The site's dice are accurately pseudorandom.

You assert that when attacker rolls all high, defender rolls high more often than chance would dictate? If Vexer could be persuaded to indulge it, that is something that can easily be tested against the data. Bin the set of attacker dice by defender rolls, or vice versa, then plot the histogram for each bin. You'll see they're equivalent.

Science > intuition

Also, you want attacks and defence rolls run through the same code exactly because you don't want them treated differently.

@scaldwell17 That is my point, I have a theory that computer programs don't see random how we see it and I base this on the early days of computers when I used to program in Basic and I would program random number generaters and anylise the results. The program always tries to randomise its results based on what it had produced previously, so I ran 10 generaters simultaneously and the results were very very similar across the card, you see we haven't programmed them to think and even if we did, you'd find they'd have a human factor and do the same, so if Attack & Defence dice generators were in different programs and told to produce 1 set of 3 numbers and then be restarted & the same for the 1 set of 2 and then each send results to a third (storage / result) place, perhaps similar to how a html code would call a style sheet or database, then it would not be influenced by its own results?? Does this make sense? Sorry I can't say it in C++ or whatever language you program in, as I have no programming knowledge for 30+ years now.

Random generators create a number that has a specific property, namely:
Even if you know the sequence of all numbers before it, untill the seeded number, it is still impossible to predict which number will come.
Or in technical terms: the numbers are generated so that the probability is uniform (with infinite amount of numbers this is impossible, but then integers (for example) have a maximum number (which is 2^31-1)).

It calculates its random number using a seed, and the previously generated numbers (so yes, it can use the result of the last dice (or a series of last dice) in it's calculation).

However, it does not try to 'even out' results, it is made to generate numbers that are inpredictable, which is exactly the human defenition for randomness.



Now, one could have two generators running beside eachother, but the generators' algorithms are made to be used as one generator.
If these two sequences accidentally have the same seed, than they will give the same results, and it will exactly be NOT random, so really, having one is better


Also, there is a difference between php's rand function and oldskool basic 'random' generators... They suck, ours doesn't

I am getting fed up with the dice.
While I think this server is otherwise well done.

Use this program. And look at the odds when you have ridiculous rolls.

http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Gambit/BattleOdds

I wouldn't give my money to this server because the dice program doesn't correspond to probability.

I am too annoyed to find a good explanation. But someone else who might understand that these dice are screwy should google "dice probability."

Perhaps some people here like myself, have taken a math probability course and obviously see an error in the dice.

I have more to say on this...

I for one have taken a math probability course, and I can tell you that the dice are as random as dice are in reality.

Please take a look at the first post of this topic - there is a proof that the server's dice in the total picture do in fact correspond to probability.

Matty, I have seen that you have posted on this comment before.

I just don't think you get it.

So I suggest you read about dice probability, or watch some videos.
Maybe then, you'll understand where some of us are coming from.

Otherwise I find people defend something without really understanding everything related to it.

Maybe I get it, maybe I don't.

The question is, do you?
I mean, really?


Otherwise I find people attack something without really understanding everything related to it.

 TomC wrote:
Posted: 11:33 PM, 30 August 2013 | Post #94
you can say whatever you want, but I just lost a 20-1 fight... and that is just so unreal...

also losing 1-5 happens every single game at least 1 time = unreal

just no words for these dices and I think it's unbelievable how many people keep saying this is normal...

 tryitonce wrote:
Posted: 04:31 PM, 19 May 2013 | Modified: 04:37 PM, 19 May 2013 | Post #51
As long as the dicegenerator is behaving like this here on this site i will never pay for this site. This dicegenerator is really abnormal and is against ALL ODDS.

I know they all come up with I-don't-know-howmany explanations to proof their dicegenerator is 100% random and that there is also something they call clumping. But I tell you the clumps here are huge !!!!!!!!!!!! In fact if a picture is taking of the dicerolls here it will be full of dark black spots. And that goes especially for the attacker. In one game severals clumps of 15 to 2 and the 15 are lost and the 2 are still there. Come on man; that's impossible; it's like you win the jackpot-lottery 5 times in a week !!!!!!!!!!! It's possible but very very very very unlikely.

And I really mean what I say: as long as the dice are so weird here I will never pay for it.

I played several risk-games on the internet and there is NO SITE were there is so much complaining as here regarding the dice. Nor do I want to win if I attack with 15 and the other has 20 and he looses all and I dont loose any nor do I want to win if I defend with 10 and the other has 30 and he looses all and I am still there with 10; for that happens also here; and not once a while but repeatedly. It just kills all the tactics in the game.

I want to win a game due to my tactics and not because of impossible-against-all-odds good dice of mine or impossible-against-all-odds bad dice of the others.

It's a pity ...........

Maybe you believe it or not, but I actually have played a game where I did in fact not lose 1-5 even once.

To make things even more unbelievable, I actually played lots of games where I never lost a 1-5 fight.


The odd's for losing a 20-1 fight are small, but not 0. Which means that at some point it will happen, if only you try often enough.

Do you realize that on this site ALOT of ppl fight fights like that all the time?


Edit: It is true that some of the other risk sites do not have accuratly random dice, but modified them to make these weird things (like losing 20-1) happen less often.

Further to the above:
There are many theories and facts on randomness, but the only true giver of randomness is 'physical', e.g. a physical producer of say 6 balls from a spun cylinder with disruption ridges (lottery balls), where they are at the mercy of the laws of physics and have true randomness in their position when plucked from the chamber.
I use this as an example only and seek to question, if there is a way to emulate the random ball cylinder in 2 seperate programs (applets) that feed the main program (or 3rd applet) the results only, whereupon the program results calculation is used, displayed and deleted/restarted so as to have no knowledge of previous results?

I found it impossible to gain true randomness in the Basic programs as the averages of 10 numbers from 1 to 10 run 100 times each by 10 generaters (100 results long), usually produced what looked like random numbers, but you could slide each set of results horizontally and line up vertical averages of 5. When tested by more and more generaters, the results were the same, but more so! So it was merely the start point that could create the illusion of randomness and if synchronised, the randomness was purely a series of the same combination of 1000 generations that would repeat and could be lined up to produce 10 X 10's, 10 X 1's etc.
Perhaps it was the early programs that were limited by memory that caused loops, I don't know, I just know that they did and I believe it was trying to keep the numbers random... varied... evenly spread!

I think all I should say here is that basic is basic, and that php is php. There is quite a difference between them, for example the one being much more modern than the other.

I do not know how basic's 'random' algorithm work, but by your description it must be pretty bad.
php's random algorithm is pretty good - if you want to see how good, just check the first post of this thread.

Wow while I wrote the above further comment to the topic not added to in days, about 7 new posts appeared between my posts, sorry if it sounds out of place in the discussion!

Yes I since read your reply to the upper post. I accept this, but please consider all that I wrote about self influence.