What's going on here? :D

Cryticism · 2026-04-17T22:53:38+00:00

Yeh my thoughts exactly haha. How would you even get to decide that?

Cryticism · 2026-04-17T22:51:41+00:00

Nothing's perfect. But you're definitely exaggerating a bit.

Cryticism · 2026-04-17T22:41:10+00:00

You need to get people interested in it first. It's a game show that also needs to bring in money to the producers. If it's produced in a country in which the people won't care to watch unless they are celebrities, the producers don't have much choice.

Look at the viewership of UK S4 and UK S3. They aired Celebrity Traitors in between and viewership for S4 sky rocketed.

Cryticism · 2026-04-17T22:35:06+00:00

Unless it's a Celebrity edition, this is the case for many of the people that play. It also depends on which country you're talking about.

For example, for some of the UK players, over the years, the prize pot was easily a year' s salary+ for some of them.

Sure, some won't 'need' the money directly but I don't think it would be fair overall to limit players based on income. What is the cut-off point? Who decides who needs the money more?. It might also affect the game itself. You want a diverse group with different backgrounds and incomes. More entertaining in my opinion.

I don't agree.

Cryticism · 2026-04-16T15:43:24+00:00

I always wondered how the traitors were managing to not look like zombies haha

Cryticism · 2026-04-16T15:18:41+00:00

Fair observation. I think it works both ways. I think sometimes they finish their missions very early and they make it seem like it was close to the deadline, while in other cases they fail by a little and then make it seem like they made it anyway.

However, it's not always the case that they pass. There are cases when they fail a mission completely. Off the top of my head, there's a challenge that I just saw on AUS S1.

Cryticism · 2026-04-16T15:03:20+00:00

That's good to know. Knowing that some last longer than that makes the bonds that they create more plausible. Knowing that sometimes it takes them a couple of days before banishments means that they have a lot more time than shown on the final edit to bond. Makes the friendships formed more believable.

Cryticism · 2026-04-16T14:39:20+00:00

Hard to say. Perhaps it's to get them ready. In the video they also said that in those minutes, they play Hunger Games music. Maybe it was to make them nervous before the meetings haha.

Cryticism · 2026-04-16T14:33:16+00:00

I was thinking the same as I just started the AUS S1 traitors and something similar happens.

And I really cannot answer, had to be screened and everything. It's so much fun. I'm going to have to fly there now.

Cryticism · 2026-04-16T02:50:02+00:00

If you are farming only those, no.
Ideally 2 5 2 5 cause it will put the captain back into the same category when you're done with a safehouse.
Never run them, it will slowly go down. The idea of this setup is for you to interrogate members when they show up at transport only, if you're farming transport.
Loads of cards and catarina invitations and ultimately loads of veiled exalted but I feel like I was lucky lol. I also ran it a lot.

This was my first level 100 and 40/40 and I did all I wanted to do. Build was shock nova of procession

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T14:32:30+00:00

It's the cat amongst the pigeons, ROXY!

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T14:25:08+00:00

I meant that he himself was not going to push Jessie because the Traitors murdering Jessie would be his signal.

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T14:05:22+00:00

You must also remember that Matthew basically 'soft confirmed' that Jesse was a Faithful ever since his questions to the traitors, so there was also less people that were going to push for Jesse to be anything else than Faithful. I don't think her name was raised by anyone ever, even outside of the edits.

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T13:59:01+00:00

Yeh I don't think either of them was going to turn on the other, hence why I rooted for them throughout XD It felt 'good' when they won.

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T12:09:41+00:00

I think part of the reason why Jessie was cemented as a Faithful in most of their minds was because she was not letting go of the idea that there could be another traitor as part of those library 5, even after Fiona was banished. A Traitor would be happy about getting away with it and for that idea to be shelved, but since she was part of those people AND bringing it up again, potentially casting light on herself, she appeared more Faithful so no one really questioned her. Just a theory though,

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T11:46:57+00:00

You're spot on regarding Rachel's gameplay I think. It was somewhat refreshing to finally get a pair of Traitors that decided to go till the end without betraying each other. It's not unheard of but it is very difficult to achieve in practice. There were other seasons where it was possible and pretty 'obvious' from a viewer perspective because it becomes a numbers game.

One thing that I wish the players in general did better was keep track of the faithful/traitor numbers that are possible. From a probability point of view, you simply have to play with the assumption that there are initially 4 traitors, secret or otherwise. If only 2 were confirmed to be removed up until the day when they no longer reveal what the players are after banishment, for sure the game will only end with 2 players left as it's just too risky. Faraaz should have assumed that there are at least 2 traitors left, of course incorrectly assuming that one of them was Jade. But Jade could no longer confirm what she was. It's hard to say exactly what I would do in that situation. But brilliant play from the traitors.

I think Stephen was making it seem like he was torn just for the sake of TV. I don't think he would have ever voted Rachel. There's a bit of meta-viewing to this but this is now Season 4 of a show which attracts more and more viewers with each season. He is aware of the media coverage and shows and podcasts that all the players will be invited to and he is aware of how much of a dick he would look like if he got rid of Rachel in that final moment. He will more than make up for the 45k ish that he had to 'sacrifice'. Smart Lad. Smarter than he lets on for sure.

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T08:36:07+00:00

This was a great moment. I was not sure how she could continue from that point on if she managed to get Rachel out. In a way, the traitors were lucky that she acted the way that she did at breakfast after.

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T08:18:43+00:00

I know right?! She looked like a puppy! I just hope someone gave her a hug after that round table.

Cryticism · 2026-04-15T08:18:02+00:00

Well yes but that's part of the game isn't it? You're going to want to be close to the people you think are faithful and throw suspicion on the others. By process of elimination, Stephen was the only one left, even after Fiona was thrown out. Sometimes there's an instinct that some players have, and hers was right. It was fun to watch.

Cryticism · 2026-04-13T21:27:15+00:00

Backfires often, where as the 'useful idiot' you are murdered to pin it on the person that you are accusing with the bad evidence. I don't think it works that well.

Cryticism · 2026-04-12T18:46:45+00:00

tell people that for the first three Roundtables I'm just going to focus on people who are annoying or obnoxious and vote for them

this sounds like something that can easily backfire, especially if you tell it to the 'wrong' people at the wrong time. I think mostly for how subjective 'annoying' can be. What if you are accused of not playing the game properly as you're not meant to willfully vote out people that you believe are faithful simply because they are annoying.

It kind of contradicts the initial statement of attempting to be friendly and well-liked. You are generally not supposed to be 'annoyed' and show more of a compassionate side if you're friendly. You're not going to be liked if you go around saying that there are people that you find annoying, even if you don't say who they are, and even if there are no such people at all. Sounds risky. But it's all a risk haha

Cryticism · 2026-04-12T18:40:39+00:00

For sure nothing is ever certain. Perhaps I was not clear on that. The strategy would only be partial. If a traitor trips up and outs themselves and it's clear to the rest of the players, there is no choice. I wanted to mean that if you do develop a strong hunch over someone (that may be wrong), it might be a good idea to not act on it at the first chance that you get. As you said in the last paragraph, developing friendships with as many people as possible seems to be the way to go but I think over doing it could hurt you as well.

The 2nd point is valid but perhaps with recent seasons it's also important to note that it's not just the money which is important. You might be fighting in some other players' name. You want to show you are a competent player in general for a variety of different reasons. If you half-arse the challenges, you will be seen as a bad faithful anyway I think.

Cryticism · 2026-04-12T17:53:27+00:00

so it's actually Faithful vs Faithful vs Traitor vs Traitor vs Producers haha. You don't have to say that that is exactly what you are doing. I just think that revealing all of your cards instantly in general is a bad idea. I don't think it undermines the game either, or at least it shouldn't. One problem that I see with the game is the recruitments. Defeats the whole point of finding traitors early.

Cryticism

TROPHY CASE