D&D General Survivor 5E Dragons - Gold Dragon Proves its worth!

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

Black Dragon 3
Gold Dragon 7
Silver Dragon 8

 

[Charlaquin]

Black Dragon 4
Gold Dragon 7
Silver Dragon 6

 

[CleverNickName]

Black Dragon 4
Gold Dragon 7+1=8
Silver Dragon 6-2=4 How is this still a thing?

I mean, it doesn't even breathe fire. That's like the bare minimum requirement to be a dragon. It's Dragon 101, literally the first thing lizards are supposed to learn in Dragon Kindergarten.

 

[Yardiff]

Black Dragon 4-2=2
Gold Dragon 8
Silver Dragon 4+1=5

 

[Yardiff]

Black Dragon 6
Gold Dragon 7+1=8
Green Dragon 3-2=1
Silver Dragon 6

We have a remaining sum of 21, so since each post reduces things by 1, we have an absolute maximum of 19 posts remaining (and that could only occur if it comes down to the absolute wire, with the last person eliminating either a dragon with just 1 vote left, or just 2 votes left, since it's not possible to get two both at 1). Assuming every + vote went to the current leader (Gold), which is extremely unlikely but the most efficient path to ending the sequence, it would require 7 posts bare minimum to end it. By comparison, for Green to win, you'd need 4+3+3 = 10. The 19 number comes from avoiding killing anything off, and/or intentionally "wasting" reduction votes by downvoting something with only 1 vote left.

So yeah, it's pretty likely that it ends today. Unless far fewer people vote. It is very interesting how swingy and surprisingly close this race has been. Making it to even the top 3 will be a pretty significant achievement!

Down votes are 2 not 1.

 

[DeviousQuail]

Black Dragon 0
Gold Dragon 8
Silver Dragon 6

 

[chrisrtld]

Gold Dragon 9
Silver Dragon 4

 

[OB1]

Almost over! For Fiends, do y'all prefer downvotes being worth 3 or to split up the list into Devils, Demons and Other?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Almost over! For Fiends, do y'all prefer downvotes being worth 3 or to split up the list into Devils, Demons and Other?

I prefer splitting. You learn a lot less if you have too many things crowded together.

Down votes are 2 not 1.

Correct, but because you upvote by 1 and downvote by 2, the total sum of scores always drops by 1 with each vote, unless part of a downvote is "wasted" by being spent on killing off something at 1 (which leaves the total sum of scores unchanged). That's what I meant by "things drop by 1," which I admit was unclear.

The minimum final score is 2 (which only happens if the last two options grind all the way down to 1 v 1). Since the total either decreases with every vote, or remains unchanged, even actively trying to slow it down cannot avoid killing off targets eventually. (In math this is called "weakly decreasing": it never goes up, but it doesn't ALWAYS go down.)

Thus, the maximum possible amount of votes to determine a winner is (current sum of scores)-2, not counting any "wasted" votes. This is only really possible if people are intentionally spreading their votes around to keep everything on the similar level. Likewise, the minimum number of votes to win is (total scores of all but the highest current option)/2, which again could only really happen if everyone always up votes a single option and down votes all other options.