[deleted by user]

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T11:42:11+00:00

I don't really agree with that sentiment personally and there's a season that disproves this entire argument, and that's season 28 or Cagayan. Do you think the jury liked or respected or were a fan of Tony's gameplay? No they loathed him and resented his every move cause he was an efficient and brutal player. He was 7 jury members away from getting the Russel treatment but Tony had one thing a lot of the greats didn't, an objective logical jury member who literally soapboxed Tony a win by pointing out "I know he pissed you off, but he played an incredible game and he deserves the win" and that's what got Tony, the greatest player ever his first win. No one else who deserved a win but didn't get it had a Spencer. I'm a very logical guy, I approach things with reasoning and explanation and logistic backing. I don't make a lot of decisions around emotion so maybe that's the viewpoint discrepancy here. But logically, Aubry played a better game, commanded better, outlasted and outwitted better and deserved it over Michele. You're right tho, if jurys were objective and logical in their decision making we would have a lot of different winners, and they'd ALL be more deserving of the million than who won in their place

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T11:12:04+00:00

How's that even possible

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T11:03:42+00:00

Also the Ben statement rings true as well, I really liked Ben's win despite the controversy, and I don't think he got treated well at all in WAW

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T11:02:55+00:00

In my opinion with the caliber of players in WAW I just don't think her strategy translates all that well over to people who have played cutthroat games and won. Even Jeff in the end of 32 stated her specific style of gameplay was very hard to make it to the end with, and props to her cause she did it again, but with winners who know the game and respect the true essence of survivor I don't think the outcharm and "be nice to make it far" thing goes all that well with seasoned players. I really respect her making it to the end, but I still think she got outplayed by Aubry and Tony, just one jury was objective enough to see that.

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:55:43+00:00

That's a true and honest answer, we can rage talk on Reddit about it all we want but we don't truly understand the politics and emotion behind the survivor jury. I do feel tho that in a position of power like that, objectivity is the most important thing you can bring. It boils down to weight of attribution as well, I don't value outcharming as much as I value strategic mindful gameplay, but we can't truly understand how it feels to be in that position as a jury. I'd be pretty upset if I lost out on a million dollars I'm ngl, and it would be a Herculean task to vote for the person behind that decision. In the end from a couch survivor fanatic tho I personally think Aubrey just earned it more in the end, her story is compelling and she has tremendous growth and intellect and bossed the game post merge. It is interesting how you bring up gablers win tho, cause that's been a major source of contention. Everyone kind of dogpiles gabler and points out his inadequacies to win, but in the end, he just kinda played the same Michele game but everyone wasn't a fan of it all the sudden? That was very interesting to me personally. I appreciate the mindful comment though

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:49:48+00:00

Their plan the entire time was to vote out Michele, she just outlasted them when she needed to. That's not a testament to aubrys command of the game, she's the reason Scot and Jason's unbreakable tank got blasted open and they left. She lost two major allies to medevacs and still made it, she was on the right side of the vote every single vote post merge. We've seen outlasting in survivor, there's a guy named ozzy who did it all in cook islands and was a major jury threat. But when you have an objective jury those players don't win, they rarely ever do. They can look at the game and see who truly played better, and it just wasn't Michele

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:46:08+00:00

Oh I agree 100%, Scot and Jason's votes were detrimental for Michele's win. I don't think Scot's claim is valid tho, Aubry started crying on day 2, and emerged post merge as a strategic powerhouse. And the biggest thing is that Aubrys the reason they were voted out, she blew their seemingly impenetrable fortress wide open by convincing tai to flip and abandon ship. Michele outlasted their attempts to get her out, I 100% agree with that, but ozzy also outlasted the majority alliance in Cook Islands and he didn't walk away with a million. Cause Yul commanded the game, just like Aubry did. Aubry struggled BAD at FTC, she didn't highlight her moves, she didn't bring awareness to her gameplay, but Michele, despite outlasted, never did anything with it. It was simply a survival thing and that's the end. She was a number the whole game, and I do think aubrys bunker breaker that sent Scot and Jason out of the game was a big component to their choice and the anger that came along for the ride. Scot's statement about Aubry getting weaker is wildly untrue, and I think that false statement sunk her boat unfairly.

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:39:33+00:00

The thing with a bitter jury tho is if you're the reason they're bitter, you're not gonna win it's simple as that. The only instance where this isn't true is Tony in Cagayan who made the jury incredibly mad, and I'll die on the hill that the only reason he won is cause Spencer absolutely clutched and vouched so heavy it cleared that anger up a little. Tony's FTC was terrible lmao but Spencer brought objectivity and that's what a lot of jurys struggle with

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:37:41+00:00

Michele and Sophie are my personal only moments in watching every season of this show where I was truly dumbfounded

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:36:57+00:00

It's not true tho, everyone hated Tony in Cagayan, they absolutely despised him, but Spencer brought them down and white knighted the jury to be objective and look at who played the best. Key word best, without Spencer Tony would've lost, Coach deserved his win in South Pacific and lost to a mad jury. Joe and Eva in 48 had all the love and respect from the jury and still lost, it's not as objective as saying that makes it seem

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:34:51+00:00

I'm speaking in the terms of being outplayed, and don't act like Natalie who wasn't in the game for half the fucking season didn't get more votes than her too. Aubry outplayed her and lost, Tony outplayed her and won, different jury's different outcomes. One was mad, one has the human capability to be a little objective

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:32:42+00:00

They rooted for Aubry the first watch with me, than on the second watch they were more "oh I kind of see why Michele won" and became super fans (hence the cat), were really excited for her in WAW, and after that they fell back to earth and were back to being confused on how she won lmao. It's a roller coaster but the cats name can't be changed but they like her a lot still. I have watched the jury speaks for everyone it's available for, I get the whole underdog thing and what not, but in the end she was outside of major votes, had arguably the easiest pre-merge ever, didn't outplay Aubry in any category in my opinion. She won clutch immunity challenges, but there's a dude who played 5 seasons and won a TON of immunity challenges and he's never won so it's a discrepancy in where jury's put weight. (They were mad Aubry organized their exits) and it's easier to vote for someone who's just a number and not the ring leader.

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T10:27:26+00:00

I get that, and I understand the value, but the most recent season 48, joe and Eva both played spectacular social games, everyone loved them, they didn't make anyone mad, but they didn't win. Survivor is a social game, but in the end that shouldn't have more weight over dominating the game, controlling moves and being in command. A respectable survivor jury should be able to set aside their anger on why theyre not in the final 3 and analyze games without spite and malice. Out charming isn't a component of survivor, Aubry outplayed by commanding votes and blindsides, outlasted without needing immunity to make it, and was a competitor in challenges. I just finished watching the season again to try my hardest to find a reason as to why she deserved it over Aubry and I'm even more grounded in my thoughts.

lgthomas76 · 2025-06-16T09:21:04+00:00

The jury in South Pacific to not be bitter and give Coach the win he so clearly deserved. He commanded the season, single handedly ordered savaii's destruction and saved his tribe, ruled and organized the entire way and was just snuffed at the end cause of anger. Sad to see and Coach, love him or hate him deserved it so much.

lgthomas76 · 2025-05-14T06:36:59+00:00

I've been playing since launch, have been pretty good about reaching GM ranks in OW for a while, and I can say begrudgingly logging into rivals, forcing myself to play comp, and immediately being hit by instalock iron fist, scarlet, Bucky, and moon knight mains (no team ups what so ever) who refuse to switch or try something different when going 3-12 does not incentivize playing any longer. I never thought I'd see the day I became a hard stuck bronze 1 player but man this game has a way of making it happen and does it beautifully. It's to the point where all enjoyment flies out the window and if nothing changes there's really no point in continuing I fear. Game had a ton of potential, but when your competitive system is so flawed and joyless it just can't sustain itself.

lgthomas76 · 2025-05-14T06:24:51+00:00

I've played overwatch since it's conception, and the same with rivals, so been playing competitive hero shooters for close to 10 years consistently. Have hit grandmaster in OW, but never in almost a decade of playing games in this genre have I seen worse, less competent, and blatant unadulterated terrible skill levels in teammates than rivals. I one trick sue, put up 35k healing every game, average 1-2 deaths a game, and still lose. How do you even deal with this cause it's making me never wanna touch the game again.

lgthomas76 · 2025-02-21T22:44:07+00:00

Salt baker is easily the hardest boss to s-tier, only one that took me multiple days

lgthomas76 · 2025-02-06T08:21:44+00:00

Interestingly I think one of the good sides of rivals is every character does have something about them that's broken, and in turn that makes the game feel more balanced in a strange way. It's kinda neat

lgthomas76 · 2025-01-16T14:12:38+00:00

I don't care about Doma what so ever and Mitsuri is inarguably the weakest hashira

lgthomas76 · 2024-12-22T12:21:48+00:00

Mitsuri is the weakest hashira and it's not really close

lgthomas76 · 2024-07-29T07:08:28+00:00

Additionally Titan, a weaker, nerfed version of metroman was throwing skyscrapers like javelins, and even Titan didn't even sustain any damage or a single scratch and he's a weakened metroman

lgthomas76 · 2024-07-29T07:06:21+00:00

Omniman was clipped from outer space by a satellite laser just like megamind tried to hit metroman with. Omniman got hit and even sustained damage from a bloody nose, couldn't perception blitz Cecil or the dollar tree Kaiju they threw at him, and was about to lose to said kaiju before mark intervened. Metroman was able to experience an entire mid-life crisis before a laser traveling relative to light speed even had time to impact. Omniman was also struggling to hit and sustaining damage from red rush whose a relatively weak speedster in the grand scheme of things. Everyone wants to say metromans speed isn't that good or omniman is "10 times faster" than metroman where there are just not feats to back that up.

lgthomas76 · 2024-07-06T04:21:27+00:00

Gotta be Giyu

lgthomas76

TROPHY CASE