HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below
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.
Ivan @ SMG
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.
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
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.
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.
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?