https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81331390/Info?action=surrender

I have had a few games now where the dice have been insane and so one sided against me. Game attached -30 to +26, I have -20 to +16. Now I am a network engineer for 30 years+ and know a fair bit about computers and do know coding. The algorithm on this site seems a bit out of whack. has anyone else had a big discrepancy like this?

Yes, lots of people have big swings in dice luck. And lots of people complain about it. Then usually someone tries to educate them on the nature of randomness and the probability of unlikely events.

For example, here's an angry fellow - https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4158p1/I_am__calling_WARGEAR_and_TOM_out

This guy claims he is fixing the dice, but seems to have no idea what he's talking about - https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3985p1/Dice_Fixing

some more:

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2542p1/Dice_bias

Here is Tom (the developer of wargear) discussing how RNG works on the site:

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/167p1/Ive_seen_enoughthe_RandomLuck_Talk

There is also a lot of less accusatory discussion of luck. For example:

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1324p1/Bad_dice_support_group

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3413/Luck_in_Risk

EDIT - I was going to add this to the wiki, but then saw it was (mostly) already there:

• https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#relevant_forum_threads
• https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:notable_forum_discussions#hey_these_dice_are_rigged

But have you ever seen in your games -30 to +26 that is insane.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:But have you ever seen in your games -30 to +26 that is insane.

In short, yes. I've seen dice get close to +/- 100, actually. I think my personal record was somewhere around -70. Again, this is perfectly normal -- probability tells us that as the number of games (and dice rolls) increase, we are very likely to see more rare dice 'events' across the aggregation of rolls/games.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:But have you ever seen in your games -30 to +26 that is insane.

Random means random. Anything is possible. For example, It is very unlikely, but the more you play, the more likely losing 15 units in a row is to happen at some point, and after a certain amount of rolls it becomes unlikely NOT to happen.

Also consider that Colossal Crusade is a fairly large map. Most games on that map involve hundreds of rolls. The larger the number of rolls the less unlucky a given deviation from zero becomes.

There's a more detailed explanation of this in the Wiki here:

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy

It is no doubt very unlucky to get a luck stat of -30 on most boards, but I'd say I've seen similar more than just a few times. Granted, I've played four times the number of boards that you have played, but I've probably played boards where a similar stat is more likely than on Colossal Crusade because of the larger number of rolls usually needed to win (or lose) on those boards.

It didn't take to long to find one where one player had a LS of -52..

https://www.wargear.net/games/luck/393483

Here's another..

https://www.wargear.net/games/luck/494969

It alway amuses me that no one ever complains about good luck. The winner of that game ended up with a LS of +122.

I think maybe part of the perception problem is that when one plays in real life, sitting around a board throwing dice, moving manually, etc., a game can take quite a long time to play. On Wargear, we can bang through lightning games quite quickly, and play multiple games in parallel. Net result is people can play hundreds of games here as compared to tens of games in real life.

Add in the fact that there are no stats tracked in real life games.

And than add in the additional fact that some (most?) of those who whinge about the unfairness of the dice here will have multiple games in play and surrender at the first sign of horrible luck, rather than pushing through and seeing if the dice will turn their way.

It's too 'easy' here to see when things are going unexpectedly (particularly if you don't understand what 'random' means).

Now, I've been more than happy to wail when I get horrible luck, but in the vein of "augh! I'm doomed! That was horrible! 15v1 and I lost! .... I'm going to keep playing" :-) (I rarely surrender, and only when there is *literally* no chance of turning a game around... and even then, I like playing to the finish.)

As for good luck... yeah, I don't complain about it, but I've been known to call it out as the reason for a win on occasion :-D

M57 wrote:Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:But have you ever seen in your games -30 to +26 that is insane.

Random means random. Anything is possible. For example, It is very unlikely, but the more you play, the more likely losing 15 units in a row is to happen at some point, and after a certain amount of rolls it becomes unlikely NOT to happen.

Also consider that Colossal Crusade is a fairly large map. Most games on that map involve hundreds of rolls. The larger the number of rolls the less unlucky a given deviation from zero becomes.

There's a more detailed explanation of this in the Wiki here:

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy

It is no doubt very unlucky to get a luck stat of -30 on most boards, but I'd say I've seen similar more than just a few times. Granted, I've played four times the number of boards that you have played, but I've probably played boards where a similar stat is more likely than on Colossal Crusade because of the larger number of rolls usually needed to win (or lose) on those boards.

It didn't take to long to find one where one player had a LS of -52..

https://www.wargear.net/games/luck/393483

Here's another..

https://www.wargear.net/games/luck/494969" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/luck/494969

It alway amuses me that no one ever complains about good luck. The winner of that game ended up with a LS of +122.

As a computer is not human so it cannot think randomly, computers are deterministic, You can program a machine to generate what can be called random numbers, but the machine is always at the mercy of its programming

woah, dude.

What makes you think human brains are not deterministic?

alternatively -

Check out this article about computers using lava lamps to generate random numbers:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/news/a28921/lava-lamp-security-cloudflare/

Also this madman from gamesbyemail.com who was tired of people like the OP complaining about "computer RNG", so he built a 7 foot tall, 104 pound, "dice-eating monster", capable of generating 1.3 million rolls a day. It literally rolls physical dice, then uses computer vision to read the dice rolls.

http://gamesbyemail.com/News/DiceOMatic

(video of it in action on that page).

So are they using this computer on this server? No. Yes humans are deterministic because we can naturally be that. Computers are programmed. I am not saying this site is rigged, I think the alogarithm needs tweeking nothing more nothing less.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:So are they using this computer on this server? No. Yes humans are deterministic because we can naturally be that. Computers are programmed. I am not saying this site is rigged, I think the alogarithm needs tweeking nothing more nothing less.

What would you like to see changed? I've had loads of games with truly horrible dice, worse than the ones you're complaining about. But so has my opponents. I've had the most ridiculous luck in other games. Overall it tends to even out. Whether it's truly random or a computer-generated mimicry of random that doesn't really get to true random makes little difference to me, I can't tell beforehand what the next game or even the next throw of the dice will give me and overall it's fairly balanced.

But it you take a short snapshot it can look horribly skewed.

Autumn 2018 I went through a streak of awesome luck, not in every game but in what felt like a big majority of them. I was wading in luck. At one point I won every tournament I joined for maybe two or three months.

Spring this year was the exact opposite, I went through a streak of really poor dice, not in every game but in what felt like a big majority of them. I went what felt like ages without winning a single tournament and lost big chunks of my site ranking points in all categories with activity.

Look at just one of those and nothing else and you feel something's off, and if you start off with the 2nd you feel persecuted. Look at both and it feels normal. Still allowed to complain, of course. I did my fair share of complaining during spring, I hope I didn't overdo it. People with good memories who has been here a while will hopefully also remember I acknowledged my awesome luck during fall 2018.

The question I always ask myself is "How do I know what random looks like anyway?" I remember reading an article about a teacher who had students create what they think a random sequence of 100 coin flips looks like. He then mixed in an actual random sequence to the list and no one was able to identify the actual random sequence, supposedly because "it didn't look random," meaning in the case of his students that there were too many streaks.

I think in the same article I read that you will get 7 heads or 7 tails in a row more often than not when flipping a coin 100 times. The article went on to posit that a big part of the problem is that humans are genetically "programmed" to see patterns, and as a result we tend to think we see them them even when they don't really exist. Probability is fascinating stuff.

I know that the RG this site uses is not perfect, but I have no clue how imperfect it is. And like @L said, to the degree that it is not random, it is equitably flawed. Hmm.. maybe in a way that truly reflects the vagaries of warfare, where momentum (a very non-random value) is relevant.

So, after yet another game where I apparently was having much better luck than my opponent (a +16 advantage they said), they surrendered. Of course, there was still a chance to turn things around, but oh well, my rank goes up a bit.

This whole thread, and its predecessors, and the inumerable in-game wails of consternation actually leave me a bit bemused.

In the world of board gaming, Risk ranks barely higher than Monopoly and both sit way below the many more strategy-based games out in the market. Risk (and Monopoly, and Trouble, etc., are heavily dependent on the pure 'luck of the dice'. To whine and moan about how WG is rigging things is just nonsense... it's an accurate reflection of the real-world experience of playing these games. The only difference between here and real-life might be that when playing above a physical board, it's not as easy to take in the full scope of the game, especially when 1/5/10 units pieces are combined on countries, and there's no 'history'.

WG has *many* boards that are weighted more towards pure strategy... players should move over to those if they're that concerned. Otherwise, stop whinging and *plan* to fight both your foe(s) and your dice (if necessary).

I have a dice question: does anyone have a link to a page where I can compute my odds of attacking success with varyimg sided dice. For example odd of success for a 6 sided dice vs 7 sided dice attack, or 4 sided vs 4 sided, etc.?

Abishai wrote:I have a dice question: does anyone have a link to a page where I can compute my odds of attacking success with varyimg sided dice. For example odd of success for a 6 sided dice vs 7 sided dice attack, or 4 sided vs 4 sided, etc.?

http://prestopnik.com/wargear/

As for good luck... yeah, I don't complain about it, but I've been known to call it out as the reason for a win on occasion :-D

I always appreciate it when someone recognizes their own especially good luck.

------------

I watched the game history and was only surprised by all the 1 or 2 die attacks. Take your finger off the trigger when the dice are not in your favor and you have a better chance for your luck to turn around later in the game. ;-)

Happy Warring.

Kjeld wrote:Abishai wrote:I have a dice question: does anyone have a link to a page where I can compute my odds of attacking success with varyimg sided dice. For example odd of success for a 6 sided dice vs 7 sided dice attack, or 4 sided vs 4 sided, etc.?

http://prestopnik.com/wargear/" target="_blank"> http://prestopnik.com/wargear/

Thank you Kjeld! I remember someone sharing this years back, but I forgot to save it.

Ozyman wrote:woah, dude.

Also this madman from gamesbyemail.com who was tired of people like the OP complaining about "computer RNG", so he built a 7 foot tall, 104 pound, "dice-eating monster", capable of generating 1.3 million rolls a day. It literally rolls physical dice, then uses computer vision to read the dice rolls.

http://gamesbyemail.com/News/DiceOMatic" target="_blank"> http://gamesbyemail.com/News/DiceOMatic

(video of it in action on that page).

This is amazing and crazy that this was the solution to all the complaining. Either way I freaking love the ingenuity.

I recall Squint posting cumulative luck graphs from his games years ago, do we have such a tool that can troll your games for that information or did he do that manually?

I recall Squint posting cumulative luck graphs from his games years ago, do we have such a tool that can troll your games for that information or did he do that manually?