For the second thread in the LSG series, I would like us to analyze the decisions that go into designing Final Tribal Councils. FTC is the cumulation of a long game, and it is ultimately the most important part of the game for the winner. There are several different methods that moderators have handled this in the past; both the question format and the choice of F2/F3 allow for a wide range of experiences. This month we will be discussing both.
First off,
from a MOD/SPEC perspective, what are the advantages of a Final 2 or a Final 3? If you have modded your own games, why did you choose the FTC format that you did?
I think both F2s and F3s are fine and it's fitting to switch between them based on a variety of factors, the one biggest pet peeve for me is I feel like players should know which it is going in. Playing the late game correctly heavily depends on whether it is F2 or F3.
I think the give each finalist their own thread is probably the best format for FTC, but it doesn't matter very much to me. I also think loose restrictions on how much a juror can post isn't a bad thing to prevent the finalists from getting overwhelmed
I don't think I've actually managed to read a whole FTC as a spec. Well maybe Hyrule, but that was so long ago I don't remember.
It being F2 or F3 doesn't really matter from my then limited perspective.
Watching them in the real survivor though, I'm also not convinced there is really that much difference between them. I've seen both formats give unexpected results and straight forward results.
Why it was chosen how it was where I helped mod (trtwiuaa), I think was just agreeing with what Monty suggested there.
So I think the biggest influence is actually do you want to do another challenge there? How big is the jury in either case.
Holder of the Longest Continuous Weekly Mafiascum Post Record. 1 July 2012 - 16 Feb 2023
*It may be held by someone else if you discount the major downtime in 2012 and 2014, I'm not doing the research.
F2 puts a lot of emphasis on the final challenge, which I see as a negative. Possibly I'm biased as challenges are the least interesting aspect of the game to me and I'd rather see a big social or strategic player win. However, they tend to be competitive and often interesting FTCs, and you can get some unexpected winners which is kind of a plus. It feels a little more pure and, like, old school.
F3 is typically nice for the players because more of them get to reach the end which is a positive experience. However, they create the risk of strategic voting. There can now be a situation where a juror should not vote for the player they want to win in order to avoid throwing it to their least preferred option, creating a world where a player who is perceived as having no chance to win in fact has no chance to win, and will get fewer votes than they have truly earned, because jurors don't want to waste their votes. I feel that this is not desirable. That said, having an F3 makes it more likely that a flashy player/exciting winner will be able to make FTC, and so it can reward flashy play which is fun to watch. One other problem with it is that if you have idols expire at 5, this can make it too easy for a player who everyone wants out to make the end with only one timely immunity win. But, you can solve this by changing idol expirations if you want to.
Ultimately I think both are valid & each come with some pros and cons. Like Aronis said, I think the important thing is to just make sure the players know which one it is early on so they can play appropriately. Forcing them to guess adds an amount of luck to the outcome that I'm personally not comfortable with. Also, I'm against just using jury numbers to signal this to the players, because that just punishes new players/anyone who doesn't watch the show who don't know what to look for.
We chose an F3 in KSS in part because there were just so many players that it felt right to allow more to reach the end. I'm not sure we had a better reason than that, tbh.
Even if you do a f2, strategy is mostly over at f3 anyway so it's not like you're missing much interesting game dynamics if you make it a f3.
I don't mind the occasional f2 though.
Endgame planning is usually most interesting with 3 people at the end. The firemaking twist at 4 essentially means you plan for a final 4 and it takes away a ton of the nuanced maneuvering that comes with the small endgame. Real survivor has made this even worse with all the idols as strategy basically stops at f5 where whoever doesn't have an idol or immunity is basically screwed.
I've done both in my games and don't see either as inherently better or worse, but they do bring different things. I like that in an F3 an additional player gets the thrill of having "made" FTC. I also believe that for the most part it's easier for underdogs to distinguish themselves in front of a jury because there are multiple opponents to push against. This doesn't necessarily mean the underdog is more likely to win, but I'd be a lot more surprised to see an F3 candidate get zero votes than an F2 candidate.
Conversely, the nature of the F2 frames the showdown as a Me Vs You dynamic, and that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
In post 6, Haschel Cedricson wrote:I've done both in my games and don't see either as inherently better or worse, but they do bring different things. I like that in an F3 an additional player gets the thrill of having "made" FTC. I also believe that for the most part it's easier for underdogs to distinguish themselves in front of a jury because there are multiple opponents to push against. This doesn't necessarily mean the underdog is more likely to win, but I'd be a lot more surprised to see an F3 candidate get zero votes than an F2 candidate.
Conversely, the nature of the F2 frames the showdown as a Me Vs You dynamic, and that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
I don't think that's particularly true? Like quickly looking back at the modern era MS LSG's there has only been one finalist that I found that received zero votes (Seattle) in an F2 compared to quite a few people in three person FTCs.
I also do like the me v you dynamic, I have no problem with an F3, but I think it makes arguing your case and choosing who should win easier.
I also do hate the firemaking twist, voting someone out is a core mechanic of survivor games and i dont think it should be involuntarily taken away from players at a critical point in the game.
So for me, whether a game is a F2 or F3 usually dependent on the size of the game.
If it's a larger cast (usually 20 or more) I tend to want to design it more for a f3.
If it's a smaller cast (usually 18 or less) I tend to want to design it more for a f2.
Of course flavoring and length of game time would also influence that decision. But as a practice I feel like in 18 player games there just aren't enough people to justify having a f3. I mean you could do 7 person pre merge, 8 person jury w/f3, that is a doable scenario and to that I think it just boils down to host preference.
Balance is huge for me when I think up endgame design and if I don't feel the # of players balance out to justify having a f3, I won't. As far as final format, there are people outside of mish mash that adamantly hate f3s, so depending on who you want to recruit or attempt to reach out to, there could be an impact on?
One thing I think might be worth being discussed for my own personal perspective here, is do you tell people ahead of time whether it's a f2 or f3? If not, at what point in the game do you reveal this information?
Also we tried firemaking in equestria and to that I say, NEVER AGAIN. I hate final 4 firemaking as a forced mechanic. If it naturally happens, so be it. But to force that on players is in essence taking away from player choice in a game fmpov and I will always advocate for people to make their own choice.
I have hosted 1 game that had a f3 (BOTW) and 1 game that had a f2 (FM). BOTW had 21 players, and FM had 16. I think both of those formats worked well for the purpose of what was accomplished and also for the player size. Both of these games had competitive finales which are always exciting to watch.
I also believe there is no 1 RIGHT FORMAT, and I have seen scenarios for both on Mish Mash that have been competitve finales and non-competitive finales (meaning close votes vs not close votes).
F2 vs F3 is one of the things I think mods have done well with on Mish Mash, but also players have handled well for the most part.
in the face of 'it depends on the circumstances' i don't think there is much else to say—it's the right conclusion. what i would say is:
a) agreed with ceph's point on the 'gap' between items and ftc. it's my preference (not because i think it's 'better' but because i like it) that the gap be as large as is reasonably possible, eg items expire at f6 with a f2, leaving a gap of three cycles (f5, f4, f3);
b) i think there is something to be said for building mechanics with as few exceptions as possible. 'keep voting people out until you can no longer do so' is more minimal in its intervention than 'keep voting people out until there are three people left', and if everything else were equal i think it would therefore be preferable to go for the f2. however it's a minor point if anything
c) i have never really fully bought into the argument that players should be told in advance what the ftc is. controversial! i think there is something to be said for rewarding the player who is flexible and can maintain a strong position in the face of two very different endings. but in the current climate, where there is an expectation of disclosure, you have to give the players what will be fun for them, and so i think you really do need to disclose until such a point as the playerbase is more comfortable with non-disclosure (which i think would be a cool and fun thing).
This is wrong because in practice it actually means "one guy got dragged to the end knows he has 0 chance of winning since F5 or even earlier because there simply isnt enough votes left to get rid of everyone who he loses to in an FTC"
I think being at the end and losing is a less pleasant experience for players than being voted out. It is for me anyway. Maybe some people disagree. So for me wanting to maximize player enjoyment, I would limit the number of people who have to lose FTC.
I prefer F2s because I think they're more dramatic, and they feel more pure to me. They also can be more unpredictable, and they give players with slim chances of winning much better odds. I hate being in a game and feeling like there is no path to victory for me, and it kind of breaks the game if players are stuck going forward and making choices despite feeling like they cannot win, but F2s give people who otherwise have no chance a light at the end of the tunnel, and they make it even more imperative that the other players boot those who are perceived as goats. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with an F3, but for a while it seemed like F3 was the default on site and that was a shame.
Something else that PD revealed to me was that an F2 can make the F4 vote much more interesting and strategic. 4 is a really interesting number of people to be voting, but in F3s, the F4 vote is basically always voting out the biggest threat. When players know that there will be one more round before FTC, it makes the F4 vote much more strategic because players have to balance ensuring their own place in the end with giving themselves the best chance once they make it.
An F2 doesn't put more emphasis on the FIC. It moves which challenge really matters from F4 to F3 and in fact reduces the chance that someone is able to challenge beast their way to the end since there are more challenges for them to make it through.
So overall, yeah I'm pro-F2, but I do see benefits to the F3, and I'm not 100% opposed to it. I do think players should be explicitly told though, at least by F4 if nothing else, but really probably earlier. When they're told to me is negotiable.
Having once made an FTC (F2) with what I assumed what no chance of winning I tend to agree.
And a second time offsite, with the chance of winning based on ore-FTC jury opinions, being the first loser always feels bad.
I'm not sure if that actually is the same thing with 3rd place in a F3.
The discord game I was in a FTC at I just never tried getting votes at its FTC. (That was an F3 right?)
Holder of the Longest Continuous Weekly Mafiascum Post Record. 1 July 2012 - 16 Feb 2023
*It may be held by someone else if you discount the major downtime in 2012 and 2014, I'm not doing the research.
In post 13, Awoo wrote:"F3's are fun because more people reach the end"
This is wrong because in practice it actually means "one guy got dragged to the end knows he has 0 chance of winning since F5 or even earlier because there simply isnt enough votes left to get rid of everyone who he loses to in an FTC"
I don't think this is mutually exclusive with a final 2. I am hesitate to say anyone actually has 0 chance of winning, at least based on the game they played, but pretty sure anyone who is in such a position at final 3 but ISN'T at final 2, the reason they are in that position is probably the third person in that F3, and i'm having trouble seeing a case where it just doesn't matter who that person is, just...bring the other person at F4 to the end instead. And obviously the case where that person has no chance at F3 and also does at F2 doesn't really change anything (and also works against it since hypothetical person likely doesn't get cut and someone who could have had a time at FTC doesn't get to be there).
That being said I do agree that the thought of going through FTC feeling you have no shot is a horror story I'd never wish upon anyone.
That being said, I do like the idea of final 2s more, just feels more like an actual clash at the end, and while final 3s can definitely be very competitive for all involved, there is more likely to be some assymetry in "game strength" just from the fact that there are three people there. Also like if you have 1 top ally, an F2 is something to shoot for, an F3 becomes "well should I cut them cause vote split?".
I suppose as the person who modded the game with an F4 FTC, I might have a unique perspective on FTC choices as a mod.
Firstly uh don't do that, even in a bastard game it's very very silly and even when you cope for it with a full game being jury with later players having more votes to spend at the end, it is not a fun time for anybody involved and my only defense of doing that was it was Arkham Asylum and doing things that nobody would ever do was part of the design process and it was Nich's idea and I was not as aware of design at that moment as I am now to know that that was the worst idea.
As a mod, it really depends on the game as to whether I want to go for an F2 or an F3. The problem is in the rounds right before FTC, I think something is lost by auto firemaking tbh. Because you don't always have ties at F4 and sometimes you can pull off a really sick play and I like to allow for that to be a possibility for players. There is something odd about the F3 round if it's an F2 FTC because you essentially change it to a situation where it's a single person in control rather than multiple like the whole game has been outside of item plays and it's a different sort of thing. But that being said, I think they're both decent styles and can lend to really interesting endgames. But as much as possible I want to try to maximize giving the players a say in what kind of interesting an endgame it can actually be. Because as it is,, FTC should be about the finalists and players and nothing more or less.
Xalxe: this is xofelf sometimes we call each other names and other times we share emotions
MattyP: Ur an enigma tho when it comes to circadian rhythm and the traditions we hold dear when it comes to the sun and the moon Get to reknow a xofelf here
Discord is faster than PMs or sitechat: xofelf#1697
In post 18, xofelf wrote:But as much as possible I want to try to maximize giving the players a say in what kind of interesting an endgame it can actually be. Because as it is,, FTC should be about the finalists and players and nothing more or less.
Twist concept: game goes to F2, UNLESS all players left at any point unanimously elect to stop voting each other and go to FTC together immediately. Might cause interesting interactions regarding 3-5 person alliances and test how airtight those alliances actually are.
(I will post actual thoughts on the question at hand eventually. But I basically agree with Skelda)
In post 17, VashtaNeurotic wrote:pretty sure anyone who is in such a position at final 3 but ISN'T at final 2, the reason they are in that position is probably the third person in that F3, and i'm having trouble seeing a case where it just doesn't matter who that person is, just...bring the other person at F4 to the end instead.
I've reread this like five times, and I don't understand it. Are you saying that there has never been an instance where two people are in an F4 with two other people, both of whom will beat them in the end no matter what they do?
I would argue that it's frequently the case in games that two people both can only sit next to one another if they want to win. Maybe you can say oh maybe there's a 1% chance that someone else could mess up, but realistically no, FTC can do a lot but it isn't going to work miracles most of the time. In KYE, Ari and tris lost to Summer, but they also would have lost to Malkon, for example. An F2 gives someone in that situation a goal to work towards. An F3 fills them with hopelessness and despair and a sense of futility, if they are self-aware, and wastes their time playing a game they can't win if they aren't.
I do like the strategy of F2 over F3 more, even though people have brought forward that getting to F2 is more about relying on challenge prowess. I think it relies more on the foundation of your alliances and the social ties that you've made to even get you in that position in the first place. Though I think it might be better to know if the game is going to be F3 or F2 when signing up. Since I think strategies can be very different depending on it.
If anything, a point that F2s have going for them is that they more readily emphasise challenge ability, which otherwise is significantly undervalued in an online setting
Do F2s emphasize challenge performance more? They make it harder to go on a challenge run to the end. They could potentially make one challenge matter slightly more since it gives a sole vote, but the FIC is always going to matter a lot. That isn't that different whether it's an F2 or F3 right?
