played sweet bonanza pop last night and im more confused than before

3 pop titles isn't the number that matters anyway, franchise count is
sweet bonanza got super scatter in july last year, pop yesterday, and there's a sweet bonanza xmas 2500 booked for dec 3rd. gates got pop on aug 31st and 2500 on sept 28th. that's one franchise getting two releases in four weeks and another getting 2 in 6
pop label is a distraction and actual pattern is every big name shipping multiple times a quarter at different price points
 
pop launched as a brand inside pragmatic in july and took fat pandas place. that's the whole connection, its not the same output continuing under a new name
 
going back to my own point for a sec because something about it is still bothering me. if the uk build is capped at £5 a spin and the rest of us are up at 250, then the 25,000x means two completely different things depending where you're sat. same multiplier, same odds, wildly different money at the end of it
nobody writes that down anywhere. the max win gets quoted as a multiplier like its universal and it isn't
 
A multiplier is universal. What it's worth isn't, and you're right that the two get conflated constantly. It's the same reason "25,000x" survives as marketing. It sounds like a prize and it's a ratio. Attach it to a £5 ceiling or a 250 ceiling and you've got two entirely different products wearing one headline.
 
While we're on things the documentation can't keep straight - the volatility problem I raised last week hasn't gone anywhere.
Gates POP is written as low in the review prose and medium in the spec box, on the same page, and a second write-up does exactly the same. Sweet Bonanza POP is listed as medium everywhere I've looked, which may mean it's settled or may mean nobody's written the prose version yet.
And the Gates 2500 review I read gives it three stars in the rating line and 3.8 out of 5 in the score. On the same page.

None of this is a conspiracy. It's just that a lot of what we all quote at each other comes from pages that disagree with themselves.
 
The low/medium thing is the provider sheet saying medium and the reviewer writing what it felt like, and the reviewer isn't wrong. Gates POP behaves low. Constant hits, flat stretches, nothing violent. Sweet Bonanza POP after a day feels the same to me, for whatever that's worth after a day. Which is the bit worth being careful about-there are no meaningful user ratings on it yet. Nobody in this thread,me included, has anything on it but a first impression.
 
Nothing published on it that I can find, so that's a guess and worth labelling as one. The two POP natives are at 5,000x and the two franchise conversions are at 25,000x - a pattern drawn from four games, two of which @_local_nerd_ has just said might not officially be POP at all.

I'd wait for the 1st of December rather than assume.
 
thing that gets me after a week of this is that the maths went up and the game got uglier and everyone treats that as a contradiction
a 3x5 needing five matching symbols is a design that has stopped expecting to be looked at. it expects to be glanced at, on a phone, between other things. and that's probably an accurate read of where people actually play now
 
50 posts about a slot with three rows and a comedian. this forum is incredible
 
zeus vs hades pop is the 17th of november so thats the next one to look at. if that lands on 97.05 and 25000x with the same spark snap burst ladder then @slotking and me are both wrong and its a template after all

if it comes in somewhere else entirely then he's right and they're actually tuning them

ill be here either way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top