Implemented

Please fix this it makes the game very unenjoyable. For every one person that complains on this board there's probably a few hundred that feel the same way but don't bother posting.

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.

SMG, your loyal playerbase accept luck as a core mechanic of Risk and that streaks are inevitably part of that. Please don't do anything funky with the algorithm to placate those blaming "unfair" rolls...

Steve Clements, I think it's fair as long as it's the same for all. I like the fact of unpredictable rolls. I honestly think if the game with a true dice roll system, will make it too easy. You could predict which territory you will win just because you have more guys then they do. The current way makes it very unpredictable, and I kinda like it this way.

Just because you have 6 troops to their 2, doesn't mean you should win 100% of the time. Every see the movie "300"

I would like everyone to post their rank and number of troops won and number of troops lost. I am a master/grandmaster 85000 won 102000 lost, smg says that is normal.

I used the probabilities Ryan discovered to make a battle simulator. I’ll post more details later but for now I’ll say that the 2.8 times greater attacking force rule is much less troubling in the very large attacks than the small ones. My program runs a million simulations of a battle of given size and reports who won each time, the best outcome for the attacker, best outcome for the defender, and average size of the surviving force. I found that for each of the 6v1 10v2 12v3 14v4 17v5 and 19v6 where Ryan indicated SMG gives guarantees victory for the attacker the defender actually has a roughly 0.5-4.5 chance of victory if you apply their roll odds. In fact it with one million simulations I saw that the worst case scenario where the attacker losses everything and the defender nothing is possible in each of those battles and in the lower reach of the 2.8 rule cases. However once the battles get really big you should always win with even a much smaller (compared with 2.8) multiple of the defender’s force. Again my simulator uses SMG’s roll odds that Ryan described so that I can use it while playing. I may make a true dice rolls version later.

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.

Brian. That is my point, when you come in as a new player, magically you win a ton more than you lose. My theory is they want new and or bad players to stick around and play more games, so they give them a little help. WHICH IS BS

Here is how out of wack that is. I have played 608 games, for an average of 309 troops won/defeated per game. That would mean i could play 51 games in a row, without losing a single troop, before i got to even. Bwahaha SMG (Suck My Genitals)

Do you think that the dice are skewed specifically against you? Is this an argument that the defender has an unusual advantage (assuming that you are the attacker)? Winning in a 61 v 37 is far from a guarantee. It is "more likely" to be a win and the attacker has slight odds against the defender but the dice can easily go one way or the other. If you play on the actual board rolling dice, write down the stats every time; you may be surprised with how much the dice seem to work against you when you look at the total results of every battle.

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. There should be a different percentage for each one!! this means in order to achieve this flat distribution that dice rolls depend on the previous rolls, increasing the probability for dice rolls that haven't occurred as much,which is not based on reality at all! So an example is basically if you roll bunch of 4,s, 5's and 6's the PRNG is going to make 1-3 more likely, ergo you roll 12 dice against 2 and you lose.

If you were looking at strictly attacking, you should have more won than lost. But you also have to consider others killing your single territories as being heavily biased towards you losing a lot more over wins. So I think a lot of this comes down to how many games you've won vs how many have been lost. Most of my accounts are just shy of the same number of wins as losses so it would make sense that I'm pretty close for won/lost. If I had won more than lost then I would think the won troops would be higher.

I have several accounts with most having more losses than wins (but relatively close to each other) and they have just slightly less won than lost. One of my accounts, which I opened strictly to practice 4 player games and reached grandmaster relatively quick (apparently I'm good at 4 player games) with 42 wins and only 14 losses, This account has a lot more won than lost.

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.

## Steve Clements

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