agile shale
Considering that the blitz algorithm doesn’t actually roll any dice (source: https://github.com/smgstudio/risk-dice#blitz-methods), how come your profile shows dice roll stats? Are those just made-up? If so, why?
Don’t get me wrong, it seems to me that the approach of the algorithm is great, compared to simulating dice rolls. But still, the stats seem dubious.
barren cloak
I'm prety sure that the random dice are set following the results (rather than creating them) for balanced blitz, true random / manual rolls will have them in comparison
ionic charm
I'm prety sure that the random dice are set following the results (rather than c...
Is it possible that if the algorithm sees you rolling more 1s/6s it will attempt to balance it out? Or still use random algorithms instead of “balancing”
gaunt atlas
is there a need for the algorithm to balance it out? Eventually it should balance itself no?
agile shale
I'm prety sure that the random dice are set following the results (rather than c...
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since there isn't a unique combination of rolls that lead to a certain battle outcome (in fact there are an awful lot). No dice rolls are actually used in calculating anything (with regards to blitzing). So that would still just be making-up dice rolls in a limited range, not sure what the purpose of that would be.
I did write an explanation here how the algorithm does calculate the outcomes (without rolling dice), but for some reason MEE6 decided to delete it (and staff hasn't responded to my ticket to restore it, yet; I guess it contains a lot of similar words...).
agile shale
A quick search seems to suggest it's hard to restore the image anyway. So here is the explanation I wrote as an image.
earnest warren
Interesting, I've always graphed it as troops left not lost. Bc one side looses all
agile shale
Interesting, I've always graphed it as troops left not lost. Bc one side looses ...
Troops left (defender-attacker), would be the same graph, but shifted so it starts at -# of attackers (instead of -# of defenders). I don't really have a preference 🤷 , starting with the best case scenario for the attacker on the left felt most intuitive to me anyway.
earnest warren
Also mines not continuous like yours.
P.s. Also I just noticed I was using the tab for the D8 caps idea 😂
earnest warren
To me it made more sense to put attackers left on the positive side, since that's what most people are concerned with.
You sure yours is troops lost and not troops left? It looks like just a mirror of mine not also the mirror and flipped of mine.
agile shale
I see you did the CDF starting from both sides going inward to 0 troops left. I started on the left (most favourable outcome for the attacker) and went along all outcomes to the right (least favourable outcome for the attacker). Also included the extra troop on the attacking territory (the one that stays behind after a win) in the count. Furthermore, I did also do the calculation in terms of troops left (and the mirrored ones) as well (but I believe the used algorithm uses troops lost, not completely sure; although it does the determining of the outcome in 2 steps, like the figures you posted, instead of 1). But it doesn't really matter for the question here, in the end you'll obtain a similar result, either shifted, flipped and/or mirrored.
agile shale
If no further elucidation can be given. I would suggest that making-up dice rolls to build trust (what else could be a reason to display it?) in the "fairness of the dice", is misleading and thus a very bad idea.
limber bloom
dice is a joke and exploited by hackers, the dice roll impossible outcomes and always favour one side(cheats)
limber bloom
yet again subject to impossible dice 51 v 13 result 1v1 , this would never happen in real dice so why have it here or are there cheats involved, game is a scam
agile shale
yet again subject to impossible dice 51 v 13 result 1v1 , this would never happe...
Dude, create your own post. This has nothing to do with the topic that was discussed here.
