The site's dice are accurately pseudorandom.

I am not sure what to respond, since all of the things said here are based on evidence. If you don't like randomness, then maybe Risk (the hint is in the name) is not the right game for you.

create an option where each player rolls the dice separately, not as it is now. use 2 separate and independent rolls. each player controls thier own dice

Do you mean that each player rolls actual dice and inputs the values into the website? How would that work for long term games where the defender isn't online most of the time? And how do you prevent cheating where people will just input sixes?

I think s/he meant that they have to click their own button to roll the dice, but the Long Term games still won't work with that method, so it's not viable, regardless. Beside the ability to exploit delaying someone from killing your armies, against a ticking clock.

The problem is that pseudo random number generators are not truly random and when you are using 4 (in the case of 3 v 1) or 5 (in the case of 3 v 2) pseudo random number generators, you are increasing the chances of seeing outliers by a factor of five and that disproportionally impacts attackers since outliers that hurt a defender are more likely to be irrelevant based ont the fact that a tie goes to the Defender. I have proposed the following solution in a private message: "As a final suggestion, which I will share add to the forum, would be to instead of using a random number generator for each die, you use a random number generator for each system as follows: A) 3 v 2 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 7,776 (6x6x6x6x6) where each number corresponds to a system result with the first three numbers representing the attackers rolls and the last two digits representing the defenders: 1 = 11111 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1,1); 2 = 11112 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1,2); 36 = 11166 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 6,6); 216 = 11666 (attacker rolls 1,1,6 and defender rolls 6,6); 217 = 12111 (attacker rolls 1,2,1 and defender rolls 1,1); etc. B) 3 v 1 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 1,296 (6x6x6x6) where each number corresponds to a system result with the first three numbers representing the attackers rolls and the last digit representing the defenders: 1 = 1111 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1); 13 = 1131 (attacker rolls 1,1,3 and defender rolls 1); etc. C) 2 v 2 battles also use a random number generator between 1 and 1,296 corresponding to a system result where the first two integers are the attacker rolls and the last two integers are the defender rolls etc. D) 2 v 1 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 216 (6x6x6) etc.

I havent kept count, but it seems the attacker loses 2 men considerably more than 29%...

[quote=bergerd12]The problem is that pseudo random number generators are not truly random and when you are using 4 (in the case of 3 v 1) or 5 (in the case of 3 v 2) pseudo random number generators, you are increasing the chances of seeing outliers by a factor of five and that disproportionally impacts attackers since outliers that hurt a defender are more likely to be irrelevant based ont the fact that a tie goes to the Defender. I have proposed the following solution in a private message: "As a final suggestion, which I will share add to the forum, would be to instead of using a random number generator for each die, you use a random number generator for each system as follows: A) 3 v 2 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 7,776 (6x6x6x6x6) where each number corresponds to a system result with the first three numbers representing the attackers rolls and the last two digits representing the defenders: 1 = 11111 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1,1); 2 = 11112 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1,2); 36 = 11166 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 6,6); 216 = 11666 (attacker rolls 1,1,6 and defender rolls 6,6); 217 = 12111 (attacker rolls 1,2,1 and defender rolls 1,1); etc. B) 3 v 1 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 1,296 (6x6x6x6) where each number corresponds to a system result with the first three numbers representing the attackers rolls and the last digit representing the defenders: 1 = 1111 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1); 13 = 1131 (attacker rolls 1,1,3 and defender rolls 1); etc. C) 2 v 2 battles also use a random number generator between 1 and 1,296 corresponding to a system result where the first two integers are the attacker rolls and the last two integers are the defender rolls etc. D) 2 v 1 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 216 (6x6x6) etc. [/quote] Thanks for the post [user]bergerd12[/user]! I like it when I'm challenged to think. Question: How did you come up with the numbers for the amount of RNG? I would assume that in the case of 3v1, it wouldn't be 3+1 = 4 RNGs in play, yet 2+1 (1 remains as a defender on that territory and can't attack), similarly, with 3v2 => would make 4? I understand the issue you bring up about the way of how RNGs function and how your suggestion could be more fair/equal/predictable. In essence, it sounds good to me. On the other hand, the way how the dice currently function (and there's also the option to play with balanced dice), is fine for me too. I don't mind that there is a higher risk/unpredictable part in the game. This too can be added in your private risk analyses when you decide how to continue in a game. Everything has his pros and cons. Suppose it'll always be good to hear more opinions from people on this topic (and the realisation that no matter what, there'll always be people who prefer to see things differently - it's impossible to cater to everyone's wishes). -Alex

what about a simulator with the algorithm for the math nuts to keep them entertained? didn't vexer do one of some sorts? would be cool to have one in one of the tabs to test your dice ^^ this open source thingy could give ya some ideas. programmers https://ryanxzhu.github.io/RiskCalculator/

Nifty Idea! Source code doesn't look too complicated. [u]Only issue[/u] I suspect this [i]new[/i] tab would get so much use that [b]certain[/b] players would spend more time there than playing actual games.

[quote=Bearskin]Nifty Idea! Source code doesn't look too complicated. [u]Only issue[/u] I suspect this [i]new[/i] tab would get so much use that [b]certain[/b] players would spend more time there than playing actual games. [/quote] maybe in the live games. but then it would help out the chat moderators (less chat) it can be a mission during peak times :D

Im going to start keeping track of the 3vs 2 attacking stats....after my comment i promptly went out and had a turn with 4 consecutive -2s, followed by a turn with 3 consecutive; and this happens routinely.....if -2 on a 3 vs. 2 is 29%, then the odds of 4 in a row or 3 in a row are less than 1 in a 100 and 2.4 in 100....first turn this morning was 2 consecutive...

[quote=bergerd12]The problem is that pseudo random number generators are not truly random and when you are using 4 (in the case of 3 v 1) or 5 (in the case of 3 v 2) pseudo random number generators, you are increasing the chances of seeing outliers by a factor of five and that disproportionally impacts attackers since outliers that hurt a defender are more likely to be irrelevant based ont the fact that a tie goes to the Defender.[/quote] This makes quite some assumptions on the nature of the bias, which you haven't shown. Do you have data to show this? That's probably the easiest way to figure whether or not this is just a theoretical difference or something with a big impact. [quote=bergerd12]I have proposed the following solution in a private message: "As a final suggestion, which I will share add to the forum, would be to instead of using a random number generator for each die, you use a random number generator for each system as follows: A) 3 v 2 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 7,776 (6x6x6x6x6) where each number corresponds to a system result with the first three numbers representing the attackers rolls and the last two digits representing the defenders: 1 = 11111 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1,1); 2 = 11112 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1,2); 36 = 11166 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 6,6); 216 = 11666 (attacker rolls 1,1,6 and defender rolls 6,6); 217 = 12111 (attacker rolls 1,2,1 and defender rolls 1,1); etc. B) 3 v 1 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 1,296 (6x6x6x6) where each number corresponds to a system result with the first three numbers representing the attackers rolls and the last digit representing the defenders: 1 = 1111 (attacker rolls 1,1,1 and defender rolls 1); 13 = 1131 (attacker rolls 1,1,3 and defender rolls 1); etc. C) 2 v 2 battles also use a random number generator between 1 and 1,296 corresponding to a system result where the first two integers are the attacker rolls and the last two integers are the defender rolls etc. D) 2 v 1 battles use a random number generator between 1 and 216 (6x6x6) etc. [/quote] This could work, and if you can show that the impact of this bias is sufficient, then I'll implement a test for this. But note that currently [url=https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/879/the-sites-dice-are-accurately-pseudorandom/post/56667#post-56667]our dice get pretty close to the expected results[/url] and are pretty good already, so I doubt this will actually matter (of course, since this is true randomness, it'll never be perfect (unless by insane chance)). So far you only say things that might have an impact, but then might not. [quote=AlexCheckMate]Question: How did you come up with the numbers for the amount of RNG? I would assume that in the case of 3v1, it wouldn't be 3+1 = 4 RNGs in play, yet 2+1 (1 remains as a defender on that territory and can't attack), similarly, with 3v2 => would make 4?[/quote] He's referring to the situations where the attacker would roll 3 dice, and the defender would roll 2 dice (or 1 die). So it's not 3 troops vs 1 troop, but 3 dice vs one dice (which means the attacker has to have at least 4 troops on his territory). [quote=Hoodlum]what about a simulator with the algorithm for the math nuts to keep them entertained? didn't vexer do one of some sorts? would be cool to have one in one of the tabs to test your dice ^^ this open source thingy could give ya some ideas. programmers https://ryanxzhu.github.io/RiskCalculator/[/quote] We have a simulator (see the link earlier in this post for the results), however I'd rather not allow everyone to run it, as it'll be a bit of a load on our server, and we have plenty of that already ;)

Personally and not being a maths enthusiast, I believe the source of all the crazy losses and hence dice complaints stems from the shear fact of an advantage in that the defence actually always has the upper hand regardless of how many dice it uses. The reason is, they don't have to beat the attack number, they only have to equal it to win the fight. By this system, it gives very little advantage to having 2 or 3 dice to acquire the attack dice numbers and statistically the attacker can lose all and kill none far more easily than the defender. Statistically each dice has the same chance of rolling each of its six numbers. Therefore, there is the same chance of rolling each of the 216 combinations of three dice. However, the more dice used in attack, the more the need for the defence to require a 6 to win the fight. The only thing that I can suggest to put an end to the disparity and luck factors that cause so much controversy, is to add an "attack" dice when the number of attacking troops, far outweigh the defending troops. e.g. when attacking with 6 against 1, you get 4 dice to 1 dice and when attacking with 12 against 1, you get 5 dice against 1 dice. This would give a more realistic chance of the 1 Troop being killed when greatly outnumbered. You could use the same ratio for more than 1 "defence" Troops (4 dice v 2 dice) for 6:1 and (5 dice v 2 dice) for 12:1. This requires you to have 18 Troops v 3 Troops to have a realistic chance of losing 0 or 1 Troops to kill 3 neutrals. I bet you'd soon start seeing expected and realistic outcomes with this method. You'd also still see 1 defending troop killing a few attackers.... but on far fewer occasions.

30 Apr, 12:49:45 Genova (dough_boy) attacked La Spezia (vodkamikebid) killing 0, losing 7. 9 vs 1 and I lost 7. That seems realistic.

no....no way the dice generator simulates actual dice....wish i actually kept track of stats to prove this, but, for example, I just got done taking a 18-4 shellacking while attacking, and most were 3 on 1 rolls, some 3 on 2... this is by no means a rare event, this happens frequently, every game....3 on 1 roles are maybe worse than 3 on 2...i just had 2 games, where toward the end, as i went across the board, it took me 2-3 rolls, almost every time, to remove one man...again, im not motivated enuff to jot down stats on this, but i have seen enough anecdotally..