The site's dice are accurately pseudorandom.

Currently we're not using the Mersenne Twister anymore, but a cryptographically secure one. Please note that a sequence like [b]head, tail, head, tail, head, tail[/b] can be perfectly random. It is in fact equally likely to happen as any other sequence of 6 coin tosses :)

[quote=Matty] Please note that a sequence like [b]head, tail, head, tail, head, tail[/b] can be perfectly random. It is in fact equally likely to happen as any other sequence of 6 coin tosses :)[/quote] Yeah, thats true for 6 coin tosses. However, I meant a long sequence (for example 100000 coin tosses) with a [b]head, tail, head, tail,...[/b] pattern. In that case the sequence would fail many randomness tests.

I still don't believe it. I've tracked my last 100 attacks. On a 3-3 match up, I lose 2 and the defender loses 0, 61 times. I lose 1 and the defender loses 1 37 times(On the 2 - 2 battles I lose 1 & defender loses 0 34 times, the remaining 3 we each lost 1). So, 98 times out of 100, I lose on a 3-3 match up. I realize that this is far from the 10,000 roles you mentioned in your response and I'm not expecting it to be a 50-50 split or even a 60-40 split, but I do expect better than a 98-2 split. On average it costs me 2.1 troops to defeat a single enemy troop. I've had multiple battles of 10+ against 3, where I lose all but 1 troop and the defender has lost either 0 or 1. My defensive stats are no better than my attacking stats. tracking 100 3-3 matchups, with me on defense, the attacker looses 2 to my 0 only 27 times, we each lose 1 34 times, and I end up loosing the country 64 times out of 77.

You have bad luck. You are expected to lose about 80 out of 100 on a 3v3 fight (assuming do or die here). It happends. I'm sorry, but a 100 rolls really doesn't mean much.

What about starting positions how random are they...plus where your armies are placed? If you are nearer last position in a 8/9 player game you can almost be wiped out before you have a turn ...and in two player games if Australia or S.America are occupied by 4 of your armies, or indeed the oponents (more often the case in y experience) then you have very little chance of winning. BTW the dice I get are more often bad than good but I respect the fact that I will likely remember the bad rolls more than the good....I'm thinking of keeping a record though as I am convinced I get a lot more bad than good.

Yes, they are random as well. For every territory, the chance that one player gets it is equal to the chance another player gets it (the exception here is [i]neutral[/i], because it can have more or less territories than a normal player). If you are interested in the algorithm: we shuffle the list of territories (uniformly), then assign player 1 to the first territory, player 2 to the next and so on. All remaining territories are for neutral (with extra territories for neutral in the case of a 2 player game).

[quote=Matty]If you are interested in the algorithm: we shuffle the list of territories (uniformly), then assign player 1 to the first territory, player 2 to the next and so on. All remaining territories are for neutral (with extra territories for neutral in the case of a 2 player game). [/quote] I was wondering about this. This seems like it should be adjusted slightly. For instance I think it should group territories by region. Sort the regions randomly and then sort the territories randomly within a region. Then proceed down the list like you are doing. As it is now it is entirely possible to have someone with an entire region (Australia), especially on lower participant games. I have been in one before where it was 6 people and one person had 3 of the 4 in Australia. Doing it this way would guarantee that no one could possibly have a bonus on the first turn...

Doing that will definitely ensure you don't have good drops and bad drops anymore, but it'll also ruin the whole randomness of the thing. If you do that, why even bother randomizing them at all? Part of the skill in risk is to make effective use of a good drop. Part of the skill in risk is to (manipulate or) cooperate with others if someone has an unfair drop. As for being nearly wiped out before you take your turn with large player games: that only happends on small maps. I never said playing 9 players on anchor bay was a good idea (as in, a fair idea - it still can be fun). But that can happen with uniform drops, as well as with clustered drops.

If you would uniformly distribute players on the map, you would get a very different game. It would be harder to really come up with a strategy. Right now, the game is actually more interesting since you'll have more troops in one region than another. Sure, it is possible to get a bonus the first turn, and it can make a difference, but not [i]that[/i] much (you'll also be the prime target, because you're the strongest), and it makes game more varied and interesting.

[quote=Matty]Doing that will definitely ensure you don't have good drops and bad drops anymore, but it'll also ruin the whole randomness of the thing. If you do that, why even bother randomizing them at all?[/quote] You are randomizing the regions, and randomizing the territories within a region and even randomizing the players. Seems it is HIGHLY randomized. What it prevents in the Classic map is someone having more than one in a four person game in AU, or in a 2 person game having more than two. However in a 4 person game they could still have india, siam, china and indonesia, which still drives to strategy.

Imaging the texas map with 8 players with your randomizer. Now, keep in mind, the only region with more then 8 territories is the red region in the center. The blue one has exactly 8, all the others have less territories. [spoiler=The texas map][img]https://dominating12.com/assets/img/maps/65.large.jpg[/img][/spoiler] You will get exactly one territory in the blue region center north, you'd get one or two territories in the red region. In all the other regions you'd get either one territory, or none. Do you see how this will massively change the game? Do you see how it's extremely predictable how the board will look like, even though I don't know exactly which territories you'd get?

I still have a chance to have Hansford, Roberts and Randall (upper area) while no one has a chance to have the upper green or yellow on the first turn. With your "randomness" I still have a chance to have Hansford, Roberts and Randall, except that I could also have Dallam and Amarillo on the first turn...which is not really fair for the other players. Yes I see how it changes the game, but to me it is more challenging. While I would only have at most one in a smaller region, I could still have clusters... Bexar, Goliad, Gonzales, Calhoun, etc. Unless I am missing something my randomness still gives you similar groupings, but ensures that no one has a bonus on the first turn. My ultimate ask was to ensure no bonus on the first round. This could either be accomplished by the method above, checking when assigning the last territory in a region to ensure it is different or not allowing bonus on the first round.

I'm guessing that if the programmers were to program set positions instead of random positions, then they would also have to keep it fair with regard to clusters as well. I also think that that would take away the "unknown aspect", which is the attraction to a created game... the hope for luck to help your skill succeed.

[quote=aeronautic]I'm guessing that if the programmers were to program set positions instead of random positions...[/quote] I am not asking the programmers to program set positions. My idea is still random. It just prevents anyone from getting a region bonus by assigning in random region order and then random territory vs random territory order only. You could still have clusters like you do now.

[quote=dough_boy]My idea is still random.[/quote] Yes of course, but the probability will be siginificantly lower. The predictability of how the placement is going to be is going to change significantly. If you play a world classic with 4 players you'll always, always have exactly 1, not less, not more, territories in australia and in south america. Two players will have 1 territory in africa, two players will have 2. 1 player will have 1 territory in europe, the others 2. 1 player will have 3 territories in NA, the others 2 and all players will have 3 territories in Asia. Sure, technically it's still random, but it's soo predictable, I don't think that will be fun at all. Maybe we can start again if someone has too much regions and starts right away. Maybe we can not let the region bonus happen in the first round, but I'm really not going to screw with the randomization as you propose it to be. For all I know that would completely ruin the game.