Structure comparison
Two games, side by side
The structural difference between two games, assembled from published specifications only. Nothing here forecasts a result or recommends either game.
Canine Carnage
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 3,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
3rd Base
Microgaming
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.29%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 2,114×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Sports
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — Play’n GO and Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.20% against 96.29% — 3rd Base is 0.09 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.4×: 3,000× against 2,114×, with Canine Carnage higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. 3rd Base returns more in theory over the long run, while Canine Carnage reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
