Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:44 pm
by Skelda
I understand your points, however not making Jury sucks and the pain felt by the people who make the merge but not Jury outweighs the marginal benefit of finalists getting a few more rounds with Jurors. Plus no one thinks about voting out people they don't want on the Jury at the merge and even if people are it usually isn't known for sure that Jury hasn't started.

Making Jury is an accomplishment and when you don't make it that fucking sucks. Prejury people have my greatest sympathy, but I want as few people to deal with the pain of being prejury as possible.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:47 pm
by xRECKONERx
anywhere from 10-12 is the sweet spot, depending on playerlist size

could go 9 if 16 players though

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:35 pm
by BROseidon
12 or 10 for more rock potential without it being stupidly large

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:33 pm
by Aronis
In post 25, Skelda wrote:I understand your points, however not making Jury sucks and the pain felt by the people who make the merge but not Jury outweighs the marginal benefit of finalists getting a few more rounds with Jurors. Plus no one thinks about voting out people they don't want on the Jury at the merge and even if people are it usually isn't known for sure that Jury hasn't started.

Making Jury is an accomplishment and when you don't make it that fucking sucks. Prejury people have my greatest sympathy, but I want as few people to deal with the pain of being prejury as possible.
this doesn't make any sense. If you start having large amounts of people make the jury, which is the most obvious and effective way to limit the number of people and therefore the amount of pain of not being jury, you're just going to devalue making the jury to the point it's not a notable accomplishment. That's not even mentioning other negative impacts.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:35 am
by hiplop
In post 25, Skelda wrote:I understand your points, however not making Jury sucks and the pain felt by the people who make the merge but not Jury outweighs the marginal benefit of finalists getting a few more rounds with Jurors. Plus no one thinks about voting out people they don't want on the Jury at the merge and even if people are it usually isn't known for sure that Jury hasn't started.

Making Jury is an accomplishment and when you don't make it that fucking sucks. Prejury people have my greatest sympathy, but I want as few people to deal with the pain of being prejury as possible.
Its not an accomplishment when like everyone makes the jury

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:33 am
by BROseidon
Congratulations on making the jury it's a huge accomplishment in the game of Survivor.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:46 am
by D3f3nd3r
Jury point should be at merge, unless it’s a very early merge (13, or 12 in some cases). My method of keeping jury sizes manageable is just by putting the merge later.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:27 am
by JaydragonKing
I'm a fan of Survivor, so I thought it was when half the people minus one was gone? Like half of 20 plus one equals 11 when you merge.

And shouldn't the Jury nearly always be seven? I've seen multiple reality shows, and nearly 80% have seven as the jurors.

(This isn't counting when there are 3/4 teams, because then you have multiple times to merge and maybe if a team lost all but two members they get shuffled into the others and stuff.)

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:00 pm
by racefan12
In post 12, Haschel Cedricson wrote:Jury at 11 is a good number because the players don't know if it's F2 with 9 jurors or F3 with 8 jurors.
this

which would make merge naturally at 12

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:43 am
by Skelda
In post 29, hiplop wrote:
In post 25, Skelda wrote:I understand your points, however not making Jury sucks and the pain felt by the people who make the merge but not Jury outweighs the marginal benefit of finalists getting a few more rounds with Jurors. Plus no one thinks about voting out people they don't want on the Jury at the merge and even if people are it usually isn't known for sure that Jury hasn't started.

Making Jury is an accomplishment and when you don't make it that fucking sucks. Prejury people have my greatest sympathy, but I want as few people to deal with the pain of being prejury as possible.
Its not an accomplishment when like everyone makes the jury
I don't buy this argument. I think to a new player or a player who hasn't made the Jury before, the difference between 11th place Jury and 13th place Jury is fairly marginal, but the difference between 11th place Jury and 13th place prejury is massive. I'm not saying that we have 16 or 17 person Juries because yeah, that does devalue the Jury to a certain extent. I also think being somewhat unpredictable about when Jury/merge will occur is also good, so obviously you can't always have massive Juries.

But in general, starting Jury as early as you can is better. I also think that if you let the premerge drag on too long good players are more likely to be swap-screwed.

Also having larger Juries is probably more likely to result in winners who we want to win because with lower numbers you are more likely to have wonky votecounts. Something like a 3-2-2 is more likely with a small Jury, especially when people were recently voted off and it still stings. Having people on the Jury with more perspective is a good thing.

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:30 am
by xofelf
I think it depends on the size of the game, larger games 11-12 is a good merge, but smaller games 9. I do think that jury needs to not start until merge so that everyone in the jury has some idea of all the finalists personally, even if it's not much. I do think that jury starting a round or two after merge is also acceptable. But really, I think it's per game. Some of our game mechanics support merges at different times from the norm.

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:11 pm
by Chevre
there's no "ideal". The goal should always be to at least slightly subvert the players' expectations.

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:21 pm
by McMenno
ye, like "bet they won't expect an f3 again"

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:12 pm
by hiplop
In post 34, Skelda wrote:I don't buy this argument. I think to a new player or a player who hasn't made the Jury before, the difference between 11th place Jury and 13th place Jury is fairly marginal, but the difference between 11th place Jury and 13th place prejury is massive. I'm not saying that we have 16 or 17 person Juries because yeah, that does devalue the Jury to a certain extent. I also think being somewhat unpredictable about when Jury/merge will occur is also good, so obviously you can't always have massive Juries.
Who cares

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:12 pm
by Shadoweh
For everything being said here, the least controversial twists in Civivor was the last Terra Incognito member (redemption island twist) becoming the first jury member. People's take on it seemed to be having a fairly unbiased jury member was a good and different person to impress!

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:35 am
by BROseidon
Eh I was mildly miffed that it was someone I barely interacted with in the pre-merge but yeah that twist was pretty k.

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:36 am
by D3f3nd3r
Honestly I probably would have been a little bit upset if the other half of that twist hadn’t completely fucked me.

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:09 am
by hiplop
I think it was bad just the rest of stuff was more bad