Software or hardware?
#21
A quick question - why can't these 'games' give the red top from the trail holding and only for a fruit win? Is there something obvious I am missing?

Something needs to be done about this blatant theft though. It really does seem as though the programming of the unit includes a 'self defence' mechanism whereby it will assume it has already paid the note out before it has. There's also the other problem of notes getting jammed in the acceptor when you are putting them in for credit. No log of credit in the machine, no record anywhere else, unless you are physically there to watch the engineer open it up, you know 9/10 times it is just going to be pocketed by them as free money and you / the bar staff told 'there was nothing there'. Which then makes it look like you were trying to defraud the establishment you were in.

Back in the day, didn't someone manage to reverse engineer a machine to find out that it had been programmed to never offer a certain feature or a repeat chance? That rings a bell (pardon the pun). Perhaps someone whith the know how and access to one of these machines can try and find that ostensibly illegal bit of design and face the company with it?
Reply
#22
(12-08-2016, 09:17 AM)Matt Vinyl Wrote: A quick question - why can't these 'games' give the red top from the trail holding and only for a fruit win? Is there something obvious I am missing?

Something needs to be done about this blatant theft though. It really does seem as though the programming of the unit includes a 'self defence' mechanism whereby it will assume it has already paid the note out before it has. There's also the other problem of notes getting jammed in the acceptor when you are putting them in for credit. No log of credit in the machine, no record anywhere else, unless you are physically there to watch the engineer open it up, you know 9/10 times it is just going to be pocketed by them as free money and you / the bar staff told 'there was nothing there'. Which then makes it look like you were trying to defraud the establishment you were in.

Back in the day, didn't someone manage to reverse engineer a machine to find out that it had been programmed to never offer a certain feature or a repeat chance? That rings a bell (pardon the pun). Perhaps someone whith the know how and access to one of these machines can try and find that ostensibly illegal bit of design and face the company with it?

there was a particular program for Lord of the rings.. either 2 towers or return of the king, that could NOT be forced for jackpot. Ie it could not pay the jackpot.
Reply
#23
Matt they just don't there's no reason why! Bad programming
Reply
The following 1 user Likes ob's post:
Matt Vinyl
#24
Ah I see. Interesting to understand why the way the board is entered decides on what is available that board. Oh well as you say, shoddy programming nonetheless.
Reply
#25
As much as the new Bell End machines are a pile of complete shit, at least their idea behind getting rid of forcused wins on the reels was 'we'll still have them but won't punish people playing on £1'
Reply
#26
(12-08-2016, 01:07 AM)Pilsburydoughman Wrote: Fantastic post. Furthermore - why did betcom or gsquared actually change the programming on their machines - ie when they go on their " run " do they then decide to throw in £70 - 100 quid worth of baseball boards for example, and the continuous "gamble - lose" boards. Thats not game play. Thats outright theft. A machine that is in a state of happiness, and is ready to pay - only to be blocked by something that prevents you getting a board. Gsquared were a refreshing idea at the time, and having met Andy I can say he is a nice enough chap, gave a tour of Gsquared and even saw Toastbusters and Baaaaabarians before they were finished. HOWEVER - Betcom have destroyed what was originally a good concept. The Moo I played today was on its run £50 in. It then blocked any sort of fruit win, and gave baseball boards for £100. It then proceeded to give a flat. What were once OK machines, and now factually unplayable unless you are fucking Dondplayer where every fucking single machine is fucking tucked. I actually wrote to Betcom recently, and their sheer arrogance of themselves showed by the fact they didnt even read the email.

Firstly I don't know why you brought me into this when the discussion is about note mech errors and the like.

But just to put you straight on a couple of points:

1. Up to now I have never played a Betcom type - the only exception being KFP if that's to be included in that lot

2. You are close with your statement "What were once OK machines, and now factually unplayable unless you are fucking Dondplayer where every fucking single machine is fucking tucked." but I will put it right for you anyway as follows "What were once OK machines, and now factually unplayable unless you are fucking Dondplayer where nearly every fucking single machine he actually plays is fucking tucked."

I did run into someone Monday night who does play the Betcoms and they did agree with the note errors - in fact he has had them switch themselves off for no reason too.
Reply
#27
It was 2 towers that had the anti force software in it. Hulk was another amongst a few others i can't recall. Bellfruit had some right dodgy shit going on at the time. Some of there machines (Hulk again if memory serves) would progress as should via coin or note input but say you was forcing with coins and ran out, so had to revert to notes, the machine lost all memory of where you was in the force and would act like a cunt.

There's been a lot of shady stuff by various manufacturers over the years, but I'm yet to see anything done about it, period. I'm pretty sure when I was looking threw the regs that updates were NOT allowed to adjust machine play, as long as there was no overriding factor that allowed a machine to be emptied of it's money. There was a lot more wrote but something along them lines which at the time I took to mean that rips were not allowed to be chipped out because at the end of a machines cycle it would still of kept to %.


Perhaps we should start a fruit machine based consumer action group? Is it even consumer law that is being broken, when a machine malfunctions?
The future is much like the present, only longer.
Reply
#28
For instance - This was found in Gaming Machine Technical standards - category C

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf...on%203.pdf

8.2 Multi-line games
a. Each individual line to be played shall be clearly indicated by the gaming machine or
device so that the player is in no doubt as to which lines are being staked upon.

So for instance HYN or MRTD we're clearly paying to play 5 lines for our stake be it 25p, 50p or a £1. We pay that stake and that in turn allows us to win across 5 winlines, this is true in all of the available win plan until we get to the Cashpot, I'm sure most of you are aware to be awarded a cashpot from reel play it has to be on the centre (win line #1) win line.

So am i right to interpret that the 2 mentioned machines are not up to current technical standards? We could also argue that there is 3 further winlines that are not shown and can only be obtained from a bonus (vertical win), again not in line with the technical standards set out by the Gambling commission.

A small example of how the manufacturers can pretty much do as they please and have no consequence for their actions. I'm sure given time and a better understanding of the regs more will show up. What will be done about it, I'm not so sure as everything set out by the Gambling commission is open to interpretation.
The future is much like the present, only longer.
Reply
The following 1 user Likes JP 24/7's post:
megastreaklover01
#29
I should imagine they're gonna amend the technical standards in this current review didnt bacta or someone have a moan about them being too rigid?

They'll have to if they want to have a 150 repeat chance in any case, or are we just gonna see a flat 150 jackpot with no repeat chance? Tbf apart from lo techs and 70 converts nothing repeats the jackpot in any case on 100 let alone would they on 150!
Reply
#30
I suspect they're already testing the water for guaranteed snake flats with Pipeye and the like!
Reply
#31
Yeh my mate said the same thing the other day! Rings true
Reply
#32
(12-08-2016, 02:19 PM)ob Wrote: I should imagine they're gonna amend the technical standards in this current review didnt bacta or someone have a moan about them being too rigid?

They'll have to if they want to have a 150 repeat chance in any case, or are we just gonna see a flat 150 jackpot with no repeat chance? Tbf apart from lo techs and 70 converts nothing repeats the jackpot in any case on 100 let alone would they on 150!

As far as I'm aware it's only a review of stakes and prizes. Technical standards doesn't come into it?
The future is much like the present, only longer.
Reply
#33
(12-08-2016, 02:22 PM)ridye Wrote: I suspect they're already testing the water for guaranteed snake flats with Pipeye and the like!

Not entirely true. They can credit break, just not off the Wimpys.
The future is much like the present, only longer.
Reply
#34
Yeh but won't they want a repeat on the 150? The tech standards say max win for 1 repeat is 100 atm
Reply
#35
Or a sequence of megastreaks that have a combined total of £250. i.e. megastreak £100, credit break another £100, another credit break for a £50.

They don't do this as we know, but the bellfruit rarity of megastreak £100, credit break £100, few spins another megastreak or variants of must be sailing close to the wind in terms of a quick succession of of megastreaks topping the max of £250. Why it's £250 is beyond me?
The future is much like the present, only longer.
Reply
#36
(12-08-2016, 02:32 PM)JP 24/7 Wrote:
(12-08-2016, 02:22 PM)ridye Wrote: I suspect they're already testing the water for guaranteed snake flats with Pipeye and the like!

Not entirely true. They can credit break, just not off the Wimpys.

How? I saw someone forcus one and get an invincible board so they decided to go round and shoot everything, in the end it offered a choice between the CASHPOT and Wimpy Mega Streak lol
Reply
#37
There's an ms on the 'box 23 ' reel.
Reply
#38
(12-08-2016, 02:41 PM)JP 24/7 Wrote: Or a sequence of megastreaks that have a combined total of £250. i.e. megastreak £100, credit break another £100, another credit break for a £50.

They don't do this as we know, but the bellfruit rarity of megastreak £100, credit break £100, few spins another megastreak or variants of must be sailing close to the wind in terms of a quick succession of of megastreaks topping the max of £250. Why it's £250 is beyond me?

Probably because they didn't want it to be £300 and making it £200 would be less than the old maximum of £210.
Reply
#39
(12-08-2016, 02:29 PM)JP 24/7 Wrote:
(12-08-2016, 02:19 PM)ob Wrote: I should imagine they're gonna amend the technical standards in this current review didnt bacta or someone have a moan about them being too rigid?

They'll have to if they want to have a 150 repeat chance in any case, or are we just gonna see a flat 150 jackpot with no repeat chance? Tbf apart from lo techs and 70 converts nothing repeats the jackpot in any case on 100 let alone would they on 150!

As far as I'm aware it's only a review of stakes and prizes. Technical standards doesn't come into it?

I recall seeing something in the proposals too about changing it so games have to be within "the spirit" of the rules rather than rigorously enforced by them.

An example is Cash Exploder. The way the CPs originally worked on them was technically against the standards so they were forced to change it to how it is now. I wouldn't be surprised if this proposal is partly Betcom kicking off about this.
Reply
#40
I'm not 100% but i'm sure the above only came into force at the time of the 100 being introduced. Before that the repeats were capped at 2, but megastreaks were not capped. there's been a few examples of megas doing more than 210. Off the top of my head Devil of a Deal was one, not sure of the clones - Goal/Bitenight etc. Also Electrocoins were capable of doing more than 210.
The future is much like the present, only longer.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)