Implemented

"we would expect to see virtually even distribution, but not in the short run."
...which is exactly why the dice stats in my previous post are so out of whack. That was ONE single player game.
And agreed with what Justin Burt posted... SMG already stated that they changed the dice rolling code/algorithm:
"We rewrote the dice rolling algorithm several times to arrive at a more balanced dice simulation, just released in v1.9.36."
"We feel this algorithm is much more balanced than our previous algorithm."
SOOOO... what was wrong with it to begin with, and what exactly was changed?
I mean, what in the world is SO difficult with coding a simple and accurate random number generator??? I myself have coded ancient QuickBasic v4.5 programs for DOS (as well as ones coded in NeoSoft's "NeoBook Professional" for Windows) that WERE WAY MORE accurate and random compared to SMG's algorithm. I mean, Folks: this game is PREDOMINATELY a DICE game... if the SO-CALLED "random" dice code is bugged, this TOTALLY RUINS the ENTIRE game.

Something happened recently with the rolls to greatly favor the attacker. It's very frustrating. That's not how it really is in Risk.

I would also like to know what was changed with the new algorithm. My guess is its just a new PRNG which shouldn't make much difference if any in the results. Would love to see an excerpt of the source code or basic explanation of the changes and motivations for them.

Enough Gramps, you are not imparting some great wisdom. Probabilities of dice rolls are a simple concept that most people here clearly understand, and that's NOT the issue. Maybe YOU listen and learn: Emulating dice rolls in software is easy and straightforward. This begs the question, what was changed in the algorithm? How was it "flawed" to begin with? It's a FACT that SMG changed the algorithm, therefore it's a FACT that this modification has a demonstrable effect. We are, at a minimum, owed an answer to these questions from SMG. And if they really wanted to end all debate they could (and should) just post the source code for the dice roll functions on GitHub for all to see. Stop telling people they are wrong, YOU are wrong by failing to understand the issue.

There is a common misunderstanding about how probabilities (dice, coin tossing, roulette) work. Randomness with equal probabilities does not guarantee that we will see an even distribution in a game. In the REALLY LONG run (many thousands and thousands) of trials, we would expect to see virtually even distribution, but not in the short run.

The dice have no memory. They do not know what numbers came up on the previous toss. They don't take notes and monitor the history of tosses over time so they can tell #1 to show up more. They just get what they get. You can count cards at poker, but that's because there is a fixed number (52) and the probabilities change based on what cards have been dealt and which remain in the deck. In cards, this is "sampling without replacement". In dice, it's "sampling with replacement". If you roll a 1, that doesn't change the probability of getting a 1 on the next roll. It's still 17%.

It's like you draw a king of hearts, then put it back and reshuffle. The probability of drawing a king of hearts the first time was 2% (1 out of 52). If you put the cards back in, then the chance of drawing the king of hearts remains 2%. The odds don't change.

There is DEFINITELY something bugged with the new dice algorithm. I installed the game on a different device, created a new game account, and here was the dice stats after one single-player game with 5 AI:
1 - 27%
2 - 14%
3 - 14%
4 - 14%
5 - 14%
6 - 14%
There surely is something bugged here.

I started this request. I haven't actually calculated any stats, but it definitely seems more true to me since the update. I've had very few 10 vs 2, 12 vs 3, etc. losses ( or wins if I'm the 2 or 3). Thanks!

should never* have been

I'm haven't noticed any big change in dice roll results. I also think that the algorithm should ever have been changed. As soon as SMG said they were changing it they took away the credibility of all dice algorithms used from that point on. Now there will always be people saying it's flawed.

I don't like the updated dice algorithm. As a player for quick computer games I've already had 5+ games where I lose 10+ lives before the computer loses one life on a 3 v 2 roll.
What are those odds?
Blitzkrieg is just as bad. 16 lives lost going up against 3? Crazy. It's happened more than once in the last week.

Forgot to add, I checked on one of my accounts with 100+ games. All of my accounts in the past have had 16% across the board. This one now has 17% on the 1's after about maybe 10 games. "excited" to see how much this % increases over time :)

Well, if everyone is rolling extra ones, it's not "unfair." But it is very surprising to see everyone on the map suddenly lose big attacks that you'd think they'd easily win. I had one game where everyone got their big army, started owning the map and would lose out big time on one of the blitz attacks. I'm talking like 40 armies losing against 10 kind of attacks. I've witnessed a major increase in high losses on some attacks and watch others bite the dust in the same game which has been unusual although not always impossible to happen.

Also, in one game I had 2 manual rolls where both me and the defender all rolled 1's. That doesn't happen often, or ever and it was twice in a game. I'm usually using blitz so that's crazy.

Anyway. It's certainly making for a less predictable game. I used to feel confident blowing through people knowing that on average, the attacker does better than 50% of the kills. Now I'm used to needing well above the average to be sure and I'm still getting burned sometimes. Same as the defender of course but I have no choice in that.

Also, in one game I had 2 manual rolls where both me and the defender all rolled 1's. That doesn't happen often, or ever and it was twice in a game. I'm usually using blitz so that's crazy.

Anyway. It's certainly making for a less predictable game. I used to feel confident blowing through people knowing that on average, the attacker does better than 50% of the kills. Now I'm used to needing well above the average to be sure and I'm still getting burned sometimes. Same as the defender of course but I have no choice in that.

Justin,
I completely agree with you about the dice rolling ones! As you can see in the picture attached to my post right above yours, I have a 21% chance of rolling a one and only 15% chance of rolling every other #! That is no where close to normal or fair. A full 6% difference between the chance of rolling a one compared to rolling any other number is NOT statistically possible if the dice rolls algorithm is truly random. I have played over 120 games so this isn't the result of a small sample size.... I agree this is ridiculously unfair and something they need to figure out a way to fix!

Thanks Grampy, I'm well aware of how probability works. I can confirm I have been rolling extra 1's because the game statistics show an 18% roll rate for 1's ever since the upgrade. I have a very large sample size of 179 games, only 14 of which were played since the update. My statistics settled into a 16% spread for all rolls well over a hundred games ago and have remained that way, as would be expected. Now all of a sudden after the update they are skewed towards 1's, as indicated by the stats kept by the game. A 2% change towards a specific number, as weighted over only 14 out of 179 samples is fairly significant. The user above me also noted a high skewing toward 1's, so there may indeed be a pattern.
And yes, representing realistic dice rolls should be very easy via RNG functions. This thread is about a "fix'' that has already applied. I was not necessarily of the opinion it was broken to begin with. So the question is what did they change to "correct'' the previous roll algorithm? It seems odd that it would need fixing in the first place, programming these probabilities should be trivial.

That is correct. Odds/statistics are after many, many, many iterations. And it doesn't change the outcome roll to roll. I have noticed since the new algorithm that I've had a lot more large attacks where I get a really bad outcome. I actually watched it happen to everyone in the same game, constantly losing 11+ men when attacking a 3. I don't blame the algorithm yet, but a few of my games have been beyond normal since the update. I assume coincidence until I see a long term pattern.

## Steve Clements

HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE?Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below91 people like this idea