What should this pay?

[Reelsoffun]

Ok

As a player using the paytable below what would you expect

Wild-Wild-Wild-Ace-King to pay on a payline?

Please vote to show what we expect it to pay.

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

Ok

As a player using the paytable below what would you expect

Wild-Wild-Wild-Ace-King to pay on a payline?

View attachment 107037

If this is let's say only 1 line win on middle line (2nd line) then it would pay 0.25 since 3 wilds pay more than 4x A's. You only get the highest win on a win line, not multiple wins.

If it only paid 0.08 for 4 A's then its wrong that's for sure.

 

[Reelsoffun]

If this is let's say only 1 line win on middle line (2nd line) then it would pay 0.25 since 3 wilds pay more than 4x A's. You only get the highest win on a win line, not multiple wins.

If it only paid 0.08 for 4 A's then its wrong that's for sure.

Not according to VS and Thunderkick 4 aces for 8p is correct they confirmed it i'm afraid...... Please all vote so we can show them its not what players expect.

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

Not according to VS and Thunderkick i'm afraid...... Please all vote so we can show them its not what players expect.

OMG are you actually telling me it only paid £0.08????

 

[09237653]

The 8p win wouldn't surprise me as this game is very wild focused so it would probably only pay the aces.
Begs the question why is three wilds even a win? because the 4th symbol may be blocked by a scatter.

 

[pinnit2014]

The rules say the longest payline....So, if it was a scatter in place of the Ace it would have given the 3 wilds payout but with the Ace the longest payline is 4 Aces.

Yeah, looks like the Wild paytable only gets paid if blocked by a carrot

 

[Reelsoffun]

The rules say the longest payline....So, if it was a scatter in place of the Ace it would have given the 3 wilds payout but with the Ace the longest payline is 4 Aces.

Yeah, looks like the Wild paytable only gets paid if blocked by a carrot

I know its right according to the paytable due to the longest, but I really thought that was a misprint for "Highest" which is the case on 99% of online slots.

The vote its to see what people expect it to pay given the "norm"

 

[pinnit2014]

I know its right according to the paytable due to the longest, but I really thought that was a misprint for "Highest" which is the case on 99% of online slots.

The vote its to see what people expect it to pay given the "norm"

Ah right - yeah, it is very odd that given that you’re screaming ‘don’t be a win symbol’ when the wilds roll in. Funnily enough it’s not something I check often, I presume that it’s the highest... I’ll keep an eye on other slots now ;-)

 

[Jono777]

Most if not every pay table I've read in 15 years of this slotting lark states something along the lines of "Only highest wins pay"

In this case, 3 wilds = 0.25p

TK must be the only provider where this does not seem to be the case

 

[brianmon]

DOA only pays 3 and 4 OAK wilds, as wilds, if they're followed by a scatter. Otherwise it's a 4 or 5 OAK of the last symbol

 

[Siohmy]

What the absolute $%£^&&! Seriously!! Why do so many manufacturers deliberately go out of their way to piss players off!? So 3 wilds on a line here followed by a Q will effectively pay pretty much 1/5th what it should do. I'm sure this will be defended because of the way the slot is designed or that the bonus wouldn't work with paying as displayed here or that it's a perfectly acceptable thing which passes all relevant tests.

 

[Jono777]

DOA only pays 3 and 4 OAK wilds, as wilds, if they're followed by a scatter. Otherwise it's a 4 or 5 OAK of the last symbol

Not quite right mate. if its 'A' or below it pays the 3OAK wilds (0.25p on min bet) rather than 4OAK 'A' (0.20p)

If its wild, wild, wild, glass (or higher) then it pays the 4OAK symbol and 'ignores' the wilds.

Thus applying the 'only highest win pays' rule I mentioned earlier.

 

[Lemon]

If you're getting paid for 4 Aces then that is fucking ridiculous. Usually the 'longest win' rule is only used when the two award values are the same. What utterly absurd pay rules those are.

 

[trancemonkey]

I have to say that, although they are within their rights to do this as long as it says it in the paytable, that is the exact opposite of what every other game I've ever seen would do.

 

[dunover]

Yep. It seems they've constructed it so Wilds only have their own pay when exclusive to the winning line, as someone said if blocked by a scatter. Otherwise the 4 or 5-of-a-kind overrides them whichever symbol is involved.

So W-W-W-K-K pays 5OAK kings, the same a W-K-W-K-W would.

 

[Siohmy]

This sort of thing is quite demoralising really. I genuinely do not want to hate on the industry and generally do not. I’ve often defended what many perceive as “rigged” or “not random”, but shit like this really makes it difficult. It’s also becoming more and more common for slots to use dubious practices to dupe players. It can be argued that often this is fairly unnecessary as well.

This design is another in what is becoming an extremely long list of poor things being inplemented/included in slots.

 

[dunover]

This sort of thing is quite demoralising really. I genuinely do not want to hate on the industry and generally do not. I’ve often defended what many perceive as “rigged” or “not random”, but shit like this really makes it difficult. It’s also becoming more and more common for slots to use dubious practices to dupe players. It can be argued that often this is fairly unnecessary as well.

This design is another in what is becoming an extremely long list of poor things being inplemented/included in slots.

It's pretty irrelevant as it's just the way the developer has constructed the pay tables, which if you look at Microgaming who do the opposite for example, makes this incidence look anomalous. Agreed in that this construct seems to devalue higher Wild symbols, but as long as the game pays it RTP and this has been worked in to the values correctly it's fine. Just looks stooopid...

 

[Siohmy]

DOA only pays 3 and 4 OAK wilds, as wilds, if they're followed by a scatter. Otherwise it's a 4 or 5 OAK of the last symbol

If it does it definitely is breaking its own rules. It states it pays highest win on a line.

 

[Siohmy]

It's pretty irrelevant as it's just the way the developer has constructed the pay tables, which if you look at Microgaming who do the opposite for example, makes this incidence look anomalous. Agreed in that this construct seems to devalue higher Wild symbols, but as long as the game pays it RTP and this has been worked in to the values correctly it's fine. Just looks stooopid...

At the risk of starting another discussion about the ethics and rules with slots which seems to be a weekly occurrence recently (and with good reason most of the time) I’m not sure I can agree with all of this.

Yes, it’s a pretty dumb and fairly unique way of setting up which is detailed in the rules if you chose to go into the detailed part. I notice the actual pay table makes no such mention. However, it does completely change the complexion of how the thing works both in the base game and the bonus.

I have actually had a bonus on this and it looked pretty good. Seem to recall I got quite a few random wilds. It’d be quite natural to think that I’d be on for a sizeable win. I think it was hugely disappointed with the outcome and couldn’t see where a big win was achievable. Didn’t check the paytable, I’ll admit, but if I had I’m sure I’d have been stratching my head as well. Just haven’t gone back.

I will say this does at least have the correct information and likely to do with controlling the bonus pay potential. Odd way of going about it, somewhat misleading, but far from the worst offence.

I will say that it isn’t the best unique option (that I am aware of) to chose when designing your slot.

Edit: I have voted 4 aces by the way as technically that is correct!

 

[Reelsoffun]

Edit: I have voted 4 aces by the way as technically that is correct!

I agree that its technically correct, but I wanted the vote to reflect what people would expect it to pay on a normal slot

It gets worst in the bonus as you often lose out on the 4 wilds with A,K,Q,J on the 5th reel etc, thanks for comments.

 

[Reelsoffun]

I have never understood the 11 lines either its a bit weird and unnecessary like the wilds fiasco. 11 lines for 10p etc smells like something else is going on,

I know other games do it but normally they are relative eg bruce lee 60 lines for price of 30 but 11 for 10 is a bit weird ?? why not just make it a 10 line game?

its on my ban list now so don't bother me no more LOL

 

[Siohmy]

I agree that its technically correct, but I wanted the vote to reflect what people would expect it to pay on a normal slot

It gets worst in the bonus as you often lose out on the 4 wilds with A,K,Q,J on the 5th reel etc, thanks for comments.

It was a bit tongue in cheek. Of course, logically it should pay 3 wilds.

 

[aceking123]

I would view it as 3 wilds for 25p & four aces for 8p,total win single line 33p, so i voted for neither

 

[goatwack]

Ah, I remember when a few wilds on a game would get you a house, car, 5* holiday and still leave you enough for the BFH

Now one's lucky to scrape a box of matches

(half that when it comes to Thunderkick)

 

[Siohmy]

Ah, I remember when a few wilds on a game would get you a house, car, 5* holiday and still leave you enough for the BFH

Now one's lucky to scrape a box of matches

(half that when it comes to Thunderkick)

Captain Venture can still manage that on relatively modest stakes. Ok, maybe not a house.

 

[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.