Riddler - Solutions to Castles Puzzle: castle-solutions-3.csv
Data license: CC Attribution 4.0 License · Data source: fivethirtyeight/data on GitHub · About: simonw/fivethirtyeight-datasette
264 rows where Castle 2 = 0 sorted by Castle 9
This data as json, copyable, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: Castle 1, Castle 3, Castle 4, Castle 5
Link | rowid | Castle 1 | Castle 2 | Castle 3 | Castle 4 | Castle 5 | Castle 6 | Castle 7 | Castle 8 | Castle 9 ▼ | Castle 10 | Why did you choose your troop deployment? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
123 | 123 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 99 | 0 | 0 | You need to get points, and probably the only way to do that is to win a house outright. I am guessing that someone will do 100 for 10 and 9, so guessing 8 will be the one where people don't apply 100. |
128 | 128 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 15 | 0 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |
249 | 249 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 30 | You must win at least 28 points. Since the given strategy seems to be to avoid large commitments on 10, and attack 4,5, and 9, I chose to deploy my troops to 10, 8, 7, and 6 in large numbers, concentrating the rest on 3 to offset losing 1 and two. Its a high risk strategy, because losing just one of the higher values will result in a loss. |
301 | 301 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 20 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | I targeted 6 castles that would get me 28 points. If I go 6/6 on those ones that I bet big on then I win (doesn’t really feel like a good strategy, but I wanted to see how it would play out) |
326 | 326 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 17 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 0 | 0 | Ignored 9&10 and chose the fewest castles past that to give me more than 28 points and weighed troops by value |
329 | 329 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 15 | 18 | 26 | 28 | 0 | 0 | Distributed my troops evenly through 4-8 which will give me 30 points each time banking on that I have more troop in those stations giving the other opponent 10-9-3-2-. |
351 | 351 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 30 | 31 | 0 | 24 | I came up with about a dozen different strategies. Strategy A was an even distribution (10 per castle), B was weighted (2 for Castle 1 up to 18 for Castle 10); C was weighted to beat A-B, D could beat A-C, all the way until strategy O. After Strategy O, I couldn't make another distribution that could beat N plus the other ones I had already made. It's banking on chaos and people not wanting to overpay for Castle 10, thinking they can take Castles 6-9 for a little more points |
386 | 386 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 34 | |
389 | 389 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 34 | |
396 | 396 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 13 | 2 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 11 | Gut feeling, picking the less selected castles by either of the previous two rounds. |
458 | 458 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 50 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 seems like a good number. And I didn't want to send any lone soldiers off to die. I expect to win Castle 6 around 1/3 of the time, so hey, that's like 2 points. I'm feeling positive about it. |
523 | 523 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 25 | 30 | 0 | 0 | Play for the middle and push for the top but don’t over commit |
544 | 544 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 22 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 34 | Stakeout the middle and get the top one. Didn’t waste on other castles. |
555 | 555 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | Sacrifices must be made! Castles 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 10 are dead to me! Going hyper-aggressive (but not the most aggressive strategy). Best Case: I win! Worst Case: I am a troll! |
570 | 570 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 23 | 36 | 0 | 31 | I think people are going for 9. Trynna lock down 8 and 10 and hope 7&3 are strong enough. |
606 | 606 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | Focus more troops on enough points to get more than half of points. |
648 | 648 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | All of the troops at the first castle higher than 5 |
667 | 667 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 11 | 0 | 22 | 28 | 31 | 0 | 0 | Strongly attacked with the most likely castles to reach 28. |
669 | 669 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 11 | 21 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 23 | Just kinda throwing some troops like the US Govt throws money at the army |
748 | 748 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 12 | 24 | 24 | 0 | 24 | |
804 | 804 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 0 | 20 | just felt intuitively good |
822 | 822 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 30 | 2 | 30 | 2 | 34 | 0 | 0 | Three eyed raven told me |
894 | 894 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 22 | 22 | 33 | 0 | 5 | Give up 5 castles expecting to split points on some of them. Maybe get a cheeky 10 against similar strategies. |
925 | 925 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | Why not? |
951 | 951 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 17 | 16 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 33 | |
1006 | 1006 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Want to overwhelm the squishy undervalued middle with enough troops to fend off anyone who doesn't just flood one of the two castles. Pin the rest on luck and the fog of war. |
1116 | 1116 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 18 | 28 | 5 | 0 | 31 | I tried to use Ken Nickerson's strategy from the first battle but with a focus on two castles that were differently successful in the first two battles. In the first one, 7&8 were the main targets by the top 5. In the next one, 9 and 10 became the big numbers to target. I need 28 points to win the battle. My goal is to take 5, 7, 6, and 10 in most matches. I get all four of those and I win. If I don't, well, hopefully I can steal the 8 (or the 4) and use dumb luck to conquer smarts. |
1145 | 1145 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 23 | 0 | 0 | Capture the middle |
1165 | 1165 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 0 | 0 | Figuring the enemy would over commit to the larger value castles. |
1176 | 1176 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I'm a warlord, yes, but all I really care about is myself. . . and I want a castle! If anyone stands in my way they will be sorry. |
1269 | 1269 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 14 | 0 | 21 | 25 | 29 | 0 | 0 | I’ve narrowed down the gameplay to around 14 possibly optimal plays. This is one of them. There are 33 possible exactly 28points to win strategies. This one is 8-7-6-4-3. Allocated by relative castle value. Castle/28*100. Here’s the list of 9, allocate by taking castle/28*100: 10-9-6-3 10-9-5-4 10-8-7-3 10-8-6-4 10-7-6-5 9-8-7-4 9-8-6-5 10-6-5-4-3 8-7-6-4-3 The other 5 are semi suboptimal vs the 9 but forms the “rock,paper,scissor”: ExpectedValue: castle/55*100 EvenAcross: 10/castle Ultimate: castle/28*100+1 for castle 8,9,10 Lucky7: castle/28*100 for castles 1 to 7 Troll: 47,53 on castle 9 and 10 respectively. At least one of these strategies will do well depending on the market. And the market will shift around these strategies depending on the amount of trolldom. |
390 | 390 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 | 1 | 25 | 1 | 34 | |
484 | 484 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 1 | 1 | |
893 | 893 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 41 | The most direct method of achieving a majority while (hopefully) limiting exposure to defeat by fielding more men along my prescribed victory path than does the opposition. No backup plan, no reserves. When in doubt, attack. |
947 | 947 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 29 | 1 | 1 | 55 | winning #10 cancels out the first 4 if lost. then 567 > 89 so put more there. |
1204 | 1204 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 20 | 22 | 34 | 1 | 0 | Trying to win the lowest number of castles that reach 28 points, with maximum force at higher numbered castles where more enemy attacks can be expected. We hope to take away castle 8 from anyone who is focusing on the top castles, and win some cheaply. |
246 | 246 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 21 | 27 | 32 | 2 | 2 | never gonna win 9 & 10, don't want 1-4, split the rest leaning higher for higher values |
371 | 371 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 2 | 2 | 31 | Try and get the 10 and then the 5-7 which weren't as heavily contested |
438 | 438 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 23 | 25 | 2 | 29 | This strategy should beat proportional strategies and rotations of proportional strategies, and I think that these will be the most common type. This will probably lose to some similar strategies (very concentrated on a few highest numbers and some low numbers), but by betting 2 on some of the middle numbers we'll hopefully beat more similar strategies than we lose to. We'll get crushed by strategies that beat us on 10 and 9 and also win a lot of low numbers, but I think these strategies will be least common. |
672 | 672 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 23 | 2 | 29 | All-in on 3,7,8,10 |
686 | 686 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 21 | 3 | 24 | 2 | 24 | This strategy wins at least 24 points against an average opponent, and has the opportunity to take at least 4 points from castles that must be left largely unguarded. If an opponent takes 6, 8, or 10, then they likely used too many troops to adequately cover the mid-tier castles. |
687 | 687 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 21 | 3 | 24 | 2 | 24 | This strategy wins at least 24 points against an average opponent, and has the opportunity to take at least 4 points from castles that must be left largely unguarded. If an opponent takes 6, 8, or 10, then they likely used too many troops to adequately cover the mid-tier castles. |
945 | 945 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 31 | Castles 8 and 9 received a lot of attention in the previous two iterations, respectively, because of various assumptions about the other players. We’ll see if this will work, but 10/7/6/5 are enough to win, and I’m gambling on any deployment that beats one of those splitting other castles with me. |
1187 | 1187 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 12 | 17 | 2 | 31 | 2 | 32 | Well, the first time the winners targeted 7 and 8, and the second time the winners targeted 9 and 10. So I'm going to target 8 and 10 - as long as I win those and break even on 1 through 6, I should beat the copy cats from last time, and anyone who hopes to beat the copycats by one-upping them on key castles. In order to break even or better on 1 through 6, I'm targeting 5 and 6. After that, I've got 8 armies left to split among the remaining castles, in case I lose some of the others. I ignore 1 and 2, which aren't worth much, in favor of taking advantage of those who leave some higher-value castles empty or close to empty. I also made sure that my solution beats most typical solutions (i.e. even splits, or assigning armies proportional to value), as well as most of the winner's solutions (although admittedly Jim Skloda's submission from the first time counters mine pretty perfectly). I also think it's worth going for numbers that are 1 or 2 mod 5, since many people will submit nice round numbers, as proven by the winning submissions from the previous contests. |
739 | 739 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 2 | 24 | 3 | 22 | 3 | 27 | go for 4 castles that add up to just over half of points: 10, 8, 6 & 4. put some troops for most other castles in case i get wiped out on my targets by someone who sends few or no troops elsewhere. go all in on castles 6 & 4 (4 & 4.5 troops per point) with less investment in castles 10 & 8 (2.7 & 2.5 troops per point). send 0.33-0.43 troops per point to castles 3, 5, 7 & 9. this troop alignment happens to beat the top 10 previous finishers (5 from first round & 5 from second round). the main weakness of this strategy is if someone sends a ton of troops to castles 10, 9, 8 & 7 however not many players seem to take that strategy. the other weakness is an odd-numbered-focused strategy where the opponent sends a ton of troops to castle 10 or 8, plus a moderate number of troops to castles 9, 7, 5, 3, 2 and/or 1. |
783 | 783 | 11 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 2 | 14 | 5 | 16 | 3 | 36 | -Try to lock up 10 -While everyone else is going for 28, go for 29. It guarantees you a couple towers you want, and hopefully if they went all in on 8, 6, or 4, hopefully you can pick up the number beneath it and you still hit 28 |
830 | 830 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 1 | 21 | 2 | 23 | 3 | 37 | Felt right :) |
844 | 844 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 18 | 19 | 21 | 30 | 3 | 1 | Try to have a large enough force where opponents would not expect it. |
967 | 967 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 26 | 32 | 3 | 3 | |
1048 | 1048 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 20 | 1 | 25 | 26 | 3 | 2 | focus mainly on the the middle castes, sacraficing castles to increase distribution to castles 8,9 |
1080 | 1080 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 18 | 1 | 33 | 3 | 26 | Attempted optimization against both of the previous two rounds. |
388 | 388 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 19 | 17 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 32 | Trying to win 10, 6, 5, 4, 3. Probably not a strategy to win the whole thing but should be good enough to be in top 50%. |
615 | 615 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 21 | 16 | 22 | 4 | 21 | Rd2 winners saw 2 trends v. 1: Entrants mimicked 1 and therefore 2 winners were differented from 1 winners in placement and throw-away towers were defended with 3-4 v. 1-2 solders to win. I picked a strategy that is different from 1-2 and increases throw-away defense slightly. |
848 | 848 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 3 | 4 | 26 | Trying a 4-castle deployment, as it's just easier to rely on. Throwing a few around in the larger unattended castles in order to protect against other 4-castle deployments. This mostly beats the recent winners and isn't the obvious 10-8-7-6 that stomps the last round. I could be in trouble if people really try to jump on 10, though. |
898 | 898 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 21 | 14 | 3 | 33 | 4 | 22 | I ran a monte carlo with all the previous troop deployments, plus a bunch of variations on the previous successful strategy, and it popped out this trimodal distribution. Basically, I optimized a trimodal distribution to beat optimized bimodal deployments. |
1015 | 1015 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 18 | 27 | 3 | 4 | 27 | Hold strong on 10+7+6+5. If I don't win one of these distribute enough to hopefully get lucky on one or two other castles. This strategy has better than 75% win percentage against previous rounds and beats 8 of the 10 top 5 competitors in the previous two battles. |
1031 | 1031 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 22 | 4 | 22 | 22 | 4 | 22 | |
1222 | 1222 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 23 | 28 | 3 | 4 | 24 | Castle 8 and 9 are highly contested, so you have to put in a lot of troops to gain a high probability of winning them. However, if your strategy is 9-10 heavy, 8 is weak for you and I might win or tie with a few there; if your strategy is more focused on 8-10 or lower values, I might snag a tie or win with a couple troops in 9. Overall, the winning strategy is 5-6-7-10. If I lose 10, I hope to win 8 or 9, and tie or win a few of the lower ones. I will definitely lose games, but the hope is that I can win against a bunch of strategies. For instance, this beats about half of last years' winners. |
1320 | 1320 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 6 | 16 | 21 | 4 | 31 | I know this is really late, but here is a serious entry. The code used to generate this is at https://pastebin.com/ieFeGQzN |
354 | 354 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 28 | 32 | 5 | 5 | Because I'm the Grandmaster. |
982 | 982 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 18 | 11 | 5 | 34 | 28 to win. Win 10. Win any 3 of 5-8. |
131 | 131 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 22 | 12 | 8 | 14 | 6 | 30 | I chose a strategy that could beat each of the top 5 from the last two times, could beat an even distribution, could beat a focused attack at the top, and could beat a (10,0,0,0,0,0,0,30,30,30) strategy. The first strategy I found was (1,2,2,18,1,6,2,33,11,24). Then, I used random sampling to see if I could find strategies that would beat my strategy. Out of a sample of 200, I found 84. I compared these 84 against the original 13 strategies, and found 1 that beat all of them. This strategy was (0,1,1,6,22,12,8,14,6,30). However, your entry form won't let me put 0 for castle 1, so I switched castle 1 and 2. This seems to work just fine as well. |
506 | 506 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 22 | 22 | 6 | 27 | 2 | 6 | 6 | I chose to give up 1 and 2 completely, focus on 4,5, 7 while putting enough points into the rest to hopefully stall non advances. |
1016 | 1016 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 31 | 9 | 9 | 40 | Noticing that in both prior rounds people have hammered the middle numbers or the top numbers, but not both, I wanted an allocation that would win outright at one of those values (31 on 7, 40 on 10) while also winning whichever of 8 or 9 opponents leave under-defended, and winning enough lower-hanging points to get to magic number 28. |
776 | 776 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 17 | 1 | 21 | 10 | 33 | |
1237 | 1237 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 25 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 5 | Because the middle will be ignored |
629 | 629 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 21 | 29 | 22 | 11 | 4 | Created a slightly skewed normal distribution centered on 7 then mapped 100 soldiers across that distribution! |
1250 | 1250 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | I'm figuring that most people will concentrate there forces mostly in the first few castles and somewhat in the last few. With this strategy I think i'll have a strong troop advantage in the middle castles and a weaker troop advantage in the end while only completely ceding the first 2 castles. Even if someone uses a similar strategy with a single troop in the first 2 castles, I'll still have a competitive advantage in at least one castle without sacrificing a more dominant position in the middle and end. |
1259 | 1259 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 64 | focused highly on the highest valued castles |
17 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 34 | 34 | 14 | 2 | It’s basically a bell curve, but with one soldier in Castle 1 because I had to. |
303 | 303 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 20 | 3 | 27 | 14 | 26 | |
575 | 575 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
1241 | 1241 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 13 | 21 | 22 | 14 | 11 | Kind of a guess, really |
513 | 513 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 0 | rather take the sum of the middle numbers over the first and last |
430 | 430 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 16 | |
457 | 457 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 13 | 16 | 8 | 14 | 14 | 17 | 14 | Took the average of the previous two winners and made a team that could beat that. |
589 | 589 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 20 | 17 | 13 | beat the average for both original Feb. and May soldiers per castle for all of the most valuable castles - punt on the low point battles. |
772 | 772 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 23 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 23 | Inverted bell curve for the top castles, leaving ineffective castles empty. |
1295 | 1295 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 1 | 1 | 26 | 26 | 17 | 2 | The simplest win is on 10/9/8/1. Two problems: it's already popular, and weak players over-defend Castle 10. I'll try to win on 9, 8, 7, and 4 instead. |
665 | 665 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 21 | 18 | 9 | Zeroed out castle 1 and 2 since 3 points is small potatoes. Created a constraint that castle 3-10 had to be at least (Round One Median +1). Created 12 opponents, 5 winners from round 1, 5 winners from round 2, 2 opponents of my making. Used excel solver to maximize number of wins out of 12. Essentially creating an optimal solution to beat all 10 named winners with the additional requirement that each castle above castle 2 should be above the median and therefore more than 50% likely to be captured by me in any given game |
689 | 689 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 22 | |
760 | 760 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 27 | 32 | 18 | 4 | I am modifying a model of a weighted bell curve, giving least priority to castles that have the least effective in point value, but also avoiding major battles for the top castles, which are relatively equivalent in value. Also trying to beat people who tend to round off or beat people who round, though that might be overthinking it. |
978 | 978 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 15 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 18 | Because in the last battle the most successful warlords targeted the middle and top numbered castles with an overwhelming number of troops, I wanted to spread my points more evenly across castles with a value of five or higher (because even if you conquer the lower castles you still lose). This general strategy might be susceptible to players who cluster their soldiers at the top, but I am hoping to split the difference and more evenly spread my troops in the hope that when the smoke clears I can - to paraphrase Varys from Game of Thrones - be king of the ashes. |
1163 | 1163 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 9 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 18 | 40 | I ran a program that simulated a thousand rounds of battles with 20,000 participants and made random updates to each strategy after each round based on how well the players performed on the previous round. This was the winner of the last round. |
1184 | 1184 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 20 | I am anticipating others wasting troops on the low value targets, which I will abandon. I assigned troops to each other site based on their value alone, anticipating the others at this point would overthink and leave the high value targets undefended(but in an unpredictable way) |
339 | 339 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 15 | |
349 | 349 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 20 | 25 | |
588 | 588 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 13 | 15 | 20 | 32 | The smallest 3 castles combine for only 6 points, so they're not worth deploying to, especially since that increases the available troops you can commit to the more valuable targets. |
691 | 691 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 24 | 20 | 18 | Assume strategies converge to a Poisson distribution around the lastest averages, and optimise. |
729 | 729 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 0 | I guessed that an distribution proportionate to point values will rarely win the 10 and will waste trips on the low-value castles, so I dropped the 10 and the bottom too and then loosely distributed them proportionally from there fight estimating as I wrote on some construction paper with a crayon. |
938 | 938 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 30 | 20 | 10 | Just giving away the low point castles and loading up on the 8 and 9 but hoping to eke some wins out of the 10 and 7 |
1042 | 1042 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 25 | Random |
1043 | 1043 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 25 | Random |
1266 | 1266 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 30 | 20 | 19 | Developed a troop deployment that beat 1386 out of 1387 of the castle-solutions.csv from two years ago. |
235 | 235 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 21 | 22 | |
469 | 469 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 21 | 38 | predictive to the human adjustment from round #2, I assumed flipped value on #9 and #10, otherwise assumed the meta deployment would be similar to before |
472 | 472 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 21 | 21 | 25 | Guarantee 10 and then assume no one else would expend more than 20 on any particular castle. Guarantee 9 and 8 on this rule and then spread the rest out descending. |
839 | 839 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 0 | 1 and 2 are low-value; 10 will be too heavily contested |
926 | 926 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 18 | 21 | 24 | Started proportionally and then let go of the lesser castles |
480 | 480 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 22 | 18 | Maximize points from ties |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited
CREATE TABLE "riddler-castles/castle-solutions-3" ( "Castle 1" INTEGER, "Castle 2" INTEGER, "Castle 3" INTEGER, "Castle 4" INTEGER, "Castle 5" INTEGER, "Castle 6" INTEGER, "Castle 7" INTEGER, "Castle 8" INTEGER, "Castle 9" INTEGER, "Castle 10" INTEGER, "Why did you choose your troop deployment?" TEXT );