Dice Functionality by Chitaka

[graceful glacier]

Welcome @hollow pendant! Any feedback from the community will show up here.
Please note that this thread discussion is not shared with SMG.
It is solely for the RISK Community to discuss ideas & provide constructive feedback!

[hollow pendant]

At least 2 people can't read

Idea starts from it being an option, you can still play balanced blitz and true random

[main light]

I would use a setting like this for certain maps.

I understand why people vote against optional settings they don’t want though, because of the opportunity cost. If the devs spend a bunch of time developing a feature they don’t want, it diverts time that could’ve been spent on features they do want.

For example the AI advisor that almost nobody asked for/uses, doesn’t make the game any worse because it’s easy to switch off, but the months spent debugging it, were frustrating since other more popular ideas weren’t developed during that time.

[hollow pendant]

I am pretty sure it will be used a lot. At least for tournaments

[main light]

It’s popular for tournaments in Warzone Risk

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/97428-question-luck

Their preferred “no-luck” mode for tournaments gives the expected outcome to the nearest integer, but uses randomness to account for the fact that expected troops left aren’t a round number.

E.g. in a 4v1, you’d be 100% to win, but instead of always rounding down to 0 troops lost (which with slider would feel a bit weird always getting free 1s, with 0 troop loss), it uses probability between losing 0 troops and losing 1 troop on the attack, proportionate to the expected outcome.

E.g. if a 4v1 loses around 0.1 troops expected, you have 100% to win, 90% to win with 0 losses, 10% to win with 1 troop lost.

That way you’ll never be more than 1 troop away from the expected outcome, but avoids weird cases of certain numbers being a lot better to slider attack with because of rounding to nearest integer, or attacking 1s being free.

Lower-luck options tend to disproportionately flop in Risk idea votes, even if they have potential, due to a survivorship bias, where only the players who love playing with a lot of dice rolls have stuck around long enough, to be here to vote.

[hollow pendant]

Approximated outcomes is what I don't like. You can leave -1 only to 3v1. I would have wanted bad odds to just be replaced with bad dice. And leave good outcomes to only overstacking

[main light]

And just round to the nearest integer, and accept some strange rounding issues?

E.g. 6v4 and 6v5 both always lose the same number of troops (3), so the 1 extra defensive troop always has 0 value in that context

[hollow pendant]

There is a line to manually setting up small rolls because they are weird to approximate from existing data. And yes sometimes different amount of attacker troops would yield the same result. For example, 3v2 and 2v2 will always lose and would kill no troops on defender stack.