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

I've posted several times about the lost troops vs killed troops stats. It is statistically impossible to loose more troops than you have killed when your total win-to-loss ratio is 2:1 (or greater). A buddy of mine who has an EXTREMELY large win-to-loss ratio says the same thing... his lost troops are WAY higher than his killed troops stats.

"streaky" sort of explains what I've been seeing lately. In the last game I played, everyone was getting their ass handed to them as the attacker. Twice they tried to kill this one guy hoarding Australia where at least in the 2nd run should have happened but got blown away, giving me an easy sweep of the board since my turn was next. But even during that sweep, I was losing a lot more than expected on some rolls. Like losing 24 men to kill an 8 spot or something like that.


I also had a game where everyone was just decimated the first couple of rounds. 6 player game and everyone had an average of 15 men left after 2 rounds. This wasn't from attacking like idiots, it was from killing 1 territories. I didn't even get my first card. And I wasn't using blitz either. Mostly others were. Probably coincidence but I have been afraid of going offense especially in Blitz lately.

Almost all of my accounts have winning records yet I think I’ve lost more troops than I’ve defeated on all of them. I’m not really worried about that though my goal is to win. I have noticed the attacks seems very streaky right now. If I blitz a one and lose 3 I’m likely to lose a lot for a few more attacks. Recently I took and army of about ten and blitzed seven and six back to back losing no troops. So when I see my opponents losing a lot of armies in the opening rounds of tend to attack where I have the largest army facing a one rather than try for the best positional attack.

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.

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 just don't play beginner or lower anymore. I don't think there's anything wrong with the dice, although it's burned me a few times with scenarios that seemed unrealistic but that's also the game. But I don't want to waste my time playing beginners anyway. Eventually, SMG should have a system where we can block people from joining our games based on rank and we can have all master games. But for now, I just create games under 3 minute, progressive, classic map and I let it fill, then boot everyone below intermediate, then refill the spots. You have to do it this way or you may run into server errors. If someone leaves as you're booting others, it can cause a server issue. For this reason, if 1 slot is waiting to fill for more than 5 seconds, I'll join with a junk account from another device to make sure no server error and if not, just boot myself lol.


Ever since filters became a part of the game, it's been easier to find higher ranking players. We seem to migrate towards the 3 min games and it actually doesn't take long to fill them, although sometimes so many join at once I am sure some are cheating. Doesn't seem to change my ability to win? haha. Anyway, I am talking about this because maybe others will follow the trend and we can keep making games together and keep booting the low ranked players. I'd really prefer expert+ but without ability to communicate within the game people tend to be impatient and I have to go with lower than I want.


I'm also compiling friends with expert+ players. You'd think eventually I'd have enough friends that I can just start friend only games but it's been rough doing that. Now I think it doesn't even notify you if someone sends a friend request. You just have to both push the friend request button.

I have lost 16000 more troops than i have won. Once you reach master status the OPPONENT'S roll a very high % of 5s and 6s. They should record opponents roll %. There is a reason they don't
With the last upgrade, I am convinced that the dice are not random due to external data being considered in the alogarithm or incompetence in the software design team. The outcomes don't match probabilities. I'm done with SMG Studios Risk. Glad I didn't pay anything for it.

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.


1 person likes this
I wouldn't say 99% of the time but it was definitely quite consistant with a little bit of favor towards the attacker. What was obvious is when blitz against 1 army territories, both attacker and defender both lost 1 every single time. I've seen this bug before, on the last update, and submitted a ticket already. Not gonna play till that's fixed. Takes about a day or so.

 

Anxious to see if I get the same result.

 

New update just rolled out: https://www.facebook.com/riskglobaldomination/photos/a.628832297304715.1073741828.619495338238411/854337008087575/?type=3 "+ Blitz Dice rolls Fixes" Ran through 3 single player games. The attacker losing the SAME AMOUNT OF TROOPS as the defender 99 PERCENT OF THE TIME is NOT "fixed".

 The dice sequence is dependent on what SMG refers to as "transition matrix" (TM). The random number sequence if conducted in a "serial mode" requires many more random numbers (one for each state) than the TM approach. In Discrete Event Simulation, to go from State A to State B given a probability P, throw 1 random number in a uniform probability distribution between [0,1] and assign State A if the random number is < P, or State B if the random number is > P. Thats for a simple transition of one state to one other. Now if you want to go from State A1, A2, A3...Aa  to State B1, B2, B3 ..Bb  then you would need an axb size matrix, where the matrix elements correspond to the individual specific transitions. I would think SMG ran say 10 million dice simulations with all types of combinations to populate their overall BlitzMode TM. They have to simulate enough transition states to get whats called The Law of Large Numbers (normal distribution) mean and variance..   The issue is that their matrix element values may be juiced or skewed so when the one dice is thrown Blitz Mode, it might not seem to be in accordance with the probability distribution of the TM.


The Random Number Generator (Merseinne Twister) is a very robust algorithm. However the TM values are not subject to the same statistics as the generator.


If SMG gets the message their TM elements are hosed, then they will correct it.


There is a small probability that 5 armies will prevail against 15.

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?



The funny thing about your emphasis on "random" is no computer can truly generate random numbers. There has to be something to base it on. Time is usually what they use. Such as the ms on the timestamp or something like that. That can be predictable if you were capable of triggering the roll right at the exact ms, or whatever they use. But ultimately, because you're talking really arbitrary numbers from a user stand-point, it is pretty random, whether rolling one by one or using a Blitz matrix. It's still a "random" choice as to which outcome it selects. They do this to save on processing power. In the old days when it appeared to not use a matrix, an army of 50 against 50 would freeze the device for about a second while waiting for the result. It was irritating to be honest.

It's hardly even "random" when you roll dice as well. Some people can sort of control what they will roll. Of course the average person just drops them and hopes for the best but humans can modify the outcome.

Now, the most truly "random" I've seen that a computer can do is what random.org implements. They use slight changes in weather as their method for determining numbers. That is quite interesting and I guess as random as you can get, since that's a function based on natural occurrence and cannot be predicted.

In the end, as long as they aren't skewing the code one way or the other, I am fine with it. But I do think they have a skew on 1's. unless those stats are wrong. And I don't like slightly moving the edge towards the defender.

 

Login or Signup to post a comment