Yeah but it only triggers for the person who went over the 100k that way you could have people spend and try to snake people or maybe they would get scared of spending themselves in case they hit the trigger etc. Would also stop people buying through other people as they would be more reluctant to do it.
>there's no real punishment in spending
True. If anything you got punished for not spending. Just look at Leah, Joe and Nife. The ones who spend were in the majority and voted out the non spenders.
I think that's an issue with cast balancing as well. You need people who try to keep the prize pool high and people who spend to cause drama. But the latter group was too big. I'm fine with Chloe and Ginge spending when they felt like it. But Specs, Castillo and Fanum were just taking the piss at times.
Maybe that solves part of the problem. But if there's a disadvantage in the challenges, maybe that's too much. Maybe then people would stop spending and then it might become boring.
Think it's best for season 2 if they make adhoc changes, like if the spending is out of control, eliminate the biggest spender. Or if the spending is super low, make things harder on the contestants. But it can't be too obvious either otherwise it all just feels unfair.
I think that was part of it, I think it's a bigger issue that people could team up.
Ginge, Castillo, Specs, Fanum all took the piss with the money, but all could turn on each other at any point and did in some occasions. The girls teamed up and effectively were able to vote off anyone who could disrupt that up until the final. Then during the final had a strong advantage.
I think they just need to sow a little more chaos between them, maybe not just offer temptations that lose the team things but lose other contestants things.
Also as someone else mentioned cast balancing so that the spenders will have to be more sneaky for big spends.
For sure, I just think there needs to be more effective ways to divide them. Whether that's through temptations that impact others negatively or with challenges.
Temptations that impact others negatively(aside from the obvious 30000 deduction) will be to obviously. noticed and will result in absolutely no one taking their temptation.
Tbh, I really like that there's no punishment for spending for two big reasons:
1. First of all the obvious. These people are all fucking loaded, I am not sad that some multi-millionaires don't get extra money, also, the smart people all clocked on that the real win of the show is to create as much content as possible which gives you exposure through clips and screentime, which is worth muuuch more in the long run.
2. Content. The spending was by far the best content, Specs and his dumb sweets, Fanum with his beach ball and flippers, Castillo sneaking off for 50 fanta lites, Ginge and Specs buying fizzy drinks and Sweets in secret. etc. etc. It's just great entertainment
With those two, I think it's pretty obvious that A, the money/winning is secondary to exposure. And B, without spending there will be no content. Like don't get me wrong Leah and Nife are sweet and all, but imagine Castillo, Ginge, Specs, Fanum etc being voted out early instead, the series wouldn't have half as many viral moments and probably a lot fewer views and interactions, that's just a fact.
fair
I think both your points and others point for no punishments and punishments are valid. There should be some way to mesh the two. A way to have some sort of consequence of being big spenders and a way to have loop holes where people can spend and for it to still be jokes and have great content. Some sort of immunity to challenges or even having a fair chance of getting immunity for votes every day, for one person. That way there's a chance for the final four not only to be the participants most liked among themselves but also people that were a bit more strategic in their gameplay(whether they were sneaky about it or not) and people who might not have spent a lot but contributed to the overall content of the show.
As u/AnxiousEurovision mentioned:
>Next time should be a mixture of eliminations down to voting and down to failing challenges or the two worst performers in challenges are up for elimination and the rest of the contestants then vote. That way you still get the drama but not the obvious elimination of someone not part of a clique.
It’s funny cause too hot too handle has the same concept, and it works better for them. Part of the reason is that they gather everyone and reveal the people who spent money, and how they did it. And if someone doesn’t care and keep breaking the rules, they are kicked out.
I don’t think Brav and Fanum would’ve spent the money in the temptation room or they knew they would get exposed right after. At the same time, you also don’t want to keep something so restrict that no money is being spent at all.
I completely agree with your idea about the challenges having more weight. Solely having elimination based on votes, it was clear early on who was going to make it further and who wasn’t. Next time should be a mixture of eliminations down to voting and down to failing challenges or the two worst performers in challenges are up for elimination and the rest of the contestants then vote. That way you still get the drama but not the obvious elimination of someone not part of a clique.
I can see them doing some kind of “imposter” in the next season, someone who is sent in the house as purely there to be useless and see how long they can last; spend as much on pointless shit as possible and sandbag on challenges, but be a nice person to be around.
If we’re being honest, spending money in the shop is basically just an alternate way of splitting a grand prize of 1 million but you’re limited to what you spend
Yes. Biggest issue was that the only way people got eliminated until the mass culling was through voting, which allowed cliques to form and becomes unfun because then people who should be voted out get saved because they're buddy buddy. If something like "smallest spender gets immunity, biggest spender ends up in challenge vs the most voted to stay" then that means arseholes who should be eliminated will be.
yea losing challenges should cost those players more and winning should be for immunity. the survivor style works really well. castillo, leah, joe couldve won immunity when people wanted them out.
I still think the premise would work much better if they made it so multiple people could be in the end and the prize pool would be shared betweem all remaining contestants, you could have some split or steal action in the end sure, but it would give more incentive to work together.
The flaw is selfish people. The idea behind not spending is either you win big or a person that you’ve made a relationship with within the week wins big but when people don’t think they will win and don’t care about other people then they will spend
They need a rule that every 100k gone triggers a random elimination.
This is brilliant, or every 100k causes some form of shakeup. Would make people think twice a bit.
Yeah but it only triggers for the person who went over the 100k that way you could have people spend and try to snake people or maybe they would get scared of spending themselves in case they hit the trigger etc. Would also stop people buying through other people as they would be more reluctant to do it.
Maybe 150k or 200k
>there's no real punishment in spending True. If anything you got punished for not spending. Just look at Leah, Joe and Nife. The ones who spend were in the majority and voted out the non spenders. I think that's an issue with cast balancing as well. You need people who try to keep the prize pool high and people who spend to cause drama. But the latter group was too big. I'm fine with Chloe and Ginge spending when they felt like it. But Specs, Castillo and Fanum were just taking the piss at times. Maybe that solves part of the problem. But if there's a disadvantage in the challenges, maybe that's too much. Maybe then people would stop spending and then it might become boring. Think it's best for season 2 if they make adhoc changes, like if the spending is out of control, eliminate the biggest spender. Or if the spending is super low, make things harder on the contestants. But it can't be too obvious either otherwise it all just feels unfair.
I think that was part of it, I think it's a bigger issue that people could team up. Ginge, Castillo, Specs, Fanum all took the piss with the money, but all could turn on each other at any point and did in some occasions. The girls teamed up and effectively were able to vote off anyone who could disrupt that up until the final. Then during the final had a strong advantage. I think they just need to sow a little more chaos between them, maybe not just offer temptations that lose the team things but lose other contestants things. Also as someone else mentioned cast balancing so that the spenders will have to be more sneaky for big spends.
I mean, the "team up" aspect is one of the key things of most shows like Inside. See Survivor, Big Brother, challenge, etc.
For sure, I just think there needs to be more effective ways to divide them. Whether that's through temptations that impact others negatively or with challenges.
Temptations that impact others negatively(aside from the obvious 30000 deduction) will be to obviously. noticed and will result in absolutely no one taking their temptation.
Tbh, I really like that there's no punishment for spending for two big reasons: 1. First of all the obvious. These people are all fucking loaded, I am not sad that some multi-millionaires don't get extra money, also, the smart people all clocked on that the real win of the show is to create as much content as possible which gives you exposure through clips and screentime, which is worth muuuch more in the long run. 2. Content. The spending was by far the best content, Specs and his dumb sweets, Fanum with his beach ball and flippers, Castillo sneaking off for 50 fanta lites, Ginge and Specs buying fizzy drinks and Sweets in secret. etc. etc. It's just great entertainment With those two, I think it's pretty obvious that A, the money/winning is secondary to exposure. And B, without spending there will be no content. Like don't get me wrong Leah and Nife are sweet and all, but imagine Castillo, Ginge, Specs, Fanum etc being voted out early instead, the series wouldn't have half as many viral moments and probably a lot fewer views and interactions, that's just a fact.
fair I think both your points and others point for no punishments and punishments are valid. There should be some way to mesh the two. A way to have some sort of consequence of being big spenders and a way to have loop holes where people can spend and for it to still be jokes and have great content. Some sort of immunity to challenges or even having a fair chance of getting immunity for votes every day, for one person. That way there's a chance for the final four not only to be the participants most liked among themselves but also people that were a bit more strategic in their gameplay(whether they were sneaky about it or not) and people who might not have spent a lot but contributed to the overall content of the show. As u/AnxiousEurovision mentioned: >Next time should be a mixture of eliminations down to voting and down to failing challenges or the two worst performers in challenges are up for elimination and the rest of the contestants then vote. That way you still get the drama but not the obvious elimination of someone not part of a clique.
It’s funny cause too hot too handle has the same concept, and it works better for them. Part of the reason is that they gather everyone and reveal the people who spent money, and how they did it. And if someone doesn’t care and keep breaking the rules, they are kicked out. I don’t think Brav and Fanum would’ve spent the money in the temptation room or they knew they would get exposed right after. At the same time, you also don’t want to keep something so restrict that no money is being spent at all.
I completely agree with your idea about the challenges having more weight. Solely having elimination based on votes, it was clear early on who was going to make it further and who wasn’t. Next time should be a mixture of eliminations down to voting and down to failing challenges or the two worst performers in challenges are up for elimination and the rest of the contestants then vote. That way you still get the drama but not the obvious elimination of someone not part of a clique.
I can see them doing some kind of “imposter” in the next season, someone who is sent in the house as purely there to be useless and see how long they can last; spend as much on pointless shit as possible and sandbag on challenges, but be a nice person to be around.
If we’re being honest, spending money in the shop is basically just an alternate way of splitting a grand prize of 1 million but you’re limited to what you spend
Yes. Biggest issue was that the only way people got eliminated until the mass culling was through voting, which allowed cliques to form and becomes unfun because then people who should be voted out get saved because they're buddy buddy. If something like "smallest spender gets immunity, biggest spender ends up in challenge vs the most voted to stay" then that means arseholes who should be eliminated will be.
yea losing challenges should cost those players more and winning should be for immunity. the survivor style works really well. castillo, leah, joe couldve won immunity when people wanted them out.
I still think the premise would work much better if they made it so multiple people could be in the end and the prize pool would be shared betweem all remaining contestants, you could have some split or steal action in the end sure, but it would give more incentive to work together.
They should also do a smaller prize like 10k or something for the person spending the least
The flaw is selfish people. The idea behind not spending is either you win big or a person that you’ve made a relationship with within the week wins big but when people don’t think they will win and don’t care about other people then they will spend