RNG for dice rolls

After trying your (Fair dice) solution it seemed to still have some serious RNG issues - I would suggest revamping this code, it can be extremely unrealistic more often than not.

Do you mean balanced dice? Or original dice. Both are fair (but then both are realistic as well).

Hey Matty,

Mat I suggest this if you are interested in some reading on RNG
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=honors

Several computational methods for random-number generation exist. Many fall short of the goal of true randomness, although they may meet, with varying success, some of the statistical tests for randomness intended to measure how unpredictable their results are (that is, to what degree their patterns are discernible). However, carefully designed cryptographically secure computationally-based methods of generating random numbers also exist, such as those based on the Yarrow algorithm, the Fortuna (PRNG), and others.

For your reading pleasure, AnalyzerX7: https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/879/the-sites-dice-are-accurately-pseudorandom

Appreciate that post @Elysium thanks, I appreciate that emotion takes a toll when you lose 0-11 and that does tend to stick with you over say a decisive win.

But I genuinely feel some tweaks should be had when there are clear situational advantages as it applies to RNG - E.G. When a situation is 2 defending dice versus 2 attacking dice, the odds should reflect the defender winning the ties.

Alternatively, when there are 3 attacking dice versus 1 defending dice, the odds are heavily in favour of the 3 dice and as such should reflect nominal losses. I appreciate variance happens and even in real life I have seen situations personally where 1 single rebel force stopped 4+ invading men but these situations were very very rare. I feel the swings in this RNG may tend to lean to the extremity when a little more consistency could be applied depending on the situation (applying logic)

 Entropy is a (quantitative) measure of the randomness of a system but what does that really mean, and how do we explain it clearly? We can discover entropy as a state function like Carnot did, and then study it by measuring different systems. We find entropy always increases for spontaneous processes leading to the second law of thermodynamics.

I appreciate it is not an easy task given the entropy generated by real dice - To me, entropy is a substance as tangible as energy. One can use equilibrium statistical mechanics and either minimises the energy or maximise the entropy to arrive at the same conclusions. Entropy is the essence of the second law, so it is essential that the concept of randomness be clear.

You say things like "extremely unrealistic" and "the odds should reflect".

Can you please, apart from just saying these things, provide proof for them? You seem to claim we do not use a cryptographically secure PRNG, but then what PRNG are we using according to you?
Elysium provided you with a thread full of proof that humans in general and you and me specifically are prone to see patterns (or errors if you like) in randomness where there are none.

If you can't provide proof (because for example you do not have our RNG), why not provide a script that we can execute and give you the outcome of?
(You can assume to have a function that has an input of the number of attacking and defending armies, which will give you a double array of rolls. For example: rollDice(3, 2) => [[6, 5, 4], [3, 2]]).