Implemented

This thread needs to be retired. This was before they came up with balanced blitz. True random Iis still garbage so I never play it.

Its not the random number generator, but the algorithm that uses it. They seem to have developed thw blitz algorithm apart from summup up independent dice rolls. What they might have done is take the ratio of attacker to defender to weight the outcome. Thats a reasonable approach to save vompute time.

game still fill of dual accounts and dice cheats

I am pretty sure SMG bought this from Hasbro. I got on board when it was only Hasbro. Or maybe they merged. I didn't really look into it; I just know the name changed at one point.

If it helps, I had a game where I had about 35 troops or so going up against 60. I rolled one by one, since the goal was to just beat him down as much as I could without going below 3 troops on my territory. He lost 3 and I lost about 27 to 30 or whatever it was before the timer ran out. I think you guys need to stop blaming Blitz so much. There's a case where it was ridiculous for me as the attacker to lose so much. And I did it roll by roll. So it can happen and it did to me.

Because I seem to remember on the computer version of one of those two versions of games I had like hundred to several hundred troop units on a single territory and with in a single throw of the die it went from that amount to anywhere between 1 to a 2 dozen Risk Troop Units. Now that is true flawed probabilities due to the point of computer cheating.

Yes, balanced blitz solved all of the complaining about "unfair" roles by making the dice less realistic. There really shouldn't be complaining about dice because of this, even though the game is now less interesting if it's used. I always use true random. Skilled players understand that the dice don't always fall exactly on the odds.

28 vs 2, I lost 27, the opponent lost NONE. Ahhhh... the "probability matrix", GARBAGE!

It is possible to happen in real odds. A probability matrix might feel unfair because there is a 1 out of xxxxxxxxxx chance that one will get selected. But it's not that much different from rolling each one out. For the sake of not killing your device it's not a terrible trade. But yes, when I have a bad roll I also want to blame the matrix too haha

Sam,
I think you confused probability and luck. When you have 11vs3 9vs2 5vs1 are all 97-98% to win. So if you are the small armies in these scenarios, you're 'lucky' to have won. However, if these battles occur 1000 times the favorite will win 975 times or so. Maybe only 920, perhaps 950, maybe 983 or 990. And if you are the underdog in this situation and win you are lucky. Now if after those 1000 battles the favorite only wins 650, 700, even 800 times, then you have skewed data. An impossibility with true dice. And that ain't luck-that's math.

Yeah, it's possible, one in a million. I've played enough real-world Risk with real-world dice to know the statistics... never seen it happen though. That being said, the dice in the app needs to be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT random, not using a "probability matrix". P.S. I'm sure thankful that the 49 year old dice in my 1968 edition real-world board game doesn't use this "probability matrix".

I agree it's not the same thing. Nothing computerized is truly random anyway. It has to have some numerical basis since there's no gravity pulling the dice down. Hell, even that's not really random to roll dice. Random.org uses a neat technique. they use micro weather data to produce their random results.That's probably as random as you'll get with a computer. As for the dice in the real game, depends on the player rolling them.

Also, before they implemented the matrix, it really burned up processing power on your device. I recall some 50+ battles taking a whole half a second to process. I do personally prefer making it roll out each one, one by one but I get why they did it.

I also never would have expected to get a lousy roll like that on the board game but that's because i've played less than 100 times in my life. But already in 2 years playing in this app, I've easily got 1500-2000 games. Yet, I cannot recall a single time when it was that devastating for me. But I'm sure out of the millions playing, there is bound to be someone with such results who will come on here to complain when it happens ;)

Also, before they implemented the matrix, it really burned up processing power on your device. I recall some 50+ battles taking a whole half a second to process. I do personally prefer making it roll out each one, one by one but I get why they did it.

I also never would have expected to get a lousy roll like that on the board game but that's because i've played less than 100 times in my life. But already in 2 years playing in this app, I've easily got 1500-2000 games. Yet, I cannot recall a single time when it was that devastating for me. But I'm sure out of the millions playing, there is bound to be someone with such results who will come on here to complain when it happens ;)

Ok no one really thinks its the random number generator per se. I have always maintained that whomever decided to use transition matrices for Blitz Mode, juiced the matrix elements so that more often than not, large armies are waylayed by much smaller ones a disproportionate amount of time beyond normal probabilities or expected values. Its not the dice algorithm, rather the human being that input the values into the matrix elements. We need to know the algorithm for that, not the Twister.

I have the same problem. Initially I figured I wasn’t lucky but I experience many many times that I loose with twice the numbers.

There is a common misunderstanding about how probabilities (dice, coin tossing, roulette) work. Randomness with equal probabilities does not guarantee that we will see an even distribution in a game. In the REALLY LONG run (many thousands and thousands) of trials, we would expect to see virtually even distribution, but not in the short run.

The dice have no memory. They do not know what numbers came up on the previous toss. They don't take notes and monitor the history of tosses over time so they can tell #1 to show up more. They just get what they get. You can count cards at poker, but that's because there is a fixed number (52) and the probabilities change based on what cards have been dealt and which remain in the deck. In cards, this is "sampling without replacement". In dice, it's "sampling with replacement". If you roll a 1, that doesn't change the probability of getting a 1 on the next roll. It's still 17%.

It's like you draw a king of hearts, then put it back and reshuffle. The probability of drawing a king of hearts the first time was 2% (1 out of 52). If you put the cards back in, then the chance of drawing the king of hearts remains 2%. The odds don't change.

You'll have to do a statistical analysis to substantiate any of these claims. Take a few hundred samples of blitz runs, record every scenario for troop count and outcome and then report them. I am sure you'll find that it gets pretty close to what it should be statistically. Otherwise, your brain is just remembering the upsetting moments and forgetting the times when everything went to plan, or even in your favor.

## Steve Clements

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