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

91 people like this idea

One million people playing someone is bound to have that happen to them and likely to come on here complaining.I have seen pretty close to this sometimes but I've also played thousands of games.


No random number generator is truely random when implementing a linear congruent algorithm. Its "pseudorandom" with a very long stride or repeatability. Refer to Knuth Numerical Computing. Now that being said there are processes in nature that people use as a truely random process. Radioactive decay for one, and quantum computing. A process is considered Markovian in that the next state (j+1) is only dependent on the current state (j). The Trandition matrix approach is part of a stochastic or random probability for the next state. It might not mean much difference for a single transition but over a million or so trials the error rate is unbiased as 1/sqrt (n-1). I would think if they put it all up on the cloud it eould be ok to roll n independent random numbers vs 1 rand num for the TM. Im only doing Blitz on linited basis now.
"Implemented" yeah friccin rite!! You've been exposed for being cheap SMG. Apparently the matrix system they use is cheaper than having true dice rolls, that explains it!
28 vs 2, I lost 27, the opponent lost NONE. Ahhhh... the "probability matrix", GARBAGE!
It is possible to happen in real odds. A probability matrix might feel unfair because there is a 1 out of xxxxxxxxxx chance that one will get selected. But it's not that much different from rolling each one out. For the sake of not killing your device it's not a terrible trade. But yes, when I have a bad roll I also want to blame the matrix too haha


Yeah, it's possible, one in a million. I've played enough real-world Risk with real-world dice to know the statistics... never seen it happen though. That being said, the dice in the app needs to be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT random, not using a "probability matrix". P.S. I'm sure thankful that the 49 year old dice in my 1968 edition real-world board game doesn't use this "probability matrix".
I agree it's not the same thing. Nothing computerized is truly random anyway. It has to have some numerical basis since there's no gravity pulling the dice down. Hell, even that's not really random to roll dice. uses a neat technique. they use micro weather data to produce their random results.That's probably as random as you'll get with a computer. As for the dice in the real game, depends on the player rolling them.

Also, before they implemented the matrix, it really burned up processing power on your device. I recall some 50+ battles taking a whole half a second to process. I do personally prefer making it roll out each one, one by one but I get why they did it.

I also never would have expected to get a lousy roll like that on the board game but that's because i've played less than 100 times in my life. But already in 2 years playing in this app, I've easily got 1500-2000 games. Yet, I cannot recall a single time when it was that devastating for me. But I'm sure out of the millions playing, there is bound to be someone with such results who will come on here to complain when it happens ;)


I have mostly seen the advantage to the attacker. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Sometimes it's catastrophic. Only a few times have I been burned with catastrophic Blitz rolls several times in one game. It can happen with real dice rolls but shouldn't happen often. It hasn't happened often for me. I feel mostly a clean run through most of my games. But I will say that I do remember the ones where I get burned hard.

I agree they should strive to make a truly random, roll for roll. I would prefer that. But I don't think it kills the game if everyone has the same type of rolls.

More important to me is the anti-cheating. I am so glad they finally implemented spectator mode. It allows me to stick around and see if what looked like cheating was in fact cheating so I can report them. But all they do is punish them by removing the score gained. They need to be more harsh. They need to delete accounts when caught cheating. They also need to ditch the idea that players should be able to play with friends in games mixed with random people. Friend on Risk? Ok. Friends at your house? Not ok. It's usually the same guy using many devices. And even if not, that puts bias into a ranked game. Make games not ranked / work on a ladder system with strict rules? ok no problem then.

I havent really had issues with connections that much so I can't really complain about it.


(continuation of "Moral of the story") ,,,as Risk is PREDOMINATELY a DICE game, hence, the dice need to function properly (like they do in all of the other PC/Android Risk and Risk-like games that I play).
Is it really that bad for the server to just use the PRNG for each roll, even in blitz? Isn't that the most accurate approach?
@SectaOne, From what I have heard, the dice were random roll for roll before the first initial big update that included the "probability matrix" for Blitz. It's hard for me to comment on the old algorithm though.., as I first purchased and started playing SMG Risk only a few short days before the update. All that I know now for 100% certain is that Blitz dice rolling is TOTALLY amis.
This thread started back before the update that changed dice. You can see all the people that demanded change and as I recall some were happy with it. I don't think the dice are good now. But I think that no matter what SMG does there will always be people insisting on change. That is why it is important for them to get it right so that they can stand behind their algorithm.
A lot of complaining came as soon as they made a "new algorithm." People were complaining prior to that too. People are always going to complain because they don't realize that odds are not going to be consistent. It is possible for an army of 23 to lose against an army of 3. They want to complain unfair as soon as they get that one bad roll. All I know is when they first updated it, I was getting a lot of triple 1 rolls. They fixed that at least.


Yes the complaints will never stop but if SMG had a solid algorithm they could stand behind it. I don't get why they changed it to begin with and why they didn't test the (at the time) new algorithm more thoroughly before pulling the trigger. Every time they have to change it their credibility goes down, least until they can show they have it right. But since some people will always complain vocally even if there is nothing wrong it will be a long time before they can live this down. They need to act to fix the issue as soon as they can but must be careful not to act so quickly that they mess up again. So why not use the PRNG for each die at least until they can get a more accurate matrix?
Complaining or not, the current "probability matrix" is screwed. The dice need to be RANDOM, roll for roll. And, more proof that it is screwed, a copy 'n' paste of mine from earlier in this thread, along with a newer screenshot: It is statistically impossible to loose more troops than you have killed when your total win-to-loss ratio is 2:1 (or greater). THAT IS, unless that you are rolling more 1's (or other low numbers) than any other number. I have seen this on two different devices, as well as a buddy of mine (who's win-to-loss ratio is **WAY** higher than 2:1) telling me that it is EXACTLY the same on his. *NONE* of the other DOS/Windows/Android Risk and Risk-like games that I play (that can display these types of stats) exhibit this behavior. And, like I've posted before, EVEN DOS Risk, circa 1989... yeah, folks, even back in 1989 under DOS they got the PRNG right.
Login or Signup to post a comment