Wtf happened to Dead or Alive

[bebo67]

The variance changed, and there's a few threads on here backing the claims up.
Even Trancemonkey has now agreed that there's a probability that they took the opportunity, whilst changing to HTML5, to change the maths....

"Whilst i could easily argue that the sample is small - and it is, certainly too small to be conclusive, the trend certainly shows the possibility it's changed."

Obviously it was re-certified. But at a cost of about €3,500 it's a small price to pay.
Especially since the HTML5 version has now been removed from the 'restricted while playing a bonus' list at quite a few casinos, there's going to be more players playing it

The math would have to change because coding of HTML5 wouldnt be able to accept the same as flash. It is the same with PlaynGo games. You wouldn't notice it unless you play the same games over and over, but there is a change. And IMO the casinos should adjust RTP to reflect the changes.

 

[bebo67]

So you seriously think we go through the time and expense to create multiple sets of maths for the same RTP instead of just one good set of maths?

You have no idea of the process of creating a game and yet you just make statements like that.

Now yes lots of companies exist that probably don't spend anywhere near the time others do to make maths - but maths are the most important part of a game. We spend a long time doing maths... and that's just for one RTP (or profile as you call it).

Why on earth do you think we would spend ages coming up with another profile for the same RTP? I spend weeks and weeks tuning a game to make it fun, exciting and fair. That is the skill of a good producer/mathematician. And to then see keyboard warriors with no experience at all just making out that it's super easy, cheap and can be done quickly just to rig things against the players...

Well it pisses me off to be honest....

Ok. So lets be clear. You have two different versions, one flash, other the basics of files HTML5. You are telling me that when you do the coding of the HTML5, which will be absolutely different than the flash, that the numbers are exactly the same as what was in flash? Sorry Im tired, by the " numbers" I mean the math. And usually when I ask a question I all ready know.

 

[brianmon]

Ok. So lets be clear. You have two different versions, one flash, other the basics of files HTML5. You are telling me that when you do the coding of the HTML5, which will be absolutely different than the flash, that the numbers are exactly the same as what was in flash?

I think you're slightly misunderstanding something here Flash and HTML5 are sort of the format and programs used to display the games in your browser.
The 'maths' behind the game is part of the program which runs on the game providers server and sends the resulting spin data in a format that either Flash or HTML5 can understand.
One plus two = three. in english (flash) is still the same as un plus deux = trois in french (html5).
What most of the posters are saying is that when Flash needed to be converted to HTML5, because Flash is being phased out.
Netent took the opportunity to change the server program. So now, un plus deux = quatre in french(HTML5)
I know it's an over-simplified analogy , and I hope you don't take it in any was as condescending

 

[bebo67]

I think you're slightly misunderstanding something here Flash and HTML5 are sort of the format and programs used to display the games in your browser.
The 'maths' behind the game is part of the program which runs on the game providers server and sends the resulting spin data in a format that either Flash or HTML5 can understand.
One plus two = three. in english (flash) is still the same as un plus deux = trois in french (html5).
What most of the posters are saying is that when Flash needed to be converted to HTML5, because Flash is being phased out.
Netent took the opportunity to change the server program. So now, un plus deux = quatre in french(HTML5)
I know it's an over-simplified analogy , and I hope you don't take it in any was as condescending

No, not at all. Im really, really tired. I will re visit this tomorrow

 

[trancemonkey]

Ok. So lets be clear. You have two different versions, one flash, other the basics of files HTML5. You are telling me that when you do the coding of the HTML5, which will be absolutely different than the flash, that the numbers are exactly the same as what was in flash? Sorry Im tired, by the " numbers" I mean the math. And usually when I ask a question I all ready know.

The front end (game) is totally separate to the game logic (Maths). So yes.... that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m not saying they “haven’t” changed the Maths, as already pointed out, but there is no reason to.

You can totally rewrite the game in whatever language you want and it does not require any change to the Maths at all...

 

[trancemonkey]

these keyboard warriors have spun millions upon millions of spins on games,you know what pisses me off? You and your Gang of affiliats being rude every time some one does not agree with you bullies

Hardly rude was I..: but if you believe that your knowledge of slots is better than mine, then fair enough You are entirely able to believe feelings over fact....

Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy..

 

[trancemonkey]

these keyboard warriors have spun millions upon millions of spins on games,you know what pisses me off? You and your Gang of affiliats being rude every time some one does not agree with you bullies

You see the thing is, I have the stats for billions upon billions of games. For each game I’ve worked on and even those I haven’t worked on from companies I’ve worked for. I also know the way slot Maths are done - so I would think I have a lot more inside knowledge than you. And I’m not an affiliate at all - I have nothing to gain from speaking in this forum.

 

[suchfun]

You see the thing is, I have the stats for billions upon billions of games. For each game I’ve worked on and even those I haven’t worked on from companies I’ve worked for. I also know the way slot Maths are done - so I would think I have a lot more inside knowledge than you. And I’m not an affiliate at all - I have nothing to gain from speaking in this forum.

Oh ok well good enuf for me,good luck selling your next game,if you say nothing is changed and when money is involved every buddy is on the up and up,well I must take your word for it

 

[trancemonkey]

Oh ok well good enuf for me,good luck selling your next game,if you say nothing is changed and when money is involved every buddy is on the up and up,well I must take your word for it

I’m not saying some are not rogue .. but I can’t almost guarantee you that the main companies operating in the UK are above board and operate fairly. I make no assertions for companies in some unregulated markets.

You don’t have to believe me - it’s your choice - but I just want you to understand I’m no affiliate with nothing to gain by doing this. I have passion for games and yes, I’m still a player. I believe that only as a player can I understand what makes some games great and others terrible.

 

[SpinUk]

The front end (game) is totally separate to the game logic (Maths). So yes.... that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m not saying they “haven’t” changed the Maths, as already pointed out, but there is no reason to.

You can totally rewrite the game in whatever language you want and it does not require any change to the Maths at all...

Apart from the fact that it had become universally banned for bonus play everywhere, as it was a financial liability (see Nate’s max bet double wammy at redbet days apart - over 100k withdrawn).

So they had the opportunity to rewrite the maths and get the game back into the “play with bonus” list, therby getting more players playing it but reducing (more than halfing in fact) the 1000x wins.

Bearing in mind the above, why are WOULDN'T they change the maths?

Your not an idiot Trancemonkey plus you say (and I believe you) you have worked in the industry for years, so I dont understand how you can plead ignorance on motive for stuff like this. 100% you would know why.

That’s ignoring the heavily indicative and comprehensive play records we have the luxury of comparing on the forum which I think you endorsed as good evidence of change.

Or are we now falling back to the “low sample size” argument.

Its almost like (exactly like actually) the industry pulls out that one to justify any BS they want to reel out (remember a similar argument recently on the dodgy freeplay games that were blatantly playing differantly on the Videoslots thread).

 

[trancemonkey]

Apart from the fact that it had become universally banned for bonus play everywhere, as it was a financial liability (see Nate’s max bet double wammy at redbet days apart - over 100k withdrawn).

So they had the opportunity to rewrite the maths and get the game back into the “play with bonus” list, therby getting more players playing it but reducing (more than halfing in fact) the 1000x wins.

Bearing in mind the above, why are WOULDN'T they change the maths?

Your not an idiot Trancemonkey plus you say (and I believe you) you have worked in the industry for years, so I dont understand how you can plead ignorance on motive for stuff like this. 100% you would know why.

That’s ignoring the heavily indicative and comprehensive play records we have the luxury of comparing on the forum which I think you endorsed as good evidence of change.

Or are we now falling back to the “low sample size” argument.

Its almost like (exactly like actually) the industry pulls out that one to justify any BS they want to reel out (remember a similar argument recently on the dodgy freeplay games that were blatantly playing differantly on the Videoslots thread).

I think you must have forgotten the post (which you liked) in this thread where i said:

The DOA stats, and the fact it's now allowed at some casinos, means they have probably (not definitely) turned down the volatility.

I have seen data, in this thread (and in others) which supports the fact that they have probably limited the max liability, or certainly made the stupidly high wins come out less often.

I have not, anywhere, pleaded ignorance for them changing the maths on DOA - i HAVE however said that i very much doubt Starburst has changed, and i'm told RR and MZ have not changed.
Starburst is a cash cow for NetEnt - there are very very few business reasons that make sense to change it. That doesn't mean it HASN'T changed, it just means on the balance of probability and based on my knowledge and experience i find it highly unlikely. But nothing is impossible. NetEnt have made some shockingly bad games in the last few years, so nothing would surprise me in all honesty.

If you're going to call me out, at least get what i've said correct

 

[deadoralive23]

Face it the game has been tweaked full stop.
The players that actually play this game for hours on end will tell you it's not the same as it once was.
Its a load of shit, they obviously realised the huge wins people were getting from this and decided to rebuff it as money is the most important thing for these slot makers

 

[bebo67]

Sorry for last night, my brain shuts down after 8 pm. Lol. I was told by a very reliable source and I wont mention the name, but that when a provider changes the math, they are to let the casinos know so they can adjust accordingly. And I cant say anything about Netent because I am in Canada, but I have seen the changes in PlaynGo, because I play it pretty well every day. I have seen the 50%-70% RTP, and I have seen the 96-98% RTP in demo mode.

 

[slotter999]

I think you must have forgotten the post (which you liked) in this thread where i said:

The DOA stats, and the fact it's now allowed at some casinos, means they have probably (not definitely) turned down the volatility.

I have seen data, in this thread (and in others) which supports the fact that they have probably limited the max liability, or certainly made the stupidly high wins come out less often.

I have not, anywhere, pleaded ignorance for them changing the maths on DOA - i HAVE however said that i very much doubt Starburst has changed, and i'm told RR and MZ have not changed.
Starburst is a cash cow for NetEnt - there are very very few business reasons that make sense to change it. That doesn't mean it HASN'T changed, it just means on the balance of probability and based on my knowledge and experience i find it highly unlikely. But nothing is impossible. NetEnt have made some shockingly bad games in the last few years, so nothing would surprise me in all honesty.

If you're going to call me out, at least get what i've said correct

Trancemonkey,

Are you really swayed that the maths behind DOA has changed as a result of seeing a dataset of 1 million spins?
How many games have you produced where 1 millions spins gives a there or there abouts feel of the game rtp?

I looked at the reel strips you produced on the fab 4 game or whatever its called and they were 100+ symbols per strip. What use is 1 million spins worth of data on a dataset that large?

 

[trancemonkey]

Trancemonkey,

Are you really swayed that the maths behind DOA has changed as a result of seeing a dataset of 1 million spins?
How many games have you produced where 1 millions spins gives a there or there abouts feel of the game rtp?

I looked at the reel strips you produced on the fab 4 game or whatever its called and they were 100+ symbols per strip. What use is 1 million spins worth of data on a dataset that large?

No... I'm saying that as a result of seeing the data, AND the fact some casinos seem to have allowed the game on when before it wasn't, there is a chance they have changed it.

If you look at all my comments I've said it's probable but by no means definite.

 

[trancemonkey]

Face it the game has been tweaked full stop.
The players that actually play this game for hours on end will tell you it's not the same as it once was.
Its a load of shit, they obviously realised the huge wins people were getting from this and decided to rebuff it as money is the most important thing for these slot makers

It still runs at the same RTP so your comment makes no sense... the only reason they would have changed it is to appease the casinos in limiting max liability. But the RTP remains the same... So the casinos don't make any more money out of it. If it's been made less volatile all that means is the casinos have a less volatile income from the game.

 

[trancemonkey]

Sorry for last night, my brain shuts down after 8 pm. Lol. I was told by a very reliable source and I wont mention the name, but that when a provider changes the math, they are to let the casinos know so they can adjust accordingly. And I cant say anything about Netent because I am in Canada, but I have seen the changes in PlaynGo, because I play it pretty well every day. I have seen the 50%-70% RTP, and I have seen the 96-98% RTP in demo mode.

There is no 50-70% RTP setting on any slot game online from any provider I know of... @dunover can easily confirm this

 

[slotter999]

No... I'm saying that as a result of seeing the data, AND the fact some casinos seem to have allowed the game on when before it wasn't, there is a chance they have changed it.

If you look at all my comments I've said it's probable but by no means definite.

I am very surprised you would be swayed to infer anything about a slot from a sample set of 1 million spins unless you thought it was a very basic slot.

The head of products for netent is on record as saying they didn't change the math (it was during an interview with the admin of this board). Do you think we can trust statements like that from someone so senior or should we take it with a pinch of salt?

 

[bebo67]

There is no 50-70% RTP setting on any slot game online from any provider I know of... @dunover can easily confirm this

My RTP has been 50-70 across the board on Gemix. This has been the same for the last couple of months

 

[SpinUk]

I think you must have forgotten the post (which you liked) in this thread where i said:

The DOA stats, and the fact it's now allowed at some casinos, means they have probably (not definitely) turned down the volatility.

I have seen data, in this thread (and in others) which supports the fact that they have probably limited the max liability, or certainly made the stupidly high wins come out less often.

I have not, anywhere, pleaded ignorance for them changing the maths on DOA - i HAVE however said that i very much doubt Starburst has changed, and i'm told RR and MZ have not changed.
Starburst is a cash cow for NetEnt - there are very very few business reasons that make sense to change it. That doesn't mean it HASN'T changed, it just means on the balance of probability and based on my knowledge and experience i find it highly unlikely. But nothing is impossible. NetEnt have made some shockingly bad games in the last few years, so nothing would surprise me in all honesty.

If you're going to call me out, at least get what i've said correct [/QUOTE

I am very surprised you would be swayed to infer anything about a slot from a sample set of 1 million spins unless you thought it was a very basic slot.

The head of products for netent is on record as saying they didn't change the math (it was during an interview with the admin of this board). Do hyou think we can trust statements like that from someone so senior or should we take it with a pinch of salt?

Have you got the link to that interview?

 

[dunover]

No, you cannot get 70% math models. It's just a shaving that of 1-2% that some casinos need to be able to offer bonuses.

 

[brianmon]

I am very surprised you would be swayed to infer anything about a slot from a sample set of 1 million spins unless you thought it was a very basic slot.

The head of products for netent is on record as saying they didn't change the math (it was during an interview with the admin of this board). Do you think we can trust statements like that from someone so senior or should we take it with a pinch of salt?

It's hardly something they're going to admit to, or maybe even not be allowed to admit to.
It's not like he was in court under oath.
Do you believe everything that companies say?

 

[SpinUk]

It's hardly something they're going to admit to, or maybe even not be allowed to admit to.
It's not like he was in court under oath.
Do you believe everything that companies say?

It does have implications as Netent is a publicly listed company (fit and proper etc), but he could easily say "actually I was referring to the RTP" etc if challenged (not that is ever going to happen). Maths is a pretty good catch to all to use and covers a multitude of meanings.

Not sure there is much more to add to the thread, its a grey area if you need a CEO to spell something out to you, less so if you like to refer to the evidence.

 

[bebo67]

No, you cannot get 70% math models. It's just a shaving that of 1-2% that some casinos need to be able to offer bonuses.

So how does one explain the 50-70% on one game over the course of a couple of months, no variance?

 

[slotter999]

It's hardly something they're going to admit to, or maybe even not be allowed to admit to.
It's not like he was in court under oath.
Do you believe everything that companies say?

My assumption is that majority of the contributors to this thread would be of the opinion that he's not being entirely honest. I personally believe him simply because there is no overwhelming reason to be dishonest and no overwhelming reason to change the game.

But lets assume the head of products at netent cannot be trusted to tell the truth. What then should I think about the statements of someone saying they are a games producer on an internet forum?

Here is the interview: -

https://www.casinomeister.com/gambling-news/interview-netents-cpo-simon-hammond/

CM: Personally, I enjoy some of the older MGS slots – mainly for nostalgia sake. NetEnt – I’m drawn to Aloha (naturally), and Koi Princess – just to name two. Which brings me to 20/20 hindsight: if you could have changed a game after its launch – what would it have been? What would you have changed?

Simon Hammon:

When a game is launched I always feel it can be dangerous to change it as player expectations can be impacted. We have done some HTML 5 upgrades recently which haven’t touched any of the maths, mechanics or largely the design to ensure we keep as close to the original flash version as possible. Changes here are only to ensure the longevity and reliability of the game as flash dies. There are always pros and cons to revisiting games post-launch, but I am more in favor of taking any lessons learned into future productions. A game that we originally looked at a potential of a release was Boom Brothers, which is a fantastic looking production with innovative features and functionality but did not do as well as expected. We were tempted to tweak some items but again the game in its current form still has a very loyal following who love that math flow so to do so would be unfair to them.