SMG Studio

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

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.

 

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.

Well of course everyone gets the same "advantage" or "disadvantage" but if the dice aren't rolling as expected, strategies may need to be changed. In this case, the slight variances in 1's wouldn't change gameplay much. It just means that in small battles that defender has slightly better edge than if the dice were exactly as they should be. It's not enough to sway me from playing, obviously.

Actually, the greatest flaw in my opinion is how long it takes to roll. Your choice is either roll and run out of time or take a risk with a Blitz. In desperate measures, Blitz is fine but sometimes I only want to attack if I can continue to advance. And it's not often I'm willing to attack with only 2 or 1 left when the defender may still have say, 8 or more. They need rapid rolling for these circumstances which happen to me a lot in gameplay. Sometimes, I'm just beating down armies so the next turn can't be offensive. Odds are in favor of the attacker. I always take the offense when I know there's going to be lashback (typically only when it's 1v1)

 

Aitch, there's no need to be a prick.  I have no problem with you or anyone else who thinks there's a issue with the dice, and I'm not in any way insulting you or them.

I'm aware that a lot of people have complained about the dice, and I'm also aware that I'm not the only person who thinks these complaints have been blown out of proportion and may well be artifacts of human psychology.  I didn't just jump into the tail end of this discussion without reading the previous posts and other threads on this same topic.  Just because a lot of people think something is true doesn't make that thing true (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).  In all of the complaining that's been done about the dice I haven't seen any evidence.  The evidence I have access to (my videos and others I've found on youtube) doesn't seem to support these claims of bad dice.  If I see evidence that does support bad dice, I will happily change my tune.

I'm also very familiar with the probabilities of rolling dice as they relate to RISK.  Not only have I seen the probability tables that can be found in numerous places on the internet, but I have actually worked out the probabilities myself to confirm what I've seen elsewhere.  I also have a background in math, specifically a BS, and I'm a math teacher by trade.

Post your spreadsheets if you want, but the raw data (videos) that you mentioned would be much better.  If you post videos, no one has to take your word for it that your spreadsheets are accurate.  I have my own raw data (my videos and others' videos on youtube), and that data does not seem to support the claims you and others have made about frequently encountering very improbable dice rolls.  That's why I'm skeptical.  If you're offended by my skepticism and requests that you actually support you claims with actual evidence, that's your problem.

A bajillion people have said the dice are flawed - and Marky Mark comes along as the Lone Crusader to say they are fine lol!

Dude, ya obviously aren't up to speed with the probabilities... check out this website for a basic primer = 

http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/november22011/index.html

Like I said, we still have a level playing field as everyone has the same crappy dice (although it does mean you have to adjust the strategy of how you play) - however the monumental problem is, crappy rolls kill the popularity and profitability of the game... 

Right now it seems about 5 million people have downloaded Risk - which is great... but it could/should/would be double or even triple that!

More importantly, only a small percentage of people go ahead and pay for Premium - that percentage would be much higher... if SMG fixed all the many minor and major issues!

Anyway, seeing as you're even more obsessive than me (way to go bro lol!) and have recorded/uploaded some games - I'll go through them and put the data into a public Google spreadsheet... so we can all analyse till the kangaroos come home!

FYI: Rolling = Recording of the rolls made through the game / game stats

 

 Mark,

I won't go through the math to find the exact calculation but to illustrate the point, with 1's being less common, let's look at it as if 1's were never rolled. The defender wins on the tie. And normally this is a guaranteed win 1/6 or 16.6% of the time (roll a 6, you can't be beaten) If there is no 1's then the chances of an automatic defender win is 1/5 or 20%. Obviously 1's are still almost as common as the others so even slightly less barely matters but it would signal a flaw in the game since they made the new algorithm. And it also could be true that their roll recording is wrong. I honestly never really trusted that thing. And does it record both attacker and defender rolls? I'd love to dig into the code and see it but I'm a busy man so checking that isn't exctly a top priority. It's bad enough I play 2-3 games a day. More concern to me is if they make it easier for grandmasters to find each other and to crack down on the cheating. The dice are risky but that's the name of the game haha.

Also, I clarify, the dice issue I saw was after the last update and they fixed it after a day or less. I complained immediately and I think they knew about it pretty fast.

Also, as several other people have pointed out, even if the in-game rolls don't replicate true dice rolls they are still fair if they treat everyone the same.  If we all have crap rolls or good rolls or anywhere in between, nobody has an advantage.  So why does it matter?

Briand, according to the in game stats, I roll a one 14% of the time.  It seems to me that could just be random noise, but if everyone is seeing this same deviation from the expected 16% maybe there is something there.  But I also notice when I add up all of my dice rolling percentages I only get 96%, so I'm not sure how reliable the in game stats are.  I haven't noticed the anything off about blitz rolls, but it's completely possible that I there is an issue and I just haven't picked up on it.  Either way, I don't see how giving everyone slightly fewer ones would skew the results toward either defender or attacker.

Aitch, as I said in my previous comment, I too record and review my games, and your experience is at odds with mine.  I definitely have seen things like 10 attacking 1 and losing, but it's pretty rare and it's nowhere near every other turn and nowhere near every game.  I've also seen people rage quit after losing a pivotal battle they were statistically favored to win, but again in my experience this is a rare occurrence.

Can you post your games to youtube and provide links so your claims can be verified?  If so, it'd be important to post all of your games and not just the ones where these events occur so we can get a true idea of their frequency.

Having a background in Math (and having OCD lol) means I've meticulously recorded many games - and my conclusion is... the dice algo is complete bullshit!

Attacking should give a slight but clear advantage - but in SMG's opinion it should be the exact opposite lol

However, you can live with these crappy dice - because EVERYBODY has crappy dice haha... so ultimately it's still a level playing field

The bee in my bonnet - is the fact SMG aren't smart enough to realise how damaging this is to the popularity of the game... and how much money it's costing them

Almost every game I play, has someone "rage-quit" when they get a crazy roll (like losing 15 troops and killing only one!) - sure, this is bound to happen on the rare occasion.. but according to SMG, it should happen in every game, every other turn lol

Newbies won't continue playing the game - and they certainly won't pay for it, when this keeps happening!

The secret to any business is to give your customers what they want - which means dice rolls which they are happy with!

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.

 

Well said, Mark. It is true that the mind only remembers significant things. And of course the people coming to the forums are ones who were pissed that something they didn't expect happened. It doesn't mean the algorithm is off. However, there does seem to be some issue with 1's being rolled less often, as the recorded dice rolls on all 6 of my accounts show less % in 1's than others. This wasn't the case prior to the implementation of the new algorithm, which was over a year ago now. But I do remember my dice rolls way back in the day were 16% across the board. Now it's like 14% for 1's and 17% for all others evenly. Perhaps SMG did something to give defenders a little bit more boost. As slightly less 1's would give more favor ability to the tie winner (defender) but clearly not enough to offset the actual advantage to the attacker, which can be seen in every game you play. It is also possible that coincidence has happened to me but there have been others making the claim and I've made other test accounts to check it. It's still such a slight variation that it isn't enough to notice.

Now, when they did their last update there was a flaw in the blitz. Every blitz move made against a territory with 1 was always a loss of 1 to the attacker before taking the territory. It didn't take me long to figure that out. I complained and it was fixed within a day.That flaw was obvious. No clue how the dice could possibly be flawed like that but I'm sure this game is a mess of code anyway.

 

For anyone who actually wants to check whether the dice algorithm is off, there is a fair amount of data out there in the form of recorded games on youtube.  For example https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBsz1fgsud-bWjuf4PRr1KA.

I play risk just about every day and I don't think the algorithm is off.  I also record and review my games (but don't typically post to youtube).  I haven't noticed anything strange about the dice.  Sure, I lose battles I'm statistically favored to win, but that's how probability works.  What would truly be strange and questionable is if we didn't ever lose battles we were favored to win.  Humans are very good at noticing out of the ordinary things but not so good at noticing things that are as we would expect.  It's like how everyone has this idea that most drivers are idiots because they see a few dumb drivers each day.  But they don't remember all of the the good drivers, who are actually the vast majority.  The bad drivers stick out in our memory, but the good ones don't even though they're far more common.

My guess is all this complaining about "bad dice" is unintentional selective memory.  I bet if everyone complaining about bad dice would actually do some real number crunching and calculate the probabilities of their rolls using data from their games, they would discover that what happens in the game is very close to what would be expected from fair dice.

In future games try to pay specific attention to how often the dice behave more or less as you would expect.  In my experience it's the vast majority of the time.