- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Location
- uk
you should be able to play it at 30p per spin ) click the middle go upto the number 1-5 click it back to one then lower bet should take you down to 30 pence .
Casinos
Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
Games
All Games
Bonuses
Popular Bonus Filters
Forums
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Complaints
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Gambling News
Popular News Sections
Watch Out Players.. questions about Dark Knight Rises
- Thread starter HIGHIQ
- Start date
you should be able to play it at 30p per spin ) click the middle go upto the number 1-5 click it back to one then lower bet should take you down to 30 pence .
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Location
- Manchester
I think it was their version of fixing it.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
for the sake of argument, I doiwnloaded Ladbrokes - the game plays at 30 cents on mine
edit: I think your problem might be, the game defaults to a 2 cent, 150 ($3) bet
move the coin size to one cent, and bet to w/e you want
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Location
- uk
could of been a bug awaiting update . i dont play there but the other half does )
Hi HIGHIQ,
I'm running analytic on a few things as i'm curious as to the game performance and i'd like to give a concrete answer to 'speculation' based on statistical analysis.
What i can say so far is that from the cases we looked into (and it takes manual labour to extract playcheck screenie for every bonus round of every player) - nothing unsavoury has happened. But, still preliminary and inconclusive.
Seeing as we've (so far) found no discrepancy to point in any unsavoury direction, i started looking at your post more in-depth and your screenshots and i would like you to answer (via PM not to endager your PAB) two questions over your screenshots:
1) Your screens show that your coin payout was modified to reflect 58.044% of your triggering bet. As in, your BET*WIN (5OAK for A)*MULTIPLIER(3) should have yielded you 2250 in credits, but you show 1306. You would need to extract you transactions and see if that corresponds to your average bet.
2) What puzzles me further is that you obviously chosen stacked wild feature based on the symbol on your bottom reel 4. Stacked wild doesn't have an additional multiplier so your 2612 payout shouldn't have happened (1306*2). I'm trying to get to a figure that should equal the original value of that winning line, which if you screenshot is honest, should have been 4500 credits before the adjustment.
5 aces give 750 credits x3=2250, what additional x2 multiplier did you gain, to have a winning payout of 4500 (then adjusted). Even if you take 3 wilds at their own face value of 375*3, that wouldn't add to the winning combination correctly so i frankly see no way for you to arrive at that result.
That screenshot does not look right to me and i sincerely wouldn't want to imply it's incorrect or dishonest, so if you could kindly PM me the bonus feature you selected, i will recreate your scenario on my casino and put it in the analysis.
As it stands right now, that screenie is not OK, unless i'm missing something that is staring me in the face?
HIGHIQ, the more i analyse your post more certain i am becoming that the glitch you speak of has nothing to do with the way bonus feature pays, which is an answer that all would benefit from (working on it).
*NOTICE:The following should not deviate from the topic at hand, which is how the bonus rounds work, but I am having high concerns regarding the validity of; or the game issue shown through HIGHIQ screenshots.*
Above, you state you had double split selected which is why it doubled your win (emboldened quote above), however:
This is the symbol of split wilds which offer 6OAK (paying 2x5OAK):
AND 
In there it does state that 5OAK payout will be doubled, however:
Your screenshot shows STACKED wilds symbol on reel four (given by Bane), and not SPLIT wilds symbol (given by Batman) - which does not pay double the win.
See here:
<----Your win || and Stacked Symbol -----> 
**************************
So in conclusion, while bonus round payout (average or not) and payable in-game update is still up for debate, your specific case has nothing to do with the speculation that ensued, namely:
1) Either the game calculated Stacked Wild symbol as a Split wild symbol and as such doubled your 5OAK payouts from the stacked wild column > In which case it truly was a game glitch, which bring it's own set of repercussions.
(One of the options would be to invalidate your win and a recalculation be made as to what your true win is. - i don't know this as a fact as i don't have the case facts at hand)
or
2) You changed your screenshot to gain support. I have to state this as a valid option, however i dont see the reason for you doing this since you did not uncover the casino name and you also undergone a PAB - which would uncover your doing anyway.
Above shows with 100% certainty that *your payout does not match the symbols at hand, for your benefit* which is why i would imagine the casino put a stop on your winnings (again we don't know the full story here), and still leaves the question toward why you incurred a decrease in coin pay-out (down to 58% ) from what it should originally pay.
************************************
At this point we need allow Max to do his job, but for the time being the speculations that ensued on previous pages should not be taken at face value, as the OP post has far more implicated issues with their winning screenshots than is obvious on the surface of things.
Igor
Hi Igor,
I think it is impossible to find out what happened here without client and server side logs. I would not take it for granted that the following three are in sync and correct for these games:
The screenshot and the paycheck log
The help file description and the way how it should by the rules pay out
The way it actually paid out.
I tried to find out what happened in another, similar game and case, see a summary post here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ew-game-battlestar-at-ladbrokes-casino.54843/
I was able to confirm that there was a mismatch, and also a possible explanation for the mismatch, but the assumed explanation cannot be confirmed without game logs.
It is extremely difficult to work with so many variables. Maybe you are in a better position to get this clarified with MG. I mean as a first step get confirmation on how the game should theoretically pay out, and verify it paid out like that.
After having spent more than ten years in the software industry and almost 15 years following the world of online gambling, I am not convinced - and I am really sorry to say that -that these games are fully formally specified from a software design perspective, at least regarding all the edge cases introduced with different tricky things in these complicated features. I am getting the impression that in the rush it might happen that simply no one exactly knew or put into exact words how the game should behave in some rare edge cases, so as sometimes usual in sw industry, dev, test and doc just went by gut feeling.
Just a hint. In general, due to Intellectual Property and audit standard reasons, there should be a formal specification of this game under a version-controlled, time-stamped storage. I would love to see those specs, at least the parts where these features are described, for both games.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Igor -he DID have the split/doubling wild. Before suggesting HIGHIQ has 'photoshopped' stuff I suggest you do some homework on these MG game reports - they often show a different play report symbol to what the player sees on the reels. One example the MG play report on Immortal Romance, say you get a Wild Desire feature with reels 1,2,3 wild the game report will show the WILD VINE symbol in the first 9 spaces, which is nothing to do with wild desire symbols. Similarly on TSII in the same scenario, you'd see Loki Wilds on the first 9 places for a 3-reel shitstorm.
We've already had this argument in a thread about Battlestar Galactica if you dig it up.
This is a known and common MG issue.
With all due respect dunover, i'm a casino rep disconnected from the issue, working for general end-player benefit in trying to understand what transpired on this case. As you can see i also stated that while photo-shopping is an option i don't see a reason to do this, while you state he did have double/split wilds (on what, gut feeling?)
I'm guessing you are assuming Microgaming just swapped over split wild for stacked wild; and while giving you the benefit of the doubt, you dont know that for a fact - again, you are speculating. In fact you (we) don't even know what bonus type round the player chose (which is why i asked him to PM me). Following your logic, it could have been heat seeking missiles...
The problem with this thread is the speculation that ensues and without factual evidence or statistics, it's anyone's guess what has happened - hence my final statement: Allow max to do his job.
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
We never got a resolution of the other complaint, but this post from KK is VERY telling as to why THIS issue is also appearing to be going nowhere.
What REALLY set the cat among the pigeons in the current case is that it started not as a player questioning whether the game was working properly, but as a CASINO voiding winnings because they were 100% certain it was paying out too MUCH.
The deafening silence from Microgaming is as expected, and does not mean there is no glitch. It seems MGS have this "neither confirm nor deny" attitude to anything of this nature, something we might expect from MI6, GCHQ, or the NSA.
One thing has become clear, there IS a glitch, yet Microgaming are telling everybody there isn't one.
It's now possible that there is STILL a glitch that could be of advantage to the player, but it isn't the obvious one it appeared to be initially from reading the initial set of rules and paytables.
We could be entering a very dangerous era for operators. These ever more complicated slot games are trending to what we have here in the UK in our "Fruit Machines". These are VERY complex and feature rich games, and they are stuffed full of "edge cases". This leads to the occasional software slip up, and a few of these create the "emptiers" that pro players love, but arcade operators hate.
At least the UK Fruit Machine operators are protected somewhat by the limited hopper size on the games, either £125 or £250, after which a faulty machine runs out of coins and goes into "call attendant" mode, hence the nickname of "emptier" for such faults. Online operators have no such protection, they have to spot the problem during audit, otherwise it's too late, the player has walked off with the money.
Most problems online turn out to be display errors, or errors in the rules and paytables, with the game itself operating as it should. This case is different, as we have a casino actually voiding winnings based on there actually being a significant enough problem with the game that they can't just let the bets stand and yank the game.
Despite the fact that one casino is calling "malfunction voids play", the only things we KNOW MGS have fixed for this game are the rules, where they now correctly state "weighted average bet", and a minor bug in how the game is displayed in the lobby, where it was followed by some odd looking characters after the name. My MGS casinos also went into "monthly update mode" twice more after the initial formal monthly update, showing that two patches so far have been applied this month by MGS after the main new games update.
If players are still getting paid too much in a certain "edge case", it's still a problem for operators. The OP must have been particularly clever about exploiting this bug as it seems that most who have seen the discussion, and tried for themselves, have decided it offers no long term advantage, with some reporting some pretty low session RTP values despite trying the exploit as detailed initially.
Maybe now we should try out the Bane split wilds edge case to see if this is paying more than it should.
From the screenshots, I can see that the weighted average bet is not actually shown as the stake for each free spin, so this is not an indication as to whether the initial suspect is the bug in question that caused the casino to void the winnings.
I feel that we are REALLY going to have to pile on the pressure to get Microgaming to cooperate and tell even operators what is going on, let alone the players. It seems the last issue just went away after KK was ignored after being promised a reply at ICE.
Had the casino not voided the OPs winnings, it would have been much easier for MGS to stonewall until the issue went away. It's easy to argue that players who think they have spotted an error merely don't fully understand the complexities of the game. This is how it has been with Fruit Machines, and is also why some "emptiers" last for months, if not years, before the manufacturer wakes up to the fact that it is THEY that don't fully understand their game, and that unknown to them, it pays at an RTP of 100%+ if played a certain way.
What REALLY set the cat among the pigeons in the current case is that it started not as a player questioning whether the game was working properly, but as a CASINO voiding winnings because they were 100% certain it was paying out too MUCH.
The deafening silence from Microgaming is as expected, and does not mean there is no glitch. It seems MGS have this "neither confirm nor deny" attitude to anything of this nature, something we might expect from MI6, GCHQ, or the NSA.
One thing has become clear, there IS a glitch, yet Microgaming are telling everybody there isn't one.
It's now possible that there is STILL a glitch that could be of advantage to the player, but it isn't the obvious one it appeared to be initially from reading the initial set of rules and paytables.
We could be entering a very dangerous era for operators. These ever more complicated slot games are trending to what we have here in the UK in our "Fruit Machines". These are VERY complex and feature rich games, and they are stuffed full of "edge cases". This leads to the occasional software slip up, and a few of these create the "emptiers" that pro players love, but arcade operators hate.
At least the UK Fruit Machine operators are protected somewhat by the limited hopper size on the games, either £125 or £250, after which a faulty machine runs out of coins and goes into "call attendant" mode, hence the nickname of "emptier" for such faults. Online operators have no such protection, they have to spot the problem during audit, otherwise it's too late, the player has walked off with the money.
Most problems online turn out to be display errors, or errors in the rules and paytables, with the game itself operating as it should. This case is different, as we have a casino actually voiding winnings based on there actually being a significant enough problem with the game that they can't just let the bets stand and yank the game.
Despite the fact that one casino is calling "malfunction voids play", the only things we KNOW MGS have fixed for this game are the rules, where they now correctly state "weighted average bet", and a minor bug in how the game is displayed in the lobby, where it was followed by some odd looking characters after the name. My MGS casinos also went into "monthly update mode" twice more after the initial formal monthly update, showing that two patches so far have been applied this month by MGS after the main new games update.
If players are still getting paid too much in a certain "edge case", it's still a problem for operators. The OP must have been particularly clever about exploiting this bug as it seems that most who have seen the discussion, and tried for themselves, have decided it offers no long term advantage, with some reporting some pretty low session RTP values despite trying the exploit as detailed initially.
Maybe now we should try out the Bane split wilds edge case to see if this is paying more than it should.
From the screenshots, I can see that the weighted average bet is not actually shown as the stake for each free spin, so this is not an indication as to whether the initial suspect is the bug in question that caused the casino to void the winnings.
I feel that we are REALLY going to have to pile on the pressure to get Microgaming to cooperate and tell even operators what is going on, let alone the players. It seems the last issue just went away after KK was ignored after being promised a reply at ICE.
Had the casino not voided the OPs winnings, it would have been much easier for MGS to stonewall until the issue went away. It's easy to argue that players who think they have spotted an error merely don't fully understand the complexities of the game. This is how it has been with Fruit Machines, and is also why some "emptiers" last for months, if not years, before the manufacturer wakes up to the fact that it is THEY that don't fully understand their game, and that unknown to them, it pays at an RTP of 100%+ if played a certain way.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
And you weren't speculating using the word 'photoshop'?
And that these new MG slots with split wilds show conflicting symbols between real play screenies and MG play report jpg's is not speculation. We have seen it before here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ew-game-battlestar-at-ladbrokes-casino.54843/
Funnily enough, HIGHIQ, you and me were all in on that thread......
Seems the same issue rearing its head again.
I posted not to cast speculation on a current PAB but to hopefully add some info that helps STOP speculation.
Saying something is an option while offering an alternative isn't speculation, it's stating possibilities. You're very knowingly twisting my statements - not cool.
I'll head back and continue the analysis of rounds and talks (seek out some factual knowledge), out of personal curiosity if for nothing else.
I'll head back and continue the analysis of rounds and talks (seek out some factual knowledge), out of personal curiosity if for nothing else.
Nifty29
Dormant account
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Regardless of what Max discovers, I'll tell you one thing for sure...
It has NOTHING to do with fruities, emptiers or "edge cases".
"Edge cases"....
. Seriously?
At least Igor is doing ACTUAL investigation, and hasat least some basis for making educated guesses etc.
Fourteen paragraphs of assumptions and irrelevance is meaningless.
It has NOTHING to do with fruities, emptiers or "edge cases".
"Edge cases"....
. Seriously? At least Igor is doing ACTUAL investigation, and hasat least some basis for making educated guesses etc.
Fourteen paragraphs of assumptions and irrelevance is meaningless.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Regardless of what Max discovers, I'll tell you one thing for sure...
It has NOTHING to do with fruities, emptiers or "edge cases".
"Edge cases"....
At least Igor is doing ACTUAL investigation, and hasat least some basis for making educated guesses etc.
Fourteen paragraphs of assumptions and irrelevance is meaningless.
Shouldn't that be 'head cases'?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- East and West
Igor, I have the greatest respect for you testing the game, and trying to come up with an explanation, and I do believe you have good knowledge, and the tools to find one, but to imply that a player in an ongoing PAB situation may have photoshopped his screenshots, without any proof, when you know he can't even comment on the accusations is ALSO not cool in my opinion.
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Regardless of what Max discovers, I'll tell you one thing for sure...
It has NOTHING to do with fruities, emptiers or "edge cases".
"Edge cases"....
At least Igor is doing ACTUAL investigation, and hasat least some basis for making educated guesses etc.
Fourteen paragraphs of assumptions and irrelevance is meaningless.
Maybe not, but there is no getting away from the initial claim by the casino that an error in the game resulted in far too much being paid out to a player to the extent that they invoked the "malfunction" term to void said payouts.
It's only a question of the nature of the glitch that is to be confirmed. It's more than a simple typo in the paytable and rules.
It's of course possible that the OP has manipulated the screenshot, but it's also possible that the casino have misused the "malfunction voids play" term in order to void a "bonus abuse" type payout.
If there is nothing to this, why can't Igor seem to get anywhere with his "contact at MGS", and instead having to resort to his own investigation that has now "100%" convinced him that something isn't right.
Where is the MGS official statement that could put this issue to bed right away, and end any speculation about there being some kind of "emptier" exploit if a certain method of play is used?
Igor is better placed to investigate as he has access to the back end stats for ALL play, not just the limited amount of access a player has, which is only to his own logs, and not in a form that makes it easy to analyse.
I'm helping him analyse the game play and screenshots via PM's. Highiq can confirm this.
It is not an accusation. Symbols show one possible payout, credits awarded show another. It is equally possible that 1) game glitched or 2) he edited the image; or as dunover suggested 3) game didnt glitch but playcheck didnt register correct symbols graphically (which i would also need to confirm).
So while i stated the options (minus dunovers suggestion) I also agreed to use my time to help the OP analyse, not the PAB screenies (that's max), but the screenies he took afterwards (shown on this thread - belonging to another casino). This will allow him to use at least one casino rep's opinion and if anything, understand the game and his sitution better - which i feel is the right approach considering our line of duty of any of us (active operators on this forum).
Above said, one of the options STILL continues to be manipulation and that is as fair to say as it is to say that the game is glitched or - VWM's comparisons of MGS to MI6 and CIA.
If we are to list possibilities, let's list them all honestly and uncover the actuality of the matter.
For the record, i'm not trying to discredit the OP, i'm in fact helping him understand his situation to the best of my personal capacity (and limitations). Until then, all avenues are open.
In my dead honest opinion from my short time here i sincerely think we could all benefit from a little less "conspiratory" approach and little more "analytical" approach to our postings & mutual communications on both sides of the proverbial fence, if we would like to sustain the honesty and credibility of the valid side of the industry (im excluding certified rogues - providers and operators alike).
just my 2 pence at the end of it all - i'm sure i'll still be considered one of the "conspirators" by the usual suspects regardless (not meaning you) because of the nature of my profession.
hey hey, please, that's not fact at all. Not all elements of the game are exposed, that is true, but to go ahead and say that i'm not getting anywhere because i said we haven't arrived at one conclusion or another is blatant fabrication of something you cannot possibly know. It's why i have an issue with your posts.
1) screenshots posted HERE aren't right. MY playcheck is 100% fine. 2)where in the world did you get an idea im not getting anywhere or that i have even tried contacting MGS yet???
I'm not a MGS representative nor do i pretend to be. I have experience and work in the industry, fullstop. I'm also able to communicate with MGS in an honest, analytical and open forum. And also, i wont allow myself to point a finger at my supplier because some guy thought it was clever to blow things out of proportion as you do, consistently.
If i post a case and/or question, it will be on the basis of analysis of MY OWN test account transactions and playcheck analysis of my players with a formed opinion and questions to be answered, which i'm not ready for yet - because i didn't FIND a discrepancy yet!
You can rest assured that i wont be writing to MGS posting a link to this forum with a question "What do you have to say for yourself, huh?" - i respect my own credibility more than that vynil.
I'll be honest with you: after being personally privy to wild statements like these, i have whole new level of respect for max and what he has to put up with trying to help!!
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
No conspiracy theories from me. No VWM-like tangents either. The only statement I'm making is that the MG games DO payout correctly and paid what the playlog states in the pictures the OP posted. The only (I thought useful) addition I made is that the OP has not, either in this thread or the similar one he made regarding Battlestar Galactica, edited any images.
Let me explain - when you get a MG play report and the jpg they store with that spin, the symbols are often different. I'll explain why this is especially so in games with split wilds like BG and TDK:
As you know, on 243-way slots, multiple winlines occur on a single spin (hence the large amount of win lines pictured just for the one game the OP posted). In the case of a SPLIT wild, the effect is to create extra winline(s) which ALL have to be calculated/pictured individually. Therefore, these wins when pictured in the MG game report graphics show a SINGLE wild for purposes of valuation of that ONE specific winning line/combo.
I think you'll find (if you talk with MGS) that I am correct in this.
Bear this in mind when viewing MG game report jpg's in future where the game has split wilds.
Disclaimer: this is not an opinion on the OP's PAB or complaint, merely a stand-alone observation on the veracity of any MG game report jpg's he's posted!
Let me explain - when you get a MG play report and the jpg they store with that spin, the symbols are often different. I'll explain why this is especially so in games with split wilds like BG and TDK:
As you know, on 243-way slots, multiple winlines occur on a single spin (hence the large amount of win lines pictured just for the one game the OP posted). In the case of a SPLIT wild, the effect is to create extra winline(s) which ALL have to be calculated/pictured individually. Therefore, these wins when pictured in the MG game report graphics show a SINGLE wild for purposes of valuation of that ONE specific winning line/combo.
I think you'll find (if you talk with MGS) that I am correct in this.
Bear this in mind when viewing MG game report jpg's in future where the game has split wilds.
Disclaimer: this is not an opinion on the OP's PAB or complaint, merely a stand-alone observation on the veracity of any MG game report jpg's he's posted!
Thank you for the useful explanation. I understand you better now.
To confirm I understood what I am reading:
1) i understand that split wild creates a "new reel" environment for each winline, achieving a maximum of 6OAK rather than 5OAK and also allows more winning combinations.
2) Graphics show a wild symbol for each winline individually, while NOT representing the wild symbol correctly in the REEL POSITIONS screen (aka whole reel of wild in case of stacked wilds or split wild in case of split wilds)
I believe we agree on number 1 and i'll be as honest as to say i do not know if REEL POSITIONS screen (showing the final 15 symbol positions of the spin) will show stacked or split wilds appropriately, so i will tentatively agree until i find an example.
Now, the GRAPHICS of the wild symbol between SPLIT wild (here: Attach Removed (Old not found)) and STACKED (here: Attach Removed (Old not found)) wild differ, that much is true.
Split is yellow light, Stacked is more "hellish" looking and red. It is important to note that the wild depicted showed on reel 4 in the OP's REEL POSITIONS screen, as per that bonus round description and intended function.
My concern is that the GRAPHICAL representation of OP's wild, is the one of STACKED wilds (bane wild) while the payout is showing a combination that can only achieved by having a SPLIT WILD (bantman wild).
Do you believe that MGS randomly shows wild symbols simply to represent a wild while the payout decides what kind of a wild it is (possible), or do you believe that the graphics on the screen should represent the kind of a wild chosen, depending on the bonus round type selected?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
Unless the logs use a different wild, to my eyes, in the images, the op clearly has Bane wilds, meaning, they cant split
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Don't be too concerned - the problem simply lies in the graphics MG use in the game reports. The awards/pays shown are correct, but for some reason (possibly simplicity) the reports use wild symbols from one kind of event and transpose them into others where that wild can't be attained. If you look at immortal romance for example, and check out MG reports of one free round you'll see wild symbols from another. Like I said, this is a graphics issue and has no bearing on the correct pays resulting form the spin(s).
Obviously I believe the reports should show the SAME symbols you see on the reel, but they don't always. You can test this yourself by getting free rounds on various MG 243-way slots and screenshotting the actual game then retrieving the game report corresponding to that spin.
Respin_Ftw
Experienced Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
This slot is one of the worst slots ever to be launched imo!
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Location
- Out Of Town
MG have always had arse about representation of their wilds on certain games. If you go and check a win from a wild storm feature in Thunderstruck 2 you will see the wilds are actually graphics of the wilds from the Loki feature, this is just one example off the top of my head.
EDIT Actual found 1 image which supports this claim here: Wild Storm 5 wilds and this is posted from Playcheck by a casino rep.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
-
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!
At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!