Post your dice analyzer screenshot here

[hondacbr]

Here is mine - doesn't look very good if you ask me. Also as an attacker when you tie, you lose those rolls so I don't understand why those percentages/numbers aren't added to the results as a loss for the attacker.

[Fruitcake]

Seriously, that is still quite a small sample.

You need to review at the 100,000 stage and each 100,000 after that.

[Baron Von PWN]

Here is mine - doesn't look very good if you ask me. Also as an attacker when you tie, you lose those rolls so I don't understand why those percentages/numbers aren't added to the results as a loss for the attacker.

The "tie" is when both players lose an army.

[drunkmonkey]

Seriously? You're above average almost everywhere, with a small sample size. I think this is pretty bad:



3v2 is approaching -1% (I was at 36.42% about a month ago). Also notice defender 6's.

[hondacbr]

I know it's a pretty small sample so I will post an updated one when I get it up to 100,000

Also, I noticed that I don't have a section for "Ideal Stats". What version do you have?

[drunkmonkey]

I know it's a pretty small sample so I will post an updated one when I get it up to 100,000

Also, I noticed that I don't have a section for "Ideal Stats". What version do you have?

I'll have to check when I get home. Yours doesn't have "Ideal Stats", but your difference from ideal is in parentheses next to your percentages.

[hondacbr]

[hondacbr]

Keeps getting worse. With this trend I don't see why I would bother renewing my premium ... too stressful dealing with this BS fucked up and unbalanced dice engine ...

[drunkmonkey]

Dude...you're only 0.06% below average on 3v2 rolls. That means in 5802 rolls, you've lost 3 more than expected. You're actually above average on 3v1 rolls, meaning you've won 19 more than expected. The only "bad" ones are on sample sizes under 1000 rolls.

[hondacbr]

Dude...you're only 0.06% below average on 3v2 rolls. That means in 5802 rolls, you've lost 3 more than expected. You're actually above average on 3v1 rolls, meaning you've won 19 more than expected. The only "bad" ones are on sample sizes under 1000 rolls.

well that 0.06% is still causing major issues for me and causing me to lose roll after roll. You don't understand how often I attack a 1 or 2 with 10+ troops and I lose every single freaking roll .. just doesn't seem right .. NEVER once have I had as many good rolls as I have bad rolls in a row. And don't tell me "you tend to remember the bad rolls .." f*ck this dice engine

[Ardan]

I hate to say this, but I have to agree with the dice thing at this point. I kept trying to say to myself, you're just remembering the bad rolls, not the good rolls. So I actually started to pay attention. LIke just now in a game I lost 7 troops in a row to take out a single. 7. In all the games of real life risk I played, I can count on 1 hand how many times that happened. Actually, I don't even think I need 1 hand becaues I can't honestly say I have ever recalled it happening. I have lost 4 to 6 troops versus a single in my last many games playing at least a dozen times now. Again, those odds are very low that should be happen when rolling against 3 attacking dice. I have also noticed this streak now going on 8 times. I will be rolling against 2 defenders and I will lose 5 straight times in a row both troops, and on the 6th time win. NEVER has it gone to 6 straight defenive double wins, always has stopped at 5. Now, if this happened once in a while, I would think nothing of it. That is possible. But not with as many times as it has happened to me, as consistently. losing 2 troops to defender, 2 or even 3 times in a row on a semi regular basis isn't way out of line. But beyond that it starts to smell fishy when it happens with regularity.

[Draq]

I know it´s a small sample but is´nt this quite bad?

[danryan]

It's subpar for the breakdowns for everything but 2 v 1 and 1 v 1. You are rolling a slightly higher number percentage of sizes than you should be though, and a lot less ones. I guess it's more about where you roll some of the outcomes than the overall statistics though.

[Draq]

It's subpar for the breakdowns for everything but 2 v 1 and 1 v 1. You are rolling a slightly higher number percentage of sizes than you should be though, and a lot less ones. I guess it's more about where you roll some of the outcomes than the overall statistics though.

Umm could you rephrase that to english understandable for reatards like me?

[danryan]

It's subpar for the breakdowns for everything but 2 v 1 and 1 v 1. You are rolling a slightly higher number percentage of sizes than you should be though, and a lot less ones. I guess it's more about where you roll some of the outcomes than the overall statistics though.

Umm could you rephrase that to english understandable for reatards like me?

I guess you could boil it down to your dice are slightly above average when you look at the actual numbers rolled but when you need them (3 v 2, 3 v 1 attacks) your dice are cold?

Hondacbr, above you, actually has almost totally "normal" dice compared to yours, meaning they are all much closer to the expected outcomes.

[hondacbr]

[Jippd]

People are more inclined to remember the bad things that happen to them instead of the good. So you may always notice when you're losing 10 v 2s or 8 v 2s but the times u win when you shouldn't you forget about a lot easier.

[hondacbr]

[hondacbr]

People are more inclined to remember the bad things that happen to them instead of the good. So you may always notice when you're losing 10 v 2s or 8 v 2s but the times u win when you shouldn't you forget about a lot easier.

Why would I not remember if I had just as much good rolls as I have bad rolls? Any kind of extreme would stand out. The only difference would be that I wouldn't be pissed off about it and I sure wouldn't start bitching in forums about it but I would still admit that the dice are unbalanced when questioned. Trust me when I say I HAVE NEVER EVER had as many good/winning dice streaks as I have losing ones!