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
Aitch, I personally think SMG are doing a great job, over all the app is great (better than many out there) it just needs a little refinement but that's the way it goes in development, debugging takes most of the time, and everything can be improved. Furthermore, many "feature" requests are subjective at best and not every idea should be listened to, because it can break other things, etc. And in my experience they respond in a timely manner.
Wow, man you have no business on this forum being so negative. If you don't like the game, don't play it. Simple. I've seen nothing but positive comments here in the forums (until yours) and people usually make good points.
Why should they be responding to the forums anyways? If you have a bug or feature request, put in a ticket. The forums are for discussions and has little to do with reporting to SMG, getting feedback, or etc. I'm just going to chalk your comment up to to you not knowing how the website works. For future reference, again if you have a gripe, issue or bug to report, submit a ticket. Don't be a dick.
Dudes, the most important question is this...
Does anybody think SMG (Shockingly Mediocre Games!) gives a damn, and will try to fix the problems?
SMG can't even be bothered to reply to posters here ffs!
(Yet they have plenty of time to post nonsense on their facebook/twitter feed lol!)
All we can do is hope Hasbro dumps these losers, and gives the game to a professional company who know what they are doing... Amen!
Would love to see if you can. Back 2 years ago, if you did blitz with a large army against a somewhat large army, my device would freeze for about a second before the result came in. I ended up getting a more powerful tablet and it was better for still noticeable. My phone was the only device where it would not really do that. And then they changed the code to where it's not noticeable at all.
I'm willing to bet that doing a million dice rolls didn't take long. There's no reason that true dice rolls should impact performance on any mobile device built in the last 20 years. I don't have the old code to look at, but I'm guessing their implementation was broken. Moving away from "true dice rolls" for performance reasons doesn't make sense.
I don't have time to mess around with the code right now but I'm 99% sure that I could modify the code to use true rolls for both normal and blitz attacks and the performance delta would be undetectable to a human.
Briand, I agree and it shouldn't be too hard to run the raw numbers and then compare that to a simple simulator ran over a few million outcomes. Not sure if I'll get to it right away but it's something I'd also be curious about.. to even see if our complaining is even valid LOL. But I suspect it is.
I'd love to know the difference of true odds vs their algorithm for these larger armies, mostly concerning average troops lost. How much worse does it look for the attacker as more and more troops exist?
Thanks SectaOne and Briand, I think the primary problem is described in Ryans post "If you were unlucky on the probability roll, the game forces a win and you lose a random number of troops." I might play around with the source, thanks for the link. That's good information to have. P.S. Briand, the way the game works has forced me to be somewhat of a conservative player as well.
Ryan's link was only a few posts ago. Here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/Risk/comments/8rbgsy/deconstructed_the_official_android_version_how/
It doesn't give the actual code for legal reasons but has a very nice explanation of what he found.
I've played over 2500 games. I've seen plenty of less than 1% chance of happening happen. But being a conservative player, I don't often take the risk on it unless necessary, so it's not "often." But I see a lot of dumb wins to attacker or defender all the time, and don't question the code for those. Heavy weighted armies in blitz attacks are where I get most disgusted with this code. The giant attacking army can't lose, as in it literally has 0% chance of losing, but it could have a catastrophic loss on one attack. Some of those unlucky losses could seem normal though as it's random as to how many troops are lost. I don't like it.
Watch the phrase "it'll never happen", lol. You can't really tell me to do it if you don't do it yourself? Right!
I figured a reason such an algorithm would have been created, such as it is, would be to improve performance. Would you have link a breakdown of the code that "Ryan" posted? I'm relatively new to the forum and online game. I am a developer though. I do love the game, but obviously there's something wrong with the algorithm and it could be improved.. without costing tons of performance.
I can run the statistics, some of the things I've seen have less than a 1% chance of happening.
Steve Clements
HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below
91 people like this idea