Fantasy league scoring system discussion

Let’s see if we can modify the scoring system to make it more balanced, so that it doesn’t guarantee a win for the person with the winning player.

Here’s the current scoring system:

Tribe reward: 1 points
Tribe immunity: 2 points
Individual reward: 2 points
Individual immunity: 4 points
Finding an idol: 3 points
Playing idol successfully: 4 points
Redemption Island victory: 1 point
Return to game from RI: 2 points
VTEP (pre-merge): 1 point
Making the merge: 3 points
VTEP (post-merge): 2 points
FTC votes: 2 points each

Please throw out ideas in the comments below. We can test the ideas by scoring previous seasons to see what effect the changes would have made. And thanks for helping!

Ideas I’ll be testing:

  • One point for each week a player remained in the game (results below)
  • One point for each time a player received a vote and survived (results below)

Impact of adding one point for each week remaining in the game (for each season below, “before” means standard scoring, “after” means scoring after adding a single point per episode survived):

Before After Before After Before After
Tyson- 62 76 Tony- 57 70 Mike- 69 82
Monica- 46 60 Woo- 43 56 Carolyn- 47 60
Gervase- 40 54 Spencer- 32 45 Joe- 26 34
Ciera- 28 41 Tasha- 25 36 Will- 26 39
Laura M- 23 30 Kass- 24 37 Jenn- 23 32
Caleb- 21 32 Trish- 23 35 Sierra- 23 36
Hayden- 20 33 Jefra- 20 30 Tyler- 22 33
Aras- 18 26 LJ- 20 28 Dan- 22 34
Tina- 18 30 Jeremiah- 15 24 Rodney- 21 34
Katie- 16 28 Sarah- 13 19 Shirin- 17 27
Vytas- 14 23 Cliff- 11 15 Hali- 16 23
Laura B- 13 20 Lindsey- 11 15 Kelly- 12 18
Kat- 12 18 Morgan- 10 17 Joaquin- 6 11
Colton- 5 7 Alexis- 9 14 Max- 4 8
John- 5 8 Brice- 5 8 Lindsey- 4 7
Brad- 3 7 Garrett- 4 5 Nina- 2 4
Candice- 2 2 J’Tia- 4 6 Vince- 2 3
Rachel- 1 3 David- 0 0 So- 0 0
Rupert- 0 0
Marissa- 0 1

 

Impact of adding “bullet dodged” points (2 points given to the person with the second-highest vote total at a tribal council, as long as that person received more than 1 vote): 

Before After Before After
Tony- 56 58 Tyson- 62 62
Woo- 40 42 Monica- 46 48
Spencer- 31 33 Gervase- 40 42
Tasha- 24 24 Ciera- 28 32
Kass- 23 23 Laura M- 23 25
Trish- 20 20 Caleb- 21 21
Jefra- 18 20 Hayden- 20 22
LJ- 18 20 Aras- 18 18
Jeremiah- 13 15 Tina- 18 18
Sarah- 10 10 Katie- 16 16
Cliff- 8 8 Vytas- 14 14
Lindsey- 8 8 Laura B- 13 13
Morgan- 8 10 Kat- 12 12
Alexis- 7 9 Colton- 5 5
Brice- 3 3 John- 5 7
Garrett- 4 4 Brad- 3 3
J’Tia- 3 7 Candice- 2 2
David- 0 0 Rachel- 1 1
Rupert- 0 0
Marissa- 0 0
John
Follow me:

John

John is the co-host of the Purple Rock Survivor Podcast. He is still not sure if it was just a f*%king stick.

Favorite seasons: Heroes vs. Villains, Cagayan, Pearl Islands, Tocantins
John
Follow me:
  • JudgeReinhold

    One idea that was already pitched to me at AVC: taking away a point for each vote cast against a person. I’m not sure if this is a great idea, since it will definitely lead to negative point values. And it probably only exacerbates the problem of the winner of a season dominating the scoring (since winners generally have few votes against them).

  • purplerockpodcast

    One idea that was already pitched: taking away a point for each vote cast against a person. I’m not sure if this is a great idea, since it will definitely lead to negative point values. And it probably only exacerbates the problem of the winner of a season dominating the scoring (since winners generally have few votes against them).

    • Roswulf

      Unless Survivor goes back to prehistoric tiebreaker rules that make previous votes a key aspect of the game, I’m tentatively negative on this one. In the current game. Getting votes is not necessarily a sign of bad gameplay, and has no in-game penalty (well, other than the obvious).

      Taking away points for votes cast on the exiting vote sounds more fair and more reflective of the game’s own values to me, but would just make the winner bias even worse.

    • Other Scott

      My initial reaction was no, but I’m thinking it might not be a bad idea, especially with HII. Every player is casting the vote the way they are because they think there’s a chance that it will work out, and if you have your name being written down there’s always the chance things can turn on you either through an idol or through a flip of some sort.

      It leads to some complications with idols though. I think we’d also have to get rid of the “playing an idol correctly” bonus and just not giving negative points for votes cast against.

      Also, this only helps goats the most because no one is voting for them, so that’s not ideal.

    • SG Standard

      What if you were to do the opposite and give a point for every time someone receives a vote but doesn’t get voted off? It would penalize players who fly under the radar and early game obvious boots, but it would reward people who make it a while and are viewed as a threat by the opposing alliance.

      • purplerockpodcast

        Interesting. So would it be one point for each vote received that didn’t get a person voted off? There’s definitely been a history of doomed players voting against the strongest player on their way out (although that might exacerbate our problem of the winner getting even more points than everyone else).

        On the other hand, do you realize how many points this would have earned for Phillip and Keith? Phillip had something like 17 votes against him and never got voted off.

        • SG Standard

          Yup, that’s the idea. The thought being that if you are getting votes, then you’ve made it clear you’re a threat, you’re not a goat, and you’re not just kinda floating along as part of a majority alliance like, say, Sierra did this past season. The players who would take advantage of this most would be ones who keep getting targeted but have the numbers on their side, as opposed to people who get targeted once and are gone.

          If we were to do this, we might have to tinker with the scoring for HII plays (since a play when you are targeted would net you the successful play points + one point per vote + presumably a VTEP point, which might make it too powerful), but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

          • purplerockpodcast

            Maybe we just make it a standard number of points for surviving a vote against you? Like every time you survive a tribal where votes were cast against you, you get 2 points? That still might require a change to the HII scoring, though. Is an automatic 7-8 points for a successful HII play too much (2 points for votes against, 4 points for the idol move, 1-2 points VTEP)?

          • SG Standard

            Maybe the person with the second highest vote total gets two bonus points? I wouldn’t want to reward somebody who got a throwaway vote because of a grudge or because somebody was out of the loop. Second highest vote total means there was a concerted effort to get rid of you that failed. A single stray vote here or there could mean anything.

          • purplerockpodcast

            Assuming I get some time today, I’ll be testing this out and hopefully posting the results. If we end up using this, I want to call it the “bullet dodged bonus”.

          • purplerockpodcast

            I tried this idea out on Blood vs Water, and ran into an issue right away: In many cases, the second highest vote total is just one vote- the vote from the person that got voted out. Those don’t seem like “bullet dodged” scenarios.

            In another case, the vote was 7-2-2 (the vote immediately after the merge). In that case, would both players that got 2 votes received the dodged bullet bonus?

            Finally, the most fun wrinkle: the rock draw. In this case, I think it would make sense to award points to both of the people who tied in the vote, since neither of them went home from the rock draw. So that’s what I did. But the rock draw brings up another thing that I’ll have to add to the discussion here.

          • gouis

            I think this is perfect. 2 votes for surviving a tribal council where you received votes.

  • Roswulf

    As I understand it, the goal is to shift the balance of power from players who win to strong, season-critical players that flame out late.

    So what does a strong player who loses tend to do more than (or at least as much as) a winner? Perhaps control pre-merge votes? What if we raised VTEP (pre-merge) to 2, thus rewarding players who control the early game whether or not they go on to glory?

    I’m unsure whether one would want to couple this with boosting tribe immunity points from 2 to 3. On the one hand, this seems only fair. But on the other hand, is it REALLY better to win tribal immunity than to reflect majority power in a tribe? Also, I haven’t run the numbers, but I suspect winners tend to come from tribes that win more than their fair share of immunities- Pagonging isn’t automatic, but it’s a possible game pathway. So shifting points to reward players who go to pre-merge tribal would also hurt winners in this fashion.

    Or maybe just give a point (or 2? 2 feels excessive) for being on the jury (or maybe casting a jury vote for the winner?). I kind of like the idea of treating a total, 100% finals goat as less impressive than an actual player who doesn’t make it to Final Tribal.

    • purplerockpodcast

      Your first question is basically what I’m getting at here: How can we change the system so that all strong players get rewarded, not just the winner? I can see what changing pre-merge VTEPs does, because you’re right that winners tend to come from tribes that have a majority at the merge (I think statistically it’s around 70%).

      As for the jury point, would it only be awarded to people who are voted out and thus make the jury? I’m assuming people who make final tribal would not receive points for this.

      • Roswulf

        Yup, the concept is that if you are in the final tribal council you don’t get the jury point. It’s a brute force way to relatively lower the value of winners (and goats).

        • Other Scott

          The issue is that not all final 3 low vote getters are created equal. Carolyn and Will got the same amount of votes in the final 3, but do we really penalize someone like Carolyn or Dawn for not going out earlier?

          • Roswulf

            Ah, but a Carolyn or even a Will (*shudder*) would not be penalized. So long as a contestant gets at least one jury vote, they would still receive more points for their Final Tribal performance than they would have for being a juror, at two points per jury vote.

            Only someone who gets no jury votes would be penalized for not being bounced at final 4 or 3. And if you get to the finals with NO jury votes…I think that’s a legitimate black mark on your social game play. It’s a gratuitously cruel system to the Stephen Fishbach and Dawn types, no doubt, and certainly no more than a tweak (in the main league, it can’t possibly cause more than a 2-vote swing), but I think it is an intellectually defensible tweak in the desired direction.

          • i and 1

            There are certainly some cases where this being-on-the-jury point-scoring would seem unjust, but that’s actually a common thing with some of these current point-scoring methods. I like the idea of bringing the goats down, and it seems pretty “hardball” but maybe there is something to the argument that Dawn should’ve done things that might’ve kept her out of the final three, done them in the hopes that they woulda knocked the eventual winner out of the game. Campaign against the more popular and impressive players, even if it makes one a target…

            On the other hand, this twist is kind of cool and interesting and controversial (just get one vote, and you aren’t a goat…) but it is also a bit abstract when the whole system gets laid out (points for jury members that the finalist can’t get?), and it apparently doesn’t do much to alter things according to Judge’s research.

            I like it, but not in love yet.

          • purplerockpodcast

            I like it as a concept, but I’m thinking of some actual Survivor seasons, and I don’t know how well it works. This past season, Will was clearly a goat and still got a vote. In Blood vs Water, Monica was clearly a goat and still got a vote. In Redemption Island, Phillip was clearly a goat and still got a vote.

            I think Roswulf is on the right track with figuring out a way to reward those who aren’t goats, and that’s exactly the sort of concept I was looking for. But I’m not sure this idea is the one that works best.

        • purplerockpodcast

          I tested that against two seasons, and it barely moves the needle. It had a net effect of narrowing the gap between first and second place by exactly one point in both seasons I tried it on.

          Plus, not everyone who makes it to the final tribal and doesn’t win is a goat (see Dawn in Caramoan).

  • i and 1

    Here’s the conundrum, as I see it: it would be great to find a way to reward “strong players” without winning being absolutely necessary. But rewarding one type of payer means tipping the balance from another type of player, in many cases, and I don’t think there’s a particular type of player who is getting a lopsided advantage, at the moment.

    For me, the issue at the beginning was “How do we insure that the actual winner can win in our standings, given the fact that some winners won’t get a lot of idols or challenge wins?” I think VTEP helps with this, but it is still a bit of a blunt instrument (because of goats, etc.). Immunity wins and idol points help to reward some active players, but I think there’s a type of social player that we want to reward, and VTEP, idol, and challenge wins just don’t quite cut the mustard for many such players. Of course providing points for votes at final tribal is so primitive, I can understand how people don’t like what happens with that, in particular when there is a landslide.

    I think that it is really hard to find a way to measure the various things that might make a player a “great” player, but I would love to see someone find a new and intersting way, especially if it can offer a bit more to the social player. Also, perhaps a case could be made for finding a way to juggle what we have in order to come up with a more perfect balance.

    But, at the end of all of the typing that went into this very nearly very long post–the result of energy provided by my pleasant surprise at being invited to this discussion, combined with some coffee made from a grind that is much too fine for my new French press but what can I do afterwards at home when the barista has apparently thought that the word “coarse” means the opposite of what it actually does–at the end of this long post, I want to conclude by saying two things:

    1) I have long argued, or silently wanted to argue, on behalf of the scoring being skewed to the actual winner of the season, and landslides be damned. If Cochrane needs to win by 50 so that Sandra can at least come in second place, then that’s just how many Cochrane might need to win by, as far as I am concerned.

    2) For me, it can be tempting to imagine that this or that tweak might make things better, and to become passionate about it. But I have found it to be a both humbling and surprising thing to actually check how a proposal works out after plugging the numbers in from some actual seasons from the past. If anyone out there really thinks they are getting close with this, I encourage them to try it out on at least a few already-played seasons before campaigning too hard.

    3) Well, I can’t help but adding a third: Fact is, the scoring has been so fun to follow each season, and the adjustments made along the way haven’t made it any less fun for me and my landslide-loving self, so please don’t let me be a party-pooper here. I do think this is a heck of a challenging thing to improve beyond the massaging that has been done this past year or two, but I am sure that any such work will pay off in one way or another.

    • purplerockpodcast

      I think when we were originally debating how to score this, you nailed it with the VTEP idea. Between that and the final tribal points, we basically corrected for the challenge-inept players with strong social play (Sandra, Cochran, Cirie, etc.).

      But tweaking the scoring doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. I’m actually fine with landslides, my greater concern with this is having more points distributed elsewhere so that having the winner doesn’t guarantee victory. As an example, I’d like to have a scoring system that allowed a person with Dawn and Eddie to beat a team of Cochran and a pre-merge boot. With the current scoring, we came close to that. I’m hoping one or two tweaks will make the difference.

      And Worlds Apart is a bad season to test scoring on. In most seasons, the winner won’t be competing against four(!) goats in the final six.

      • i and 1

        I hadn’t even been thinking of the pick-four game. I think this ends up being a great way to frame what we might be trying to do here. I think a successful outcome would keep Cochrane and Sandra in first or second place in their winning seasons (and so the point-scoring system remains roughly predictive/reflective of a player’s success in the real game) while also giving a distributed boost to some of the other post-merge players.

        This leads me to believe post-merge points that come from something besides idols and challenge wins could be an awesome addition (I guess that’s no news flash). Tweaking or adding to idols and challenge win point scoring would seem to endanger the balance that I think the “single-player” game needs (since those are the categories that the VTEP and final tribal points were meant to counter).

  • Other Scott

    What happens if we just lower it to 1 point for FTC votes?

    Ultimately I think what’s happened the past couple of seasons is the winner has been surrounded by goats at the end, and goats don’t accumulate a lot of points. If Joe kept winning immunities and went out at 4 for example, he may have scored more points than MIke. Also, the champions league winners the last few years have had good combos (Sarah and Tony still only won by 7 points, though) and no one has been able to put like a 3rd/6th place combination together to beat it.

    A couple of things I do want fixed:
    1) Three tribe immunity challenges. The winning tribe gets a point, most of the losing tribe gets a point for VTEP, and the middle tribe gets nothing. It doesn’t really make sense
    2) More clarity on vote splitting

    • purplerockpodcast

      Dropping it to 1 point for FTC votes does reduce the scoring gap (Little Emma still wins last season’s league, but her margin of victory is reduced by 5 points), but I’d prefer to find something that rewards the players in the middle tier than something that penalizes the winners.

      1. This is partly my fault, since I didn’t copy all the ways in which scoring is done. But it is listed on the page for the fantasy league: http://www.purplerockpodcast.com/survivor-pick-4-fantasy-league/. Basically, in a 3-tribe scenario, winning tribe gets one point, second place gets two, losing tribe gets nothing.

      2. This is a little tougher, because it can be slightly subjective (although oftentimes it’s not; either scenes in the show or bonus content will let you know there was an intentional vote-split). But there are certain situations that get difficult to score when votes get split. Is there a particular case you’re thinking of?

      • Other Scott

        Mostly it’s when the split votes don’t go as planned because someone screws them up for one reason or another. Last year there was Will voting for Vince instead of Nina, and the year before Natalie switched it over to Alec from Keith. Do we penalize everyone in on the split, do we reward everyone in on the split?

        • purplerockpodcast

          Yeah, I couldn’t remember the specific situations when it had happened but I knew there had been times recently.

          Generally, I lean towards rewarding everyone on the split. The rules say if you’re involved in a vote-split plan, you get credit regardless of whether the person you were voting for went home. And when there are times that a vote-split isn’t discussed on the actual show, I usually assume that’s because the show wanted to maintain suspense and award points as if it was an explicitly stated vote-splitting plan.

    • gouis

      The issue with this one is that if the FTC is close, it doesn’t really reward the winner all that much for actually winning.

  • doctor wu

    what about negative points- votes casts against, last place in challenge, sitting out team challenges. and maybe a players vote- points awarded to the best player of the season as decided by us the fantasy league players.

    • purplerockpodcast

      I don’t like the players vote idea, because we’re trying to keep the scoring as objective as possible. And although that does potentially help us give points to the players who played a strong game and lost, it’s too easy to rig polls (when we did the Ultimate Survivor poll, someone attempted to rig votes either for Russell or against Sandra IN EVERY ROUND).

      Negative points for sitting out challenges is interesting, but I don’t know that it indicates a good or bad player. Actually, if you look at a season like Palau, a bunch of people would’ve lost points for sitting out of challenges just because their tribe was so dominant.

      I’ll be testing the scoring on negative points for votes cast against a player soon. I’ll let you all know the results.

      • Something Quirky

        Negative points for sitting out a challenge would be unfairly biased. It would only be good in cases like Abi-Maria.

      • Sylvisual

        Also an option: negative points for tribes who throw challenges or individuals who step down for food?

        • purplerockpodcast

          But in situations where it makes sense to throw a challenge, you’d be penalizing players for strong strategic behaviors. That doesn’t seem right.

          • Kemper Boyd

            Exactly like Mike’s good throw to get rid of whatshisface and give himself Kelly in the post-merge tribe (he couldn’t have foreseen an idol getting rid of her).
            I’d be willing to give points to someone throwing a challange and getting rid of the person they targeted and negative points for throwing a challange and fucking up the vote (Drewchebag)

  • purplerockpodcast

    We got a suggestion on Twitter from XLPelican: one point for each episode a player stays in the game. Thoughts?

    Pros: Adds more points to the game overall. And rewards fantasy owners for picking people who got deeper in the game.

    Cons: This rewards both winners and goats. Also, this would give Alec more points than Jeremy.

    • Something Quirky

      What if it were one point for each episode a player stays in the game post-merge?
      Or would that make it needlessly complicated?

      • purplerockpodcast

        At least in recent seasons, the show only lasts a half-dozen episodes before a merge, so the pre-merge boots would get 5 points or less from this. It’s certainly not too complicated for me to set it up so that players get one point for each post-merge episode, but it might not be worth it.

        • Something Quirky

          Yeah, that wouldn’t be worth it.

          I do like the idea of getting a point for lasting, though it does favour goats, especially if you’re doing negative points for votes cast against.

    • Sylvisual

      I like this if you combine it with existing immunity and idol points. That way goats can rack up points, but not as much as active players.

      • purplerockpodcast

        Yes, this would be in addition to all other points awarded.

    • gouis

      Not sure I’m into anything that would reward people like Will and Dan.

      • Something Quirky

        You get negative points for each uncalled for personal insult?

    • Other Scott

      I don’t know if the goat problem is a real problem though. We don’t like goats, but game wise there’s not too much difference from being taken out as a threat and losing in final tribal. Either way you did not win the game.

      Goats are more of a qualitative perception thing than something you can attribute to numbers.

      Also, most of the solutions presented, while making sense, have seemed to do the opposite of what you set out to do at the beginning, which is not just let the champion’s league player with the winner run away with the win.

      • purplerockpodcast

        You’re right. My main goal was to avoid giving additional points for good gameplay for those that have no conception of how to play (e.g. Will or Keith). It’s very difficult to do that using objective means. It’s much more like obscenity, one of those “you know it when you see it” things.

        But we (and I, specifically) have to keep in mind that what we view is an edited product. So while Keith is an obvious goat to us, he may have been hugely popular and had a ton of friends on that jury. And in terms of final votes Dawn would be a goat, but that doesn’t match my perception of her gameplay.

        The addition of one point per episode survived did seem to help. It will always give the maximum amount of points to the winner, but it also allows someone who chose two late-game players to beat someone who picked the winner and an early boot.

    • CountBulletsula

      So these points are only based on episodes and not tribal councils? What happens if the premiere ends up being 2 hours, but is essentially two full episodes? Or what if there’s a random double boot episode in the middle? I think it makes more sense to give points for every time a tribal council occurs and people don’t go home. But, that essentially just means you’re bumping the values for winning Immunity. If you’re trying to make it so that the person whose team has the winner doesn’t always win, what if you subtract a person’s place value from their score? It’ll give negative scores, sure, but it can affect low point getters who last a while. The problem is it might also really hurt merge boots who got lots of points.

      • CountBulletsula

        I did some quick calculations for Worlds Apart and it looks like merge boot Kelly would give you 0 points if you use the subtraction method, and everyone higher would give you positive values. Mike/Nina is the first time a Mike team would lose to Carolyn/Will with the current method whereas with subtraction Mike/Kelly is the first time a Mike team can lose to Carolyn/Will. Will sucks as a partner otherwise, as he should. Subtraction really hurts Joe’s score though sending him to 16 points instead of 26. Maybe this isn’t such a good idea.

      • purplerockpodcast

        “Episodes” was just the easiest way to describe it. In the case of double episodes, the players that didn’t get voted out got 2 points for surviving one “episode”.

        The lone exception here is that once the players made the finale, they all got the same amount of points. So for Worlds Apart, 5 players received the maximum amount of points.

        You’ll have to give me an example on subtracting place value from score. I’m not sure I follow.

        • Kemper Boyd

          So a point for each elimination they survive, except in the case of double elimination episodes?

          • purplerockpodcast

            Pretty much. If people like this rule, we can debate the exact mechanics of how it will work (e.g. how we deal with quitters, double eliminations, Redemption Island, etc.).

            But for testing purposes, that’s how I did it.

    • Ms_Woozah

      Late to this, but I like it, and agree with @otherscott:disqus, it doesn’t matter who’s a goat or not if you don’t ultimately win.

      • purplerockpodcast

        Yeah, I’m coming around to this idea. I’d have called Rodney, Sierra, Will, and Dan goats last season, but if that was the final four one of them would’ve had to win, right? So really, the line between goat and potential winner is who you’re up against at final tribal, and getting there matters.

  • gouis

    Question:

    Have you ever thought about including story based points? That way players who are big ‘characters’ get rewarded in some way. It would reward people who are important for the season as compared to goats who make it to the end and rack up points by voting in an alliance.

    I am not sure I am for it, just wanted to see what the thoughts on less voting based point accrual.

    • purplerockpodcast

      Two reasons for nixing that one:

      1. Too subjective (presumably).
      2. Too much effort involved on my part. I’m not willing to count confessionals. I am lazy.

      • gouis

        Yeah it would have to be quantifiable things like # of confessionals, but I also wouldn’t want to do the work so I don’t blame you.

        I think places on the internet count the confessionals (Sucks or Reddit), but then you would have a wait a few days for someone to post it.

      • Dr.Horrible

        The Rob C. Patron Fantasy League includes a confessional count in their point system. I think if you want to reward characters that is the cleanest way to do it. Maybe crowdsourcing the weekly confessional count among league members would work, then if the person who is responsible doesn’t get the number in they should be publicly shamed for delaying everyone’s fantasy scores.

        • purplerockpodcast

          I’m generally not in favor of doing confessional counts for scoring purposes. For one, if you give a point for each confessional then you have to dramatically raise the points awarded for everything else; otherwise playing an immunity idol correctly is only worth as much as giving 4 confessionals.

          Also, I don’t know that confessional count is a very accurate measurement of how well someone is playing Survivor.

          • Dr.Horrible

            I agree. I actually don’t like the confessional count as part of scoring. With my shitty fantasy league performance I’ve only played in the pick four, so I may not be aware of issues that present themselves in the other versions, but I think the existing scoring works well, and I prefer it to anything else I have seen, including the suggestions mentioned here.

          • purplerockpodcast

            So you’d prefer no changes to the current scoring system?

          • Dr.Horrible

            Coming into this discussion I didn’t feel there was a need for a change, and now having read through all of the comments here I don’t see any suggestions that, in my opinion, would improve on the current system. I do think it’s smart to do this exploration off season, if nothing else to test and validate the current system.

          • purplerockpodcast

            And in previous off-seasons, there have been times where we decided to just leave it alone. That may end up being the case this time, but I do kinda like the results of the bonus point for each episode survived.

  • purplerockpodcast

    Some preliminary results:

    Adding one point for each episode a player remains in the game did change the outcome of one fantasy season: In Blood vs Water, our second-place team of Monica and Katie would have beat the winner’s team of Tyson and Candice. For Worlds Apart and San Juan del Sur, standings didn’t change.

    Related: Doing this sort of scoring in Redemption Island seasons is a monstrous pain in the ass because of people returning to the game and resuming point accumulation after being voted out.

    I’ll make an edit to the post above so you can see the impact of the change in table form.

    • i and 1

      That is great stuff. Maybe avoiding RI seasons would be best, it is enough work already. Great to see the results like this though, thanks.

    • Kemper Boyd

      Maybe for a RI season minus points for getting the boot? I dunno it’s an idea.

      • purplerockpodcast

        How about Survivor just doesn’t do any more RI seasons and saves us the headache of scoring them?

        • Kemper Boyd

          Yes let’s all hope for that!!

  • Kemper Boyd

    I think something to reward players who stay in the game is good. Having the winner will still help massively but it will help players who pick a lot of players who stay far into the game but don’t pick the winner.

  • Ms_Woozah

    Love the discussion here, but I don’t think I made the cut for the league next season? Can we do a “second chance league” ala the outcasts league? I want to be way more invested than I already am!

    • purplerockpodcast

      After I made my glorious return to the Champions League, Matt (mratfink) took over Outcasts League. But it would be pretty fitting to do it as Second Chance league this coming season.

      I actually haven’t discussed with Matt how he selects the people that get an invitation. But when I did it, the criteria were basically “active commenters that didn’t make it into Champion’s League”. I’m guessing he does something roughly similar.

      Since we have a fancy new website this season, I’ll do some research and see if there’s anything we could add to the site that would make fantasy leagues easier to join/create/etc.

      • Violina23

        I’ve had a crazy summer (just starting to emerge from moving-hell) and I’m definitely interested in a second chance league. I don’t comment as much as I used to b/c I have young children and I’m usually in bed by the time the AVclub article came up (and don’t get much down-time to read the internet until lunchtime) and by then most of the interesting points have been made. But I’m still a big follower, I promise 🙂

  • purplerockpodcast

    One thing that we inexplicably have never discussed: How do you all think a rock-draw situation should be scored?

    • Something Quirky

      I guess that would depend on how the rock draw came about, ie. strategy or accident.

      • purplerockpodcast

        But we have to be objective about how to score it. I can’t say “Well, if I think it was a strategic move then I’ll give points.”

        • Something Quirky

          Therefore it becomes difficult to do anything other than give a point or two to the winner.

    • Other Scott

      No VTEP points (preferred) or everyone gets VTEP points except the person eliminated. I don’t see any other way to do it.

    • Diego Armando

      Maybe the drawers who drew black and the person with immunity get a vote (since the person who is immune still determines that rocks are to be drawn).

  • purplerockpodcast

    I’ve added a table showing the impact of @sg_standard:disqus’s suggestion: two points awarded to the person with the second-highest votes at a tribal council.

    • Other Scott

      I’ve thought about this one a bit more and I ultimately don’t like it.

      First off, I understand the reasoning. You want to reward the more dynamic players, and the dynamic players are the ones who get votes at tribal.

      But ultimately, I think it rewards bad gameplay. Making yourself enough of a target to receive votes is not a good way to play the game. Plus, it opens you up to you being the one going out when someone in your alliance flips or an idol is played.

      I understand that Will is not ever going to receive votes and get these points. But neither is someone like Sandra or Earl, and that’s the best part of their game.

      • purplerockpodcast

        I agree. After seeing the results, I don’t know that it rewards strong play.

  • Other Scott

    If the double vote were to come back, presumably the player playing it gets double VTEP points if it’s for the right person or they use it to help a vote split along?

    • purplerockpodcast

      Interesting. I hadn’t even thought of that (which is crazy, because that twist is definitely coming back). I’d say the answer is definitely yes, unless I get a lot of people arguing strongly against that.

  • JudgeReinhold

    Ok, this is where I’m currently leaning on scoring changes. Please let me know if you agree/disagree:

    Definitely
    Double vote: If a person plays the double vote correctly (either to boot someone or to help a vote split), he/she gets double the normal amount of VTEP for that play.

    Maybe/Probably
    Surviving the week bonus: One point awarded for each episode survived (2-hour “episodes” are counted as two individual episodes in this case; hour-long episodes with a double boot are not).

    No
    “Bullet dodged” bonus: 2 bonus points awarded for being the one with the second-highest votes at a tribal council.

    • Something Quirky

      I agree with the no.

  • purplerockpodcast

    Last chance to get in your input on scoring! The draft for Second Chance will start on September 1st at 12:01 Eastern. Once that post goes up, post your team in the comments there.

    As of right now, I’m going to add scoring for the double vote, and I’m debating the “survive the week” bonus. If nobody argues strongly for it either way, I’ll just decide on my own.

    • Diego Armando

      I personally do not have any problem with the current scoring system. I would maybe consider going with the one point per voting period survived idea. Also, is that 12:01 AM or PM?

      • purplerockpodcast

        One minute after midnight. Eastern time.

  • hornacek

    How about adding in the scoring system above what VTEP stands for? Anyone new to this might not know what it means.

    Oh, who am I fooling? I’m asking for me! I didn’t know before last season and had to ask, and I’ve forgotten since then.

    • purplerockpodcast

      Votes To Evict Players.

  • Dutch

    Later in the game, but thought I would post this. Suggested at last season’s finale AV Club comment thread:

    Vote against survivor = -1 point? Would make things a lot more interesting and closer in scores. The goats may not win challenges, but they have less votes against them. The challenge and strategic threats may get points in HII and challenge wins, but may also receive more votes. Could be used as an equalizer, and would punish the first few boots badly.

    • John

      I tested this on some older seasons, and it didn’t work out well. Plus, like you said, it drags early boots into the negatives.

      My goal was to make the scoring balanced enough that you could still win the fantasy league without picking the winner. We’ve come close a few times, but it hasn’t happened yet.

    • purplerockpodcast

      I tested this on some older seasons. It didn’t balance the scoring in the way I’d hoped, and it rewarded the goats far too much. Plus, it pushed early boots into the negative.

      The main goal here was to make it possible to win the fantasy league without picking the winner of the season. Particularly in recent seasons, winners haven’t had many votes against them. So if anything doing negative points only exacerbated the problem.