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

82 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.

Login or Signup to post a comment