Conquer Club

If you can choose which order to eliminate players in when you're playing a terminator game? Highest points to lowest or lowest to highest?

Which will give you the most points? I'm thinking highest to lowest...

If it's escalating cards... i usually try to take the one with the most (if I'm lucky enough to have that power) and so on and so forth.

But there has been a few times in non-escalating games where I might take out a lower ranked player so that if I end up losing the game because of my reckless attempt at points; I don't lose quite as many points that way.

I'm thinking about an escalating type game where you can eliminate people in whichever order you want. What will yield the most points?

It makes no difference. I had to put it into a spreadsheet to prove it to myself, but it's true.

Current Score Elimination Order
You 1800 1,2,3 3,2,1 2,3,1 2,1,3
Opponent 1 2400 1826.666667 1815.555556 1820 1820
Opponent 2 1800 1846.374696 1835.384197 1835.384615 1846.373626
Opponent 3 1400 1861.539548 1861.536759 1861.537172 1861.538488

well that didn't work. hang on a sec and I'll screen shot it.

That works, just as long as you kept in mind that your score changes the moment you kill someone; which I think you did.

chapcrap wrote:If you can choose which order to eliminate players in when you're playing a terminator game? Highest points to lowest or lowest to highest?

Which will give you the most points? I'm thinking highest to lowest...

You are wrong here, if you get only a few points first, you have a chance to get more from the next player and so on. You will never get more points by eliminating the higher ranks first. But this is a very small difference.
I suggest you go with tactical reasons, best shot first, most cards for recash, chance for double recash, odds to make the kill, chance you get another turn in case your shot fails etc.

Seulessliathan wrote:

chapcrap wrote:If you can choose which order to eliminate players in when you're playing a terminator game? Highest points to lowest or lowest to highest?

Which will give you the most points? I'm thinking highest to lowest...

You are wrong here, if you get only a few points first, you have a chance to get more from the next player and so on. You will never get more points by eliminating the higher ranks first. But this is a very small difference.
I suggest you go with tactical reasons, best shot first, most cards for recash, chance for double recash, odds to make the kill, chance you get another turn in case your shot fails etc.

I feel like this has to be right. I don't think that 72o factored in the changing points. However, due to rounding, I don't think this would make much of a difference. I'd like to see if it varies by more than a point or 2 in a game. But unless all things were completely equal (or equally unknown), I think extra percentage points of successfully making the first kill would be worth more than the potential for a couple extra points at the end of your run.

agentcom wrote:

Seulessliathan wrote:

chapcrap wrote:If you can choose which order to eliminate players in when you're playing a terminator game? Highest points to lowest or lowest to highest?

Which will give you the most points? I'm thinking highest to lowest...

You are wrong here, if you get only a few points first, you have a chance to get more from the next player and so on. You will never get more points by eliminating the higher ranks first. But this is a very small difference.
I suggest you go with tactical reasons, best shot first, most cards for recash, chance for double recash, odds to make the kill, chance you get another turn in case your shot fails etc.

I feel like this has to be right. I don't think that 72o factored in the changing points. However, due to rounding, I don't think this would make much of a difference. I'd like to see if it varies by more than a point or 2 in a game. But unless all things were completely equal (or equally unknown), I think extra percentage points of successfully making the first kill would be worth more than the potential for a couple extra points at the end of your run.

It looks to me like 72o did factor it in. If you look at the image he put up, the score of the player changes with each successive kill and in the end it looks like all are relatively the same.

You guys think to much.

Consider this. What is more important, taking out someone higher ranked for the points, which may weaken you so you are eliminated by someone else or taking out a weaker player that will net you their cards so you can cash again?

Its cost vs reward. If I had the choice of taking out a col with one card or a cook for 5 cards I would take the cook.

It also depends on where the game is. Most escalating games on classic will go between 9 to 12 rounds. By round 9 I am looking for the win. if you dont take someone out or sweep by then most likely someone else will.

Iron Butterfly wrote:You guys think to much.

Consider this. What is more important, taking out someone higher ranked for the points, which may weaken you so you are eliminated by someone else or taking out a weaker player that will net you their cards so you can cash again?

Its cost vs reward. If I had the choice of taking out a col with one card or a cook for 5 cards I would take the cook.

It also depends on where the game is. Most escalating games on classic will go between 9 to 12 rounds. By round 9 I am looking for the win. if you dont take someone out or sweep by then most likely someone else will.

You think too much. Obviously you go for the win and eliminating everyone. I'm talking about all things being equal, which is the better elimination? We aren't talking about cards here and escalating strategy.

I did factor it in. My little chart above shows your score after each elimination, in the order specified by that column. The difference is literally thousandths of a point either way, and CC rounds after every calculation so it will not matter.

just for testing extremes: you, a normal player(2000), can pick between eliminating the cook(1000) first or the conqueror(5000).
eliminating the cook first:
2059.7512
eliminating the conqueror first:
2059.7561

so yeah. that doesn't matter at all.

on the other hand: killing the cook then losing to the conqueror:
2002 points
killing the conqueror then losing to the cook:
2009 points
so if you're not sure you can still get the 2nd guy, grab the most points!

a 3rd consideration: are you about to gain or lose points in other games? if you have a few games you're about to win, grab the conqueror first! if you have lots of games you're about to lose, kill the cook first, and then once the other games have been lost, you can kill that conqueror with your now lower score!

Catarah wrote:on the other hand: killing the cook then losing to the conqueror:
2002 points
killing the conqueror then losing to the cook:
2009 points
so if you're not sure you can still get the 2nd guy, grab the most points!

I actually think you need to kill the person who is further away from you, not the one who has the most points.

For instance, if you were at 2000, and playing with 1000 and 2500, you kill the 1000 guy first and are then killed by the 2500, you end at 1993.92. You kill the higher guy and then are killed by the 1000, you end at 1984.5. So, it's not the guy with the most points, it's the guy who is further away from you, relatively speaking. That is, if you have 1000, 2000, and 3000, you still go for 1000, because you are twice his total in points, so you are further away than the 3000, who is only 1.5 times your points.

chapcrap wrote:

Catarah wrote:on the other hand: killing the cook then losing to the conqueror:
2002 points
killing the conqueror then losing to the cook:
2009 points
so if you're not sure you can still get the 2nd guy, grab the most points!

I actually think you need to kill the person who is further away from you, not the one who has the most points.

For instance, if you were at 2000, and playing with 1000 and 2500, you kill the 1000 guy first and are then killed by the 2500, you end at 1993.92. You kill the higher guy and then are killed by the 1000, you end at 1984.5. So, it's not the guy with the most points, it's the guy who is further away from you, relatively speaking. That is, if you have 1000, 2000, and 3000, you still go for 1000, because you are twice his total in points, so you are further away than the 3000, who is only 1.5 times your points.

Great point

agentcom wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

Catarah wrote:on the other hand: killing the cook then losing to the conqueror:
2002 points
killing the conqueror then losing to the cook:
2009 points
so if you're not sure you can still get the 2nd guy, grab the most points!

I actually think you need to kill the person who is further away from you, not the one who has the most points.

For instance, if you were at 2000, and playing with 1000 and 2500, you kill the 1000 guy first and are then killed by the 2500, you end at 1993.92. You kill the higher guy and then are killed by the 1000, you end at 1984.5. So, it's not the guy with the most points, it's the guy who is further away from you, relatively speaking. That is, if you have 1000, 2000, and 3000, you still go for 1000, because you are twice his total in points, so you are further away than the 3000, who is only 1.5 times your points.

Great point

I agree; Great Point x 1.5

---