So my plan is:
CWB / OOH/ XXD
Some more insights:
I assume that Adventurers can't walk diagonally. In that case we can try to look at dungeons where the same encounter is present in room 2 and 4 (or in room 6 and 8), so the adventurers must pass through that exact challeng. I then make a linear model on this encounter + include room 1 and 9 in order to control for the fact that dungeons with strong encounters in one room is more likely to also have them in others.
Looking at both the case where Enc2==Enc4 and the case where Enc6==Enc8 I got an agreement between the difficulties of the encounters (Nothing < W < G < B < O < S < H=D ). Clay Golems however differed.
It also seemed that in general meeting a tough challenge later would make a bigger difference than meeting it early.
So my plan will look the same as Abstractapplics for pretty much the same reasons, except I will place the Boulder Trap after the Whirling Blade, since Boulder Traps seems to be more challenging, and so should be encountered later.
A few notes about strange phenomenons in the scores:
1) As already pointed out there is a clear jump in scores by around one point around tournament 3400 (the jump is too small for me to be quite certain when it happened). This might be because of a small change in the rules. So conclusions drawn by data from before this point might be flawed.
2) The scores are either whole numbers, or fractions ending in halfs, thirds or quarters. So they might be from taking the mean of either 1, 2, 3 or 4 whole numbers. It is inherently tricky to find out how a given whole number came about. Also the half points might be the mean of either 2 or 4 numbers.
However there seems to be some time dependence in this. The scores ending in .333... or .666... are slightly (but statistically significantly) more likely to be found in the earlier tournaments than the scores ending in 0.25, 0.5 or 0.75. (40% of thirds happen before tournament 3400 compared to 35% of quarters.). This might very well be related to the rule change happening around tournament 3400, so later tournaments were more likely to have 2 or 4 judges instead of 3.
3) The mean score of Scores ending in 0.33.. and 0.66.. seems to be almost the same as the mean for scores ending in 0.25, 0.5 or 0.75. so it can not be only the change in number of judges that led to the change in mean score.
Riders of Justice: imdb.com/title/tt11655202/
Recognizing patterns in a mainly random world, psycho-therapeutic hacking strategies. Can't say much more without risking spoilers.
Yup, that sounds about right. In Denmark, which have a proportional representative parliament, there recently was a party that tried to combine (kinda-) libertarianism, including support for a UBI with anti-immigration policies. It fell apart after a few years, since that quadrant of the political phase space did not have enough voters for even a small party.
Also, there are parties who goes for the middle of the road. They just cater to the segment of the population who like to see themselves as moderates.
Just putting a guess in here, before I go check if it is true:
Actually the 'Houses' have no effect, they are just the names of the different groups. In order to get a good rating, the members of each house should be as close as possible in Stat-space, or perhaps all be high in one stat (still experimenting with this). Since the early students were all placed by a functioning hat, each house had a well defining place in Stat space that it would carry on with. But since all current students have been randomly selected, we don't have to worry about this historical data. Instead, we should try to get the new students as close as possible to the randomly generated spot in Stat space for the current students. As such, I think Serpentyne might become the new House of Integrity. (I do believe a strange thing like this is also happening in real life, and is one of the main ways that political parties gradually change their positions in Stat space).
A thanks a lot. I was actually working through the earlier scenarios, I just missed that I new one had popped up. Subscribed now, then I will hopefully notice the next one.
Also, my approach didn't work this time, I ended up trying with a way too complicated model. I really like how the actual answer to this one worked.
Ah, late to the party, didn't see this one coming up. Pity.
Anyway, before I check my result I will just try to preregister a few insights and see if they are carried out.
There might probably be some effects in the dataset that are only relevant at lower levels, and so exist mainly as a red herring, since all our fights are between people of at least level 5. I therefore doublechecked everything looking at only the subset of data with all fighters in high level.
The classes seem to work in a such of Rock/Scissor/Paper way, some being much stronger against others.
I plan to try to beat the: Human Warrior with my Ranger / Human Knight with my Monk / Elf Ninja with my Knight / Dwarf Monk with my Fencer.
I really do think this term would be very useful if it could be brought into common usage. Here is two examples I met from just the last 12 hours:
Yesterday I was eating tabletop raclette (kind of like mixed grill) with my family, and my wife tried to tell my son that he shouldn't try to just fry a lot of mushrooms together, that wouldn't be delicious. He got so sad because his shifgrethor was violated while he was having fun trying to cook real food for the first time.
A few hours ago, my wife told me about an article about proffesional test takers in China, who are paid by schools to take the university entrance exam multiple times, thus artificially inflating the schools statistics. I immediatly annoyed her by starting a long theory about how to optimally game the system, instead of just respecting shifgrethor and saying that it sounded really interesting.
Only look at the spoiled text if you are waiving shifgrethor!
::::spoiler I think the word shifgrethor is too hard to pronounce to ever catch on. ::::
Wow, I think got more luckier than I deserved to.
This was really interesting, I could see that there must be something complicated going on, but I never got close to guessing the actual system. Encounters alerting other encounters is both simple and feels intuitively right once you see it.
After stealing most of my ideas from abstractapplic (thanks) I spent most time trying to figure out which order to put the C-W-B-H. I found that having the toughest encounters later worked best, which must be an effect that is actually caused by the random players putting their strongest encounter in room 9, so a strong encounter in room 6 or 8 will help alert this final encounter. So even though it is not built in, the other builders preference for putting dragons in room 9 makes strong encounter more valuable for the later rooms. Luckily this caused me to switch from C-B-W-H-D to C-W-B-H-D, so the Boulder trap alerted the Hag, giving me the final 3 points.
I guess this says something about emergent effects can still be valuable(ish) even when you haven't grokked the entire system...
Anyway, thanks a lot for an enjoyable challenge.