Start a new topic
Discussions RISK Global Domination Feature Requests
Implemented

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
288 CommentsSorted by Oldest First
As long as there is an equal 1/6 chance for each number to be the result of any dice roll, I think the algorithm reflects real life dice rolling.

I play with a friend that complained about this. I disagreed with him. After doing several begining to end game stat tracks, he agrees now. There really isn't that big a discrepancy if any on dice rolls. We have a tendancy to remember the bad more than the good. If anyone really feels this is wrong, I challenge you to screen record your games, and show me a couple where you just feel it makes no sense.

 

1 person likes this
lol, why would I do the job of SMG's lazy QA?
Factor in your order of play which again has a big outcome in the game then dice rolls are hugely important that they reflect a ..........ohh fu#k it what am I talking about !!!!!!the game is so flawed in so many areas to make skill an options a joke, I'm already bored with it.....sadly I spent my dough on the premier version........my mistake.
A lot of ansgt in this thread, partially I think because of the mixed messages ("dice rolls are completely fair" according to FAQ vs. "dice rolls need reworking" per this thread). Lee, perhaps if you could clarify, the noise would reduce...
1 person likes this
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.
4 people like this
Sam, I think you confused probability and luck. When you have 11vs3 9vs2 5vs1 are all 97-98% to win. So if you are the small armies in these scenarios, you're 'lucky' to have won. However, if these battles occur 1000 times the favorite will win 975 times or so. Maybe only 920, perhaps 950, maybe 983 or 990. And if you are the underdog in this situation and win you are lucky. Now if after those 1000 battles the favorite only wins 650, 700, even 800 times, then you have skewed data. An impossibility with true dice. And that ain't luck-that's math.

I completely agree this request for creating an actual dice roll algorithm.  The current faulty dice wreck games when people get positively screwed and then leave the game.


The faulty dice mechanics are especially damaging to Risk games with Fixed card trade in rather than Progressive due to recovery time.

1 person likes this
"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
4 people like this
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.
2 people like this
I've noticed my roll stats always staying at a consistent 16%. This by itself seems sketch to me. There should be some fluctuations here and there. If I know that even with a small sample of rolls such as a single game, that all players including myself will roll 16% equally, I have a slight inclination on when streaks are likely to occur. For instance, if I just busted something absurd like 3 armies defending and defeating 15 armies, I know that I am less likely to have that happen again. I'll take more chances than I would normally, like attacking a 4 with only 5 armies. This seems to work more than it doesn't. Anyone else have a similar experience?
2 people like this
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!
3 people like this

As a statistician, I can tell you that we humans are very poor at determining when a process is random and when it is not.  Here's an example that my stats professor gave me when I couldn't understand how a roulette wheel could bring up a bunch of "red" in a row.   Consider 2 scenarios.


Take a deck of cards, remove all but the face cards.  We're left with 12 cards, 4 K, 4Q, 4J.  I want to draw a K because it is a high card and will let me win.  The probability of drawing a K is 4/12 or 33%. So shuffle the deck, I draw one and it is a K.  Yea.  Now what is the probability I can draw another one.  Less than 33% right?  Sure it is 3/11 or 27 percent.  Want to draw a third K, probability is 2/10 or 20%.  Here's the point, drawing one K changes the probability of drawing a second one.  It's called conditional probability because the likelihood of drawing a K depends on what happened before.  Drawing without replacement.


Scenario 2.  Same deal, only after I draw a card, put it back into the deck and reshuffle.  So I draw a K again, likelihood 33%.  I put the K back into the deck and draw again, what is the likelihood of drawing a K?  It's the same.  Probability here is not conditional based on what happened before.   Drawing with replacement.  Dice are like this.  They have no memory. 


But we Risk players do hate it when we get a run of the same result that goes against us.  Of course we do.  I just built an Excel spreadsheet that randomly pulls H or T like a coin.  I ran it 50 times.  Run 25 was a T, Run 26 was a H followed by 7 more heads in a row.  If I'm at a roulette wheel and see Red turn up 7 times in a row, my gut tells me the next will be Black.  It's just no so.


As Frog said, show me your data.


2 people like this
I made an assumption that this discussion revolves around the 'blitz' feature. My complaint, and my support of this feature request is that the blitz mechanics are broken. In my experience with this game, the normal rolling is balanced enough, seemingly actual random dice results - for better or worse. Blitz is the feature where the rolls completely crap themselves. I hate when this happens - nearly every game - whether it's in my favor, against me, or when I'm neutral to the rolls. Ruins the game and many players just quit after that kind of event. I've seen a few people reply here suggesting that this is a subjective question of fairness or implying that some people are just sore losers. Let me say, that's not the case. This is a feature request for real and actual dice mechanics for the blitz feature - and if it's not already as such for the regular rolls then an enhancement request for this too. I suspect since the developers have this request as 'in progress' that they have already validated that the existing game mechanics/dice algorithms - whether regular rolling or blitz - are faulty.
3 people like this
I want to bring up that blitz and manual dice rolls likely use the same algorithm. The difference being that blitz doesn't wait for user prompts. I also saw some talk about 6 vs 3 battles behaving differently then other cases. With all due respect to those who said that, based on my programming experience it doesn't seem very likely. I seriously doubt SMG would write a different method or block of code for every battle size. What seems more probable is that there is one block for each possible dice combination (3 vs 2, 2vs1 etc.). When battles happen the program probably loops through the appropriate block until the number of dice involved changes. So I think 6vs3 works the same as 9vs5. The crucial part of the entire algorithm is the PRNG it uses. I think that is better place for this discussion to be centered on.
1 person likes this
Login or Signup to post a comment
Topics merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1475 topics