Start a new topic

New Dice Algorithm / True dice rolls

Game does not use true dice roll probabilities. Many, many times I've had 97-99% chance to win and dont.

HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below

84 people like this idea

Jukka, I completely agree. I had the goal of getting to master and would just play a few games per day, often one or two at my lunch break (depending on how long the first one took and I averaged about 30 minutes). Anyways, after getting to Expert, I kind of just stopped playing because it wasn't fun working against the faulty statistics. And regardless of how the math works out (I haven't tested it yet, but it's on my to do list), we've all played the "real" board game and there's obviously something to the complaints when we tell SMG that the board game was more fun. The dice rolls needs a serious fix.

2 people like this
Have your ever noticed how in your dice roll statistics that the percentages are flat across the board??? This proves that the dice rolling is flawed. There should be a different percentage for each one!! this means in order to achieve this flat distribution that dice rolls depend on the previous rolls, increasing the probability for dice rolls that haven't occurred as much,which is not based on reality at all! So an example is basically if you roll bunch of 4,s, 5's and 6's the PRNG is going to make 1-3 more likely, ergo you roll 12 dice against 2 and you lose.
Kevin, Im not one to advocate SMGs methods for dice, however what you explained pretty much invalidates what I have learned 9 years of university study in mathematics, probability, statistics, and a topic called "stochastic processes. First off, dice rolls are independent events. That being said, the likelihood of rolling any specific number on one die is equally likely. The issue isnt the RNG, which if Im correct, is the Merseinne Twister, the same one I use in Monte Carlo type simuations in my work.There may be some cognitive belief that the rolls give apparent short term patterns, however its a sure bet that the more rolls are made, the more the likelihood is a Uniform Distribution i.e. evenly distributed in equal likelihood in what is known as the Law of Large Numbers. Ive played over 3k games and have noticed anomalies in Blitz Mode. This is because SMG doesn't use a truly realistic Markov Transition agorithm for Blitz. Now that being said SMG likes to conflate issues when people bring up dice rolls. Its not the RNG for each roll but the values of the matrix elements in the Transition matrix that they, human beings have assigned or "biased". For example lets say you are attacking with 10 armies on a country that has 3 armies. Several calculations involving RNGs take place. First the number of dice you choose as an attacker up to 3, is a human input. Then a "roll outcome is simulated. A random number is generated, and the outcome is determined depending if that number, evenly distributed between 1 and 0, is either greater or equal to the likelihood of the specific outcome. Cheaters and hackers that design their APIs have learned to adjust outcomes in their favor by altering the likelihoods of outcomes in their favor. This is done by biasing the specific values for the Transition Matrix elements that govern the specific situation. In a true Markov process, or chain, the next outcome only depends on the present state, and not history. SMG in my opinion hasn't done their due diligence in preventing hacking APIs that adjust Transition matrix element values, or have designed a purposly flawed Transition Matrix apart from realistic board condition. The moral of the story is players must be cognizant of Blitz Mode anomalies not born from the RNG, but the algorithm that depends on it. If the TM is truely realistic then 10 v 3 should win more than what Blitz outcomes show in the long run. They need to document their TM element values are validated say with 100 billion dice rolls for each outcome possibility. A parallel processing computer can do that nicely. The other option would be for them to put yhe algorithm up on the cloud, but that would cost them, and eventually the player, more money.since compute time isnt free. Keep pressing these people to produce a more realistic Transition Matrix. If you see me out there, my handle is SMG Blows. Im tired of the Blitz Mode failures to reality.

1 person likes this

Kevin, I have to agree with Peter.  What you said doesn't make any sense.

"Have your ever noticed how in your dice roll statistics that the percentages are flat across the board??? This proves that the dice rolling is flawed."

If anything, your observation is evidence for the exact opposite conclusion.  If you played games with real dice and kept stats on your rolls, you should expect to see that each individual roll (1,2,3,4,5 or 6) would happen about as much as any other.  As you play more games, you'd expect to see those percentages getting closer to each other.  This is because rolling a 1 is no more or less probable than rolling any other number, that is, every individual roll is equally probable.

If after many games you noticed you rolled ones (or any other roll) a few percentage points more or less than any other roll, that would be evidence that the dice rolling scheme isn't true to real dice.

If you don't believe me get out some real dice, roll them about 600 times (or get 600 dice and roll them all together one time, ha!) and keep track of how many times you rolled each number.  You'll see that you roll each number roughly the same number of times as any other number.  If you then calculate what percentage of rolls come from each number, you'll see that the percentages are very close to one another, and these %s get closer to each other as the number of rolls grows large.

This game is the biggest cheating POS I have ever seen.  Any time you start doing REALLY WELL, you suddenly can't win a game.  Once this happens, you lose almost ever dice roll.  You get the worst positioning to start off the game.  Your automatic rolls take bad losses.  It is so frustrating.  What a way for the algorithms to cheat good players.  Piece of crap game!  I've wasted too many hours to become an expert to continuously be screwed over time and time again.

Professional stochastic modeler here; this game is a complete sham and an utter waste of everyone’s time. The original comment on 97-98% probabilities becoming 50/50 is at the heart of the issue. Sure, the rolls might be evenly distributed but the NBA would blush at the level of “fixing,” going on. Played 100+ games over the last week, and was both the beneficiary and the victim of this incredible design flaw. The app version of the game is like bowling with the bumpers randomly going up and down; DON’T BOTHER! YOU HAVE YOUR WHOLE LIFE TO LIVE! Shame on SMG for failing to hear their customers for OVER TWO YEARS. Look forward to seeing them go under and hoping a competent developer gets the rights. You hear that SMG? You’re as valuable as a 20 on 1 blitz attack that yields 1:1. Useless, frustrating, but most of all, INCOMPETENT. PSA: joined this forum to say YOU HAVE YOUR ENTIRE LIFE TO LIVE!

I just deleted Risk app after reading Michaels comment. Anyway, I played occasionally but left the game immediately if my game was destroyed by strange dice probabilities. This of course is very annoying for the remaining gamers behavior since the AI based player is so annoyingly dumb. 

It escapes me that the game developers have ignored this issue while introducing constantly news stupid features. Since they are incompetent to develop a startup, I hope they will go bust and someone more competent gets to re-write the game. I'd be happy to play if the game follows some rules of probabilities. Exactly as Michale noted above.

2 people like this
The game developers need to overhaul the Blitz Markov transition matrix element values. The algorithm that decides armies lost/survive based on attacker/defender is not realistic. The RNG might be ok, as this has never been RNG issue. Its an algorithm issue Im aslo a professional stochastic modeler. Ive run thousands of Monte Carlo calculations over the past 40 yrs.

Michael Scott, what do you mean by "fixing"?

I have played Risk for 40 years now and love the game.  I used to love playing the online version as the autodice roll solves the time issue known to all that have ever played the board game.  However it introduced the issue that the results I have recieved in the 150 plus games I've played are not anywhere near realistic.  I have raised this with support and went back and forth with a staff that don't really seem to grasp dice probability.  I have come to the point where I had to just delete the game and quit because the concept of strategy is ruined by the randomness of results in the dice.  I'm not talking about one bad roll or two or one or five lost games I'm talking about 150 of them.  I became so frustrated with the upsidedown odds that I kept track of my results in a spreadsheet and shared them with support.  In all the games I have played I would say I win a 3 Dice on 1 attack under 50% of the time; it is the same with a 3 Dice on 2 attack.  I can play brilliantly the whole game go to take out my opponent and lose a 30 on 10 attack and I'm out of the game.  If this happened once I could live with it; hell if it happened 5 times I would be fine.  But crazy results happen every game multiple times a game.  For those that say it the same for everyone I simply don't agree.  If that was true I would expect to win on defense but that doesn't happen on average either.  I could go into the stats but it is a waste of time.  When an attack or defense is just a random outcome it reduces a game that is based on strategy to one of luck.  How about instead of placing our men, plotting out who to attack and when, when to turn in etc. etc. we just all roll a die at the beginning of the game and whoever gets the highest wins the game.  In all honesty that is what this online SMG versions boils down to.  I pulled my hair out going back and forth with support until I read posts on this forum and realized it wasn't just me.  I give up SMG wins.

1 person likes this

pfft. I've played 2500+ games and the only time I've ever seen a problem with 3 against 1 dice is after updates when they clearly have a bug that causes defense to lose 1 and attacker to lose 1 on Blitz. Otherwise, I don't see abnormalities to where 3 on 1 loses more than 50% of the time.

It does seem to me that they aren't true dice rolls though. it doesn't mean it's not the same odds but if they were true rolls, the game would freeze on large blitz rolls like it used to 3-4 years ago. It's pretty obvious they use a matrix to determine the result. That's not going to change the overall outcome over 150 games. It actually is more likely to make things more "normal" because their matrix likely checks to be sure nothing super disasterous can every happen. Like with a 50 on 2 you would literally never lose because it's in the code. An actual 50 on 2 with dice rolled out you';ll never lose either, but it is possible to happen. But I think with their code it isn't. It still shouldn't be noticeable though. Most people who come here are just whining because they don't like what happens to them. I would prefer it if we had true dice rolls just because I'm a stickler for the rules but ultimately, it all comes out about the same. My main issue has been with damn cheaters so I don't play much anymore.

Army of 50 Vs 3. Blitz roll and lose. 2nd army of 50 in neighbouring country to same 3, blitz and lose. That is a messed up rolling system. Same for all? That doesn't make it ok. It's messed up.
Some people hit the nail on the head. SMG ignores the Blitz Transition Matrix problem, lumping it into the RNG whining. They havent given me, a PhD in engineering, any real reason why they assign values to the Transition Matrix the way the do. Plus its not good business to ignore customer complaints I dont think they are stupid. I do think they dont understand Markov processes versus reality in Risk. For shame. The company hat had Risk before them seems more responsive and technically superior. These guys are hacks when it comes to stochastic processes. Dr. A
Login or Signup to post a comment