Microgaming New Game Battlestar At Ladbrokes Casino

[gerilege]

I think I got to the root cause of the bug based on the screenshot and the playcheck. I have not checked all the combinations but I think the error in the payout occurs in case there is a regular wild (the red one) and a double wild on the same reel. Looks like all payouts are made with the regular wild on that reel in this case, even if the combinations are actually made with the double wild. This halves the number of double 5oaks, etc. Maybe one who has more time can verify whether this is the case. I could not find any other possible programatic source for the bug, so imho this is the most likely (but only spent 5 mins on this).
Looks like it is ok when you either have a regular or some double wilds on a reel, but there is a bug when both regular and double wilds are present. The problem is most likely not occuring when only regular and extra, but non-double wilds are added.

 

[gerilege]

Even shorter version

I think I got to the root cause of the bug based on the screenshot and the playcheck. I have not checked all the combinations but I think the error in the payout occurs in case there is a regular wild (the red one) and a double wild on the same reel. Looks like all payouts are made with the regular wild on that reel in this case, even if the combinations are actually made with the double wild. This halves the number of double 5oaks, etc. Maybe one who has more time can verify whether this is the case. I could not find any other possible programatic source for the bug, so imho this is the most likely (but only spent 5 mins on this).
Looks like it is ok when you either have a regular or some double wilds on a reel, but there is a bug when both regular and double wilds are present. The problem is most likely not occuring when only regular and extra, but non-double wilds are added.

This is the short summary of the issue, and I hope this is something you can send to support or Microgaming, as it is maybe concrete enough and easy to understand:

Wins including a double wild are not doubled when there is also a regular wild on the same reel.

 

[HIGHIQ]

This is the short summary of the issue, and I hope this is something you can send to support or Microgaming, as it is maybe concrete enough and easy to understand:

Wins including a double wild are not doubled when there is also a regular wild on the same reel.

i think its more then that.. not only not doubled..

also some win combination not counted...

 

[gerilege]

i think its more then that.. not only not doubled..

also some win combination not counted...

I can't see combinations which are not paid, but maybe if someone brings up an example, I might be wrong. What I can see up to now is in line with my explanation, but I might be wrong of course.

 

[HIGHIQ]

I can't see combinations which are not paid, but maybe if someone brings up an example, I might be wrong. What I can see up to now is in line with my explanation, but I might be wrong of course.

look page 8 of this thread on an another bonus rounds... where u see tens paid 100.. its 2 lines not one line..

 

[gerilege]

look page 8 of this thread on an another bonus rounds... where u see tens paid 100.. its 2 lines not one line..

Ok, will check.

What I can see in the latest screenshot:
4 times 4x wild, two of those underpaid
4 times 5x colonel, two of those underpaid
4 times 4x Ellen, two of those underpaid
2 times 4x Tyrol, one of those underpaid
4 times 5x Ace, two of those underpaid
8 times 4x Q (forget 4 other combinations that are 4x wilds, which make it 12 ways in total), six of those underpaid
4 times 4x J, two of those underpaid
8 times 4x T, 4 of those underpaid

What is strange for me, that the game paid for the 4 wilds, PLUS it paid for all 5oK combinations including those 4 wilds. I would have assumed that it either pays the 4 wilds, or the 5oK involving the 4 wilds, but not both. Put if this is how it is in the help, it could be, it is just unusual. Usually games pay whichever is higher.

 

[gerilege]

Sorry I could not figure out what would be relevant from page 8. Maybe if you could only post the part which is interesting here.

 

[HIGHIQ]

Sorry I could not figure out what would be relevant from page 8. Maybe if you could only post the part which is interesting here.

the one i post it today with the screen shot and the payouts from 32red is most clear one that can tell its NOT CORRECT....

anyone who take little time and look the screenshot and the pay description..that sees some lines are not even paid...

wild is in reel 1 and double split are on reel 2,3, and 4 and in reel four is even 2 double wilds on two boxes,so it means basicly every combination out there should be paid doubled.... which is NOT the case....

and if the paytable say 3 wilds 4 wilds 5 wilds showing gives pay then it should pay aswell....

 

[dunover]

I've been looking at this in a lot more detail tonight (sorry - been too busy before!) and there still seems to be something amiss.
HIGHIQ won $5.20 on the spins BEFORE spin 12, so the total of $153.70 means spin 12 must have given him $148.50
I created an Excel spreadsheet to generate each of the 243 different win-lines and then calculated the wins.

Part of the problem depends on how exactly the player interprets the rules:


If one assumes a "pay way" means the same as "win-line", then the slot should pay out for symbol combinations on each of the 243 lines separately, then add them all together to make a total.
Using my spreadsheet, I calculate he should have been paid $332 for spin 12.
These are all the winning combinations by line-number. (M = Man - I don't know his bloody name! )

Ln	R1	R2	R3	R4	R5	Win	Pays	Double?	Total
1	M	W	W	A	Q	3xM	250	Yes	500
2	M	W	W	A	M	3xM	250	Yes	500
3	M	W	W	A	A	3xM	250	Yes	500
4	M	W	W	W	Q	4xM	400	Yes	800
5	M	W	W	W	M	5xM	2000	Yes	4000
6	M	W	W	W	A	4xM	400	Yes	800
7	M	W	W	J	Q	3xM	250	Yes	500
8	M	W	W	J	M	3xM	250	Yes	500
9	M	W	W	J	A	3xM	250	Yes	500
82	A	W	W	A	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
83	A	W	W	A	M	Ax4	200	Yes	400
84	A	W	W	A	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
85	A	W	W	W	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
86	A	W	W	W	M	Ax4	200	Yes	400
87	A	W	W	W	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
88	A	W	W	J	Q	Ax3	100	Yes	200
89	A	W	W	J	M	Ax3	100	Yes	200
90	A	W	W	J	A	Ax3	100	Yes	200
91	A	W	A	A	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
92	A	W	A	A	M	Ax4	200	Yes	400
93	A	W	A	A	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
94	A	W	A	W	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
95	A	W	A	W	M	Ax4	200	Yes	400
96	A	W	A	W	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
97	A	W	A	J	Q	Ax3	100	Yes	200
98	A	W	A	J	M	Ax3	100	Yes	200
99	A	W	A	J	A	Ax3	100	Yes	200
109	A	A	W	A	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
110	A	A	W	A	M	Ax4	200	Yes	400
111	A	A	W	A	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
112	A	A	W	W	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
113	A	A	W	W	M	Ax4	200	Yes	400
114	A	A	W	W	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
115	A	A	W	J	Q	Ax3	100	Yes	200
116	A	A	W	J	M	Ax3	100	Yes	200
117	A	A	W	J	A	Ax3	100	Yes	200
118	A	A	A	A	Q	Ax4	200		200
119	A	A	A	A	M	Ax4	200		200
120	A	A	A	A	A	Ax5	800		800
121	A	A	A	W	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
122	A	A	A	W	M	Ax4	200	Yes	400
123	A	A	A	W	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
124	A	A	A	J	Q	Ax3	100		100
125	A	A	A	J	M	Ax3	100		100
126	A	A	A	J	A	Ax3	100		100
163	10	W	W	A	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
164	10	W	W	A	M	3x10	50	Yes	100
165	10	W	W	A	A	3x10	50	Yes	100
166	10	W	W	W	Q	4x10	100	Yes	200
167	10	W	W	W	M	4x10	100	Yes	200
168	10	W	W	W	A	4x10	100	Yes	200
169	10	W	W	J	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
170	10	W	W	J	M	3x10	50	Yes	100
171	10	W	W	J	A	3x10	50	Yes	100
181	10	W	10	A	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
182	10	W	10	A	M	3x10	50	Yes	100
183	10	W	10	A	A	3x10	50	Yes	100
184	10	W	10	W	Q	4x10	100	Yes	200
185	10	W	10	W	M	4x10	100	Yes	200
186	10	W	10	W	A	4x10	100	Yes	200
187	10	W	10	J	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
188	10	W	10	J	M	3x10	50	Yes	100
189	10	W	10	J	A	3x10	50	Yes	100
217	10	10	W	A	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
218	10	10	W	A	M	3x10	50	Yes	100
219	10	10	W	A	A	3x10	50	Yes	100
220	10	10	W	W	Q	4x10	100	Yes	200
221	10	10	W	W	M	4x10	100	Yes	200
222	10	10	W	W	A	4x10	100	Yes	200
223	10	10	W	J	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
224	10	10	W	J	M	3x10	50	Yes	100
225	10	10	W	J	A	3x10	50	Yes	100
235	10	10	10	A	Q	3x10	50		50
236	10	10	10	A	M	3x10	50		50
237	10	10	10	A	A	3x10	50		50
238	10	10	10	W	Q	4x10	100	Yes	200
239	10	10	10	W	M	4x10	100	Yes	200
240	10	10	10	W	A	4x10	100	Yes	200
241	10	10	10	J	Q	3x10	50		50
242	10	10	10	J	M	3x10	50		50
243	10	10	10	J	A	3x10	50		50

However, on the actual pay-table you will find this rule:

View attachment 37926

Now I think it's pretty unlikely, but this COULD be taken to mean that you can only count the same 3, 4 or 5 symbols once each.
e.g. Above the first 3 wins are:
1. M W W A Q
2. M W W A M
3. M W W A A
This rule COULD mean you only get paid for one of these combinations, because the M W W are the same 3 symbols in each line.
If that was the case, my spreadsheet would look like this:

Ln	R1	R2	R3	R4	R5	Win	Pays	Double?	Total
1	M	W	W	A	Q	3xM	250	Yes	500
4	M	W	W	W	Q	4xM	400	Yes	800
5	M	W	W	W	M	5xM	2000	Yes	4000
82	A	W	W	A	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
85	A	W	W	W	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
87	A	W	W	W	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
88	A	W	W	J	Q	Ax3	100	Yes	200
91	A	W	A	A	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
93	A	W	A	A	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
94	A	W	A	W	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
96	A	W	A	W	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
97	A	W	A	J	Q	Ax3	100	Yes	200
109	A	A	W	A	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
111	A	A	W	A	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
112	A	A	W	W	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
114	A	A	W	W	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
115	A	A	W	J	Q	Ax3	100	Yes	200
118	A	A	A	A	Q	Ax4	200		200
120	A	A	A	A	A	Ax5	800		800
121	A	A	A	W	Q	Ax4	200	Yes	400
123	A	A	A	W	A	Ax5	800	Yes	1600
124	A	A	A	J	Q	Ax3	100		100
163	10	W	W	A	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
166	10	W	W	W	Q	4x10	100	Yes	200
181	10	W	10	A	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
184	10	W	10	W	Q	4x10	100	Yes	200
217	10	10	W	A	Q	3x10	50	Yes	100
220	10	10	W	W	Q	4x10	100	Yes	200
235	10	10	10	A	Q	3x10	50		50
238	10	10	10	W	Q	4x10	100	Yes	200

But now the total is $205.50 = still higher than what was paid.

I think this is a really serious issue which needs a proper & thorough investigation, which is why I advised HIGHIQ to PAB last week.
Unless... I have made an error in my calculations. If anyone can spot an obvious mistake - please shout!

KK

I think that's the crux of the matter. The slot clearly states '243 ways' i.e. 3x3x3x3x3 combinations OF 5 REEL WINS. Unlikely as you say, but correct. On TSII for example, if you get 3 10's you get one sixth of a credit. In other words, after the 3 tens have stopped you have a further 2 'useless' reels on 4&5 which IF included would technically give you 3x3 (9) extensions to your 3x 10's win. Thus, if TRULY playing 243 ways you would get the 3x 10's 9 times. But you don't. The combinations clearly stop when you run out of matching characters. Your 'unlikely' scenario IS how they work.
Where we are debating and indeed you have shown in your spreadsheet, is that we know there are 243 5-LINE combinations possible, and taking ALL 243combinations as separate entities yes, we would get the multiple 3x10's as you have shown. This is demonstrated in the jackpot whereby a 5-reel shitstorm gives you 243x 5 wilds.
What the slot is clearly doing is counting highest combination only. In my example of the 3x10's on TSII (I use this slot as we are all familiar with it and it pays the same way) because reels 4 and 5 are useless we are then effectively getting paid on a 27-line slot (3x3x3) for that particular spin. In that scenario, ONLY on of the 27 combinations wins, the 3x 10's.
So, you ask: "What if you get a 4 or 5 reels win?"
What happens is that for the 3 reels combo separate characters ONLY in 3-reel positions and NOT appearing on reel 4 are paid as per a 27-line slot. In your win, alongside, you have another combo of different symbols that appear on reels 1,2,3,4. These pay as if you were playing an 81-line slot where ONLY 4-reel wins pay. So, let's say we have my 3x 10's example and 4 loki's alongside. The loki's will pay from an 81-way4 reels slot. therefore you DO NOT get any combos of 3x lokis!!!
Apply this to the 5th reel and carry on. Phew!

The problem here is that the slot states '243 ways' to win. It's true. What it doesn't make clear is that it is NOT computed to pay ALL wins of 3,4, or 5 symbols as if you were playing 243 separate 5-lines.
'WAY' does not = 'WINLINE'.
It's the same on all softwares.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Sorry I could not figure out what would be relevant from page 8. Maybe if you could only post the part which is interesting here.

I think he's referring to this one.

To my mind this is the most obvious and easy error to spot.

 

[gerilege]

All my previous points are void!

Sorry guy I was wrong. More double wilds need to be ignored to come to the payout we have seen, not just the one on the middle reel. I will need to have another look on this.
The screenshots demonstrate that what I was saying is wrong. There are more double wilds which are ignored, since there would be either a double wild on reel2 or reel4 even with my assumption, so my assumption was wrong.

 

[nikantw]

I think this is why:

Old Attachment (Invalid)

 

[ChopleyIOM]

That certainly doesn't explain this one, where there are two clear combinations with the 10s to make two 4OAKs.

 

[Balthazar]

That certainly doesn't explain this one, where there are two clear combinations with the 10s to make two 4OAKs.

This one is blatant.

 

[Balthazar]

The problem here is that the slot states '243 ways' to win. It's true. What it doesn't make clear is that it is NOT computed to pay ALL wins of 3,4, or 5 symbols as if you were playing 243 separate 5-lines.
'WAY' does not = 'WINLINE'.
It's the same on all softwares.

This is correct. If the slots had 243 lines, you'd get paid multiple times for most 3OAK as they would share multiple lines.
243 ways ≠ 243 lines.

 

[Nifty29]

Sorry guy I was wrong. More double wilds need to be ignored to come to the payout we have seen, not just the one on the middle reel. I will need to have another look on this.
The screenshots demonstrate that what I was saying is wrong. There are more double wilds which are ignored, since there would be either a double wild on reel2 or reel4 even with my assumption, so my assumption was wrong.

Just like Chopley said earlier....the fact that people are constantly changing their calculations shows that the paytable is NOT doing it's job i.e. telling the player exactly what they won and how they won it.

Even if it is a case of the slot working correctly, but the paytable explanations being woefully inadequate, it is still poor form on the part of the MGS designers.

There really are only two explanations.....the slot is underpaying, or the paytable is not providing enough clarity in regards to how wilds work. Either way, we can speculate until the cows come home, but until someone from MGS comes forward and clears it up one way or the other, we are really all just urinating in the breeze.

 

[KasinoKing]

There really are only two explanations.....the slot is underpaying, or the paytable is not providing enough clarity in regards to how wilds work. Either way, we can speculate until the cows come home, but until someone from MGS comes forward and clears it up one way or the other, we are really all just urinating in the breeze.

I spoke to someone from Microgaming at ICE yesterday, and she promised to bring this issue to the attention of the relevant person within the organisation.

I also spoke to Maxd about the PAB and he asked if I could assist with explaining exactly what HIGHIQ's issue is. I will do this of course, but it wont be until next week as I am heading back to London for another 3 days tomorrow. (Max is there all week anyway, and is very unlikely to be physically working on PABs!)

Dunover has hit the nail on the head about the Ways Wins NOT being the same as Win-Lines. I should have spotted this myself, but was rushing to get the figures calculated before going to ICE.
So I will look at all those figures again (in my second table) and treble-check them before contacting Max or MG further.

KK

 

[gerilege]

Just like Chopley said earlier....the fact that people are constantly changing their calculations shows that the paytable is NOT doing it's job i.e. telling the player exactly what they won and how they won it.

Even if it is a case of the slot working correctly, but the paytable explanations being woefully inadequate, it is still poor form on the part of the MGS designers.

There really are only two explanations.....the slot is underpaying, or the paytable is not providing enough clarity in regards to how wilds work. Either way, we can speculate until the cows come home, but until someone from MGS comes forward and clears it up one way or the other, we are really all just urinating in the breeze.

We are on the same page regarding the two explanations.

What I am trying to attempt is to find out how exactly the slot is paying out now. So I am not saying it pays out right, I am just saying that I might be able to tell you how does it behave, even before the explanation would arrive from MGS (if ever).

If I am able to find out the way it behaves, you might have an easier job to push this through with the casinos and MGS. We have done this together with other forum members like Zoozie in the past based on incomplete data, so I might take it as a personal challenge to find an explanation (the root cause of the bug if any).

But it takes some time and there is no guarantee that I will have some results.

 

[gerilege]

Thinking about this problem I realized that in order to come to a payout like shown in the play log, the system should behave as if there was only a single double wild across reels, and that double wild needs to be on either reel 3 on reel 4 (where there are more than a wild). All other double wilds are count as single ones. This would leave us with two possible combinations.
I think the game paid out like there would be a single double wild on reel 3 only, and all other double wilds were took as single. Like this:


The below other combination would fail due to the Tyrols on reel 4: This is not correct because you would have only non-doubled Tyrols twice. At least one double wild should be on reel 3 to get a double-paid Tyrol. So not like this one.


More to come tomorrow. If you have some time, maybe someone could double-check if the upper image matches the payout in the game log submitted.

 

[HIGHIQ]

Ok, will check.

What I can see in the latest screenshot:
4 times 4x wild, two of those underpaid
4 times 5x colonel, two of those underpaid
4 times 4x Ellen, two of those underpaid
2 times 4x Tyrol, one of those underpaid
4 times 5x Ace, two of those underpaid
8 times 4x Q (forget 4 other combinations that are 4x wilds, which make it 12 ways in total), six of those underpaid
4 times 4x J, two of those underpaid
8 times 4x T, 4 of those underpaid

What is strange for me, that the game paid for the 4 wilds, PLUS it paid for all 5oK combinations including those 4 wilds. I would have assumed that it either pays the 4 wilds, or the 5oK involving the 4 wilds, but not both. Put if this is how it is in the help, it could be, it is just unusual. Usually games pay whichever is higher.

what u see here is what i see the same.. all underpaid....

u see for the colonel some there are 2 combination paid 6 usd and 2 combination paid 12 usd...that tells more then enough... that this game is NOT paying correctly... those lines are all 5 of kind with double split in it.. how they come with a 6 usd pay????

its not how it should be calculated.. its just an underpay...this game never has worked correctly with this pay.. and they let us play on it...

 

[Nifty29]

what u see here is what i see the same.. all underpaid....

u see for the colonel some there are 2 combination paid 6 usd and 2 combination paid 12 usd...that tells more then enough... that this game is NOT paying correctly... those lines are all 5 of kind with double split in it.. how they come with a 6 usd pay????

its not how it should be calculated.. its just an underpay...this game never has worked correctly with this pay.. and they let us play on it...

Again.....whilst you may speculate your were underpaid, there is NO concrete irrefutable evidence to say that this is the case.

All we have is some screenies, and dozens of different analyses by different members arriving at different calculations and conclusions.

The more I think about it, the more I think it is a problem with how the rules have been written, rather than a malfunction of the game. I just can't see a problem like this, which seems to be a repeating one, slipping through the testing net. It would surely affect the RTP and show up as a fairly large glaring error when the this figure at the end of millions of testing rounds is not even close to the expected TRTP. I wonder if there is a way to roughly estimate the overall effect of this "error" on the RTP......if it were 1% or more, which is quite possible, then there is no way it could have passed testing.

I could be wrong, but that's my take. If I AM wrong, then MGS needs to seriously review their testing processes, as someone has been asleep on the job.

 

[gerilege]

Just to recap what I have done:
1. I spent some time but was not able to come with any explanation about the 4 Ts issue in this post: https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ew-game-battlestar-at-ladbrokes-casino.54843/
Only one who has access to both the server side game logs and the client side game logs can progress further.

2. I was able to come out with a visual representation and set of symbols on reels which was consistent with the game log and payout presented in this post, but which is not matching the visuals displayed on the screen:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ew-game-battlestar-at-ladbrokes-casino.54843/
It is clear that some kind of error is present, either in the paytable, the help or in the software.

3. I was not able to come out with a different reasonable explanation for the issue mentioned in point 2 above. I considered a few scenarios like all double wilds ignored, some double wilds were displayed as a display error, but all ran into contradiction with the logs presented. There might be another explanation for the issue, but I am not able to find any. It is likely based on the logs and combinations that the game paid out like I demonstrated in the post mentioned at point 2, but other explanations cannot be excluded.

If you have more logs, any news, any fresh occurrence of a payout issue, I might be able to progress further.

 

[maphesto]

What happened with this issue?

Do we have the answer in another thread?

 

[KasinoKing]

What happened with this issue?
Do we have the answer in another thread?

Well surprise surprise, the MicroGaming person I met face to face at ICE who promised to get back to me about this glitch, never did.
Also my follow up chasing e-mail was ignored.
So situation normal, MG sweeping the issue under the carpet and waiting for everyone to go away.

Don't know what happened to the PAB HIGHIQ submitted - he hasn't posted or contacted me about this issue for ages now.

KK

 

[09237653]

The split wilds create more than 243 ways, on the $99 screenshot with all those split wilds this actually has 720 ways (2x4x4x5x3), so in certain spins (with wilds) would it be possible to get more than 243 wins, or would the game restrict it to only 243 wins as per the rule in the pay table?

is there any way this factor could be affecting the payouts each "way" is only available once per spin, so as an example 3x baldy guys beats 3x kings etc so the kings win would be omitted, even though its technically a win the shared wild only counts once for the bald guy?

 

[Igor82]

Guys I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this thread. Is this still an unknown?

If so, can someone pose a few distinct questions I can either answer or find answer to?