Ok, But some changes needed
It is not bad. I will say that Rob is the factor keeping this show interesting.
As one reviewer said, the person facing the banker technically needs to eliminate high cases to be personally successful thus is ultimately working against the goal of driving up the grand total. This needs to be addressed.
A change that I think would make the show more interesting is this: If the person facing the banker loses they are eliminated. However, if the person facing the banker wins, they stay in the game, now have immunity, and the remaining contestants who aren't facing the banker have to do a Survivor type of vote to decide who goes home. The winner of that day's challenge would still have immunity thus would not be eligible to be voted off either.
This would drastically up the strategy and the alliance factors of the show which they are trying to make us feel like is important this season but they really are not.
Think about the game play back at camp before the evening's game with this change made. Just a suggestion.
As one reviewer said, the person facing the banker technically needs to eliminate high cases to be personally successful thus is ultimately working against the goal of driving up the grand total. This needs to be addressed.
A change that I think would make the show more interesting is this: If the person facing the banker loses they are eliminated. However, if the person facing the banker wins, they stay in the game, now have immunity, and the remaining contestants who aren't facing the banker have to do a Survivor type of vote to decide who goes home. The winner of that day's challenge would still have immunity thus would not be eligible to be voted off either.
This would drastically up the strategy and the alliance factors of the show which they are trying to make us feel like is important this season but they really are not.
Think about the game play back at camp before the evening's game with this change made. Just a suggestion.
- Pac_67
- 16 apr 2024