Mafiascum.net

I've long been a proponent of Final Two FTCs, but I see merit to both sides of the argument. What is the best way for endgame to look? There have been Skype discussions on this topic several times, but I'm curious what we'll get if we try this in a more formal format.

I'll weigh in with my own thoughts when I'm out of class.

Final Threes are bad.

Final Twos are good.

Ehhh, I used to be a believer in every game should be an F2 but after the disappointing ending of MLS, I'm less opinionated. Both have their merits

F2s allow for more divergent gameplay

there is a fairly set way to win f3

At least it's not a final 4 right guys? *crickets* ...right?


But really, I think there are merits for both end game styles. It very much changes how FTC speeches are given. When you're only up against one other person, it's that much easier to argue against what they specifically did or didn't do, especially if that person was your partner in crime. In an f3 you are much better served in talking about what you yourself did and why you should stand out more. I also think it's easier to win an f3 than an f2. You have a lot less votes you absolutely have to have in order to win. I think it also changes late game strategy a whole lot.

But f2 is literally Bring the Goat

Also mathematically incorrect, you are 33% likely to win an F3 and 50% likely to win an F2.
That's how Jeff Probst would calculate those odds anyways. "A 1 IN 3 SHOT OF WINNING THE GAME!"

That's the main reason I'm not a fan of F3s, actually. Making it through the entire game to get to FTC winds up giving you... a 33% chance of winning. That means it's much more worth it to spend your entire game pandering and making sure you're everyone's favorite. The game becomes more of a gross popularity contest than it should be. 50/50 seems like more of a fair split between pre-FTC and post-FTC.

^

Y'all are thinking in numbers here. While the numbers may say that f2 gives you a better chance of winning, you gotta think psychology and how well can you convince people. When you're at FTC it's not about numbers anymore. It's about people and persuasiveness. And how many people do you have a connection with or can you convince to respect your game? In an f3 it is so much easier to do so. There are 2 people whose game flaws you can use to help you instead of one, you only have to be the not worst option. It's that much easier to win as a finalist. You have slightly more to use to help you and you can afford to lose a few more votes in an f3 than an f2. An F2 you really can't afford to have any votes that you can't convince to vote you.

ya thats why f2s are better in a forum environment and worse on the show imo

Forum and show are very different as well. We're not really playing to win anything here, so votes and losing doesn't mean nearly so much. It still sucks either way, but it changes motivation a lot.

Final 2 because then it basically turns into a Presidential Election. Dirty tactics and pandering to a certain demographic ensues.

I hate you guys for treating my jokes as serious. We all know it's EXTREMELY RARE for people to walk into FTC with actual equal odds to win it. If you guys hate the F3's for their love rockets then I despise the F2 dynamic for making it a race to the bottom and making it a game of who threw hardest but not TOO hardest along with eliminating the social game from the final and most important part of the game. An f4 vote can be affected by social skills and an f3 cannot and to me that just makes the f3 dynamic untenable.

It's best when the players don't know whether it will be an F2 or an F3. I'd prefer to see both used roughly half the time to keep that element of surprise present. The person who deserves to win Survivor should be able to do so without being able to plan around that piece of information.

literally flipped what rf said

you should know what youre walking into so you can play optimally.

I've always preferred F2 FTCs

On a well-reputed facebook org, he does F3s, but the first portion of the jury is to vote out a finalist. Then after that person is voted out by the jury, then the F2 begins and everyone votes for a winner. So some players could potentially have wanted someone to win, but that person is voted into the jury instead.

I don't hate that.

I dunno. I feel like people will probably complain either way, because I know I have. I think F3 has the same "bring the goat" problems as F2, but in F2 they are magnified because it's just 1v1. Even if there's a goat in F3, it still can leave two Titans to battle it out.

Be honest. Usually fights are best as 1v1. That applies here as well.

Wasn't there a season where the vote ended in 5-2-0 because the third person was ignored completely by the jury as a possible winner?

basically every season

my memory sucks but i think there's been only 3 seasons where all members of a final 3 got at least one vote? the closest f3s are still only between 2 people like Ozzy and Yul. here i know there have been close f3s either between two finalists or all three finalists having a chance. there's also been an 8-0-0 of course.

honestly i think both formats are fine and we should use both around about equally, or if we want to be realistic and emulate the show (a debate) we should use f3s nearly all the time.

In post 20, Vijarada wrote:if we want to be realistic and emulate the show

we oughtn't

Civ had 24 people. This site is faaaaar from emulating the real thing

In post 22, Iprobablysuck wrote:Civ had 24 people. This site is faaaaar from emulating the real thing

See: Australian Survivor, seasons 1 and 2.

bump