Start a new topic
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

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 Ivan thank you very much for all the hard work you and everyone at SMG puts into the game. I have some questions that I hope you’ll take the time to answer. First does SMG use the algorithm Ryan described on reddit to generate the battle outcomes? Second are outcomes generated by the client instead of the server? Third what specifically are you referring to when you say you are within 0.X percent? Is that win probability, troops remaining or something else? Thanks again for the hard work Risk is my favorite game and I appreciate all the hard work that goes into the app.
They don't care they just keep saying that the RNG wasn't fair even though everyone complains about their unfair dice

Steve Clements honestly it seems that you haven't played these particular versions of digital Game of Risk. Because those are of such that you could truly complain about dice rolling. Risk (1996 video game) - Wikipedia Risk II - Wikipedia Risk: The Game of Global Domination | Pippin @World & Atmark Wiki | Fandom  Forum Administrators please see about having it being  open to play those versions of digital game of risk than you might hopefully shut up the complainers. 

I already made a feature request to increse the turn timer by a few seconds when you make a Blitz attack. That would totally solve it and is super easy to implement.

 

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

Yeah It was always absurd to hear the accusations of bias in favor of or against just about every possible segment of the player base. Thanks for the reply. I am using a RNG for my “true dice” simulator. I still use an rng in my implementation of Ryan’s algorithm just not as often and it is noticeablely different from the true dice version in general being more favorable to the underdog then the true dice simulator. The RNG I use is just the one in java’s java.util.Random (specifically Random.nextInt()) perhaps not particularly well regarded, I actually don’t know, but since I use it across both simulators I think it should provide some insight.
I find that the rolls seems skewed in some manner.. I just tried a test where I had several countries (auto placed) with only two or three armies in each and I rolled only using one die vs one die and lost every roll except the last. It seems to me that when faced with small armies the likelihood of winning is way less especially compared to if I have say 15 armies vs countries with one. I’ll never lose the battle (particularly on blitz mode) and can virtually walk across the continent not losing armies. Something is wrong with this picture.
Awesome. We'll wait 2 years or so and maybe get it. :)

 

Is anyone complaining about dice rolls taking into account that the defender has an advantage by winning dice that are tied?
Briand, I was curious enough to do the calculation for the 1 vs 1 case to see just how much difference changing the % of ones would make.  Long story short, you were correct that defender is better off with a reduction in the 1's probability and you were also correct that the change would be very small.

Specifically, if the probability of rolling a 1 was reduced from 1/6 to 0.14 and all the other probabilities were increased evenly, the defender's chances of wining would increase by about 0.073%.  This is such a small change that it would be very difficult to actually observe, but none the less you were right.  This small change would then carry over to other battle scenarios, but again the change would be so small as to be practically unnoticeable.

I completely agree about the time it takes to roll the dice.  The dice rolling animation really doesn't add anything to the game, and is pretty much just a waste of time.  A quick roll alternative to the blitz roll would be great.

If you are (or anyone else is) interested, I've included the details of my calculation in an image with this comment.
I made a new account to enjoy destroying newbies.2 games into it and my dice rolls are 13% for the 1's. If it's true that 1's are rolled less often, then the defender is getting some advantage here (assuming it's the same for the defender). If the defending dice are not affected by this, then the defender is getting screwed.

 

There really isn't any issue with the dice. People just whine about not getting exactly the average roll every time. The real issue is cheaters. People using multiple accounts is what ruined this game for me. I think the ranked matches need to be revamped. Games should be assigned at random only, and preferably only ever with players that have similar ranks (depending on availability) and standardize the ranked games by having it always be the same type of game. Ranked does make people care and that's what makes it worth playing but then they try to cheat (which ruins the game for everyone, including the cheaters) and then the game becomes unplayable.

Mark, 

See my previous posts. The collective dice outcomes are not randomly distributed.  I logged just short of 1000 battles then removed combinations that had less than 13 observations. When entering into a battle, the probability of losing 1,2,3, etc armies was significantly lower than the actual outcomes. It was persistent and repeatable. Yet, the frequency of the numbers were more or less normally distributed. 


There were two distinct patterns. The distribution of armies lost for an overwhelming attacking force was bi-modal.  Either the attacker didnt lose enough armies or lost way too many. Even when accounting for the lower bound. 


When attacker & defender were within 3 armies of each other, if the attacker rolled lower numbers, the defender tended to roll lower numbers and the when the attacker rolled high numbers the defender rolled low number. You can see how this is problematic when individual die rolls are normally distributed right?



Login or Signup to post a comment