I've been ripped off.

lyle_catcliffe wrote:

Arlandria606 wrote:

lyle_catcliffe wrote:

Arlandria606 wrote:

lyle_catcliffe wrote:

beeblebrox900 wrote:
While it is a bit sucky, of course the position of the pointer is not the determining factor as to what you win (like it would be on a real wheel) its merely a graphical representation of a random number generator. You probably lost out by a decimal point, which of course is no comfort at all ;)

Jeez. It's mental the length these logic defiers will go in order to defend EA.

It's not "defending EA" to point out that software works differently from a physical wheel.

I agree it's not on, but you have the problem backwards. A real wheel stopping there should give you the building, but in this situation, the wheel is just a visual representation of code. It's not correct to show the wheel stopping on the wrong won item, but that doesn't change which item "should" have been won.

Regardless of which is the cause, it does suck, and it shouldn't be happening.

What? You're still wrong. You've just explicitly agreed with me. So yes, it *IS* EA's fault that the graphic doesn't match the result- it's lazy programming and op *should* have won Claus Co. as represented in the image. Jeeeeeeezus Chrust.

Please explain to me exactly how a bunch of pixels, rather than the code, dictate what a piece of software does.

Please also explain how someone is "still" wrong when making their first comment on a particular topic.

I) because the picture should reflect the result! If it really did randomly generate it's probability to be the gift tokens, why does it clearly show the spinner landed on Claus Co? It's simple. So simple. Fair enough, the code says otherwise- why hasn't it been programmed to show it then? The coded numbers reflect the degrees of a circle... it can be coded that way graphically.

II) Because you believed it before you felt the need to explain yourself.

Nothing in your response to my first question answers the question. This is because the only answer to that question is "it doesn't".

I think you need to re-read my original post. At no point did I say that it was correct for the wheel to not represent the result. My point was that the result is not determined by the wheel, but that the displayed wheel is determined by the result. I readily acknowledge that the discrepancy is a bug, and a very disappointing one at that.

As for the second point, I think what you meant to say is "I wasn't paying attention and in a blind rage of wrongness thought you were someone else". At least, that's the only viable explanation I can come up with, since yours makes zero sense. Unless you think everyone replies to posts by typing and then seeing what word salad comes out, rather than considering the topic, forming an opinion / conclusion, and then sharing it.

Oh, and, FYI: "believe" refers to holding an opinion that cannot be proven. My statements regarding how the wheel works were not opinion; they are fact, based on the way software works, and the source code I've seen relating to the wheel. As such I don't need to "believe" them; I "know" them.