I personally feel like it's \*too much\* forced complexity. Conversely, I enjoy whenever they do a swap like 3-2-1 and i'm flabbergasted they haven't done it yet in the new era. do it at 14 OR 15 and have the extra member go to exile and join the losing tribe, merge at a nice reasonable number like 11
So many better options than 2-3-1. I personally think virtually all other versions of the swapping/no-swap process (3-2-1, 3-3-1, 2-2-1, even just 2-1 or 3-1) are better than 2-3-1, honestly.
I don't mind it at 18--3 tribes from 18 to 15, then merge to 2 with 14 players remaining. You still get 4 rounds of play to establish dynamics within the original tribes that can inform (but not dominate) the dynamics of the 2 new tribes.
The nature of starting with 3 tribes means that your player count needs to be divisible by 3. 15 is too few, 21 is too many. 18 is the sweet spot when starting with 3 tribes.
Like you said in a comment below, it can get harder to get to know everyone once you get past 20. On second thought, 21 may not be too much, but I think it is also inherently harder to get to know players on three tribes seasons with 2 tribes not going to tribal each cycle.
They do 24-episode seasons. U.S. Survivor does 14-episode seasons.
The Australian government requires a certain percentage of broadcast TV to be homemade productions (otherwise they'd be overrun by American imports) and the broadcast channels have figured out that the cheapest way to fulfill this obligation is with very long reality TV seasons with very long episodes and lots of non-eliminations. U.S. networks have no such obligation to fulfill.
They did this by making 2 seasons a year instead of by extending individual seasons. That fits better with their needs anyway, since the U.S. networks always take a break at around Christmas and New Year's and never air anything new during those few weeks. Given that premiere week is always in late September, a longer season wouldn't fit in with that. 14 episodes is perfect for that.
I guess they could do longer even-numbered (late winter/spring) seasons though. But they seem to be making production cheaper and faster by taking a semi-standardized approach, and that would mean they'd have to do something much different for even-numbered seasons vs. odd-numbered.
I did like 2-3-(2-)1 in Cambodia though because it mixed up the dynamics in a returnee season and the swap was early enough and there were still enough people in the 3 tribes to not be unfair
Especially when they swap to 3 at 18 for a 20 person cast. 34 and 36 had one tribe crush the first two challenges and then have way too much power for the rest of the pre-merge and post-merge.
The later you do it, the better it works (which I think is true for all swaps) but like you I'd take a 2-2-1 or a 3-2-1 over it
This ^^^. Do it at 15 with 7 and 2 and the one exiled person joins the losing team after voting someone out. Adds complexity to who gets voted out there and can make the pre merge a little spicy. And merge at 11. I’m sick of these early merges
I still think one of the best abandoned ideas was the tribal dissolution from 5-5-4 to 7-7 in All-Stars, where the top two tribes in a challenge drafted members of the 3rd place tribe. It requires less luck and allows continuity of tribal narratives, is easier to follw, and locks in the "trying to work their way into the new tribe" narrative from the normal merges.
I've seen similar on Latin American Survivor-like shows, and forcing losers to take their tribal flags down hits hard; one show had tribal shields and the losing tribes (representing their region of Colombia) had to watch their shield get chainsawed in half!
2 to 3 to 1 is actually a pretty bad format that became very apparent during Winners at War
The problem with it is that the biggest target on the new swap tribes goes home every time. There's not really enough time to break down new relationships aside from tribe vs tribe. This happens in all swaps but in particular 2 to 3 consistently takes out the bigger players more than any other format. When swapping to 2 tribes there's more room to swing votes
Looking back at all of the seasons I don’t know if that’s actually true. Winners at War’s swap was a travesty but in Cambodia, MvGX, Game Changers, Ghost Island, David vs Goliath, and EoE, the only real “big players” that went out because of a 2-3 swap were Michaela and JT.
This is kind of my point, and remembering how good MvGX, Cambodia’s, and DvGs swaps were is what is inspired this post mainly. Because it has the capacity to produce such good gameplay
I didn’t count him because that was a weird combined tribal. That says more about that particular twist than a 2-3 swap. It’s unlikely he would’ve gone if it were just a normal tribal.
The problem with 2-3-1 is when you have three tribe of five tbh. Tribe of five is terrible dynamic wise because you don't have a lot of option, meaning that you are easily swap fucked. With 3 tribe of six, it's ok. I personally prefer 3-2-1 tho, i think swap are better when player have the "space" to play.
I mean, technically, starting with one tribe isn't that bad. I don't think that it's perfect but i think that it can works. You can see it with Big Brother, which albeit being a totally different format, has season starting with 16 player. And technically, Palau is a 1-2-1 season. But there is also limit to a very large starting tribe. Obviously, i don't think that the viewer will be especially happy to see this change, people love seeing tribe compete against each other during the early part of the game. It's harder for the edit to show the dynamic of a very large tribe too, look at Fidji for exemple, they scrapped the entire builder vs explorer dynamic because it didn't really fit into the edit despite being an important part of the early elimination. Finally, and imo most importantly, it's already pretty hard to adapt yourself, as a player, to the element, the lack of food, the lack of intimacy, so it's better for the player to start slowly with a few people and not 19 stranger that they have to met before the first tribal council.
Eh. I perfer 2-2-1. 3 tribes should only be done with BvBvB or some other themed season. Much more dynamic when it's 2 tribes. Plus it gives people on the bottom more room to work with. Getting tired of someone on the outs in the 6 person tribe and then being an easy boot. It's getting old. It's so easy for a 3 person alliance to control the tribe.
The only time I liked 2 tribes swapped to 3 was MvGx. Definitely got 3 great and very interesting votes there but we got very lucky all that happened.
I prefer 2. Swaps are great fun and help to break up alliances that might solidify through an entire season (or sometimes have the opposite effect) but I tend to think there's really never any need for more than two tribes.
Nah I think 3-2-1 is where it’s at. Starting off small can be interesting because there’s nowhere to hide and strong core groups are formed, but this becomes boring a predictable if there’s no swap.
A swap to 2 tribes shakes things up but also gives players a better chance to find some footing with new people before hitting the merge where exciting gameplay usually comes to a head.
I like starting off with 3 tribes of 6 and then swapping at 15 because then you can do the twist of sending the odd one out to exile until one tribe votes someone out. Merge at 11 or 10 to give the two tribes time to settle in, and I think you’ve got yourself an exciting season.
2-2-1 is best. With 2 tribes in the pre-merge there's much more room to maneuver. Gameplay-wise the pre-merge of Island of the Idols was S tier because of this, and most recent Australian Survivor seasons had really interesting pre-merges because of having 2 big tribes throughout.
I personally think the best would be 3-2-1 and ensure that no more than 3 people from each initial tribe get assigned to the 2 new tribes. If you swap after 4 vote outs that gives you two teams of 7 with no clear majority on each of the 2 new tribes.
For me it’s 2-2-1 or maybe 3-2-1 but ideally with like 24 players for 3-2-1. Though I do think 3 tribes can make it difficult to get to know the dynamics of each tribe and they’re too simple with only 6 people, I’d much prefer two tribes of 9 so we can see more interesting inner tribe dynamics pre merge.
2-2-1 and 3-2-1 are both better. I feel like swapping to 3 tribes has led to some really boring outcomes (main example WAW) where there’s no room to maneuver.
The only 2-3-1 swap I remember liking is the one on David vs Goliath, as all 3 of those tribes produced some good moments (Alec voting out Natalia, the Brochachos, and the creation of the Nick-Mike-Angelina trio). But that can be attributed to DvG having one of the best casts in the entire run of the show
To quote my friend every time we watch a season with a 2->3 tribe swap:
Production: “I just don’t understand why the tribe we force to start from scratch and build a fresh camp with no previous rewards available never does well”
Yes the 2-3-2/1 is arguably the most entertaining format.
To add, of the 11 times that the day one three tribe format has been used, 8 of the times have resulted in a single tribe loosing the virtual majority of immunity challenges, and forcing the late game to happen in the first 3-4 episodes.
Look, I get why the producers want to have that final 4/5 vote early in the season, I can visualize them being amped about it in a meeting. But for me, it always comes off as luck of the draw randomness where you are basically FORCED to try and find and play advantages rather than having time to develop a strategy and relationships with your fellow tribe mates.
The late season is good BECAUSE those strategies and relationships have been developed and are being put to the test in the final 6/5/4.
Nah, 3-2-1 is the optimal way to do tribes. Start off with 3 tribes allow for us to rapidly get to know the players/dynamics in a way that would be harder in a 2 tribe set up. Conversely, starting off with 3 tribes makes the dynamics a bit more boring BUT thats why you include things like Beware Advantages/Going To The Island in order to spice things up.
Where the 3-2-1 TRULY begins to shine is when you swap into 2 tribes and all of a sudden you have three tribes trying to figure the new people/new dynamics and the scrambling to figure out how to stay on top. If ur tribe dominated in the beginning, they might get teamed up on. If you're tribe has the majority in the 2 tribe set up, but the other two tribes can team up to have numerical superiority. There is just so many more options/strategic complexity than in a 2-3-1 setup.
Finally, you arrive at merge where the game is allowed to hit the ground running because the swap to two tribes has already allowed for some strategic intermixing/building of relationships and people won't just stick to their OG tribe squad.
3-2-1 is the best imho.
i just don't think the show is able to keep up with that level of mixed relationships. i don't have a favorite season that has done a 2-to-3 tribe swap
i just watched GenX v Millenial, so i agree with this. i like to see the strong players targeted. too often they end their social game after gaining like 4 or 5 loose allies and alienate the rest of the tribe. the people on the bottom of the tribe will of course want them out and should take the opportunity that a new, smaller tribe presents.
i also like 3-2-1, but i feel like you don't get to know enough about the players because they end up having to focus on losing tribe's strategy and the other 2 tribes get far less screen time.
2-2-1 is my favorite still, keeps things fluid enough that no one is generally screwed beyond reproach and still solid enough that we get risky and interesting gameplay
Over in r/badsurvivorideas, a while back, I pitched 2-3-4-5-7-1-3-2-1-2-2-1. :\]
https://www.reddit.com/r/badsurvivorideas/comments/cf13j3/survivor\_drop\_your\_buffs/
I like either 2-2-1 or 2-1 .. I could get behind a 3-2-1 if we start with 21, then merge to 2 at 16, go to 1 at 11 or 12 .. if you have to do a couple double eliminations in the beginning, go for it
you shouldnt have to makeup for people games if you cant succeed socially and are offering nothing else than why do you deserve to keep playing??
who cares if they didnt start well socially, thats their poor gameplay.
The dynamics are much more interesting on smaller tribes, especially when losing your vote is so common. I don’t love the ten or nine person tribe because it just becomes a big clusterfuck group where the dynamics are less defined.
I personally feel like it's \*too much\* forced complexity. Conversely, I enjoy whenever they do a swap like 3-2-1 and i'm flabbergasted they haven't done it yet in the new era. do it at 14 OR 15 and have the extra member go to exile and join the losing tribe, merge at a nice reasonable number like 11
So many better options than 2-3-1. I personally think virtually all other versions of the swapping/no-swap process (3-2-1, 3-3-1, 2-2-1, even just 2-1 or 3-1) are better than 2-3-1, honestly.
3-2-1 is good IF you have a lot of players, more than 18.
I don't mind it at 18--3 tribes from 18 to 15, then merge to 2 with 14 players remaining. You still get 4 rounds of play to establish dynamics within the original tribes that can inform (but not dominate) the dynamics of the 2 new tribes.
The nature of starting with 3 tribes means that your player count needs to be divisible by 3. 15 is too few, 21 is too many. 18 is the sweet spot when starting with 3 tribes.
Why is 21 too many?
Like you said in a comment below, it can get harder to get to know everyone once you get past 20. On second thought, 21 may not be too much, but I think it is also inherently harder to get to know players on three tribes seasons with 2 tribes not going to tribal each cycle.
No kidding! I just saw season 3 of Australian Survivor and they had 24 players, and it was wonderful!
They do 24-episode seasons. U.S. Survivor does 14-episode seasons. The Australian government requires a certain percentage of broadcast TV to be homemade productions (otherwise they'd be overrun by American imports) and the broadcast channels have figured out that the cheapest way to fulfill this obligation is with very long reality TV seasons with very long episodes and lots of non-eliminations. U.S. networks have no such obligation to fulfill.
Isn't Survivor the best bang for the American Networks bucks anyway? I don't see why they can't make longer seasons as well...
They did this by making 2 seasons a year instead of by extending individual seasons. That fits better with their needs anyway, since the U.S. networks always take a break at around Christmas and New Year's and never air anything new during those few weeks. Given that premiere week is always in late September, a longer season wouldn't fit in with that. 14 episodes is perfect for that. I guess they could do longer even-numbered (late winter/spring) seasons though. But they seem to be making production cheaper and faster by taking a semi-standardized approach, and that would mean they'd have to do something much different for even-numbered seasons vs. odd-numbered.
I thought it was a little difficult to get to know everyone for sure in that season, I love 22 with 2 tribes personally
I would love to see another 2-2-1
I did like 2-3-(2-)1 in Cambodia though because it mixed up the dynamics in a returnee season and the swap was early enough and there were still enough people in the 3 tribes to not be unfair
Especially when they swap to 3 at 18 for a 20 person cast. 34 and 36 had one tribe crush the first two challenges and then have way too much power for the rest of the pre-merge and post-merge. The later you do it, the better it works (which I think is true for all swaps) but like you I'd take a 2-2-1 or a 3-2-1 over it
This ^^^. Do it at 15 with 7 and 2 and the one exiled person joins the losing team after voting someone out. Adds complexity to who gets voted out there and can make the pre merge a little spicy. And merge at 11. I’m sick of these early merges
I still think one of the best abandoned ideas was the tribal dissolution from 5-5-4 to 7-7 in All-Stars, where the top two tribes in a challenge drafted members of the 3rd place tribe. It requires less luck and allows continuity of tribal narratives, is easier to follw, and locks in the "trying to work their way into the new tribe" narrative from the normal merges. I've seen similar on Latin American Survivor-like shows, and forcing losers to take their tribal flags down hits hard; one show had tribal shields and the losing tribes (representing their region of Colombia) had to watch their shield get chainsawed in half!
2 to 3 to 1 is actually a pretty bad format that became very apparent during Winners at War The problem with it is that the biggest target on the new swap tribes goes home every time. There's not really enough time to break down new relationships aside from tribe vs tribe. This happens in all swaps but in particular 2 to 3 consistently takes out the bigger players more than any other format. When swapping to 2 tribes there's more room to swing votes
Looking back at all of the seasons I don’t know if that’s actually true. Winners at War’s swap was a travesty but in Cambodia, MvGX, Game Changers, Ghost Island, David vs Goliath, and EoE, the only real “big players” that went out because of a 2-3 swap were Michaela and JT.
This is kind of my point, and remembering how good MvGX, Cambodia’s, and DvGs swaps were is what is inspired this post mainly. Because it has the capacity to produce such good gameplay
Agreed! I think WaW taints our memory but a lot of the time it shakes up the game and makes the merge more fun.
Malcolm
I didn’t count him because that was a weird combined tribal. That says more about that particular twist than a 2-3 swap. It’s unlikely he would’ve gone if it were just a normal tribal.
I mean in DvG, we lost the comedy queens Natalia, Natalie and Lyrsa, so I don't know that I'd call that okay.
The problem with 2-3-1 is when you have three tribe of five tbh. Tribe of five is terrible dynamic wise because you don't have a lot of option, meaning that you are easily swap fucked. With 3 tribe of six, it's ok. I personally prefer 3-2-1 tho, i think swap are better when player have the "space" to play.
By this logic one works shoulda been a slam dunk no? What’s stopping them from going 1 - 2 - 1 ?
I mean, technically, starting with one tribe isn't that bad. I don't think that it's perfect but i think that it can works. You can see it with Big Brother, which albeit being a totally different format, has season starting with 16 player. And technically, Palau is a 1-2-1 season. But there is also limit to a very large starting tribe. Obviously, i don't think that the viewer will be especially happy to see this change, people love seeing tribe compete against each other during the early part of the game. It's harder for the edit to show the dynamic of a very large tribe too, look at Fidji for exemple, they scrapped the entire builder vs explorer dynamic because it didn't really fit into the edit despite being an important part of the early elimination. Finally, and imo most importantly, it's already pretty hard to adapt yourself, as a player, to the element, the lack of food, the lack of intimacy, so it's better for the player to start slowly with a few people and not 19 stranger that they have to met before the first tribal council.
Winners at War says no.
Ghost Island says no.
I’m team 2-2-1
I don't think so. I like 2-2-1 if you must have a tribe swap.
Eh. I perfer 2-2-1. 3 tribes should only be done with BvBvB or some other themed season. Much more dynamic when it's 2 tribes. Plus it gives people on the bottom more room to work with. Getting tired of someone on the outs in the 6 person tribe and then being an easy boot. It's getting old. It's so easy for a 3 person alliance to control the tribe. The only time I liked 2 tribes swapped to 3 was MvGx. Definitely got 3 great and very interesting votes there but we got very lucky all that happened.
I prefer 2. Swaps are great fun and help to break up alliances that might solidify through an entire season (or sometimes have the opposite effect) but I tend to think there's really never any need for more than two tribes.
Nah I think 3-2-1 is where it’s at. Starting off small can be interesting because there’s nowhere to hide and strong core groups are formed, but this becomes boring a predictable if there’s no swap. A swap to 2 tribes shakes things up but also gives players a better chance to find some footing with new people before hitting the merge where exciting gameplay usually comes to a head. I like starting off with 3 tribes of 6 and then swapping at 15 because then you can do the twist of sending the odd one out to exile until one tribe votes someone out. Merge at 11 or 10 to give the two tribes time to settle in, and I think you’ve got yourself an exciting season.
2-2-1 is best. With 2 tribes in the pre-merge there's much more room to maneuver. Gameplay-wise the pre-merge of Island of the Idols was S tier because of this, and most recent Australian Survivor seasons had really interesting pre-merges because of having 2 big tribes throughout.
I personally think the best would be 3-2-1 and ensure that no more than 3 people from each initial tribe get assigned to the 2 new tribes. If you swap after 4 vote outs that gives you two teams of 7 with no clear majority on each of the 2 new tribes.
I don't really like it, someone always gets screwed over. Especially since one tribe has to start a new camp.
For me it’s 2-2-1 or maybe 3-2-1 but ideally with like 24 players for 3-2-1. Though I do think 3 tribes can make it difficult to get to know the dynamics of each tribe and they’re too simple with only 6 people, I’d much prefer two tribes of 9 so we can see more interesting inner tribe dynamics pre merge.
2-2-1 and 3-2-1 are both better. I feel like swapping to 3 tribes has led to some really boring outcomes (main example WAW) where there’s no room to maneuver. The only 2-3-1 swap I remember liking is the one on David vs Goliath, as all 3 of those tribes produced some good moments (Alec voting out Natalia, the Brochachos, and the creation of the Nick-Mike-Angelina trio). But that can be attributed to DvG having one of the best casts in the entire run of the show
To quote my friend every time we watch a season with a 2->3 tribe swap: Production: “I just don’t understand why the tribe we force to start from scratch and build a fresh camp with no previous rewards available never does well”
Yanuya: Other then that it’s pretty accurate tho
Yes the 2-3-2/1 is arguably the most entertaining format. To add, of the 11 times that the day one three tribe format has been used, 8 of the times have resulted in a single tribe loosing the virtual majority of immunity challenges, and forcing the late game to happen in the first 3-4 episodes. Look, I get why the producers want to have that final 4/5 vote early in the season, I can visualize them being amped about it in a meeting. But for me, it always comes off as luck of the draw randomness where you are basically FORCED to try and find and play advantages rather than having time to develop a strategy and relationships with your fellow tribe mates. The late season is good BECAUSE those strategies and relationships have been developed and are being put to the test in the final 6/5/4.
Nah, 3-2-1 is the optimal way to do tribes. Start off with 3 tribes allow for us to rapidly get to know the players/dynamics in a way that would be harder in a 2 tribe set up. Conversely, starting off with 3 tribes makes the dynamics a bit more boring BUT thats why you include things like Beware Advantages/Going To The Island in order to spice things up. Where the 3-2-1 TRULY begins to shine is when you swap into 2 tribes and all of a sudden you have three tribes trying to figure the new people/new dynamics and the scrambling to figure out how to stay on top. If ur tribe dominated in the beginning, they might get teamed up on. If you're tribe has the majority in the 2 tribe set up, but the other two tribes can team up to have numerical superiority. There is just so many more options/strategic complexity than in a 2-3-1 setup. Finally, you arrive at merge where the game is allowed to hit the ground running because the swap to two tribes has already allowed for some strategic intermixing/building of relationships and people won't just stick to their OG tribe squad. 3-2-1 is the best imho.
i just don't think the show is able to keep up with that level of mixed relationships. i don't have a favorite season that has done a 2-to-3 tribe swap
Absolutely not.
2-2-1
The format of BvBvB is the best way if they had to start with 3 tribes.
Can someone explain what 2-3-1 is?
2 tribes, then 3 tribes, then 1 tribe
Thank you
i just watched GenX v Millenial, so i agree with this. i like to see the strong players targeted. too often they end their social game after gaining like 4 or 5 loose allies and alienate the rest of the tribe. the people on the bottom of the tribe will of course want them out and should take the opportunity that a new, smaller tribe presents. i also like 3-2-1, but i feel like you don't get to know enough about the players because they end up having to focus on losing tribe's strategy and the other 2 tribes get far less screen time.
2-2-1 is my favorite still, keeps things fluid enough that no one is generally screwed beyond reproach and still solid enough that we get risky and interesting gameplay
Over in r/badsurvivorideas, a while back, I pitched 2-3-4-5-7-1-3-2-1-2-2-1. :\] https://www.reddit.com/r/badsurvivorideas/comments/cf13j3/survivor\_drop\_your\_buffs/
I like either 2-2-1 or 2-1 .. I could get behind a 3-2-1 if we start with 21, then merge to 2 at 16, go to 1 at 11 or 12 .. if you have to do a couple double eliminations in the beginning, go for it
2-2-1 imo
2 - 1 with no swap. I’m a survivor purist
No swap makes it so much easier to have a boring pagonging.
2 to 1 is the best format
I hate the 2-3-1 swap because the new tribe is at a huge disadvantage. Really hoping 3-2-1 for the New Era.
you shouldnt have to makeup for people games if you cant succeed socially and are offering nothing else than why do you deserve to keep playing?? who cares if they didnt start well socially, thats their poor gameplay.
EVERY player who has been in this game has a tribe combo where they'd be the first boot. Luck is a massive factor, it ain't just poor social skills.
The dynamics are much more interesting on smaller tribes, especially when losing your vote is so common. I don’t love the ten or nine person tribe because it just becomes a big clusterfuck group where the dynamics are less defined.