Board Thread:New on Survivor Wiki/@comment-11184708-20130624063859/@comment-26126612-20160225022504

My idea would be more immunity from challenges.

For the opposing tribe portion of the game, the individuals on the losing tribe would participate in a separate immunity challenge, granting one of the players going into tribal council protection.

When reaching the individual portion, split people into the smallest team number possible, with all members of the winning team receiving immunity. For anyone left vulnerable, provide a separate challenge (as in the tribe portion), to grant one extra person immunity. Say the merge happens at 12 remaining castaways: 12: 1 team of 2 wins, 1 other person wins immunity (3 immune, 9 not) 11: 1 person wins (1 immune, 10 not) 10: 1 team of 2 wins, 1 other person wins (3 immune, 7 not) 9: 1 team of 3 wins, 1 other person wins (4 immune, 5 not) 8: 1 team of 2 wins, 1 other wins (3 immune, 5 not) 7: 1 person wins (1 immune, 6 not) 6: 1 team of 2 wins, 1 other person wins (3 immune, 3 not) 5: 1 person wins (1 immune, 4 not)

This process may extend to 7 remaining castaways or to 5, and may or may not be played with idols (if played with idols, I would end this challenge generosity at 7).

This style would provide the opportunity for a person to protect themselves from a failing tribe in the initial stage (and might encourage OR deter people from throwing a challenge). It would also allow complexity at the individual stage because a person teamed with a person on the bottom has a critical choice to make (try to win immunity for themselves and upset their team or risk vulnerability to satisfy the team). Likewise, the extra challenge afterward prevents a full sabotage of a team member's chances. Note that if a team of those on the bottom wins, a wrench is thrown in the dominant alliance's gameplay. Furthermore, the varying number of immune people per week would be something the new contestants would never expect.