Work on the order that combines the strongest existing chain progress with the lowest remaining piece burden, while giving some extra weight to an order whose unfinished chain already occupies several tiles. Make it your only primary order. Keep a second order active only when its next move also helps the primary chain or can be completed from pieces already on the board. Pause deliberate work on everything else.
That answer is more reliable than choosing the most attractive goal, the oldest goal or the order with the largest-looking chain. Those shortcuts ignore the actual constraint: several goals are asking for space at the same time. The useful question is not merely “Which order do I want?” but “Which order can convert the board I already have into completion with the least additional commitment?”
The scorecard below turns that question into a repeatable decision. It is a planning aid, not a claim about hidden game probabilities or an optimal game strategy.
The RSE order-triage scorecard
Record three inputs for every current order. Use only what you can see on the board and in the order requirements.
- Readiness (R), from 0 to 3. Break an order into its required piece lines. A line means one requested result and the partial chain that could lead to it. Score 0 when none of those lines has useful progress on the board; 1 when fewer than half do; 2 when at least half do; and 3 when every line has useful progress. “Useful progress” must be a piece you can identify as belonging to that requirement, not a piece you hope might become relevant later.
- Slots committed (S). Count occupied board tiles holding pieces that you are keeping specifically for this order. Do not count a piece here if it is genuinely shared with another current order; otherwise you would credit the same pressure twice. Cap this input at 5 in the calculation.
- Estimated merges left (E). Starting with pieces visible now, count the matching merges you can reasonably identify before the requested pieces are ready. Add one uncertainty mark for each required piece line that has no visible starting progress. This is a comparison estimate, not a forecast. Cap it at 6 so one uncertain chain does not dominate the entire ranking.
Calculate:
Priority score = (3 × R) + min(S, 5) − min(E, 6)
A higher score goes first. Readiness receives triple weight because visible progress is stronger evidence than a speculative future chain. Committed slots add modest urgency: finishing or consciously abandoning an active goal can stop that chain from claiming more attention and space. Estimated work subtracts from the score because every remaining merge is another opportunity to create intermediate pieces that must be held.
This weighting is intentionally simple. It should take less time than repeatedly reconsidering all orders after every move. If the score produces an obviously poor choice, do not hide that judgement; note why, adjust the inputs and score again.
The three-status rule
After scoring, assign each order one of three statuses:
- Primary: the highest-scoring order. Deliberately extend only its required chains.
- Conditional secondary: the next-best order, but only if its next matching merge uses a chain that also serves the primary order, or if all pieces needed to finish it are already present and it needs no more than one additional holding tile.
- Paused: every other order. Paused does not mean discarded. It means you stop creating or preserving extra intermediate pieces solely for that goal until you score again.
If two orders tie, prefer the one with fewer estimated merges left. If they still tie, prefer the one with more committed slots. If both measures remain equal, either choice is defensible; use your own collection or progression preference rather than pretending the score has found a hidden advantage.
This rule prevents a “secondary” order from quietly becoming a second primary. The condition is observable: either the next action overlaps with the chosen work, or the pieces for a near-finish are already present. Interest alone is not enough.
Example: three hypothetical orders on one crowded board
This is an illustrative calculation, not data from a live game, a published level or a measured result. Suppose a player labels three visible goals Order A, Order B and Order C. The labels avoid suggesting undocumented piece names or reward values.
| Order | Readiness R | Committed slots S | Estimated merges E | Calculation | Score | Initial status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 3 | 1 | 1 | (3 × 3) + 1 − 1 | 9 | Primary |
| B | 2 | 4 | 2 | (3 × 2) + 4 − 2 | 8 | Conditional secondary |
| C | 1 | 5 | 6 | (3 × 1) + 5 − 6 | 2 | Paused |
Order A wins even though it occupies only one tile. Every required line has visible progress, and the player estimates only one matching merge remains. It is the cleanest conversion of current board state into an order-ready result.
Order B is close behind. Four committed slots make it expensive to keep around, but two estimated merges and incomplete readiness mean it should not compete with A move for move. It stays conditional. If the next merge for B also advances a chain required by A, the player can make it. If it would open another B-only line, the player waits until A is resolved and then scores again.
Order C may feel urgent because five tiles are already committed to it. The score resists that sunk-cost pressure. Its low readiness and larger estimated burden say that extending it now could require more holding space before the order is ready. The player pauses C rather than treating previously occupied slots as a reason to invest further.
After resolving A, the player does not automatically promote B. The board has changed, so R, S and E must be recounted. B will probably be a strong candidate in this hypothetical state, but the method does not assume that pieces, requirements or space remain unchanged.
Blank decision table
Copy this table whenever two or more orders are competing for space:
| Current order | R (0–3) | S (cap 5) | E (cap 6) | 3R + S − E | Shared next move? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Order 1 | Yes / No | |||||
| Order 2 | Yes / No | |||||
| Order 3 | Yes / No | |||||
| Order 4 | Yes / No |
Before accepting the ranking, run this short check:
- Did I count only pieces visibly relevant to each requirement?
- Did I exclude shared pieces from committed-slot totals?
- Did I estimate merges consistently across all orders?
- Have I selected exactly one primary?
- Does the conditional secondary meet an observable condition?
- Have I stopped deliberately extending every paused chain?
- Will I rescore after the primary order is resolved or the board changes materially?
How to apply the method move by move
1. Read every current requirement before merging
Write each order as a short list of required piece lines. This prevents a visually prominent partial chain from masquerading as progress towards a current goal. In MakoBits, matching equal objects produces the next evolution, while completed orders move progression forward; the MakoBits game overview explains that verified loop and provides the route to the App Store.
2. Mark ownership without inventing certainty
Assign each relevant board piece to one order, “shared”, or “unassigned”. Shared should mean that the visible piece or its immediate continuation is useful to more than one listed requirement. Do not classify a piece as shared merely because it might become useful after an unknown sequence.
3. Estimate immediate work, not future supply
Count visible matching merges and uncertainty marks. Do not include assumed drop rates, waiting times or expected future pieces. If two chains are hard to estimate, use the same conservative counting rule for both. Consistency matters more than false precision.
4. Score once and commit to a primary
Calculate each score and mark the statuses. A primary order should control which chains receive additional board space. A conditional secondary can benefit from incidental overlap, but it should not open its own expanding branch.
5. Use a stop rule
Stop and rescore when one of these occurs: the primary order is resolved; a requirement changes; a previously missing line gains visible progress; or the assignment of several occupied tiles changes. Do not rescore after every harmless merge. The point is to reduce indecision, not create a new ritual around each tap.
6. Record the reason for an override
Sometimes you will reject the numerical winner. Write one sentence: “I am choosing B because all required pieces are already present,” or “I am pausing A because my merge estimate is too uncertain.” A written override distinguishes deliberate judgement from impulse and helps reveal whether R, S or E was entered poorly.
Why this framework handles space pressure
A crowded board creates two different costs that are easy to confuse. The first is carrying cost: tiles already occupied by partial chains. The second is expansion risk: additional intermediate pieces a goal may demand before it is ready. Slots committed captures the first; estimated merges acts as a deliberately rough signal for the second. Readiness connects both to evidence already visible.
The score does not always choose the chain using the most tiles. That is deliberate. A large unfinished chain can be a reason to finish soon, but it can also be a sunk cost attached to substantial remaining work. By adding occupied slots and subtracting estimated work, the framework makes those pressures compete instead of allowing either one to decide alone.
Nor does the method try to maximise an undocumented reward. It answers a narrower and more controllable question: which current goal deserves scarce working space first?
Limitations
The scorecard does not encode timers, drop rates, generator behaviour, reward values, probabilities, event rules or any other mechanic not established by the supplied public information. It cannot predict when a missing piece will appear, and its merge estimate is based only on the player’s reading of visible chains.
R is ordinal rather than mathematical: the gap between 0 and 1 is not proven to equal the gap between 2 and 3. The weights and caps are editorial heuristics designed to produce a clear comparison, not results from player testing. A different weighting may suit someone who values a particular collection goal more than board efficiency.
Counting committed slots also requires judgement. Pieces may serve several orders, and their future relevance may be unclear. Count uncertain pieces conservatively and avoid crediting them to multiple orders.
Finally, pausing an order is not the same as recommending that its pieces be removed. The framework governs where to invest the next increments of work. Any separate decision about retaining, moving or removing pieces depends on the actual controls and state visible in the game.
FAQ
Should I always complete the order with the highest score?
No. Treat the score as a disciplined first recommendation. Override it when you can state a concrete, visible reason the inputs missed. Then correct the relevant input if possible. Avoid overriding it solely because another chain has already consumed a lot of effort; committed slots are already represented in the score.
What if every order has a low score?
Choose the highest only if you can identify useful visible progress. If all readiness values are 0, the board does not provide enough evidence for confident ranking. Avoid opening several speculative chains and reassess when a current requirement gains visible progress.
How should I count an item useful to two orders?
Mark it shared and exclude its tile from both committed-slot counts. It can still improve each order’s readiness when it is visibly relevant to both. This keeps one tile from creating double space urgency while preserving the real overlap.
Can the secondary order ever go first?
Yes, but only under its stated condition. If it can be completed from pieces already present, or its next merge also advances the primary chain, taking that action does not amount to funding a separate expanding chain. Afterward, preserve the primary status unless the board has changed enough to trigger a rescore.
When should I rebuild the table?
Rebuild it after the primary goal is resolved or after a material board change alters readiness, committed slots or estimated work. A small move that leaves all three inputs unchanged does not justify another calculation.
What if two orders remain tied after both tie-breakers?
Choose according to personal progression or collection preference. The tie is useful information: based on the visible space-and-readiness inputs, neither order has a defensible priority advantage.