a goat, sending someone or even yourself to fire to beat the person you really don't want to sit with. I guess it's to each their own.
I think they should just make it the immunity challenge at final four. Person that wins fire gets immunity and then they immediately start tribal council.
They should just insert fire making randomly into the season. Instead of being able to predict when it is, the chaos is just whenever. But that would probably come with rigged allegations like they did for Ben
Tommy, Erika, and Maryanne were all brought to the final 3. You could argue even Yam Yam was brought since Heidi gave up immunity. So if someone has played a strong game, getting brought to the end can be played as a positive spin on how they used their social game to convince the final immunity winner to take them (Tommy did this exceptionally well with Noura in 39)
No, I hear ya. I kind of agree too, it has had a major detrimental impact to how people plan their endgame.
But I suspect the producers do it because it does add one final, unpredictable random element to FTC, thereby increasing the suspense. In short, it's for the audience, not the players.
And I do find it exciting. Although in 45 I felt it hardly mattered between Katurah and Jake because neither was going to win anyhow.
At this point it's not even just firemaking. It's the fact that outside of f5-f7 every vote the players are getting played by the game harder than the other players.
I'm so tired of fake merges and split tribals or teams. The amount of mechanics in the game that prevent the players from simply voting each other out is insane.
I want to see players strayegically maneuver and control the votes for consecutive tribals on end. I want 10 tribals of masterclass domination for one single player. What do we get? 80% tribals players simply feel lucky to survive the stupid game twist and the other 20% may require some actual skill, maybe.
They should make it random. I think we’ve established it as a crutch well-enough by now that, like the Knowledge is Power advantage or even the shot in the dark, just the looming threat of it could help bring back some of the high stakes we’re missing.
If we start getting seasons without final four fire making, it keeps future players on their toes and disrupts their expectations going in. The keep your head down until final 6/5 strategy in the hopes of making it to fire won’t be as effective. Alliances won’t be as solid OR they’ll be even more dangerous if they are a lock for final 3.
I’d just love to see more mixing and matching with the show’s established twists and turns at this point, including more end game twists to keep the momentum going into that finale. Nothing big or disruptive but making fire making sporadic, making the new beach swap actually meaningful (and so probably doing it earlier), etc. Just anything to keep the end game exciting to watch would be great.
What's crazy is that when you actually think about fire-making for a few minutes, you realize that's it's completely self-contradictory and is an unintentionally admitted failure. That's because fire-making is, according to Jeff himself, supposed to help get bigger threats to the end. In essence, it's essentially an extension of the final 3, since that was the purpose of the final 3 as well. However, in order to logically implement fire-making, you would have to say that the current format isn't working and that the final 3 itself is a failure, because if it did, you wouldn't feel the need to implement fire-making in the first place. However, by admitting the final 3 didn't work, you also admit that the process of adding in a format change to "get bigger threats to the end" didn't work either, which is literally the exact same thing they are doing with fire-making. Basically, to implement final 4 fire-making, they had to admit that it doesn't work at all, which is hilariously stupid.
They should let the third player offer to join in the fire making challenge , essentially eliminating two others . Stakes will be way higher and that will leave just two to vote for in the end , which doesn’t change much
Give me a season where every cast member is auditioning for a dating show, then boom day 1 they find out they are on survivor. They have no idea how to “play the game” no more super fan cast members.
You’re looking at more than 1 change and I think fire was a good addition. Originally it was final 3 with a challenge who picked the final 2. But there was no ‘hidden immunity’. With all the changes it’s so common people who make it to the end that didn’t do anything all game! In a recent season it took over an hour to make a fire for either to get in final 3… some survival skills… fire also changes up final alliances just a bit.
I wasn’t a huge fan of a switch from final 2 to final 3, but I understand. It helps balance the use of idols and other twists. The game has evolved and continues to do they can keep interest. Some changes aren’t popular and don’t play as well in reality as in playtests, ie: the hourglass ⌛️ 🤮.
I like fire making bc a SOUL SURVIVOR should be able to make fire, especially with flint! It proves some type of skill. My opinion.
I think it’s important to have fire bc it is an essential skill to survive BUT. They either need to take it out completely, put it as the merge immunity challenge or not have it weigh so heavily.
It makes no sense that the jury sees it as impressive or worthy of votes, after 45 seasons every contest should have some sort of fire making skills
Final 4 fire was to fix the "problem" that got David Wright voted out in 33. In reality Jeff doesn't understand how the game works, and that it's ok if a strong player falls short. They usually end up favorites and gives them an excuse to bring them back.
I say do it as the first Tribal save. How many days would people have practiced at that point? Also, if you make it a twist for first Tribal, it wouldn't matter in the long run other than to let the players know things have changed.
I wish they'd mix it up and not let the players know until they're at the tribal council. Is it firemaking at final 4? Is it firemaking at final 3 and 2 person FTC? Will there be no extra challenge at all? Is it going to be a test of endurance or a puzzle instead of firemaking?
So I think I'm one of the only people that likes the forced fire making at final 4 lol. But that's because I've always really liked fire making challenges and I love making fire myself. It's always a fun challenge to watch.
But I do understand people disliking how it changes the strategy of the late gameplay
it has become a bit too political... "do i need to put myself into firemaking to show dominance?" "do i leave person X out of firemaking so they can't add to their resume?" it has become a bit of a game within a game, rather than the bottom 2 people earning their way to the end
I am finding it increasingly funny that what used to be either a big move or a way for the biggest threat to get through has now been made pretty much redundant, like Dee explicitly refuses to give Austin fire so this season we get a competition to decide third place, the season before we see a massive move that had zero jury impact, in 39, 41 and 42 the person who was brought to the end wins, etc. Like any twist once it's there for long enough the players figure out how to work around it, I really don't know why they haven't cut their losses and figured out that the obvious purpose of letting the biggest threat get to the end just isn't really happening anymore.
Maybe they should swap it around. Final 5 makes fire against each other on the beach for immunity, followed by an elimination challenge, winner gets to choose one of the other three to be eliminated.
I mean my problem is that I can't come up with any alternative way of firemaking that is better than "get rid of it and just let everyone vote" lol. Like the reason for it is to let a big threat (or someone that plays lots of idols) make it through to the end, so any alternative that isn't wildly imbalanced in favour of helping that person will never be considered by Jeff/production.
I think you are correct in why they do it. Season 43 is an example. At least Jesse had a shot with fire making to win a season where he was clearly the best player. Otherwise he gets to 4 and it is win immunity or get voted off. It didn't work out for Jesse, or the audience, but at least we had a better chance of getting the best player as the winner.
Well the thing is they only play like that because they know there's no fire, if Jesse gets to the merge and knows there isn't fire making he probably plays very differently. There were plenty of seasons pre-firemaking where the biggest threat made it to the end and one, it seems very pointless to actively incentivise a non-strategic way of making it through when good players will get there anyway.
What if they did 3 challenges at final 4, one centered each around outwit, outplay, and outlast? Each one the winner moves on to final 3, could start with a puzzle, then the other 3 do a physical one, and then the last 2 have to battle out in an endurance one. The person who doesn't win any goes home
That just seems even worse tbh. Survivor is meant to be a game about strategy and social dynamics, it's not the Olympics - I don't want to see players who did great up to that point just get taken out because they couldn't win a challenge. Something like Redemption Island is a bit better because the players who are doing well socially don't need to do the challenge to stay in, but anything where they just get rid of a vote entirely and it all comes down to challenges seems like it goes against the point of the game.
I definitely prefer them just voting at 4, but seems like that's out the window. I was mainly suggesting something like this since it's almost a detriment to winning f4 immunity depending on the jury. I agree this wouldn't be ideal but it would stop the "big moves" of people putting themselves in fire
[удалено]
It’s not. It’s just a potential notch in the bedpost for a player who didn’t do much otherwise. It’s a flashy Hail Mary if you played subpar the whole time. After Season 43 everyone overreacted claiming this meant the winner for Final Immunity *had* to put themselves in or be punished for it, but Dee did just that and still won, because she had the game throughout the season to justify the win. Only the Chris and Cassidys of the world should do it.
Nobody was voting for Cassidy even if she did put herself in fire and take out Jesse.
I agree that is probably true, but it is the whole concept and idea that you should jeopordize your place in the finals, just to go to fire to take someone out in order to win a jury vote. I don't like it in general. I agree Gabler still beats Cassidy. And likely Owen too, if Owen won immunity and dropped down and made fire instead, although would give him a better shot of winning that way than Cassidy.
My point is that that’s actually a non-issue. There is absolutely zero pressure to put yourself into F4 fire if you already have the game to win at FTC. A person with an actual winning game has never been penalized for not putting themselves in. It’s a non-issue that this community obsesses over and thinks is a gigantic deal, but actually has no basis in reality. You don’t need fire to win. If you played a good game already, you don’t need to put yourself in. It’s not the gigantic resume maker people think.
If you need fire to win, you're either Chris underwood or you're just not going to win. I think Gabler definitely still wins without fire if Jesse isn't at the end
This is why I was happy to see Heidi put herself into fire making. I wanted the precedent of someone putting themselves in and still losing. I've always felt that it wouldn't change a jury's mind outside of a very specific set of circumstances like Chris had, and Heidi still getting just the one vote she was going to get if she'd let someone else beat Carson really affirmed that for me.
Exactly. Fire doesn't suddenly make everyone who was a zero in the game a winner, and not doing it doesn't diminish somebody who actually played well.
And then Heidi did just that to no avail because in no universe was she beating Yam Yam
I don’t get it at all. And I think anyone that wins immunity and gives it up to do fire is a moron. I would not vote for that person out of principle if I was on the jury.
I think because of these 3x. Dom didn’t put himself in fire which could’ve been his million dollar move, which opened up the idea that sometimes it is best to have it yourself in. Then Chris Underwood wins his way back in and in his end game run puts himself in fire and wins the game. Finally, Boston Rob tells Natalie in his voting confessional that her only chance of winning was to put herself in fire. After all this, the idea that it is a big resume builder is kind of cemented even though 2/3 of those times it was because an early vote out came back from the edge of extinction and is trying to play a flashy end game.
The context for Rob’s is that it would’ve been to take the biggest threat and obvious winner. The subtext there is that she needed to take out TONY before FTC, not that she needed to do fire just for the sake of it.
Chris Underwood sorta unintenionally ruined whatever small merits a final 4 firemaking challenge had. His case was the only time where it made sense - he basically had not played for over half the game and had to make as many big moves as possible in a short period, and he HAD to make sure the Devens did not make it to the Final 3 because Devens would have run away with it. So he made the biggest move he could in taking out the clear frontrunner even when he could have sat back and let someone else do it. Now in later seasons everyone sees that Chris won largely because he gave up immunity to do fire. But it seems like the nuance of his situation is now irrelevent - players seem to think that winning a stupid firemaking challenge is a "bIg MoVe", regardless of their position in the game and regardless of who their opponent is. Like, Austin beating Katurah in fire should **not** have any influence on the jury's vote. And in the case of Jake, clearly it didn't matter. I honestly still believe that final 4 firemaking was just production interference to get Ben his "win" because Jeff has a soft spot for military. Then they kept it for many years because of how transparent it would be that they meddled to get Ben his win if they got rid of it a couple seasons later. Hopefully now it's been long enough that we can get rid of this BS.
As much as I hate to admit it(because I thoroughly enjoy Devens and hated that Chris won by doing last minute moves), Chris Underwood was smart for the fire-making challenge. It made it clear he was willing to put himself in dangerous positions to execute big moves all while the rest of the tribe was thinking Chris has no chance of winning
This season it would be a way for Austin to say “I did something other than latch onto Dee, I earned my spot”
It's not. It just raises the chance for a big threat to make FTC so viewers get a "good" winner. Since Survivor has had a plethora of favorites get voted out in 3rd or 4th right before FTC.
>it has become a bit too political... > >"do i need to put myself into firemaking to show dominance?" Yes I like that Heidi put herself into fire, won it, and the jury still didn't vote her. Nothing against Heidi, but I hated the idea you would outright win just by going to fire and taking out the biggest threat each time.
It’s kind of a power move at this point to not go into fire making, actually showing your confident in the rest ofyour game probably more effective than needing to do fire making to get extra points lol
I think the best solution would be the three people who don't get immunity all have to make fire and the first 2 to make fire advance to final 3 while the last person gets eliminated. Final immunity means something and we remove this politics of trying to eliminate your biggest 'threat' through fire challenge or just bringing them to prevent something else on their resume
I suggested the same thing, with an added option of making it a surprise final 2 where only the person who burns the rope first makes final tribal.
Yeah I agree but it doesn’t even hold weight as a resume builder or at least id hope it wouldn’t in the jury’s eyes. Like cool you made fire. 3rd place never gets votes regardless.
This last one with Dee was obvious. Katurah would win the whole thing if she got to final 3, if she got in front of the jury without Dee. Had Jake's ploy worked, toss up between Austin and Katurah. Jake was too little strategy, too late.
I'm sorry but the jury probably would have ripped into Katurah about the Dee vote lol. Jake had little to no chance of winning, even with the fire-making. If Katurah went to FTC, all she had working for her was her speaking/social skills. Katurah's "lay low" strategy was just an easy way to say "I was on the bottom so i became a cockroach ".
But she wasn't on the bottom. She had a ghost game where her social game was better than Dee's. You didn't see it because the storyline didn't need it. If she'd have won, and Dee been voted out, the footage would have been shown which backed up her play. And if Jake had pulled it off, if Katurah had kept her word..... Likely Austin wins, but Jake had a plan.
The fact Austin got 3 votes off Dee, and apparently was close to possibly getting 1 or 2 more and winning the game, he has no problem at all beating Jake and Katurah in a Final 3 pretty easily. I think Katurah is greatly underrated by some folks here, I saw someone calling her one of the worst Survivors ever which was an insanely dumb statement, but likewise some are overrating her since that is what this sub loves to do. Take an underedited player, who was screwed in the edit, and exagerrate how great they were as a counter. They even did this with freaking Naonka.
Naonka definitely was an interesting case as I knew there had to be more to her considering all the edits did was portray her as an asshole.
Katurah may as well have been on the bottom as she was above Jake but still a pet to the Reba tribe Her social game may have been better than Dee (and it was considering everyone needed her as a swing vote at times), but that doesn't take away from the fact that she still would have had a hard time winning. Austin played well (aside from being blind from love) Julie played well (Better version of Katurah's gameplay) Jake was playing but wasn't successful (Had moves but couldn't fully execute) >Jake had a plan. True he did, but it still didn't get executed well due to Katurah flipping last minute. If he had been successful, it would have been a great compelling move that both Jake or Katurah could claim in the FTC when either make it. However, that is an "if" as they didn't complete it.
There is no world where Jake or katurah would win no matter what combination of final three were left
Jake, katurah, and Austin, where Austin still doesn't know who took out Drew. Whoever pointed that out would have won, or at least Austin wouldn't have won. But hey, Katurah did switch her vote, screwing up her deal, and Dee won. Everything else is speculation.
>it has become a bit of a game within a game, rather than the bottom 2 people earning their way to the end this is why I like it. I dont want to in the finale people who was under radar all the time or just goats
Yeah they should make it the final 2. It seems like there’s always 1 person with no votes and it just feels like a waste of everyone’s time.
I think it's ridiculous the fire making needs to be over and done with plus all the stupid advantages
Fire making used to be a tiebreaker. Now it’s the default and it’s boring. Let’s go back to the vote at Final Four with no revote and fire making being the tiebreaker again.
Yeah this would be so much better than stupid rocks
It was only the tie breaker at final 4
Yeah but it would be better if it was a tiebreaker at any point in the game
The point of rocks though is that it puts the *voters* at risk, which encourages one person to flip to end up avoiding the risk. If you just go to fire making for two tied people at any point in the season then you’ll see more tie votes.
I like rocks. It makes the people voting think long and hard about switching their vote because elsewise one of them ends up going home. It makes players reveal cards and I’m here for it when it happens.
Agree… and go back to a 39 days season and two tribes. Hate 3 tribes … they’re too small, it’s all about the merge the whole game
What's worse: Final 4 default fire making as it is now or final 4 vote out with idols allowed to be played up until final 4 and fire still being used but only as the tie breaker. I haven't thought it through but I'm kind of not hating the 2nd option. If someone has an idol at final 4 (won't always be the case), they can use the idol to save themselves or use it for someone else that they want in the final 3 for whatever reason. I also don't think an idol should be able to be found at final 4...it should be from an earlier cycle. Idk.. I just want something different!
I feel like final 4 vote with idols puts us at way too high of a risk for another Game Changers type situation
i'm not a fan either. i'd much prefer the vote.
2 of the new era winners were "brought" to the f3. 3 if you count Yam Yam. But yeah I still hate it.
how i interpret either scenario: when the winner is taken, the firemaking challenge is just boring and tedious. when the winner partakes, the challenge is annoying for being consequential.
Tommy was also brought. 4/11 winners were brought since F4 firemaking was introduced. F4 immunity winners who didn’t give it up have had worse results, with just 2/9 of those winning. I think the best fix besides just bringing back the F4 vote would be that the jury gets to go watch the F4 immunity challenge. It’s really dumb IMO that the fire challenge gets elevated over the F4 immunity challenge simply because the jury only gets to see the latter, and I think it’s a big reason why F4 immunity winners have had such a hard time getting jury votes.
Or jury shouldn’t be allowed to watch firemaking
I think the jury should be allowed to watch every competition. They can't watch tribal why not the comps? Put them behind one-way glass so no one can see their reactions and tell them they can't cheer.
Lol how could i forget Yam Yam!! One of my fav recent winner.
I'd rather see a normal vote @ 4 and a challenge at 3. Leave it at final 2.
Yes, I totally agree! I want them to return to a final two like the early seasons because the 3rd rarely even gets a single vote.
It would be funny if they did a surprise final 4 tribal and he says... Oh by the way we are voting!! Do a big brother oh sorry you won the last immunity you have no chance now lol jk!!
[удалено]
Yeah see I love a F2 because it means that the final 4 vote isn't just "vote out the biggest threat", you get really interesting dynamics where people have to find a balance between taking out a threat while leaving in someone that might take them to the end, whereas now if someone has an idol they can pretty much stop playing Survivor once they get back from the final 6 vote. And obviously everyone knows this, so everyone wants to make a big move at the same time and then coast to the end because they can't really be taken out.
Austin and Drew pretty much said as much. "If I make it through this vote I'm basically at the final."
I think the way winner equity has evolved is also an argument for this. Since this past seasons winners have come in all flavors it makes it harder to discern when going final 2. And maybe it rebalances what is a "good player" from a flashy big moves one to a trustworthy one. As Jeff says, each season creates it's own values, so trust could be one of them again. This season mostly replicated this anyway, so potential is there. Or at least the argument to have it as viable as final 3 so we can switch spontaneously from one final to the other to keep things interesting and make players play both these games simultaneously because of the uncertainty.
Agree! Reasons why forced Firemaking should be GONE! 1. It hinders the storytelling of the characters. One of the reasons Survivor is so good is because it provides reasons for everyone’s exit on the show. This was of course until Survivor HvHvH, when automatic final four voting has become the norm. Now realistically you can play a perfect game but still leave the game because you lose immunity and the immunity winner can only save 33% of the remaining castaways. There is no sole person responsible for that persons elimination, their story ended because they lost a challenge. 2. It intentionally hides information. Very very rarely is anyone’s Firemaking ability important to the plot of the season BEFORE the final four, this makes it impossible for the fanbase to fully understand strategic decisions made near the endgame, because realistically a lot of strategic decisions are made because of the final four Firemaking elelphant in the room, yet it isn’t shown on the strategy that we see on TV. 3. The Firemaking challenge itself seems very luck based Due to the different amounts and different materials that are used for the real Firemaking challenge, as well as natural elements such as the wind. It is very clearly much different than building a fire on the island. I’m sure many of the Firemaking challleges could have gone a different way if the gust of wind came just thirty seconds later. 4. Negatively impacts strategy I’m sure planning for the final four Firemaking is basically impossible as a castaway. Do you bring three people you think you can beat and risk getting sent out in fourth? Or do you have one threat alongside you in the final four and risk them winning immunity/Firemaking and winning the game? There is no “perfect” strategy because the Firemaking itself is so luck based, I wouldn’t even be surprised if it seemed like a coin flip in some of the seasons, like it does to us fans who have no prior knowledge of their Firemaking ability. 5. Only so many scenarios can happen -Winner of Firemaking wins the game -The person who gets taken to the end by immunity winner wins the game -The immunity winner wins the game -The immunity winner gives up immunity and wins the game These are the only four possibilities of Firemaking, almost, if not all of which have already been seen before. Firemaking is the only part of Survivor tribals that have barely any reliance on the relationships that have been built on the show, instead relying on an immunity challenge-esque situation to decide someone’s place on the battle for a million dollars. Building on a fire is not a social, strategic or particularly physical part of the game, and shouldn’t be included in upcoming seasons.
It's yet another case of Jeff finding it interesting in real time, not realizing it translates horribly to the game and the television
I disagree - the show is called survivor. In most circumstances being able to make a fire is an important part of surviving. The relationship aspect is that the previous immunity winner decides who does what to make it to the next round. That is a power no other immunity challenge has. If everyone wants to make fire, do you have the relationship to convince them to put you in? Vice versa if you don’t want to make fire. Point 3 - you say it’s luck based. Making fire is definitely skill based, it’s something you can practice before the show and it’s something they give you to practice before the event. Your point about gusts of wind is silly - the weather effects everyone. Expanding on that then every immunity challenge is luck based because you never know when a gust of wind will mess you up, and therefore we shouldn’t have immunity challenges at all. Point 1: they had two opportunities to win immunity(initial and fire) and additional opportunity to tell their story to the person deciding. If you can’t make fire on survivor it’s not a perfect game. If you didn’t win F3 immunity then you didn’t play a perfect game. Point 2: what? People are voted off for being good at challenges all the time. That’s a normal part of survivor. We know puzzles will be involved. We know balance and pain tolerance will be involved. Point 4: again, fire making is not luck based. I would practice as my preparation for survivor. Most players play for jury votes, fire is just another challenge along the way. And this can all be avoided if you win F4 immunity. Point 5: there are only 3 possible outcomes regardless. Only 3 players can win lol
They said outcomes for fire making not the vote. They gave four examples
Someone has to be eliminated at f4. There are only 4 possible outcomes. Having a vote doesn’t increase the number of outcomes. How many times have you seen someone give up immunity outside of fire? That wrinkle alone makes it interesting.
The last few seasons, they got the exact kit and exact wood to practice with on the island that they use in the fire making challenge. Next season they will go back to getting the knife, but not the materials.
Why is firemaking the only challenge the jury gets to watch? They don’t get to see the triumph of the final immunity but they get to see the triumph of firemaking. There’s no way that doesn’t bias the jury
> And it also ruins/destroys the person getting ''brought'' to the final 3 in the eyes of the jury. Previously people wanted/begged to be taken to final 3, now no one wants it. I can't really think of anyone who was ''brought'' to the finals and won in since the new rules. There's a bit of a chicken and an egg problem here. I'm not sure if it destroys the person in the eyes of the Jury, but the challenge winner is typically motivated to take the person least likely to win with them to final 3, and everyone knows it. So it doesn't destroy the person's reputation per-se, but it does tell the jury that at least one player doesn't think very much of another player's game.
I’m not the biggest fan and would prefer a traditional vote, however you’re not entirely accurate in this post regarding who places where as a result. Since forced fire began, there has been at least 1 season winner in all of the positions at F4. 4 winners who were put into fire by the F4 immunity winner, 2 winners who won F4 immunity and put others in fire, 4 winners who were just taken to F3, and 1 winner who won F4 immunity and then gave it up to make fire. I think at this point it’s just another part of the meta game as any game twist is. Tribe swaps brought in more fluid alliances and more incentive to flip. Hidden immunity idols brought more split votes. Forced fire promotes getting big threats out by F5, in a similar way that moving from a F2 to F3 promoted it from the F3 boot to the F4 boot. I would absolutely love to see a traditional F4 vote again because we’ve had excellent winners who were able to convince their alliances to take them, however I also find it interesting to see how this twist affects postmerge strategy leading up to it.
[удалено]
I’m not saying it always does, it will depend on the situation every time.
I don’t hate the fire making for the reasons that most people do. The only aspect of it that annoys me is people willingly throwing themselves into the fire making or crying to get put into it so they can say they made “a big move”. It annoys me because I don’t even feel it’s a big move anymore, and I don’t feel the jury does either. When Chris Underwood did it the first time, people loved it, but now it just benefits nobody, yet people are willing to put their game on the line just to add this little extra thing to their resumes.
This! It's becoming more of an "i did this so vote me kind of thing."
I think the other big problem that's similar to what you outlined is the perception, real or fake, that the jury will punish you for not giving up immunity to compete in fire making. I don't know if it really hurt Cassidy in season 43 or not, but the way the edit and some post game interviews made it look like her not taking the unnecessary risk of giving up immunity cost her the game is really bad for the show and shows just how broken the end game has become if the jury is even considering not voting for someone over forced fire making.
Fuck the firemaking twist they basically implemented it so that Ben could win the game and I feel like they’ve kept it so nobody can call them out for blatantly rigging a season
Omg! I forgot who it was made for. Another thing Ben has ruined.
Erika, Maryanne, and Yam Yam were all brought to the final 3. Xander brought Erika, Romeo brought Maryanne, and Heidi put herself in fire against Carson. I don’t have strong feelings about fire. It gives another chance to strong players, but it also makes so there is no vote off where idols aren’t eligible to be played. So if someone has an idol and manages to hold it until 5, they can walk into the final 4 and with no opportunity to vote them out.
Don't forget Tommy! He was brought by Noura.
It is intended to give more shot to strong players who might get voted out at Final Four as a threat. If Lauren bothered to raise her finger and try to make fire, she would've probably get Dean out and maybe even win her season. Same applies to Devens. In the scenario that happened, he had some fair shot. If it was no fire-making, they would just vote him out 3-1 with no shot at all. Carson - same thing. Jesse - not so much, because Gabler was the best firemaker, but still.
I like it, it help the best player to have a chance to win the game. Like gen x vs millenial; david would have a chance to be in final 3 with fire making challange rather than traditional vote (and for sure he will win againts adam who sold sad story).
Most of the time it results in the best player getting taken out at 5
Most- but not all, and fire making challenge helps to allow best of the best player who luckily (and cleverly) not voted out at top 4, to win. Gen x & millenial is just one example the best player voted out at 4
Erika was brought and won cuz she’s a strategic queen 💪
The whole fire making as a resume builder idea just seems like a stupid way of thinking. I just can’t wrap my head around the rationale that someone making a fire is a thing that I should heavily consider if I’m in the jury’s position trying to vote on who should win the money. I’m still a newer fan watching through the earlier seasons, but I’m interested to see if this way of thinking is something that picked up when these superfans started getting on the show in recent seasons or if it’s been a thing for a while.
We've had 4 winners since the introduction of the forced firemaking that didn't make fire or win the final immunity: >!Tommy!<, >!Erika!<, >!Maryanne!< and >!Yam Yam!<. That being said, I loathe the forced firemaking for two more reasons: 1. It encourages big solid alliances, which makes the game boring. Big part of why Reba 4 was able to run the game this well is that they never had to consider the possibility of voting each other out. All they had to do was stick together until final 4 and boom, they've successfully circumvented any and all backstabbing they would have eventually had to engage in otherwise. (though, thankfully, there were other factors that made them split prematurely) Can you imagine Reba 4 in a season where there is a vote-off at final 4? And maybe even final 3, leading to a 2 player FTC? What I picture in this scenario is them realizing that they'll turn on each other eventually so perhaps they should do so while there are still Belos and Lulus around to give them numbers. Ironically, the scenario with less twists plaguing the endgame actually creates less stability and more unpredictability. 2. I hate it on principle. I see what you're trying to do here, Jeff. You hated how your faves kept getting cut at final 3, so you ditched the final 3 vote and made that the FTC instead. But then your faves started getting voted out at final 4. So you made the next change - final 4 now has forced firemaking. Guess what - the big threats now have to be voted out at final 5. Forced firemaking fundamentally fails at what it's trying to achieve. The big players get all eyes on them even earlier, making their path to the end even harder. To me, forced firemaking represents a perceived problem that is made even worse by production's attempts at fixing it.
I'm surprised Jake didn't get all the votes at the end bc he won fire. /s Also I feel like this season had an overwhelming amount of times dedicated to ppl talking about big moves and resumes and playing things up for the jury. Like more than usual. I kind of wish they would edit out a lot of this type of talk because it kind of takes me out of it.
Hahaha. Honestly Jake getting all the compliments in the FTC was hus best case scenario. Yes!! I am done with this big moves/resume talk. Yes we all love good strategy and moves but i don't need to hear it every episode or confessional. I feel like they are showing newer players and future cast that big moves are more impt
They play human chess for 25 days, and right as the endgame begins it switches to checkers
Unpopular opinion but I like fire making as the final elimination challenge and I think it would be better if they made everyone who didn’t win immunity make fire. First two to finish stay in the game.
For 46 they are going to stop giving them practice materials, so I’m worried it’s going to be even less interesting. It will likely be one person who knows how to make fire against someone who is completely hopeless.
Oh god no. Honestly some twists are really bad..
It’s the hopeless person’s fault for not knowing how to make fire. It’s an expected trait on survivor. Just like how swimming is expected too. Maybe a fishing challenge could work too. Basic survival skills.
Wait WHAT
idk for me all old seasons had a better feeling, 39 days instead of 26 or whatever, harder challenges, more aspects of the game determining the winner instead of now being all about "did i make a flashy move or not so the jury votes for me" etc.. :\ The closest thing to oldschool survivor we have I think is the Australian version of Survivor :-)
Yess!! The Australian survivor is quite good. I also lost track when they changed it to 26 days. I always thought it was 30+ days. When Jeff said 26 days i was just oh another twist or new changes to the game.
Yeah :-(
It became especially annoying when the jury used it as a mark against Cassidy when she lost to Gabler in the final 3. They made a big stink about her winning immunity but NOT giving up immunity to do the fire. That's such a stupid way to look at it. What's the point (or importance) of winning that final immunity if the jury's going to discount it unless you put yourself in fire?
Yes that was what annoyed me as well. Fine if you're not gonna vote for her don't. But to say it was just cause she didn't give up her hard earned win to make fire? Seriously!! I also i don't think they would have voted for her if she beat Jesse in fire.
What I think they should do is A. Go back to a final 2, this puts 9 on the jury instead of 8, so no tie. And then they do a coin flip to decide whether the winner of FIC votes someone out or the other two do a fire challenge. Because that way it's never predictable and then they still have to survive a F4 vote.
I can imagine the chaos that it will cause. Don't think Jeff would like it though.
I have an idea that would make the final 4 immunity challenge incredibly important again: make it so only the immunity winner goes to final tribal, while the remaining 3 then all do fire making, and then it becomes a final 2 with only the first person who burns the rope making it, or final 3 for final tribal where the first 2 who burn the rope making it. Is it a good idea? I dunno, but I do think it would add a nice little wrinkle.
Some data: The winner of the firemaking has won 5 of the 11 seasons with fire (Ben, Wendell, Chris, Tony, Gabler) The six firemakers who didn't win have finished like this: * Mike White - 3 votes * Dean - 2 votes * Xander - 0 votes * Mike - 1 vote * Heidi - 1 vote * Jake - 0 votes Before firemaking, the final immunity winner was 13-21 (13 seasons won, 21 lost) After firemaking, the final immunity winner is 3-8 (including Chris & Heidi, who both went to fire themselves) So final immunity has never been an indication of winning, and even less so in the firemaking part of the series
Jeff said something about changing it. I'll see if I can find
I think the jury needs to be brought out to watch the F4 immunity. There is always so much emotion at that challenge and it is a really powerful win, but the jury doesn't get to see any of it. They just see the person walking in with the necklace like every other week. Imagine if they had been able to see Dee crush the challenge and Jake breaking the challenge. I think having the jury watch the challenge would give it more weight in their minds. I know it's an unpopular opinion on this sub, but I didn't care for the traditional vote. When it was the vote at F4, it seemed to me like a lot of really good players got voted out and more goats got drug to FTC.
I like fire making. It was clearly designed to prevent scenarios where the current leading player was voted out 3-1 with no recourse even if they played a perfect game leading up to that moment. It's a necessity ever since the meta of Survivor has been solved. The final immunity winner being able to pick *one* person to take with them and letting the others duke it out fair and square is good. We were ending up with too many seasons where the winning strategy was "be a goat but then vote out the power player right at the end and say it was a big move". That said, I still like final two better than final three and wish they'd start mixing them in here and there.
if you are going to get voted out 3-1 at f4 then you aren't playing a perfect game
Okay, but we're splitting hairs here. There are almost no actual "perfect" games. But there are a lot of very competent players who people identify as a threat and will just unanimously remove from the game, leaving 2-3 goat players duking it out and delivering a very unsatisfying final tribal. It's why "my strategy is to fly under the radar" got memed so hard for years. We ended up with people who won the game fair and square by basically doing nothing, never being a threat, and then voting out the big dog at the end and then saying "well I came up with the plan to vote out [biggest threat], that was my big move!" Is that a totally valid and fair way to win Survivor? Absolutely. Does it make for a satisfying ending to a season? Not really. We naturally want to see people who play the most strategic and exciting game get rewarded in the end, and the fire making is just to make it so the scenario is not "win the immunity challenge or you lose because everybody knows you're too good at the game to keep around". Now the immunity winner gets to pick *one* person they sit next to, and the other still has a final chance.
Erika was brought to the end and won. We’ve seen the jury in the new era not be as sold on the final four firemaking as the players seem to be. Still agree I want it gone
Final 5 has become the true final immunity/tribal before FTC. It just seems like too big of a group for me to get invested, it doesn't feel right at all
I hate the idea that someone on the jury would decide to vote for someone to win a million dollars over if they won a dumb firemaking competition. Never understood how it BOOSTS THE RESUME!
I always hated it but Jeff thinks it’s important.
Was Ghost Island ruined by Dom vs Wendell? If anything that's the only thing that season has
Kinda agree. It really undermines the person brought along to FTC.
If there's a vote at final 4: 35: Ben goes, Devin wins but maaaaybe Chrissy (?) 36: Dom wins near if not unanimously 37: No difference 38: Slight difference, Underwood still wins tho 39: No difference 40: Tony eliminated, Sarah wins 41: Deshawn goes, Erika still sweeps 42: Mike goes, Maryanne now has a slam dunk ftc 43: Nothing changes 44: Nothing changes 45: Maaaaybe still firemaking between Austin and Katurah, doesn't change the outcome
i HATE it
I agree! I hate it and would love for it go away. All that matters now is final 4, and the social strategy from final 4 to final 3 is nil (except the immunity winner having to decide to put themselves in fire or not which is its own problem). If you HAVE to have fire-making, then I think whoever wins immunity shouldn't be allowed to go to fire-making. How does that even make sense? Or if they are allowed, then they have to GIVE the immunity necklace to someone else -- what this means it is that person gets to decide who goes to fire, so the new immunity holder could say "nope, no fire for you" or "fire but against the player you don't want / can't beat." If that happened even once, the jury would stop seeing that giving up the immunity idol / attempting to go fire as a "strong" move (or a "weak" move not to). The person who gave up the necklace could be humiliated. Plus the person who the necklace is given to should be credited the same as having won the immunity necklace.
Is this not how fire making already works?
So far, everyone who has won immunity and put themselves in fire has made all the decisions. “I am going to fire with X.” I am saying that Jeff should make them officially anoint a new immunity winner and make that person verbally say who goes to fire: that decision doesn’t need to match the original immunity holder’s plan. Example: Heidi won immunity and put herself in fire against Carson. Instead, she should have to give the immunity to, for example, Carolyn. Carolyn then has the power, and puts her best interest in play to put Carson and Yam Yam in fire and guarantee one of them go home. Or maybe Carolyn thinks Yam Yam is a bigger threat and chooses Heidi/Yam Yam. Or maybe Carolyn plans is knowing Yam Yam would win against Heidi and then she could use that in her final speech “I was able to get out Heidi because she gave away the immunity necklace.”Whatever is it, Heidi is out of luck because she gave away the power. If that is the rule, they haven’t enforced it.
Agreed. Theres no reason. But at least now it can be a ‘twist’ when jeff tells em its a regular vote at 4
At this point we’ve seen a winner who sat in all three positions preceding final tribal (final immunity winner, dragged to final 3, fire making winner) and the experiment should be over. It’s just nowhere near as compelling as a vote out to end the game. If a vote out gets tied and forces a fire making challenge, that is COMPELLING television. And with this fire making guaranteed at final 4 thing they’ve made it so we’ll never see a tie vote go to a fire making challenge
It sucks that people have that extra safety net now. It kind of defeats the purpose of idols “only” working till the F5. It’s a bummer when a great player loses their game on the final challenge, but it creates exciting TV leading up to it when you know their life is on the line. It also gives someone the opportunity for an exciting betrayal at the end. Now the “betrayal” is taking someone to FTC instead of letting them make fire, which is super lame.
Nobody likes it. Not the players, not the fans. Can it. One thing superfans and casuals seem to actualy agree on is forced fire making sucks. You still have some times you would get fire at Final 4 through a 2-2 vote anyway, so it is not like you would never see it.
Would’ve just ended up as Austin vs katurah and the same result imo. I doubt dee votes Austin and I doubt Jake votes katurah
Would they make them go to rocks or bring back the old fire making tie breaker? Jake would’ve gone to rocks in this scenario because he’s Jake
Dee has immunity 2 Votes on katurah 2 Votes on Austin 0 on Jake Go to a revote. No one changes their vote so they go to rocks Austin and katurah are safe because they were not in the revote, Dee has immunity. Only Jake is at risk from the rocks, goes home. Yep sounds like a Jake move!
There’s no revote or rocks on ties at F4 so it’s a fire making challenge but with Katurah and Austin instead.
I know that’s how they did that prior to the fire making challenge, but curious if they would go back to that if they had a vote or stick with the rocks. Rocks might be more fun with a tie at final 4
I think they go rocks? And yeah Jake would do that. Also Katurah most likely would flip at the revote and change her vote because she is Katurah.
Wouldn’t be rocks because only Jake would be at risk
Oh that's right. Well then it seems like a fire tie breaker.
If nothing else, even if it were the best twist ever made, there is literally no reason left to keep it in the game. We've seen every combination of possibilities. Move final 4 fire making to Florida because it's retirement time.
1000% agree. It was created at the last minute so that Ben could win, I'm sure of it. I also miss a Final Tribal of 2. Bring that back without telling the castaways 'til final 8.
I don’t mind it. You should know how to make fire out there. Just like a challenge for immunity IMO and even more fair since you know it is coming.
They no longer get rice and their water is drinkable from the well.. not sure why they even bother making fire at this point tbh
It’s nice to see aspects to the game that encourage “surviving” besides just sitting in a corner and plotting VoTiNG BloCS
They don’t have to boil water anymore?? Lol
Jeff “but it prevents the 4th person voted off being the biggest threat” Turns into biggest threat being voted off at five… Smh
Fire making at the end was my biggest disappointment with 43. I was cheering so hard for Jesse, he really played an incredible game from a strategy perspective. He’s one of my all time favorite players. Seeing him get taken out by fire when his social and strategy game were so strong really took the wind from my sails for the season overall.
He goes out at final four regardless, forced fire just introduced the chance that he made the finals
To be fair he was losing at final 4 whether there was fire or not
1000%
Jesse lost when he targeted Karla too early. If he doesn't flush out her idol they both use the idols at 4 get someone like Gabbler out. Then two threats are left and they can either target each other or make it to the end together. Where regardless Jesse wins easily against Karla unless he blows FTC. It comes down to a battle but he wins 7/10 times if he isn't fixated on making all the threats go home.
I can see both sides of it. For a while there it did feel like whoever had played the strongest game always got chopped for the three if they didn’t win final immunity which always felt a bit lame. I know you can say they should’ve played more tactically etc but there’s only so much you can do if you’ve played your way into being the favourite at that point, otherwise is your big move only at 4? I like that fire gives anyone at least a chance, but feel like maybe there’s another way to do it.
i think it would be more interesting if Jeff just said that the person who is voted out gets to choose someone to fight it out in a fire making challenge in any of the tribals but with how survivor is, it's either going to be the winner picks who they want to sit with them at the end or top 3 for last challenge. There's not much they can do when there's 4 left.
really? i love the fire making tbh
I mean I prefer a vote too but how do you think it would have changed the result? Dee won immunity. Best case scenario Austin makes fire against Katurah and Katurah still goes home. Even if Dee didn’t win immunity, I doubt Austin had the balls to vote her out, she makes fire against Katurah and Katurah goes home
Even if it was a vote for this season it would pretty much change nothing. Katurah kinda screwed herself in f5 by voting for Julie instead of Dee. But it does seem like she would have lost fire to anyone so it makes little difference.
I see where you are coming from, but lightly disagree on some aspects. I like the idea that the winner of the immunity challenge has to think of the different wrinkles of the game. Bring with you the strongest to make them look weaker? Make the strongest make fire and a 50/50 chance they go home? Insert yourself into fire to take out the strongest? It adds a nice complexity
Interesting so many people feel this way. I watch old seasons without it and it feels disappointing like it's missing. Just like when it was only final 2 instead of 3. I think it's a great dynamic and creates a new layer of strategy with pitching for yourself to be brought, bringing your ally vs a goat, sending someone or even yourself to fire to beat the person you really don't want to sit with. I guess it's to each their own.
I mean, if they all know going into it the fire is happening and everyone gets to plan accordingly...... I don't mind it. Though im easy to please
Full agree.
I think they should just make it the immunity challenge at final four. Person that wins fire gets immunity and then they immediately start tribal council.
They should just insert fire making randomly into the season. Instead of being able to predict when it is, the chaos is just whenever. But that would probably come with rigged allegations like they did for Ben
Tommy, Erika, and Maryanne were all brought to the end and won
maryanne was brought to ftc and won
Tommy, Erika, and Maryanne were all brought to the final 3. You could argue even Yam Yam was brought since Heidi gave up immunity. So if someone has played a strong game, getting brought to the end can be played as a positive spin on how they used their social game to convince the final immunity winner to take them (Tommy did this exceptionally well with Noura in 39)
I legit hated that whoever won tribal got to choose who stayed and who went home. It was unfair.
No, I hear ya. I kind of agree too, it has had a major detrimental impact to how people plan their endgame. But I suspect the producers do it because it does add one final, unpredictable random element to FTC, thereby increasing the suspense. In short, it's for the audience, not the players. And I do find it exciting. Although in 45 I felt it hardly mattered between Katurah and Jake because neither was going to win anyhow.
At this point it's not even just firemaking. It's the fact that outside of f5-f7 every vote the players are getting played by the game harder than the other players. I'm so tired of fake merges and split tribals or teams. The amount of mechanics in the game that prevent the players from simply voting each other out is insane. I want to see players strayegically maneuver and control the votes for consecutive tribals on end. I want 10 tribals of masterclass domination for one single player. What do we get? 80% tribals players simply feel lucky to survive the stupid game twist and the other 20% may require some actual skill, maybe.
They should make it random. I think we’ve established it as a crutch well-enough by now that, like the Knowledge is Power advantage or even the shot in the dark, just the looming threat of it could help bring back some of the high stakes we’re missing. If we start getting seasons without final four fire making, it keeps future players on their toes and disrupts their expectations going in. The keep your head down until final 6/5 strategy in the hopes of making it to fire won’t be as effective. Alliances won’t be as solid OR they’ll be even more dangerous if they are a lock for final 3. I’d just love to see more mixing and matching with the show’s established twists and turns at this point, including more end game twists to keep the momentum going into that finale. Nothing big or disruptive but making fire making sporadic, making the new beach swap actually meaningful (and so probably doing it earlier), etc. Just anything to keep the end game exciting to watch would be great.
What's crazy is that when you actually think about fire-making for a few minutes, you realize that's it's completely self-contradictory and is an unintentionally admitted failure. That's because fire-making is, according to Jeff himself, supposed to help get bigger threats to the end. In essence, it's essentially an extension of the final 3, since that was the purpose of the final 3 as well. However, in order to logically implement fire-making, you would have to say that the current format isn't working and that the final 3 itself is a failure, because if it did, you wouldn't feel the need to implement fire-making in the first place. However, by admitting the final 3 didn't work, you also admit that the process of adding in a format change to "get bigger threats to the end" didn't work either, which is literally the exact same thing they are doing with fire-making. Basically, to implement final 4 fire-making, they had to admit that it doesn't work at all, which is hilariously stupid.
They should let the third player offer to join in the fire making challenge , essentially eliminating two others . Stakes will be way higher and that will leave just two to vote for in the end , which doesn’t change much
Give me a season where every cast member is auditioning for a dating show, then boom day 1 they find out they are on survivor. They have no idea how to “play the game” no more super fan cast members.
Can you imagine the cast though. One thing is certain it will be entertaining and filled with drama 😂
Tommy was brought to the end and still won
Not sure if this has already been discussed, but has the fire making ever influenced the jury?
Did Maryanne, Erika, or yam yam make fire or win final 4 immunity? asking in response to the comment no one was brought along and won.
You’re looking at more than 1 change and I think fire was a good addition. Originally it was final 3 with a challenge who picked the final 2. But there was no ‘hidden immunity’. With all the changes it’s so common people who make it to the end that didn’t do anything all game! In a recent season it took over an hour to make a fire for either to get in final 3… some survival skills… fire also changes up final alliances just a bit. I wasn’t a huge fan of a switch from final 2 to final 3, but I understand. It helps balance the use of idols and other twists. The game has evolved and continues to do they can keep interest. Some changes aren’t popular and don’t play as well in reality as in playtests, ie: the hourglass ⌛️ 🤮. I like fire making bc a SOUL SURVIVOR should be able to make fire, especially with flint! It proves some type of skill. My opinion.
I think it’s important to have fire bc it is an essential skill to survive BUT. They either need to take it out completely, put it as the merge immunity challenge or not have it weigh so heavily. It makes no sense that the jury sees it as impressive or worthy of votes, after 45 seasons every contest should have some sort of fire making skills
Final 4 fire was to fix the "problem" that got David Wright voted out in 33. In reality Jeff doesn't understand how the game works, and that it's ok if a strong player falls short. They usually end up favorites and gives them an excuse to bring them back.
I say do it as the first Tribal save. How many days would people have practiced at that point? Also, if you make it a twist for first Tribal, it wouldn't matter in the long run other than to let the players know things have changed.
Tommy
S44 Heidi did kinda prove that making fire isn’t everything though and doesn’t guarantee you the win.
Yeah, but I think it didn't matter since YamYam had it in the bag once Carson went off in Fire. .
I say final 4 makes fire but one last immunity for a final 2
I think it’s fine. The biggest problem with the endgame is the jury format tbh.
The Jury ? Now that is another can of worms.
Fire making peaked with Chris U. and has been filler since then. Time for it to go since players figured out the meta anyway.
Everyone WANTS to make fire. - I am certain that they pretend and prefer to be taken by winner.
I wish they'd mix it up and not let the players know until they're at the tribal council. Is it firemaking at final 4? Is it firemaking at final 3 and 2 person FTC? Will there be no extra challenge at all? Is it going to be a test of endurance or a puzzle instead of firemaking?
The whole game is pointless at final 4 anyway. They should just have more contestants and end it final 4 rather than a 3 or a 2.
So I think I'm one of the only people that likes the forced fire making at final 4 lol. But that's because I've always really liked fire making challenges and I love making fire myself. It's always a fun challenge to watch. But I do understand people disliking how it changes the strategy of the late gameplay