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

Yep. After one game I rolled each number on the dice the EXACT same percentage. No way in hell that would happen in reality. Just because you have the same chance at getting any number on any roll, doesn't mean you will roll each number the same number of times. The random element is missing.
So I feel dumb but i just realized that a bias towards 1's actually benefits the defender since they win on the tie. It doesn't even matter which number is more likely to appear. As long as the algorithm is defective, it benefits the defender. So right now, an aggressive player on Android is gonna have a tougher time against an Apple device player, since rolls are calculated based on the attacker.


Hmmm... seems that they are slow to release the update for Android. That being said, Just an update, currently three 6-player single-player games on the previously mentioned device: 1 = 27% 2 = 14% 3 = 14% 4 = 14% 5 = 14% 6 = 14% Nah, nuthin' to see here, move along...
Dunno, I'm on iOS. Version is 1.10.38 released on March 30th.
Has that newer update actually been released yet (I don't see it in the Google Play Store yet)? Getting sick of loosing 20 to 4 battles against the AI, whereby the defending AI doesn't loose a single troop :(

It may also be worth noting that they said they now have a system in place that records highly unlikely outcomes so they can keep track of how often they are occurring in actual gameplay. This means they are at least not blind to the results their new algorithm is producing and should hopefully be able to asses things and adjust accordingly.

Good news guys. I have been in contact with support about the heavily biased 1's issue and they have acknowledged that this was a glitch in the 1.9.36 release. They say they have remedied it as of the latest release that came out today, so hopefully this should no longer be a concern.

I agree. I have a new account that in 5 games has a 23% for one and 15% for everything else. My main account which has maybe 500 games has developed a 17% on the one and 16% for the others. I suspect there is a bug in the algorithm for selecting the dice roll results.
There is some kind of defect in the code which is causing 1's to roll more often than other numbers. My account of 160 or so games with only maybe 25 games under the new version went from 17% across the board to 18% 1's and the rest 16% evenly. I have other accounts which have experienced the same issue. Does this affect gameplay? Not if the bug works for all rolls. But it could result in a few more extreme results since players are more likely to roll a 1 than anything else, thus eliminating more of the ties that should be happening (wins to a defender). However, I disagree that this has caused an advantage to large armies. My complaint is seeing a lot of large armies getting destroyed by very small defenders, something that doesn't happen often. But recently things have felt about normal, other than the more often rolling of a 1 which I do think is actually fair for all players.


The issue is that SMG changed the algorithm (hence this thread) and they should explain how and why, and open-source the code. I have actual data demonstrating that the "fix" does indeed produce unrealistic results:

  • Prior to the update (v1.9.36) I had 162 games on record, and the in-game statistics showed an even 17% distribution among dice rolls, as one would expect with such a large data-set.
  • I have played 76 post-update games and despite those games representing less than ⅓ of total games played on my account, they have already impressively skewed my roll statistics which now report 19% for 1's, and an even 16% for all other numbers.
  • This is irrefutable empirical evidence that the "fix" is flawed. We are talking about a sample size of hundreds of thousands of rolls, so people can shut up about freak improbabilities.Furthermore, the fact that the latter ⅓ of post-update games so heavily skewed what was previously an even distribution among pre-update games, and that the skew was entirely toward only a single number (1 in this case), proves beyond any reasonable uncertainty that the new algorithm biases rolls specifically toward 1 for some reason, and does so in a very consistent manner.
  • There are also several anecdotal accounts in this thread further suggesting a bias specifically towards rolling 1's since the update.

I agree with Glenn's observation that the "fix" is likely a modification that intentionally disadvantages rolls for small armies being attacked by dramatically larger ones, much more so than the attacker's advantage inherent in the natural probabilities. When I have seen large armies attack post update they almost always win, and usually by a gigantic margin. You would expect to see large armies have a completely failed attack on occasion, even to much smaller forces.

This was probably done to shut-up people complaining about the algorithm being broken in the first place (which my data suggests was never the case, as the statistics were perfectly even pre-update) just because they had large armies destroyed by blitz-attacking smaller ones as on a few occasions. 

Also, any programmer knows that the pseudo-random generation of numbers is a function built into the framework of the programming language itself. Therefore, the "roll algorithm" is a very simple feat of building out the 1/6 per die probabilities, there should be absolutely no way for such a simple thing to be flawed in the first place. Ergo, no "fix" should have been required, suggesting that the "fix" was actually a modification that made the probabilities far LESS realistic so that people wouldn't get as upset when chance did not favor them.

So there you have it, I have presented very strong empirical, logical, and anecdotal evidence that the algorithm was never flawed to begin with, and is now flawed as of the "fix." People should stop arguing about probabilities and demand that SMG explain what they have done, why they have done it, and make that portion of the code open source already so people can stop with the asinine complaining.

(316 KB)
(376 KB)

The only idiots here are the ones "explaining" that probabilities don't preclude long-tail scenarios… You also going to tell us the sky is blue and poop smells bad?

Another thing is y'all are all very dumb probability is just what it sounds like probable not I repeat NOT impossible. Just because you might have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6 does that mean it's impossible to roll a 6 all 6 times?? Your answer should be NOOOOO!!! While it might be very unlikely it isn't impossible. And if you want to talk about being realistic there is nothing more real than that. The same applies to a 6vs3 or even a 15vs6 just because in these situations I'm more likely to win does it mean the game is flawed if I don't NOOOO!!!! No matter how many times I might loose in those situations it has nothing to do with the coding being flawed I would just be super unlucky
I've took coding classes so ik there is nothing wrong with this dice roll for the blitz option the dice probability doesn't change depending on how many troops u have it only changes with how many dice they would technically roll. The computer generates that number itself so... buh if they have more than 2 troops versus your 3 or more troops the dice roll probability that you'll win is 3/5
The dice algorithm isn't the problem and is very realistic actually. For those of you who don't know how a dice roll works with computer programming it's just a random number that is generated from 1-6 for each individual dice roll

Thanks for the life lesson Justin.

My post was in response to Richard's post immediately before mine.  Has nothing to do with your demand to see the algorithm. There is more than one issue here.  But I appreciate the feedback.  

Login or Signup to post a comment