Let's Study Games - Redemption Mechanics

[zoraster]

I'm kind of anti-returner in general, but I think one point that's kind of been made but I'll highlight:

At this point, returnees should be a mechanic, not a twist. As a twist it doesn't sound like they WORK. As a mechanic that you tell people is going to happen or perhaps might happen it's something players plan around so I think can better be valued by players.

[Shadoweh]

Underrated moment was Cephrir surviving a tribe specifically designed to kill him. Poison Ivy was not as fortunate.

>:( this is why I tried to time travel out of there..

Do people feel like the mechanics around the return can make the returnee have a better chance to win? In the vein that they have movez they can claim? A lot of different ways to implement the return have happened like the aforementioned: when Lincoln and Star Sapphire returned to the game they also got (i think a vote negate or something?) and the ability to make the 2 6 man tribes that would exist the next round. MS usually gives returnees an idol or something to stop them from being revolving doored.

[Shrek]

tbh i feel like rewarding someone for being voted out at all goes against the spirit of the game a bit? like how people who got voted out in that one round of barely survivor immediately got back into the game on tribes they chose and got a free round of immunity in addition to it. the most i would do is one round of immunity assuming they come back at merge.

[Malkon05]

This site can't handle returnees as a concept so they probably shouldn't exist. I've returned to games twice now and both times felt like hitting a brick wall when you come back. Players alive have no respect for this mechanic and normally that's because people feel safe in their own gameplay so there isn't an attempt to use the mechanic to help themselves.

I just don't think players are going to ever take this mechanic seriously so maybe we just let it die. Now doing variations of it with the fittest challenge isn't bad because the player who gets voted out isn't missing out on gameplay. It's akin to being sent to exile.

Bottom line though, in order for this to work, we have to have a majority of players being willing to accept it as a feasible way to win and I don't think we are there.

I'm way out of the loop on recent MS history, but is this actually true? Has a returnee made it to the end and lost because they were a returnee before?

It's a touch more complicated than that, but there are definitely people who have blatantly said "they would never vote for a returnee to win under any circumstance". During PCW there were definitely people who weren't going to give Mipha the time of day on the sole fact that she missed...what 3 rounds of the game and was idoled rather than truly voted out?

[Cheery Dog]

I Think a Doctor Who returnee if they made it to the end would have had a chance. Although that game was also unique in not having a ponderosa was actually only formed into F3.
I don't remember ruling Stormy out because they were voted out in a past timeline. I could be wrong there though.
Like Jack's three returns meant he was actually in a strong position to win the game.

I think with Fittest my mind was out of the potential returnees only Bunny stood any chance of getting my vote. This was due to how they had played they game and then interacted on EoE.
The votes was probably still always going to either Eagle or Kestrel for the win there, but I don't think I could have ruled out people simply for getting voted out once.

And to add to DeathNote's point about the high of him returning. Getting knocked out of the chance of returning was a pretty big low for me in fittest. (Even though I knew it would be coming, and it probably more related to my failure to read the entire text for what to me seemed like a must win challenge)

[Skelda]

This site can't handle returnees as a concept so they probably shouldn't exist. I've returned to games twice now and both times felt like hitting a brick wall when you come back. Players alive have no respect for this mechanic and normally that's because people feel safe in their own gameplay so there isn't an attempt to use the mechanic to help themselves.

I just don't think players are going to ever take this mechanic seriously so maybe we just let it die. Now doing variations of it with the fittest challenge isn't bad because the player who gets voted out isn't missing out on gameplay. It's akin to being sent to exile.

Bottom line though, in order for this to work, we have to have a majority of players being willing to accept it as a feasible way to win and I don't think we are there.

I'm way out of the loop on recent MS history, but is this actually true? Has a returnee made it to the end and lost because they were a returnee before?

It's a touch more complicated than that, but there are definitely people who have blatantly said "they would never vote for a returnee to win under any circumstance". During PCW there were definitely people who weren't going to give Mipha the time of day on the sole fact that she missed...what 3 rounds of the game and was idoled rather than truly voted out?

Was this a significant number of people? It seemed like the Jurors mostly gave her fair consideration, and she came one vote away from winning.

Mipha and Dark Rey were both very close to winning, and I really just disagree with the idea that MS will never vote for a returnee. They might have a more uphill battle, but they probably should. I do think Jurors want more than just being a returnee and making it to the end as an final argument though. That isn't a case in and of itself.

[Skelda]

tbh i feel like rewarding someone for being voted out at all goes against the spirit of the game a bit? like how people who got voted out in that one round of barely survivor immediately got back into the game on tribes they chose and got a free round of immunity in addition to it. the most i would do is one round of immunity assuming they come back at merge.

I could be okay with giving them Immunity for a round or a weak advantage like a vote steal, but giving them an idol is OP imo. That situation in BS rubbed me the wrong way too

[Klick]

Hey guys! I have thoughts on this, but I've got to go for the time being. I'll post them when I'm around later. It's been great getting to know our tribe so far : )

[Malkon05]

This site can't handle returnees as a concept so they probably shouldn't exist. I've returned to games twice now and both times felt like hitting a brick wall when you come back. Players alive have no respect for this mechanic and normally that's because people feel safe in their own gameplay so there isn't an attempt to use the mechanic to help themselves.

I just don't think players are going to ever take this mechanic seriously so maybe we just let it die. Now doing variations of it with the fittest challenge isn't bad because the player who gets voted out isn't missing out on gameplay. It's akin to being sent to exile.

Bottom line though, in order for this to work, we have to have a majority of players being willing to accept it as a feasible way to win and I don't think we are there.

I'm way out of the loop on recent MS history, but is this actually true? Has a returnee made it to the end and lost because they were a returnee before?

It's a touch more complicated than that, but there are definitely people who have blatantly said "they would never vote for a returnee to win under any circumstance". During PCW there were definitely people who weren't going to give Mipha the time of day on the sole fact that she missed...what 3 rounds of the game and was idoled rather than truly voted out?

Was this a significant number of people? It seemed like the Jurors mostly gave her fair consideration, and she came one vote away from winning.

Mipha and Dark Rey were both very close to winning, and I really just disagree with the idea that MS will never vote for a returnee. They might have a more uphill battle, but they probably should. I do think Jurors want more than just being a returnee and making it to the end as an final argument though. That isn't a case in and of itself.

Well when the difference is 1 or 2 votes "a significant number" isn't really a relevant point to bring up. I can name at least 3 people who weren't going to, which might not seem like "a significant number" but like those are votes that Mipha didn't have access to which could have been 3 more open minded people willing to consider which made a difference between earning a win and never having a shot to begin with.

I'm not saying Mipha should have won, the jury decided it at the end of the day and there were votes she did have access to she didn't get, that's a whole other topic for a day and this is not a discussion about that.

The topic here is, has having a returnee twist in an LSG produced any significant results or anything interesting?

Yes, it's produced jurors and finalists who have lost by 1 vote. The thing has been tested over and over again.

I forgot all about Dark Rey. That's a 4th person who has returned, made FTC and lost by 1 vote which further strengthens my post.

Unless the pattern changes, what's the point of having this twist? There is a mindset that exists out there that people will not vote people to win simply for being a returnee and it was...very eye opening to see it.

Unless people can have a different mindset, I don't see the point in furthering an LSG twist that puts people through heck to survive, come back, and have no proven scenario where it actually produces a winner after however long MS has been going on for.

Like do we keep doing the same thing over and over and expect difference results? That feels pretty insane to me lol.

And again, Live games and meets and marathon games are different because it's proven having a returnee twist actually yields results that make the entire twist worth doing as it does affect results and for whatever reason those "fast" games allow for returnees to actually get back in and have a shot at winning.

I've just yet to see an LSG game with a returnee twist that counters the idea that continuing to plan and design these games with twists where people are going to earn their way back and play the game and beat their head against a wall only to lose produces a result other than the two I listed above.

DN did say it feels good to return and earn it, but ultimately it's pretty frustrating to see people use returnee bias against the returnee simply for playing a game with part of a design that was built into it.

I don't really want to get off topic by nitpicking specific things like "a significant amount" and sure, there exists a world in which a returnee could in theory win, but I have yet to see it play out on MS is the bottom line of what I'm saying.

[Klick]

I'm gonna try to answer both questions from my own perspective

What is the purpose of Redemption Mechanics? What do they add to the game? Does this answer change if you are a player, a moderator, or a spectator?

I think the core purpose of most twists and mechanics should be to make the game more enjoyable to play in some way. Thought should be put towards that when implementing a returnee process.
More specifically, I agree with Haschel's end summary of what was discussed here, that Redemption mechanics should be implemented with a player-centered purpose in mind and with some sort of clear goal, not just because it might be lols. In and of themselves the only thing returnees add to the quality of a game is the chance for someone to win the game post-elimination. Mods can add further qualities to the mechanic through the details of it.

Should the players know that Redemption is a possibility at the start of the game? Is it unfair if they do not, or is the possibility of Redemption something that should be in the back of the players' minds no matter what?

First of all, I'm not necessarily against returnee twists being hidden from the players. But there should be a decent reason for that as well. Most mods who add hidden returnees do so largely as a way of 'surprising' the players, which is a large source of this problem where existing players just want the dead to stay dead. Because when you

There are two hidden returnee twists that I think have done this well (there may be more but they're not coming to mind right this second). Equestria had an excellent returnee twist IMO - there was a clear idea behind the return (friendship!), and existing players were able to influence who returned. I especially liked that the votes were anonymous, so each player felt that they could

individually

influence who came back. I know I felt encouraged to give Pinkie Pie a second shot because I played a part in her return, even though I voted her out the first time. And with the theme of the game being 'friendship', it helped avoid the possibility of voting someone back in with the intention of sending them right back out.

I also think Mass Effect way back in the day was close to having a really good returnee twist. I think that twist would work really well today with a bit of simple refining for the modern era. (For the uninitiated: an optional challenge was held in which the players guessed how each player left was ranked in popularity a few rounds before; the winner got to choose which eliminated player returned to the game.) What I like here is that the returnee is chosen by someone who is in a good enough social position to win the challenge, meaning the returnee presumably enters the game with a powerful ally, giving them more of a shot of integrating into the game's social web.


I'm going to expand this question to the following: If it's established that Redemption should only be implemented in a certain way, then how exactly

should

Redemption be implemented in a game?

I propose that

a successful returnee twist needs to be both fun and fair, for both the returnee and the existing players.

How does one make the mechanic fun and fair for both of those sets? I can only speak from the perspective of someone who has had a returnee enter their game, but here is what I have observed:

- Don't have the returnee out of the game for too long, or for a big chunk of the merge. LSGs are games that test a skill, and it feels bad when everyone has been playing one game and then someone else has been playing a different game entirely, with a different difficulty level and skill set required. There needs to be enough time for the returnee to play the game that everyone else is playing.

- Consider having a prerequisite to return that involves expressing skill at the LSG being played. Equestria did this well, with the returnee being voted on and allowed to discuss with living tribes - and it led to Pinkie Pie persuading people to bring her back in, and then integrating back into the social structure of the game at large. (Seriously, Equestria is a returnee twist done very well and mods should take notes.)

- uh... I had a third point but it's gone. Have a penguin instead (\(^¬^)/)

I think it is entirely possible to implement a fair and fun Redemption mechanic. That just needs to be the goal when making the twist, and it needs to be thought through.

[OhGodMyLife]

I'm just here for the Arkham City nostalgia posts

[Skelda]

This site can't handle returnees as a concept so they probably shouldn't exist. I've returned to games twice now and both times felt like hitting a brick wall when you come back. Players alive have no respect for this mechanic and normally that's because people feel safe in their own gameplay so there isn't an attempt to use the mechanic to help themselves.

I just don't think players are going to ever take this mechanic seriously so maybe we just let it die. Now doing variations of it with the fittest challenge isn't bad because the player who gets voted out isn't missing out on gameplay. It's akin to being sent to exile.

Bottom line though, in order for this to work, we have to have a majority of players being willing to accept it as a feasible way to win and I don't think we are there.

I'm way out of the loop on recent MS history, but is this actually true? Has a returnee made it to the end and lost because they were a returnee before?

It's a touch more complicated than that, but there are definitely people who have blatantly said "they would never vote for a returnee to win under any circumstance". During PCW there were definitely people who weren't going to give Mipha the time of day on the sole fact that she missed...what 3 rounds of the game and was idoled rather than truly voted out?

Was this a significant number of people? It seemed like the Jurors mostly gave her fair consideration, and she came one vote away from winning.

Mipha and Dark Rey were both very close to winning, and I really just disagree with the idea that MS will never vote for a returnee. They might have a more uphill battle, but they probably should. I do think Jurors want more than just being a returnee and making it to the end as an final argument though. That isn't a case in and of itself.

Well when the difference is 1 or 2 votes "a significant number" isn't really a relevant point to bring up. I can name at least 3 people who weren't going to, which might not seem like "a significant number" but like those are votes that Mipha didn't have access to which could have been 3 more open minded people willing to consider which made a difference between earning a win and never having a shot to begin with.

I'm not saying Mipha should have won, the jury decided it at the end of the day and there were votes she did have access to she didn't get, that's a whole other topic for a day and this is not a discussion about that.

The topic here is, has having a returnee twist in an LSG produced any significant results or anything interesting?

Yes, it's produced jurors and finalists who have lost by 1 vote. The thing has been tested over and over again.

I forgot all about Dark Rey. That's a 4th person who has returned, made FTC and lost by 1 vote which further strengthens my post.

Unless the pattern changes, what's the point of having this twist? There is a mindset that exists out there that people will not vote people to win simply for being a returnee and it was...very eye opening to see it.

Unless people can have a different mindset, I don't see the point in furthering an LSG twist that puts people through heck to survive, come back, and have no proven scenario where it actually produces a winner after however long MS has been going on for.

Like do we keep doing the same thing over and over and expect difference results? That feels pretty insane to me lol.

And again, Live games and meets and marathon games are different because it's proven having a returnee twist actually yields results that make the entire twist worth doing as it does affect results and for whatever reason those "fast" games allow for returnees to actually get back in and have a shot at winning.

I've just yet to see an LSG game with a returnee twist that counters the idea that continuing to plan and design these games with twists where people are going to earn their way back and play the game and beat their head against a wall only to lose produces a result other than the two I listed above.

DN did say it feels good to return and earn it, but ultimately it's pretty frustrating to see people use returnee bias against the returnee simply for playing a game with part of a design that was built into it.

I don't really want to get off topic by nitpicking specific things like "a significant amount" and sure, there exists a world in which a returnee could in theory win, but I have yet to see it play out on MS is the bottom line of what I'm saying.

I think if you're losing by one vote, that's a vote that came down to the whim of one person and it realistically could have gone either way. That to me is not the same thing as saying that returnees never can win. If we played enough games, eventually a returnee would win. They aren't included in every game, and when they are included, they don't usually make it to the end. In fact, Dark Rey and Mipha are the only finalist returnees I can think of, though I may be forgetting some. If they were losing with 0 votes, that'd be different to me and would indicate that most of our Jurors will not vote for returnees under any circumstances.

But not really worth getting into tbh. We're both overall against returnees. I just think you're being a bit reductive, and it kind of seems like you're blaming Jurors for standards they aren't even necessarily applying. And you also used to say that you would absolutely never vote for a returnee to win under any circumstances, and you even criticized me for casting my Jury vote for Kilby in a live game after he was voted out, so the irony here isn't lost on me. Maybe you're projecting a lil bit, idk

[zoraster]

My assumption is even people who right now say they'd never vote for a returner might find themselves voting for the returner in certain situations. That said, I don't think vote results are necessarily very telling except to show that it is possible that someone could win as a returner if they got votes.

Still, my general preference as a mod is to have competitive FTCs. I don't always get my wish as that thing is mostly up to the players and a dominating win from a superb player is also satisfying, but putting in mechanics that potentially make it more likely to be uncompetitive aren't really my thing. So if I were to put in a returning mechanic, much of my effort would be to figure out how to minimize the disadvantage. Because even though to the individual player coming back in it is theoretically ONLY positive for their win equity (as they would have simply been booted otherwise), for the game itself, it may not be.

[D3f3nd3r]

In fact, Dark Rey and Mipha are the only finalist returnees I can think of, though I may be forgetting some.

Monika returned in Greece one round into the Merge and ended up losing the FTC vote 5-4, but (sorry Ceph ily) for a time we used the term "Monika'd" to describe a player having a particularly bad FTC performance. Relevantly though, Monika wasn't out of the game for any meaningful amount of time, she re-entered the game when the first RI twist ended immediately after she was voted out.

[Haschel Cedricson]

At this point, returnees should be a mechanic, not a twist. As a twist it doesn't sound like they WORK. As a mechanic that you tell people is going to happen or perhaps might happen it's something players plan around so I think can better be valued by players.

I really like this distinction.

Assuming a game moderator wants this mechanic in their game, what is the best way to determine who comes back and how?

[Haschel Cedricson]

The Equestria mechanic had two parts to it: while living players ultimately voted on who got to return, the list of options for them was first winnowed by limiting it to the top three performers in a challenge. This was done to limit the number of first-time introductions necessary. The set-up for this game also included a travelling tribe in order to maximize pre-existing impressions.

I really liked this mechanic and Klick's praise for it makes me feel good. It did require the early part of the game to be structured around making the mechanic work, though.

[Skelda]

At this point, returnees should be a mechanic, not a twist. As a twist it doesn't sound like they WORK. As a mechanic that you tell people is going to happen or perhaps might happen it's something players plan around so I think can better be valued by players.

I really like this distinction.

Assuming a game moderator wants this mechanic in their game, what is the best way to determine who comes back and how?

I actually don't think it especially matters. The way Equestria did it was cool and BS and PCW both also did a good job, but I'm fine with returns based on social game, strategy on Redemption Island or challenge strength depending on the mods, if we're saying this is a mechanic we like.

The big thing to balance is the degree to which being eliminated early or late is an advantage or disadvantage. If it's purely challenge based, you don't want the first few eliminated players to feel like the odds are so stacked against them winning the required number of challenges that they basically have no chance. At the same time, if there is some sort of social and strategic game happening among the eliminated players, you don't want players to be punished for surviving longer by coming in on the outside of that. Terra Incognito in Civ failed this test for me, because late premerge eliminations like Hatshepshut and Montezuma came and were killed on sight with really no chance to fight for themselves. Maybe the solution is to do a combination of challenges with social/strategic game, but obviously most returns will lean into one or the other.

[zoraster]

Assuming a game moderator wants this mechanic in their game, what is the best way to determine who comes back and how?

It kind of depends on what your concern is. Is it:

1. Returners are unlikely to win
2. Players feel that it's unfair to change the core mechanic
3. That players are unmotivated after being eliminated even if they win redemption.
4. That it changes the core mechanic such that players play less interestingly (e.g. avoiding big moves because they know it might bite them in the ass if the person returns).

I'm not sure there's one answer for any of those. But I do think all are better solved by mechanics that more heavily lean on allowing players to be proactive in avoiding being voted off rather than voting off and then returning. Or at the very least make it so players have to make an in-game play to take advantage of it. You can come up with a ton of different ways to incorporate it.

Just as one off the top of my head: give everyone a redemption island ticket at the start of the game that expires at F11 (or whatever). If they play it (same as an idol) and they're voted off, they have a chance to complete a puzzle and return, swapping tribes. To win the challenge they have to beat the previous high score on the challenge. So it requires playing correctly in game. It requires doing well on a challenge (progressively harder the more people who can play). It returns players immediately rather than taking them out of the game forever. It's an announced mechanic that everyone has knowledge of and can try to take advantage of. It's something that players voting out another player can play AROUND (by blindsiding someone because they know they have a ticket/they can flush tickets), so they're more likely to view it as something someone took advantage of themselves at the end. Etc.

But that's really just an example of something trying to solve some of the potential weaknesses above.

[Skelda]

Assuming a game moderator wants this mechanic in their game, what is the best way to determine who comes back and how?

It kind of depends on what your concern is. Is it:

1. Returners are unlikely to win
2. Players feel that it's unfair to change the core mechanic
3. That players are unmotivated after being eliminated even if they win redemption.
4. That it changes the core mechanic such that players play less interestingly (e.g. avoiding big moves because they know it might bite them in the ass if the person returns).

I'm not sure there's one answer for any of those. But I do think all are better solved by mechanics that more heavily lean on allowing players to be proactive in avoiding being voted off rather than voting off and then returning. Or at the very least make it so players have to make an in-game play to take advantage of it. You can come up with a ton of different ways to incorporate it.

Just as one off the top of my head: give everyone a redemption island ticket at the start of the game that expires at F11 (or whatever). If they play it (same as an idol) and they're voted off, they have a chance to complete a puzzle and return, swapping tribes. To win the challenge they have to beat the previous high score on the challenge. So it requires playing correctly in game. It requires doing well on a challenge (progressively harder the more people who can play). It returns players immediately rather than taking them out of the game forever. It's an announced mechanic that everyone has knowledge of and can try to take advantage of. It's something that players voting out another player can play AROUND (by blindsiding someone because they know they have a ticket/they can flush tickets), so they're more likely to view it as something someone took advantage of themselves at the end. Etc.

But that's really just an example of something trying to solve some of the potential weaknesses above.

This reminds me of the Fitness challenges, which I don't think the players mentally counted as returnees even though maybe they technically were. I'm fine with this being a mechanic, but it's also basically just a weaker Immunity idol with a challenge component.

I think if you want all eliminated players to have a chance to return after being eliminated and then have them re-enter at a predetermined point, it's more tricky. So like, I'm open to alternative suggestions like this, but I think they kind of stretch the bounds of what we're talking about.

[zoraster]

This reminds me of the Fitness challenges, which I don't think the players mentally counted as returnees even though maybe they technically were. I'm fine with this being a mechanic, but it's also basically just a weaker Immunity idol with a challenge component.

Yeah for sure. That's kind of why it works! It doesn't seem like someone was removed from the game and then allowed back in. But that's probably going to be the bulk of my suggestions on how to handle it. Because everything else is just mitigating damage rather than affirmatively answer the question of "why is your game stronger for having been designed this way?"

Yes, I think the damage of the first two boots being put into a two person challenge with one returning is LESS DAMAGING than if someone is out of the game for 6 rounds and returns at F6. But that still doesn't really answer the question of why the game is better for it.

[Malkon05]

This site can't handle returnees as a concept so they probably shouldn't exist. I've returned to games twice now and both times felt like hitting a brick wall when you come back. Players alive have no respect for this mechanic and normally that's because people feel safe in their own gameplay so there isn't an attempt to use the mechanic to help themselves.

I just don't think players are going to ever take this mechanic seriously so maybe we just let it die. Now doing variations of it with the fittest challenge isn't bad because the player who gets voted out isn't missing out on gameplay. It's akin to being sent to exile.

Bottom line though, in order for this to work, we have to have a majority of players being willing to accept it as a feasible way to win and I don't think we are there.

I'm way out of the loop on recent MS history, but is this actually true? Has a returnee made it to the end and lost because they were a returnee before?

It's a touch more complicated than that, but there are definitely people who have blatantly said "they would never vote for a returnee to win under any circumstance". During PCW there were definitely people who weren't going to give Mipha the time of day on the sole fact that she missed...what 3 rounds of the game and was idoled rather than truly voted out?

Was this a significant number of people? It seemed like the Jurors mostly gave her fair consideration, and she came one vote away from winning.

Mipha and Dark Rey were both very close to winning, and I really just disagree with the idea that MS will never vote for a returnee. They might have a more uphill battle, but they probably should. I do think Jurors want more than just being a returnee and making it to the end as an final argument though. That isn't a case in and of itself.

Well when the difference is 1 or 2 votes "a significant number" isn't really a relevant point to bring up. I can name at least 3 people who weren't going to, which might not seem like "a significant number" but like those are votes that Mipha didn't have access to which could have been 3 more open minded people willing to consider which made a difference between earning a win and never having a shot to begin with.

I'm not saying Mipha should have won, the jury decided it at the end of the day and there were votes she did have access to she didn't get, that's a whole other topic for a day and this is not a discussion about that.

The topic here is, has having a returnee twist in an LSG produced any significant results or anything interesting?

Yes, it's produced jurors and finalists who have lost by 1 vote. The thing has been tested over and over again.

I forgot all about Dark Rey. That's a 4th person who has returned, made FTC and lost by 1 vote which further strengthens my post.

Unless the pattern changes, what's the point of having this twist? There is a mindset that exists out there that people will not vote people to win simply for being a returnee and it was...very eye opening to see it.

Unless people can have a different mindset, I don't see the point in furthering an LSG twist that puts people through heck to survive, come back, and have no proven scenario where it actually produces a winner after however long MS has been going on for.

Like do we keep doing the same thing over and over and expect difference results? That feels pretty insane to me lol.

And again, Live games and meets and marathon games are different because it's proven having a returnee twist actually yields results that make the entire twist worth doing as it does affect results and for whatever reason those "fast" games allow for returnees to actually get back in and have a shot at winning.

I've just yet to see an LSG game with a returnee twist that counters the idea that continuing to plan and design these games with twists where people are going to earn their way back and play the game and beat their head against a wall only to lose produces a result other than the two I listed above.

DN did say it feels good to return and earn it, but ultimately it's pretty frustrating to see people use returnee bias against the returnee simply for playing a game with part of a design that was built into it.

I don't really want to get off topic by nitpicking specific things like "a significant amount" and sure, there exists a world in which a returnee could in theory win, but I have yet to see it play out on MS is the bottom line of what I'm saying.

I think if you're losing by one vote, that's a vote that came down to the whim of one person and it realistically could have gone either way. That to me is not the same thing as saying that returnees never can win. If we played enough games, eventually a returnee would win. They aren't included in every game, and when they are included, they don't usually make it to the end. In fact, Dark Rey and Mipha are the only finalist returnees I can think of, though I may be forgetting some. If they were losing with 0 votes, that'd be different to me and would indicate that most of our Jurors will not vote for returnees under any circumstances.

But not really worth getting into tbh. We're both overall against returnees. I just think you're being a bit reductive, and it kind of seems like you're blaming Jurors for standards they aren't even necessarily applying. And you also used to say that you would absolutely never vote for a returnee to win under any circumstances, and you even criticized me for casting my Jury vote for Kilby in a live game after he was voted out, so the irony here isn't lost on me. Maybe you're projecting a lil bit, idk

Id like to point out I've never been a returnee and I have voted for at least one to win on one of two juries I've had an opportunity to do so, but if you want receipts, I can get them. I was trying to be respectful of people by not.

[Malkon05]

I do recognize I used to be part of the problem, but my stance has changed recently and I have been very vocal in saying so.

I'm not saying people can't change, but it was pretty defeating to try to advocate for returnees and have people shoot me down pretty fucking blatantly to the point that I don't see a point in having a returnee mechanic at all.

Which is probably a reductive attitude to have, and I honestly stated "this is probably jaded Malkon talking" a few posts before this specific conversation.

[Klick]

So my understanding of your argument is that:

- the community has a significant portion of people that would outright refuse to vote for a returnee, for the sole reason of them having been eliminated from the game previously
- this attitude is the problem with having returnees in LSGs, as opposed to the implementation of the returnee mechanic, because no matter how a player returns, there will still be some players who refuse to vote for returning players to win
- if returnees were to be implemented (and you seem to like them as twists themselves), then there needs to be a change in the community's attitude towards them, instead of a change in their implementation

Does this sum up your argument against returning players in LSGs, Malkon?

[VashtaNeurotic]

Eh, I've never been a fan of the "some people won't vote for returnees argument". Like some people won't vote for someone who didn't work for them, some people won't vote for backstabby games and some people won't vote for a game that's mostly social with few moves. Yet that does not make any of those games invalid or unwinnable, especially when returnees have lost by a single vote. Like is anyone going to make the argument that someone who loses by a single vote is just...incapable of winning a game. Also like, of course returnees are going to have problems, while it's a completely valid mechanic to have, in order to use it you have to be voted out, which typically players aren't trying to do. If someone purposely was voted out to use redemption to get to the end and had receipts to prove it, I doubt people would be like "but you are a returnee".

However I will say, the later a player returns, and the longer they've been out of the game, the harder and harder it becomes for them to have "a fighting chance" at the end since it's a lot harder to show a change from the same play that was shown to not work and you just have less impact on the main game aside from either of the other finalists, and that if it's a surprise players are less primed to expect a returnee and that might jade them against them. I also think multiple returnees is generally good because it normalizes the aspect of returning in the game and thus makes it a lot less of a big deal.

I can probably do a longer analysis, but if returnee twists are known ahead of time, short, relatively early, and make sure the players who return aren't alone/SoL it definitely feels like they can be a very fun mechanic, especially for those who manage to fight back.

[Klick]

I agree with Vash basically

One thing that I'd add: usually, players are voted out due to some fault in their gameplay. And the experience of being voted out tends to call attention to the faults of that player (they're being voted for a reason!). So if someone returns to the game after being voted out previously, the experience of them getting voted out and having their mistakes highlighted doesn't just... go away. It's something they have to play around, a 'mark' on the game they've played that isn't on the games of other players. And it means that, even disregarding whatever biases juries may have against returnees just as a concept, returnees are at a disadvantage because it has already been shown that their game wasn't bulletproof, and usually exactly WHY their game wasn't bulletproof.

That's really tough to argue your way out of in an FTC, especially the way they're laid out in LSGs. If site culture really is the underlying issue with returnees on MS, then I'm wondering if the solution lies in our collective approach to the endgame. We have a lot of focus on who played 'perfectly', who can sell that they made all the right choices, when frankly that's not an accurate way of viewing any game of Survivor. There are VERY few perfect games, and it's possible we'd be better off if we ditched the obsession with them. Obviously finalists are incentivized to sell their game in the best possible light, but maybe juries should be a bit more skeptical about that. It might help with the returnee problem, amongst other potential benefits.

Bit of a tangent (and also sort of two separate ideas) but it came to mind and I'm curious what others think