Riddler - Solutions to Castles Puzzle: castle-solutions-2.csv
Data license: CC Attribution 4.0 License · Data source: fivethirtyeight/data on GitHub · About: simonw/fivethirtyeight-datasette
902 rows sorted by Why did you choose your troop deployment?
This data as json, copyable, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: Castle 1, Castle 2, Castle 3, Castle 4
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? ▼ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
566 | 566 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 22 | 22 | 27 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
580 | 580 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 1 | 25 | 31 | 4 | 4 | ###OPTIMAL SOLUTION FROM ORIGINAL DATA SET### (1255 wins) |
662 | 662 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | (2* number of points the castle is worth) - 1 |
782 | 782 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 26 | 31 | 2 | 2 | (2nd submission) This is identical to the strategy that got me fourth place last time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it? maybe? |
214 | 214 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 4 | 13 | 16 | 8 | 34 | 9 | (Please use this submission over the earlier one I submitted if only one submission is allowed per person) A correction to my earlier submission which ensures that I beat the winning distribution from the last competition (a likely choice for people who don't want to invest a lot of effort). Otherwise the main argument is the same - win at least one of top 3, spread out troops amongst all castles, try to capture a lot of the middle (4/5/6/7). |
881 | 881 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 73 | (see my other try) |
628 | 628 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 24 | 25 | 4 | 5 | 1/3 of my soldiers for Castles 1-5 and 2/3 of my soldiers for Castles 6-10 |
524 | 524 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 20 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 10 was underutilized |
4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 17 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 23 | 23 | 10+9+5+4=28 for the win. Plus, if you put 0 in any castle, you have a 0% chance of winning. So many put 0's that even 3 or 4 troops can win you several castles. |
24 | 24 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 32 | 27 | 10+9+8+1=28 |
331 | 331 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 10+9+8+1=28, which is a majority of the 55 points needed. |
6 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 19 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 22 | 27 | 10,9,5,4 gives a win, so almost all in on those |
460 | 460 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 30 | 30 | 28 points wins |
281 | 281 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 27 | 32 | 28 points wins the game. The focus here is to win 19 points for the big 2 castles a majority of the time. Then find 9 other points. The easiest way (I think) is to win 2 out of 3 of castles 4, 5, and 6. That will always get you 9 more points. I threw an army at castles 2, 3, 7, and 8 just to cover myself against similar strategies where those castles are completely un-attacked by my opponent. |
7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 32 | 28 to win. Looked like castles 4,5,9,10 got less troops allocated to them per value than other spots last go around. Didn't bother putting troops anywhere else. Also wanted to be one greater than round numbers like 15 or 30. |
9 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 28 | 30 | 28 victory points is the minimum threshold to win any war since there are 55 total victory points available. Therefore, it's unnecessary to win every castle. The top three castles alone aren't enough to get 28 victory points, as it falls short by just one point. So lower valued castles could be surprisingly competitive. Based on this, there's an inherent tradeoff between allocating troops in lower valued castles and allocating lots of troops in just a few of the high valued castles. So this set up focuses on the top two castles, the six point castle and the three point castle, which if captured would yield a majority of the victory points. In the event that someone neglects any of the castles, one troop is deployed to the remainder to ensure a victory in case certain strategies solely focus on a few castles. |
379 | 379 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 2cd level counter to the winning deployment previous. |
614 | 614 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 16 | 26 | 31 | 3 | 4 | 3rd submission. 1181.5 out of 1313 (same 1313 cases as first two submissions). 1179 W, 129 L, 5 T. This solution is light at Castle 5 and heavy at Castle 6 compared to the 1st two submissions. |
409 | 409 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 32 | 34 | 4 | 6 | 4 is more than most are willing to use as token forces, also other reasons |
751 | 751 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 10 | 10 | 30 | 10 | 6 = 3 + 2 + 1, so all shares go to that #. 9 = 5 +4, so same treatment for those. Then, the rest are just allocated as normal. Then as long as I win 2 of the 3 remaining battles of 7, 8, and 10, I would win. Bit of an oversimplification, but hey who knows... |
180 | 180 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 2 | 33 | 3 | 6 | 7 and 8 are the battlegrounds. By focusing on only one of them, you can greatly strengthen your middle game. Completely abandon castle 1 to try and sneak castle 10 from some low bidders (also the reason you need to win castle 8 and not castle 7). |
862 | 862 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 8 + castle score for first 8. It only takes 28 points to win. The bottom 7 castles add up to 28. Add in the 8th castle for a buffer and go all in, with a slight weighting towards higher castles. |
613 | 613 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 4 | 17 | 20 | 23 | 4 | 4 | 8/7/6 is greater than 10/9 as well as 8/7/5 from last time. Pick up any "punted" castles from others who did 3 or under. |
278 | 278 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 31 | 4 | 31 | 9,8,6,5 is the best deployment to get to only 4 castles but this swaps my 9 and 10 castle deployments because people seem to think "everyone is going for castle 10, so no one goes for it. So I think it is worth a shot this way too. Divisible by 5s seem to get a lot of play so I went one above them. Tolkens in 9 and 7 as backups for when one of my main 4 castle battles fail. |
272 | 272 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 19 | 22 | 16 | 11 | 11 | ? |
227 | 227 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 21 | 3 | 31 | 4 | 5 | A bit modified basic game from the data with optimalization |
545 | 545 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 28 | 32 | 4 | 4 | A few more than the prior winner on the more valuable castles and a few less at the less valuable castles. |
576 | 576 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 26 | 26 | 6 | A quasi-exponential formula peaking on castle's 8/9 and using n+1 troops in most castles to win against people who pick "round" numbers. |
48 | 48 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 22 | 3 | 2 | 32 | 6 | A variation on another strategy. |
708 | 708 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 1 | 26 | 31 | 3 | 3 | A: It beats the previous winning strategy (which a lot of people are bound to try). B: It beats all possible 1 move changes from the previous winning strategy (which naively I suspect may be the most common strategy?) C: It beats all possible 2 move changes from the previous winning strategy (which I'm sure a good chunk of people are also bound to try) D: The previous winning strategy was obviously a good starting point for beating strategies created without prior information (which for sure a whole bunch of people are bound to try) E: Anything more complicated than this would require actual thought and/or effort. |
132 | 132 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 16 | 11 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 6 | 6 | Above 50% on previous plans |
530 | 530 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 3 | 27 | 18 | 4 | 4 | Add 1 to the winning troops from last time, except for Castle 8 gets whatever is left over. |
10 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 33 | 33 | 25 | Against most opponents, I am trying to win the 10/9/8/1 castles. But there are some strategies that try to do the same, and I attack them on a different front. I don't compete against them for the 10, but trump their assumed zeros on the 7 and 6 (also trumping the guy with my idea with a 2 on the 7). Even if I lose the 9 vs such a strategy I get 28 points if I win the 876 and 1 (tying the rest with 0). |
721 | 721 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 5 | 2 | Almost random ;-) |
555 | 555 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 26 | 31 | 4 | 4 | Alteration of the best solution from the 1st time that would have performed better and won. Additionally, it beats most of the other top solutions. |
713 | 713 | 3 | 17 | 3 | 17 | 3 | 17 | 3 | 17 | 3 | 17 | Always have at least one in a castle, but then try to win at least half the battles. |
791 | 791 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 21 | 26 | 31 | 3 | 4 | Always include at least one, when possible go over multiples of 5 (higher concentrations shown there), don't sweat 9 and 10. |
224 | 224 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 22 | 31 | 19 | 5 | Always leave the most number of doors open. |
834 | 834 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 3 | 10 | 25 | 25 | 3 | 3 | Amazed at how many zeroes were played in the first game. Assumed that more 1's would be played and increased all low winning counts and reduced all high winning counts. Assumed that Castle 6 would be a priority seeing as how low a score won that castle last time. Ensured always 3 soldiers per castle as 1 and 2 are arbitrary low soldier counts that many people may enter. Also statistically 3 soldiers would have won about 30% of the battles for each castle. Many people again may use castle 9 and 10 as their attempt to win, but for each soldier placed there, there return on investment is lower. Probably totally off base though ;) |
458 | 458 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 15 | 18 | 19 | 11 | 7 | An attempt to mimic but also beat the winners last time. |
375 | 375 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 15 | 21 | 31 | 5 | 5 | Analyzing the top 5 finishers from the first event I found that the 5th placed army was actually positioned to be the most successful, with a few minor tweaks to add wins on 9/10 at the expense of 5/6. Against the original data set, this deployment would have finished with a record of 1205-17-166. |
594 | 594 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 2 | 26 | 31 | 4 | 4 | Andrew Simmons |
141 | 141 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 18 | 24 | 24 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Angery reacts only. Shoutout to UC Berkeley memes for edgey teens! |
542 | 542 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 2 | 13 | 26 | 3 | 28 | 4 | Another variation on the last winning strategy. |
219 | 219 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 12 | 24 | 32 | 6 | 7 | Arbitrary and malicious |
418 | 418 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 28 | 3 | 36 | 5 | As this is the second round, most people will probably congregate around the main strategies (power castles + poachers). By having fewer power castles, both my poachers and my power castles are stronger. I am counting on fewer people choosing an even distribution, which will easily destroy my strategy. |
519 | 519 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 16 | 21 | 24 | 21 | 6 | Assigned enough troops to 6-10 in order to beat 60% of the previous Battle Royale for each castle. Assigned enough troops to 1-5 to vulture some of those. |
383 | 383 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 16 | 3 | 21 | 21 | 6 | 3 | 21 | Assumed most people would avoid the castles that were ignored in the previous riddler in fear of others thinking they would be the obvious option. |
690 | 690 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 5 | Assuming a Castle 0 my first 7 Castles employ the Fibonacci defense. Castles 7,8 and 9 use the standard Blackjack defense and the remaining 5 troops hope the distribution curve has moved high enough to make them useless. |
300 | 300 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 12 | 12 | 21 | 3 | 31 | 3 | 5 | Assuming nobody else changed their strategy, this is the best I could find. |
623 | 623 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 18 | 27 | 3 | 33 | 4 | Assuming that most people won't learn much from the prior submission data, wrote a genetic search trained by total wins against those submissions. This one won 1285 out of 1387. |
151 | 151 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 4 | 15 | 1 | 15 | 20 | At 55 total possible points, my goal was to get to >27.5. I chose the 3/4/5/7/9-point castles as my route, and allotted enough points to each that I could reasonably expect to win most matchups. Then it was about maximizing the scenarios where I didn't win those five. Castles #1 and 2 are only useful if I win two of my "unlikely to win" castles. For example, winning both would make up for losing 3, or winning 1 and 6 would make up for losing 7. So I abandoned them and put a few extra in 6, thinking that winning this one would make up for losing either 3, 4 or 5. Without doing more complicated math, I'm assuming my odds of winning castle #6 with 4 points are greater than winning any two castle with only 1 or 2 points in them, which is why I left castles #1 and 2 with 0 points. I ended up putting more than initially expected into castle #10, but it's a useful safety net against losing any of the castles below it in VPs, or even combinations of two like 7/3 or 5/4. I should probably re-jigger the safe, "base 10-ish" totals on most of my castles, which at 15 and 20 for many seem liable to be slightly outbid by savvy 538 puzzlers. But I'm at work and this is already a long paragraph. Cheers! |
356 | 356 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 7 | 17 | 22 | 22 | 12 | At least 2 per castle to win any that opponent abandons. Then use mid level numbers to try to pick off as many high ones as possible or force opponent to spend significantly higher |
808 | 808 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 25 | 28 | 3 | 3 | At least 3 troops in each. Heavier near higher value. |
239 | 239 | 2 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 16 | 22 | Attempt to capture 10 and 9 for majority of points 8 and either 4,3,2 or 4 and 3 and 2, the rest to capture if 0 sent |
729 | 729 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 2 | 26 | 31 | 2 | 4 | Attempted a numeric approximation of a linear optimization based on the historic cumulative frequency distribution. Then performed a Monte Carlo simulation by changing the cumulative frequency distribution to see if there were any improvements. |
805 | 805 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 25 | 26 | 2 | 3 | Averaged the top 5 distributions from Round 1. Strategically made these values integers by rounding deployment to castles 1-5 down and castles 6-10 up. |
108 | 108 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 14 | 33 | Avi Mahajan |
585 | 585 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 11 | 18 | 2 | 2 | 26 | 32 | 3 | Avoid battles at 10 7 6 and low value castles while still beating a large percentage of the previous field. |
402 | 402 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 18 | 23 | 23 | Avoid round numbers, have at least 2 soldiers everywhere |
321 | 321 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 19 | 1 | 2 | 32 | 4 | Avoids the fight for 10, 8, 7 in order to have better chance on 2 through 6 |
366 | 366 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 30 | Banking on people neglecting the highest point castles |
377 | 377 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 24 | 19 | Based exclusively off the results in the prior round. |
226 | 226 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 33 | 33 | Based on everyone targeting the 6-8 range last time, I decided to go all in on 9 and 10. If you lock those 2 up, then you only need another 9 point to win. I decided to target 4-3-2 to get those points. 2 points were put on all remaining numbers in order to guarantee a win on the rare 0 or 1 someone else puts up. |
121 | 121 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 30 | 31 | 13 | 6 | Based on how many folks de-emphasized going after Castles 9 and 10 last time, I figure there's a minor market inefficiency there, and increased my deployments. Others no doubt noticed the same thing, so I didn't go overboard; might be enough to steal them in a few showdowns, but without putting all my eggs in those baskets. As before, the majority of my efforts go towards Castles 7 and 8, with an additional over-deployment for Castle 4. The rest are essentially punted (I gave myself a chance to steal or split on 5 and 6, just in case). Generally speaking, I feel like this gives me a chance to steal either 9 or 10 in some battles, with 7 and 8 going to me in almost all. Making sure I can take #4 is all I need to reach 28 points if I do manage to catch 3 of the top 4. It'll come down how others adjust to the realization that 9 and 10 are ripe for the pickin's based on last time around, and if they choose to put even more of their resources into the top 2 castles. If they do, then I could be in trouble. |
181 | 181 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 10 | 10 | 10 | Based on people responding to the results last time, I expect people will send more soldiers to castles 9 and 10 and fewer to castle 8. I sent 10 to each of these castles, which is the total number of soldiers divided by the number of castles. I sent the soldiers to the remaining castles in a linearly increasing fashion. I would note that if I lose castles 8-10 I would still win if I win all of the remaining castles. |
80 | 80 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 21 | 4 | 26 | 10 | Based on previous distribution, wanted a decent chance to win 10, without sacrificing much, and also to win 9, 7, 6, which would give me a win. I also wanted to maybe steal a couple points with low castles, too, hence the couple armies in the low castles. This wasn't super scientific. |
398 | 398 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 11 | 15 | 23 | 32 | 4 | 5 | Based on prior castle deployment created a "winning strategy" by trial and error in a spreadsheet. Then, to approximate more informed players in round two, took the top 100 strategies, and added them each five more times to the overall set. Finally, manually tweaked deployment from there to maximize wins against entire boosted set. |
646 | 646 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 11 | 22 | 23 | 21 | 3 | 5 | Based on the frequency of soldiers deployed for each castle in the past round. Simply wanted to beat more than 600 players for each castle. |
195 | 195 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | Based on the previous battles, an average deployment of 10 per castle would have won the game handily. I'm unlikely to be the only person to notice this, so I figured I can win an average of half of the castles. If those are 5 of the main castles I send troops to (or I could get lucky on castle 2 & 3 with the extras), I'm sitting perfect. |
289 | 289 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 16 | 21 | 31 | 6 | 6 | Based on the previous models of deployment, it's clear that most people threw away the #9 and 10 castles, so using 6 soldiers on these would beat anyone using 5, which is a number that seems likely to be used. In addition, using 31, 21, and 16 on castles 8, 7, and 6 respectively was done to beat anyone using a round number. Castles 5 and down were mostly thrown away, with the idea that returns are great diminished. Winning castle #10 is worth as much as the bottom four combined, so more emphasis was placed there. |
368 | 368 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 16 | 16 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 16 | Based on the previous results, it seems like there were a lot of instances where people placed a token 2-3 on castles that they did not see as decisive to their chances. So I decided to place a minimum of 4 on every castle hoping to be able to win against people who are taking a more concentrated approach. I donŠ—Èt think putting an even distribution of straight 10s is going to work because itŠ—Ès an easy strategy to counter. So I decided to arbitrarily select a pathway to 28 points (2+4+5+7+10) to be my concentration, trying to sidestep the relative popularity of 8 and 9, and evenly distributed the remaining soldiers to these five locations. I also made sure that my combination would at least beat the last winning combination, in case a bunch of people try to submit that strategy in particular. I doubt it will work, but it would be amusing if it did. |
798 | 798 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 6 | 28 | 32 | 2 | 3 | Based on the winners of the last one, trying to beat them. |
787 | 787 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 17 | 22 | 27 | 3 | Based on what I think the new nash equilibrium will be. I think a lot of 0-2 man castles will be out, so I want to pick those up, while fighting for the least contested ones in my opinion. |
476 | 476 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 18 | 25 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Based upon knowledge of the previous winning plans, I planned accordingly. I liked the strategy used by the third place in the Battle for Riddler Nation (Round 1), and attempted to win Castles 1 through 7 (for half +1 points), and only send a small number of troops to Castles 8, 9, and 10. However, as some of the best strategies from Round 1 sent only 2 or 3 troops to Castles 9 and 10, I wanted to send 4 troops to those castles to slightly outnumber any smaller scouting parties also sent to those castles. |
683 | 683 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 2 | 26 | 30 | 3 | 4 | Basically the winner of the last game, a bit modified |
575 | 575 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 5 | 3 | 28 | 32 | 4 | 4 | Basically the winners picks from last time plus 2. and then I account for that by dropping 5 to 5 and 1 and 2 to 1 each. I'm trying to next level all the people who attempt to next level the last winner. |
292 | 292 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 18 | 26 | 6 | 6 | Be competitive across all castles, focus on moderate to high-value targets, and avoid deploying troops divisible by 5. Previous battle showed that troops tended to be deployed in groups of 5. However everyone else also has this knowledge, so some deployments have several additional troops assuming most forces are deploying multiples of 5 +1 or +2. May my troops show no mercy to my enemies. |
799 | 799 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 15 | 18 | 21 | 18 | 3 | Beat the median for each castle |
691 | 691 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 6 | 24 | 29 | 4 | 4 | Beat the noobs. |
67 | 67 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 16 | 21 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 11 | Beating bias towards multiples of 5 by adding 1 to each castle. People are afraid of 10 and 9 so they stack 8 and 7, so those are the ones I give up on. Always have >2 men per castle (usually beats 50% of lineups right there). Players that put ~20 on castles 9 and 10 will see they were basically better off putting 5 or 6 down, so I'm expecting a lot of high single digits there. This also beats straight 10's and the old champion, which could be popular lineups |
671 | 671 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 16 | 11 | 21 | 2 | 2 | 35 | Beats virtually any strategy? Maybe no. |
896 | 896 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Because I am hoping nobody else would send 100 troops to castle ten, because they want to have stake in everything, or something else. They also wouldn't be stpid enough to take this calculated risk, like me. It is also hard to amass 10 victory points by a combination. |
895 | 895 | 31 | 26 | 23 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | Because I like being right... and I can see the future. Crown me the victor 583! |
185 | 185 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 13 | 15 | 21 | 23 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Because I wanted to win. Also, a modified deployment of #3s strategy from the last round, as |
626 | 626 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 13 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Because I'm the best there is. Plain and Simple. I wake up every morning and I piss excellence. |
426 | 426 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 11 | 18 | 13 | 17 | 18 | Because the prophet muhammad speaks through me |
134 | 134 | 13 | 9 | 5 | 16 | 14 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 14 | 11 | Because you asked me to. |
701 | 701 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 25 | 25 | 25 | Best Placement |
210 | 210 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 15 | 3 | 16 | 3 | 31 | 3 | 22 | Best result of an alternate genetic algorithm including the given data set. |
737 | 737 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 30 | 30 | Big Baller Brand only goes for Big Points ( I know it's a terrible strategy... just work with me on this one...) |
600 | 600 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 21 | Big Points! |
312 | 312 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | Bigger castles worth more points, so sent a few more there |
537 | 537 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 22 | 17 | Birthdays and lucky numbers! |
867 | 867 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 21 | 2 | 32 | 2 | 2 | Blind Guess |
231 | 231 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 14 | 12 | Brilliance. |
425 | 425 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 21 | 3 | 31 | 26 | 4 | Brute force computation finding a deployment that did better than all of the entries in the last contest. I've described this here: http://blog.rotovalue.com/fighting-the-last-war/ |
596 | 596 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 18 | 22 | 18 | 22 | 5 | By analyzing the first dataset, primarily using the median number of troops sent to each location. |
823 | 823 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 2 | 28 | 33 | 2 | 2 | Can't waste too much time to lose anyway... decided to just beat round 1's winner. |
348 | 348 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 21 | 23 | 29 | Castles 3, 8, 9, and 10 equal 30 of the possible 55 points so I am hoping to win those castles in most battles. I left 5 men in castles 5-7 so if someone overloads on one of the castles I want I should be able to recoup my points there. I am expecting a shift after the last battle to make castles 9 and 10 more competitive, but probably not enough to totally abandon the mid-range castles, which I am willing to lose most of the time. |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited
CREATE TABLE "riddler-castles/castle-solutions-2" ( "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 );