Dice Advantage- Agressor's, Defender's, or Neutral

by **spiesr** on Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:59 am

THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EQUALY LIKEY.

get over it.....

by **sully800** on Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:34 am

Gerazan wrote:Giving the defence wins for all ties gives a 5percent and up advantage to the defence.

You would fix it by making all ties cancel each other out.No loss or gain for either side.

How is that so hard to comprehend.

And yet the attacker still has the advantage because they get to roll more dice...

by **superkarn** on Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:22 am

Gerazan, i hear you. It's cool to want that. But it's not part of what Risk (the game) is. And this site is emulating the board game.

Also keep in mind that eventhough the odds of winning a roll aren't the same, it is some what offset by the fact that sometimes you're the attacker and sometimes you're the defender. And that's where the strategy comes in. You want to put yourself in the situations where you have the better odd.

by **Herakilla** on Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:37 am

you cant really have a tie in a real war....

if neither side advances or retreats doesnt that mean the defender won? since he didnt retreat

by **D.IsleRealBrown** on Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:39 am

A better question would be, how the hell do you justify a player losing with 6,6,6 against 6???

Isn't that the whole point of having a dice advantage?

IMHO 6,1 should beat 6 everytime....I'd settle for a push though.

by **spiesr** on Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:00 pm

D.IsleRealBrown wrote:A better question would be, how the hell do you justify a player losing with 6,6,6 against 6???

Isn't that the whole point of having a dice advantage?

IMHO 6,1 should beat 6 everytime....I'd settle for a push though.

BAD IDEA

although a great way to srcew tha game up...

by **zip_disk** on Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:34 pm

Gerazan wrote:Giving the defence wins for all ties gives a 5percent and up advantage to the defence.

You would fix it by making all ties cancel each other out.No loss or gain for either side.

How is that so hard to comprehend.

We can see quite clearly that you're making up numbers to justify your argument. Look at the chart.

Every single dice combination possible was performed and the outcome recorded.

For the most common, 3v2 matches

6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 = 7776 possible unique roll combinations.

Attackers wins 2890 of 7776 (37%)
Split wins are 2275 of 7776 (29%)
Defender wins 2611 of 7776 (34%)

Your "solution" would make attacking substantially more effective than defending. The game would denegrate into who can attack first.

by **Dots** on Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:07 am

<Subject>:
Dice advantages

<Body>:
The dice currently work on a 'defender's advantage' system, i.e., if two rolls are the same, the defender wins. My suggestion is for an option between 'defender's advantage', 'agressor's advantage' (if dice are equal, attacker wins) or 'neutral/no advantage' (if dice are equal both armies survive)

Priority: 1

any comments are more than welcome

BTW: awesome site

by **Geographical** on Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:45 am

nah, that is not the rules of risk

by **silvanthalas** on Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:33 pm

Geographical wrote:nah, that is not the rules of risk

Last I checked, this is a Risk-like site, not Risk.

There's nothing to prevent lack from adding in new stuff.

by **Dots** on Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:02 pm

Team games, Terminator, Assassin, Freestyle, Chained, Unlimited, Flat Rate, No Cards, and any map that isn't 'Classic' are also not the rules of Risk.
:wink:

by **s.xkitten** on Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:18 pm

get over the dice...they will screw you over, and they will screw other people over...sometimes they go for you, sometimes they go for your opponent...you just remember the bad ones more

by **Dots** on Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:02 pm

I am 'over the dice'. In fact, I like the dice and seem to be having very good luck with them lately. I am not suggesting that the dice are rigged, I am not suggesting that random.org is a bad choice as the random number generator. What I AM suggesting is that this option would bring even more depth to an already excellent game.

by **Ishiro** on Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:55 pm

I personally would never play a game with "attacker's advantage" giving them the win on tie rolls.

You are only looking at half the dice game.
The defender does get the advantage that he wins on a tie.
The attacker gets the advantage that he can roll up to three dice, while the defender can roll only up to two.

If you want to give the attackers the win on a tie, you need to limit them to two dice and let the defenders get up to three.

by **boberz** on Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:14 am

defence dice have the advantage in real warfare more often than not. (Vietnam, Battle of Britain and the second gulf war or iraq war whatever u call it) to name just a few. Rather like a team playing in their own stadium has an advantage. Keep it real, NO NO NO no change

by **joeyjordison** on Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:31 am

a variation i would like is territories that give bonuses. ie defender gets +1

by **poo-maker** on Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:39 pm

joeyjordison wrote:a variation i would like is territories that give bonuses. ie defender gets +1

Yeah, that would be great, that variation is in a lord of the rings risk i have.

by **GreecePwns** on Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:56 pm

how about an option for tie rolls lead to both teams losing an army?

by **Loy** on Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:51 pm

I got this idea from the game Stratego.

After getting beaten down repeatedly by defending dice that kept rolling sixes, I the thought popped into my head of if it's a tie, it's be nice to have the attacker win sometimes.

So anyway, here's my idea:

When someone is making a match, add the option of "Aggressive Advantage". When turned off, it means nothing, the game is played like any other game is played right now. However, when turned on, in the result of a tied dice roll, the attacker would win, instead of the defending country.

This could really mix up the game a bit.

So anyway, there's my thoughts, anyone have anything to say?

by **AndyDufresne** on Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:20 pm

Wouldn't that essentially make attacking...over powered?

--Andy

by **DiM** on Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:23 pm

i'd like it as an option.

with this setting stalemates would no longer happen because attacking would be so much more rewarding.

by **gimil** on Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:29 pm

DiM wrote:i'd like it as an option.

with this setting stalemates would no longer happen because attacking would be so much more rewarding.

and DiM would finally have better luck :lol:

by **DiM** on Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:33 pm

gimil wrote:
DiM wrote:i'd like it as an option.

with this setting stalemates would no longer happen because attacking would be so much more rewarding.

and DiM would finally have better luck

true my score will probably go through the roof :lol: