[MikeekiM]

Again... I am a day behind...but here's the thread for those that are keeping up better than me!

 

[skypros]

Looks like Whitney is going home..... Sad, I like Whitney.

I also think Sarah, will be the next to go up on the block.

 

[jeetkunedo]

I'm starting to really get bored with this show. I wish they'd shake things up and change some aspects of the format. The POV is mostly pointless. How often has anyone used it? I want more twists, suspense, and surprises. It's always just that the HOH nominates two people, and we all know well in advance who's going home. It seems like the entire show is just listening to them chat/gossip/whine.

 

[DancnDude]

It's about time they had an America's Player again. That was always entertaining watching the viewing audience be able to control someone's entire game. And definitely shakes things up.

 

[NorthAlabama]

it's always a little boring until jury, especially with a large alliance, but soon things will start to heat up, as the numbers dwindle, and with no winback comp.

 

[Steveknj]

I actually think they DID try and change things up with the teams. I think the problem is, that the format has been essentially the same since the early seasons. HOH, then Noms, then veto, then eviction. They tweaked some of the aspects early on, mostly around the veto, where first you couldn't save yourself, and then, first everyone could play, then the block people could pick their own (which I think would be more interesting if they went back to that) and now, it's just random. I think they need to show more competitions, like lets get back to showing the have not comps. They just need more surprises. The problem sometimes with surprises though is that they can effect the game and blow up someone's game without them doing anything which I found unfair. They also sometimes seem to favor certain players which is not great. This year, the new comp seems to be pretty boring too. Maybe the game is just getting old and not as much fun as it used to be. But I DO think, especially with new players it takes awhile to learn about the players and that makes it boring early.

 

[lambertman]

Spitballing... What if they started requiring the Veto winner to use it?

I actually don't hate anybody left in this cast at the current time, which is a rarity for me.

 

[MikeekiM]

I don't know... I am not really getting tired of the gameplay... Yes it's predictable...and yes, the rules don't change much... But I am still watching different houseguests play it... Other spectator games don't change much...

I still watch football and basketball... The players change, but the rules don't (for the most part)... And it's still entertaining...

Yeah, I know it's not the same... But I am using the analogy anyway...

 

[Steveknj]

I don't know... I am not really getting tired of the gameplay... Yes it's predictable...and yes, the rules don't change much... But I am still watching the houseguests play it... Other spectator games don't change much...

I still watch football and basketball... The players change, but the rules don't (for the most part)... And it's still entertaining...

Yeah, I know it's not the same... But I am using the analogy anyway...

Agree, it's predictable. And new players always make it a bit fun and different.

 

[andyw715]

Spitballing... What if they started requiring the Veto winner to use it?

I actually don't hate anybody left in this cast at the current time, which is a rarity for me.

I would vote for the veto usage to be compulsory.

Would require a bit more game play....ie do you really want to play for it....it would could make for either really short or really long comps if no one wanted to use it

 

[warrenn]

If they made the veto compulsory, they could make it so that the replacement had to come from the set of people in the veto comp. That would encourage everyone involved to fight to win just so that they weren't put up as the veto replacement. The HOH may still throw the comp, but the other 5 people would be motivated to win. Maybe make it so that if HOH won, they wouldn't have to use it since it was their noms in the first place. That would give HOH motivation to win it as well.

 

[Steveknj]

If they made the veto compulsory, they could make it so that the replacement had to come from the set of people in the veto comp. That would encourage everyone involved to fight to win just so that they weren't put up as the veto replacement. The HOH may still throw the comp, but the other 5 people would be motivated to win. Maybe make it so that if HOH won, they wouldn't have to use it since it was their noms in the first place. That would give HOH motivation to win it as well.

The problem with your suggestion is who in their right mind would want to play in the Veto comp? It would mean they essentially have a 1 in 5 chance in being on the block if they don't win the comp. And since you already have the HoH who cant be put up and the two already on the block, once the veto is used, then there's really a 1 in 3 chance for those RANDOMLY picked. So in order for it to work, they would need to have the HoH and/or the two already on the block pick people to play. So that could be a strategy, that if you are on the block, you can pick someone you want to possibly be used to replace you. That sort of works.

I think they just ought to go back to letting them chose who to play anyway. That makes it more interesting because it puts those people on the spot to use it if they win. I'm not a fan of risking your game on a totally random occurrence. It's not really fair.

 

[MikeekiM]

I think they just ought to go back to letting them chose who to play anyway. That makes it more interesting because it puts those people on the spot to use it if they win. I'm not a fan of risking your game on a totally random occurrence. It's not really fair.

I like this…. It also exposes alliances!

 

[DancnDude]

I like how they do it now. When they always got to pick someone, with an alliance of 6 they would guarantee someone could go home without having ever had even a chance of saving themselves. At least they have a chance of playing for veto now. That's why they changed it.

 

[Steveknj]

I like how they do it now. When they always got to pick someone, with an alliance of 6 they would guarantee someone could go home without having ever had even a chance of saving themselves. At least they have a chance of playing for veto now. That's why they changed it.

On the other hand, if they got to pick, it would expose alliances that might not have been out in the open previously. So it can go both ways.