Implemented

I've had a actuary buddy of mine observe a number of games. 100% confirmed Hasbro's "algorithm" is horrifically flawed.
My dice rolls were determined statistically impossible.
Hasbro needs to get an ACTUAL actuary to design a REAL algorithm for dice rolls that ESPECIALLY takes into account the dynamic nature of 3v2, 3v1, 2v2, 2v1, 1v2 and 1v1.
Of course they wouldn't invest that up front. A REAL actuary is not cheap. If they're not making six figures, they're not a REAL actuary that actually know what they're doing.
They probably put an undergrad intern on it with the effort to match.
Until Hasbro ACTUALLY fixes this, this game cannot be taken seriously, is intended for children, and will continue to be insulting to adults that understand statistics.
Going back to to the physical game where reality exists with dice rolls.

I see this is now "in progress." May I ask for a general explanation of the algorithm changes being made?

I have noticed since the last update a week or so ago that the chances of winning 6 vs 3 blitz attacks does not seem to match probabilities any longer. It seems close to 50/50 or worse then it should be.

Probabilities are just that, probable, not a sure thing.

I would agree with Sam's comments if 'luck' was an occasional influence to the game but there are too many occasions even during a single game that the dice rolls just do not stack up with ridiculous turnovers.
If you want to take strategy and skill out of the scenario then please continue, personally I'm finding it hard to even finish a game under these conditions as it's fast becoming a pointless and tiresome effort.

Yes ever since I've been playing this game I've noticed there is something wonky going on with the dice. Honestly I wouldn't mind a random number generator. It really needs to be fixed to keep people's interest in the game. As for the blitz mechanic, it should really just be a sped up version of normal dice rolling. Rolls tend to go strongly in favor of one side and then when people realize the risks they're taking you end up getting people who just rolled out 20 versus 30 situations and it makes the game take longer. It was meant to make things go faster in the first place.

Matt,
I don't think you understand statistics, probability or predictability. I'm guessing your math background is limited. 6 vs 2 is 89% not 100. I can't teach you statistics 101 on this forum. Good 'luck' to you.
Btw, I had a battle today of 9vs6, 73% to win, 27% to lose. I lost, that's fine but my opponent lost zero. I'm currently calculating those odds.

"many times" doesn't cut it. Gamblers at the roulette table believe the odds of getting "red" change simply because there have been 3 "blacks" in a row. That's not how probabilities work. The do not follow a neat pattern in the short run, only in the "really long run". You want to prove they are wrong, you need to collect a "LOT" of data. True "pseudo random" is not "random", but that's not the questions. The real question is how close is it. Checking the number of times you have rolled each side of the die, in the long run, tells you that. People are generally not very good at reproducing random patterns on their own, they tend to equally space the results out. That's not how random works. Look it up.
Fairness has nothing to do with it.. If the rules apply equally to all, then they are fair. My bowling league is a handicap league. Some bowlers get more "free" pins than others. The rules are published. It is not unfair

What I'm reading in this thread sounds more like sore losers than a plight to correct something that is wrong with the random number generator...
only one thread mentioned an observation where there is a concrete reference to a possible flaw Re: on battles of 6v3. Maybe there is a skew in that situation? An error in the program where in that situation 3 armies beats 6 more than is statistically reliable?
Otherwise this seems more a rant without any basis other than "I think it's rigged"
No one seems to dispute that the dice statistics have an even weighting. The more you play the more reliable those statistics should be, This is a strong argument that we have a reliable random number generator. A "expensive actuary" is redundant. A new random number generator would accomplish what? What are you complainers looking to fix? If the dice rolls all equal an even distribution over time we are then using a sound program.
A good point was made that people seem to remember the bad more than the good... this is key wisdom. We remember the statistical outliers when they are not in our favor, and the thousands of rolls that are perfectly within the bell curve are dismissed.. what you are left with is a "feeling" that the odds are stacked.
Where is the error in the program? And what specifically needs to be improved my risk loving friends!!? Stop whining people and give some concrete data and observations that indicate that the problem is within the dice... if the odds seem stacked against you, and there is a perfect distribution in roll outcomes it's not the random dice, it's your personal game that needs improvement... stick to candy crush ladies there is no crying in risk.
And for those who are done bitchin and moanin..... see you on the battlefield!

I don't think there is any problem with the current dice roll system. I imagine they are done using a pseudo random number generator which is standard for games and is basically the same as actual dice rolling. I have played a lot and my dice stats show that I roll each number 16% of the time. This is of course just what you would expect with a large sample. Individual battles can appear weighted but keep in mind that they are limited samples.

Matt, so if the probability is 92% that 4 armies will beat 1 army, you don't care if it's actually 50-50 for everyone?
And how can it be fair if it doesn't match true probabilities? When I evaluate my chances of success on an attack it's based on true dice probability, not some weird programming algorithm that I have no idea how to calculate. I.e if 9 on 3 is 95% true dice, but the algorithm makes it 60-40. Now take 8 on 2 with a 97% but the algorithm makes that one 99%. How can that be fair?

That explains why I notice people able to stream right through kills with higher probability and no random mishaps along the way sometimes. It should be truly random. catastrophe is a part of the game. And they still happen to me but I guess not as much and would be nice if a miracle can happen sometimes.

Any chance that this is just a blitz problem. I've gone back to rolling everything out(at least at the start of the game when it really counts) and I'm no longer seeing ludicrous wins or loses. Perhaps the random number generator isn't so random when the dice is rolled in quick succession as the blitz implementation might do.

Valid complaint, but as long as it's the same for all users - no difference!

I understand probability. When you are 98% chance to win you should win about 98 times out of 100, maybe only 94,maybe 99, maybe 97, but statistically it's impossible to win 50-60% time when there's a significant amount of data.

## Steve Clements

HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE?Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below84 people like this idea