Let's Study Games - Redemption Mechanics

[Skelda]

I'm opposed to most redemption mechanics I've seen. The best use of redemption mechanics was definitely Barely Survivor though. All of the returnees were premerge, and there were a large enough number of returnees to give them all legitimacy and a real chance at winning the game. People were also being eliminated in wacky ways to begin with, so the fact that they returned felt more fair.

Basically, in Survivor, one of the main goals (if not the main goal) of the game is to avoid being voted out. I don't see a way for returnee twists to exist without undermining that goal, and insofar as that's the case, in my mind they fundamentally go against the spirit of the game.

I have other issues with them as well, namely that returnees enter the game with little to no chance to win in many instances which isn't fun for mods, specs, Jurors, other players, or the returnees themselves, and that players find it unpleasant to be voted out and then be forced to linger knowing their odds of returning are slim and their odds of winning if they do return slimmer, among other things. I also have narrative issues with them from a spec's point of view. We can maybe discuss those problems as well if people want, but my biggest issue is that they go against the most basic element of Survivor as a game and in my mind break part of the formula that makes Survivor so compelling in the first place.

[Skelda]

For me personally, the ideal use of a redemption mechanic is when somebody who went out early gets a chance to reflect on why they were booted and try again. In an environment where going home early means waiting at least two months to try again, it can increase engagement for those players. This is doubly so when newer players tend to be the ones who go home fast.

I definitely would not say that returnee twists increase engagement just because they result in the unfortunate situation where tons of people are technically still in the game but aren't invested because they know that they've most likely already lost. That situation to me is the opposite of engaging. And then for the few people who return, they still know that they probably can't win and so aren't as engaged as they otherwise might have been. Shouldn't we want our new players who go early to get to experience a proper game instead of this overly drawn out, demoralizing experience?

And regardless, I will note that I can't think of an instance where a new player was voted out, returned, and then had a serious impact on the game once they came back. This is something that sounds good in theory, but hasn't really played out. There may be exceptions, but this twist has at this point of proven track record of flopping. Most often people are returning to be eliminated in a few rounds anyway since everyone else has had time to forge bonds with one another.

And finally, what is the alternative for new players who go home early? Gone are the days of there being a prejury forum in which eliminated players are forced to languish until the live reveal. We allow players who go home early to spectate now. In most instances, I would argue that spectating will be more valuable and more engaging for players than sitting on a Redemption Island for 5 rounds playing a halfhearted version of Survivor only to most likely not return anyway or to immediately go home again if they do.

[Skelda]

i think redemption can be good if done right. i think it was used well in Barely Survivor for example, mostly... . in that game, it allowed for that crazy 6 player elimination to happen without actually immediately removing 6 people. It allowed for people who wouldn't normally be first boot in a larger tribe, to have a chance. also, the big brother format made it so that the players who were eliminated later were given some leverage to mitigate the disadvantage of coming in later. i did not enjoy having to meet everyone all at once at the shipwreck though.

i understand that sometimes, redemption is going to reintroduce a player who, having failed earlier, might not be a player who is likely to win. i think redemption should only be used if it fits well with the design of the game like in Barely Survivor taking into account the possible downsides.

note: i was a returnee in Barely Survivor who might be biased lol.

I think that Barely Survivor is the best use of the returnee mechanic that the site has ever seen, but also it's not a standard situation because by its very nature it pushed the limits of what a game of Survivor is. With that said, if there's a game that made it work, it's definitely that one.

[Skelda]

And finally, what is the alternative for new players who go home early? Gone are the days of there being a prejury forum in which eliminated players are forced to languish until the live reveal. We allow players who go home early to spectate now. In most instances, I would argue that spectating will be more valuable and more engaging for players than sitting on a Redemption Island for 5 rounds playing a halfhearted version of Survivor only to most likely not return anyway or to immediately go home again if they do.

This is a very good point.

I think your first paragraph is oversimplifying a bit, though. Dark Rey came very close to winning Barely Survivor. Both Star Sapphire and Abraham Lincoln had tangible impacts on Arkham City after returning at the merge, with the latter having a reasonable shot of winning the game if not for leaving at F5.

Considering that tris had already made an FTC before Barely Survivor, I wouldn't consider her a new player (which is what I was specifically talking about in my response). And I've already said that I think Barely Survivor is a bit of an outlier here and not really an example of what I'm talking about.

Arkham City was before my time unfortunately and I have no knowledge of it so I can't comment on that. But the fact that you're having to go that far back to find an example of this twist working is extremely revealing. This is a twist that has been tried quite a few times since I started playing in 2016, and it has very consistently flopped during that time. The juice is just not worth the squeeze on this one.

[Skelda]

I also think it's worth mentioning the Survivormeets; two of which have had Redemption. I think it's incredibly important that live games have that element because people are spending actual time and money to travel to those events. Even if we accept the premise of returnees can't win, the benefits of continued participation 100% outweigh those concerns.

I agree with this. And also I'm not convinced that returnees can't win in a Meet format. I also like returnees in live Discord games, and I'm fine with them continuing to be a thing. And my best win of all time will of course always be my victory as a returnee in 4/20vivor.

[Skelda]

I don't think the discussion of whether or not players should be informed about returnees is unique to this twist, so I'd like to see that as its own topic at some point.

I also do want to state that it isn't the case for me at least that I would never vote for a returnee. I just think it would take more convincing and their game would need to have significant strengths which outweighed the major weakness of having been voted out. That to me is a reasonable position. I'm against the returnee mechanic on principle, but as a Juror I would do my best not to hold that against the individual player other than acknowledging the extent to which doing things which cause you to get voted out is indicative of poor play.

I also don't think that knowing there was a possibility of a returnee would make it less likely for me to sign up for a game that I otherwise wanted to play, just because most often this twist is a flop with zero effect on the actual outcome of the game. The only exception is if I knew that I returnee would be entering the game late like we saw in SotF, but after the negative reception that received, I'm hopeful that no more games will do that. If you're returning someone to the game after, say, final nine, I think it's too late and you should be prepared for significant criticism from the players. Those single digits rounds are the culmination of meticulous planning, and it'd be extremely disheartening to have your plans disrupted by a returning player. I don't like returnees, but if you must have them, they should be in the early-mid merge at the latest.

[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.

Both of your returns were also being voted out early merge and then returning late merge. I wonder if things might have been different had you been voted out premerge and then returned at the beginning of merge.

But yeah I mostly agree with you. Returnees have no respect from the players in the game or the Jurors and they often don't even respect themselves and feel like they're in an unwinnable situation. Who is it serving to continue putting people through that, other than mods' whims?

[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.

...

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 think these are two opposite problems? If people view returning to the game as being a valid win route, then returnees have a massive target on their back coming in, combined with being at a huge disadvantage given they've been away from all the players who have been bonding, so they're very likely to get revolving door'd. If people view returning to the game as not being a feasible way to win, then the returnees can more easily dodge the target and have significant ability to play their way to the end, but don't stand a chance when they get to FTC.

The fact that normal returnees return premerge and don't get to spend time with the Jury is quite important, imo. It means they have substantially less of a target on their back coming back in, so narrows the problem more to just being about whether people will actually vote for a returnee at the end.

Maybe we haven't had enough late game returnees to know, but I think the idea that returnees have a huge advantage from spending time with the Jury might be more true on the show than it is on MS. Our Juries aren't quite as active, and many of us do at least make an attempt to vote for who played the best game. That seems more like an argument people make to justify voting returnees out immediately than an actual problem.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.