Let's Study Games - Redemption Mechanics

[zoraster]

I know I'm on team "reveal everything to players" but I don't think redemption stuff is any more important to reveal than a whole host of other things that maybe could be revealed. If it's a game that's marked as complex or advanced and you're making a point that twists, etc. happen... well, that's just the nature of the beast. That said, obviously my personal tendency would be to tell players that it'd be a possibility, but that's because that's my tendency for all types of twists. But if I ever decided to do something different and do a high twist game, I'd want to have the space to do that -- and I think I could given our rubric warns people that weird things can happen.

And EoE has its own series of flaws.

Wait, Expect the Expected didn't have a redemption mechanic? EDIT: Oh wait I see what you mean Edge of Extinction.nevermind.

[zoraster]

Using this as a separate post because I discuss whether it should be revealed above, the question is whether it's a good mechanic. And I think it depends is probably the answer, but a good redemption mechanic for OUR purposes is one that resolves quickly. A major problem I've noticed in games is that people not put into a sense of risk for a long time (whether because they're immune or because they're already out and can't be voted out at the moment) tend to disengage with the game. So if you ARE going to do a Battle Back or whatever, doing it quickly seems like it'd be essential.

[zoraster]

I think I'd be happy with, as a solution, an explicit disclaimer made that Advanced/Complex games may have returnees in them without notice. And still specify that Vanilla/Standard games can announce beforehand that they have returnees (obviously making sure that this is done in a way that doesn't turn their games Advanced/Complex), or that Advanced/Complex games can explicitly declare that they don't have returnees if they so desire. I don't think explicitly banning returnees after a certain point is the right solution, since I'm sure there are things that can be thought of that would make it both legitimate and interesting to do a late returnee.

I'd hope Vanilla games shouldn't have returnees at all. While I think it's fair to add more "twists" if you reveal them in "Standard" games, I think Vanilla should be a category that a lazy idiot could play without reading any rules whatsoever and not be surprised by what they find.

[zoraster]

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.

This seems like a pretty good analysis.

I do think the earlier you use redemption mechanics the better though, especially if you can incorporate it into a tribe swap or something. I also think people who come back in that scenario are a lot less likely to be at a disadvantage for getting votes at FTC. The downside to THAT is that the reality is our earliest votes are often for those who are basically inactive in the game. That's actually a kind of an important mechanism. While it's possible someone who was inactive at the start might given a wake up call and another chance might become more active, I suspect all that happens is they stay inactive.

[zoraster]

Also, if you can expect someone to return early and a lot of early boots are inactive, that discourages early big moves since the target will probably come back

Really any time you expect someone to come back prevents big moves. It's one of the big flaws of it.

[zoraster]

I'm kind of anti-returner in general, but I think one point that's kind of been made but I'll highlight:

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.

[zoraster]

My assumption is even people who right now say they'd never vote for a returner might find themselves voting for the returner in certain situations. That said, I don't think vote results are necessarily very telling except to show that it is possible that someone could win as a returner if they got votes.

Still, my general preference as a mod is to have competitive FTCs. I don't always get my wish as that thing is mostly up to the players and a dominating win from a superb player is also satisfying, but putting in mechanics that potentially make it more likely to be uncompetitive aren't really my thing. So if I were to put in a returning mechanic, much of my effort would be to figure out how to minimize the disadvantage. Because even though to the individual player coming back in it is theoretically ONLY positive for their win equity (as they would have simply been booted otherwise), for the game itself, it may not be.

[zoraster]

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.

[zoraster]

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.

Yeah for sure. That's kind of why it works! It doesn't seem like someone was removed from the game and then allowed back in. But that's probably going to be the bulk of my suggestions on how to handle it. Because everything else is just mitigating damage rather than affirmatively answer the question of "why is your game stronger for having been designed this way?"

Yes, I think the damage of the first two boots being put into a two person challenge with one returning is LESS DAMAGING than if someone is out of the game for 6 rounds and returns at F6. But that still doesn't really answer the question of why the game is better for it.

[zoraster]

That's really tough to argue your way out of in an FTC, especially the way they're laid out in LSGs. If site culture really is the underlying issue with returnees on MS, then I'm wondering if the solution lies in our collective approach to the endgame. We have a lot of focus on who played 'perfectly', who can sell that they made all the right choices, when frankly that's not an accurate way of viewing any game of Survivor. There are VERY few perfect games, and it's possible we'd be better off if we ditched the obsession with them. Obviously finalists are incentivized to sell their game in the best possible light, but maybe juries should be a bit more skeptical about that. It might help with the returnee problem, amongst other potential benefits.

At risk of taking this into a tangent, what do you see as a good alternative approach? I don't expect any player to play perfectly, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to judge a player's performance except on some scale of how "well" they did, whatever that means to me.

Is it just a sense of emphasis that overly punishes "mistakes"?

[zoraster]

I agree with Klick that no one is perfect but the nature of our FTC speeches and how we pitch ourselves is to put up a facade that we made all the right choices and should be the "obvious" winner. Seldom do you see people pointing out their flaws and will often even avoid questions where they are asked to point out their own flaws and that of their opponents.

I mean a lot of this is just effective advocacy. I don't see a reason that's a problem.

People avoiding questions often just comes down to the format we have to use, which is that people ask and answer multiple questions simultaneously.

[zoraster]

Neat

[zoraster]

for any really enterprising awesome people, one thing i'd like to know is who got to compete to come back in (or whatever mechanic) and at what point(s) they were reinserted.

[zoraster]

which they obviously will never be given they were already voted out once for at least some reason and have missed some time to connect with the players

this assumes people who are voted out weren't voted out because they had really strong chances of winning the game. Now we can talk about how seeming like you're going to win the game too early is a huge flaw, etc. but especially if the mechanic is known ahead of time (so you can play theoretically a bit more out in front), it's worth considering.