What should this pay?

[Throwaway10825]

Just FYI, Ancient Egypt Classic by Pragmatic pays the exact same way. Wild Wild Wild Ace King on a line pay for a 4oak Aces and not the 3 wilds which would pay more

 

[Reelsoffun]

Just FYI, Ancient Egypt Classic by Pragmatic pays the exact same way. Wild Wild Wild Ace King on a line pay for a 4oak Aces and not the 3 wilds which would pay more

Well i will never be playing that either then LOL

 

[snorky510238]

I know it’s a complicated game but Napoleon (voted game of the year) suffers from the most misleading rules I have come across. It has a paytable for wilds but again unless blocked by a scatter will always connect with lower paying symbols. It is therefore impossible to hit 4 wilds (yet it’s in the paytable). 4 wilds = 1,200. I know 4 wilds and a 9 I think pays 1,280 because the wilds multiply but you would assume the wilds would multiply if it was possible to get 4. Maybe someone has seen a clearer set of rules for this game but I think it is clearly misleading at best.

 

[Reelsoffun]

I know it’s a complicated game but Napoleon (voted game of the year) suffers from the most misleading rules I have come across. It has a paytable for wilds but again unless blocked by a scatter will always connect with lower paying symbols. It is therefore impossible to hit 4 wilds (yet it’s in the paytable). 4 wilds = 1,200. I know 4 wilds and a 9 I think pays 1,280 because the wilds multiply but you would assume the wilds would multiply if it was possible to get 4. Maybe someone has seen a clearer set of rules for this game but I think it is clearly misleading at best.

I am all for clear paytables, but as the starter of this thread im a little confused about your comment on Napoleon, my experience of it is that it pays exactly what it says on the tin, so maybe im misunderstanding what you mean.

If you mean that because its impossible to hit 4 wilds thats a lower win than with the 5 symbol then it shouldnt be shown as its just due to the nature of the wilds having multipliers, otherwise they would be possible as such, hope you get what im trying to say, my head hurts with all this now lol

The wilds are listed separately because they don't multiply with themselves I would expect, but at least it pays the highest win per line, which is exactly how I want a slot to pay to be honest, not that I have ever been able to hit diddly squat on it so far....in regards to a big or massive win.

Also as 5 wilds pays higher than anything and has to be in the paytable then it had to make sence to include what 2,3,4 Wilds paid too.

 

[mcgameboy]

I know it’s a complicated game but Napoleon (voted game of the year) suffers from the most misleading rules I have come across. It has a paytable for wilds but again unless blocked by a scatter will always connect with lower paying symbols. It is therefore impossible to hit 4 wilds (yet it’s in the paytable). 4 wilds = 1,200. I know 4 wilds and a 9 I think pays 1,280 because the wilds multiply but you would assume the wilds would multiply if it was possible to get 4. Maybe someone has seen a clearer set of rules for this game but I think it is clearly misleading at best.

I would say it's more a case misleading at worst, and VERY poorly thought out ie not even thought out at all at best.

I can't help but think that because...
i. a 2OAK of wilds pays 400 (and pays more than any 5OAK of 9s or Ts that includes 2 wilds - which both pay 320) and
ii. a 3OAK of wilds pays 800 (and pays more than any 5OAK of 9s or Ts that includes 3 wilds - which both pay 640)

....they just decided "we'll make the pay award for 4 wilds the next available multiple of 400".

But in doing so, they completely overlooked the fact that the payout for any 5OAK of 9s or Ts that includes 4 wilds (which pays 1,280 as you've already stated) exceeds the payout for 4 wilds, thus making the payout for 4 wilds (as far as I can see) the impossibility that you correctly said it is.

Perhaps it would have been a better idea if Blueprint had made 4 wilds pay 1600 ie by doubling up the payout of each extra wild at the start of a payline, instead of using the next multiple of 400?

That way, if you got 4 wilds followed by a 9 or a 10, then you got paid for 4 wilds.
Sure, it would be the ONLY way that a payout for 4 wilds could be achieved, but it at least would ensure that a payout for a 4OAK of wilds is not impossible.

But if you got 4 wilds followed by a J or higher paying symbol, then you got paid for a 5OAK of the following symbol, at 16x.
Regardless of where the 4 wilds are on the payline.

As for the payouts themselves, I have found that the payouts are correct. Although, I must confess, I've felt the need to check,
because there have been occasions where I thought the payout was actually too much, rather than being too little.

For example, a wild followed by a solider or a solider followed by a wild actually pays twice as much as a 2OAK of wilds.
A 2OAK of wilds (400) pays out more than a 5OAK of As or Ks with no wilds (320), a 5OAK of Qs or Js with 1 wild (320)
and a 5OAK or 10s or 9s with 2 wilds (320).

I suppose Napoleon is one of those slots where it's complicated, but with a surprising upside payout-wise (in some cases).

 

[snorky510238]

I would say it's more a case misleading at worst, and VERY poorly thought out ie not even thought out at all at best.

I can't help but think that because...
i. a 2OAK of wilds pays 400 (and pays more than any 5OAK of 9s or Ts that includes 2 wilds - which both pay 320) and
ii. a 3OAK of wilds pays 800 (and pays more than any 5OAK of 9s or Ts that includes 3 wilds - which both pay 640)

....they just decided "we'll make the pay award for 4 wilds the next available multiple of 400".

But in doing so, they completely overlooked the fact that the payout for any 5OAK of 9s or Ts that includes 4 wilds (which pays 1,280 as you've already stated) exceeds the payout for 4 wilds, thus making the payout for 4 wilds (as far as I can see) the impossibility that you correctly said it is.

Perhaps it would have been a better idea if Blueprint had made 4 wilds pay 1600 ie by doubling up the payout of each extra wild at the start of a payline, instead of using the next multiple of 400?

That way, if you got 4 wilds followed by a 9 or a 10, then you got paid for 4 wilds.
Sure, it would be the ONLY way that a payout for 4 wilds could be achieved, but it at least would ensure that a payout for a 4OAK of wilds is not impossible.

But if you got 4 wilds followed by a J or higher paying symbol, then you got paid for a 5OAK of the following symbol, at 16x.
Regardless of where the 4 wilds are on the payline.

As for the payouts themselves, I have found that the payouts are correct. Although, I must confess, I've felt the need to check,
because there have been occasions where I thought the payout was actually too much, rather than being too little.

For example, a wild followed by a solider or a solider followed by a wild actually pays twice as much as a 2OAK of wilds.
A 2OAK of wilds (400) pays out more than a 5OAK of As or Ks with no wilds (320), a 5OAK of Qs or Js with 1 wild (320)
and a 5OAK or 10s or 9s with 2 wilds (320).

I suppose Napoleon is one of those slots where it's complicated, but with a surprising upside payout-wise (in some cases).

Yeah I haven’t bothered to try and find it but when this game was relatively new I am sure someone posted a win of 3oak soldiers (may of included 2 wilds) that paid over £1,000 on a 20p stake. Yet looking through the April big wins someone had 5 oak soldiers with 4 wilds that paid £672 on 20p so yes I do wonder sometimes if it has paid over the odds. Also you get that x25,000 wild on the first reel sometimes but there is no mention of it anywhere in the paytable. It obviously doesn’t pay that but it does increase your win.