Thank you very much, Micheal, actually we are currently preparing the next version which comes with a ton of bugfixes and memory consumption polishing.
Most new features, tweakes and changes are actually implemented because of ideas from the community, coming in via here, email, Facebook messenger e.t.c. (and someone even found out my phone number, I am impressed).
And we are reading here and checking the the findings versus our own knowledge of the code and our own simulations. Actually, the current dice roll implementation has in our tests versus real dice simulations AND Riskodds website calculations never shown a difference beyond 0.X %.
But we are curious and more than happy to discuss, because we believe we are as close to the real thing as possible. Always willing to improve, though.
Best,
Ivan @ SMG
Hi SectaOne,
pelase understand that some of the questions, properly and detailed answered, would help potential cheaters and hackers and therefore are under wraps.
"First does SMG use the algorithm Ryan described on reddit to generate the battle outcomes?"
This is one of them, but Ryan is not entirely wrong. No detawils here, however, we are glad that FINALLY someone confirmed we don't favor anyone and that the rules are the same for all, AI and Human, Novice and Expert, Freebie and Premium user.
"Third what specifically are you referring to when you say you are within 0.X percent?"
When we tested our algo against
http://riskodds.com/index.php
and a test system written here,
our outcomes in 10.000, 100.000 and more battles were always less then 1% off the value there (fluctuating in both directions), referring to WHO WINS.
Troop losses were within 5% +/- of those there.
One problem we found with using ANY RNG system, no matter which (tried several industry standard ones) is that users experience unlikely cases more often than they would expect in real life. It's partially Voodoo.
Best,
Ivan
Eh... If your rank actually falls back down to novice you should be playing novices and beginners. The point of ranks is to find others of similar skill. Otherwise, it's a huge waste of time and no fun. And why would a grandmaster want to play games where coming in 2nd place will knock away a lot of points and winning give next to nothing?
Untrue probabilities really piss off in this game.
You have true probabilities or your are tinkering probabilities.
So how you decide whom to favor? Game looks very biased.
Did the recent soft-update change the dice back to its old method? I noticed some lag on big blitz battles. It used to do that years ago.
I completely agree, the rng in this game is really bad. They need to make it less rng, and more about the number of troops you have. I've had a situation where I 15 and my opponent had 16 and He took my territory without taking a single hitpoint! This game having rankings is just kind of a joke at this point, there is way to much rng.
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.
Michael Scott, what do you mean by "fixing"?
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.
Steve Clements
HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below
91 people like this idea