Guess it is time to revisit this then. This was the same opinion I had immediately following the exploder nerf, but lets see if it holds up.
Mana currently appears to use Bankers Rounding to determine how much will be granted from explosions. I’ve only tested this for sure up to 6 gems, but it is consistent with tests I’ve done with Mountain Crusher with other higher numbers (11 gems = 6 mana, 13 gems = 6 mana, etc). The way Bankers Rounding works is that it rounds anything ending at exactly 0.5 to the nearest even number, with >0.5 still rounding up to the nearest integer and <0.5 still rounding down to the nearest integer.
1 gem (of a certain color) = 0 mana
2 gems = 1 mana
3 gems = 2 mana
4 gems = 2 mana
5 gems = 2 mana
6 gems = 3 mana
7 gems = 4 mana
8 gems = 4 mana
9 gems = 4 mana
10 gems = 5 mana
11 gems = 6 mana
12 gems = 6 mana
13 gems = 6 mana
…and so forth
The rounding scheme was unlikely to have changed when explosions were nerfed, but the only time it would have been distinguishable from standard rounding with explosions at 70% is with exactly 15 (or 25, or 35) gems of a color exploded, which it would land on a 0.5 decimal and with the next highest number being odd. It also produces a really jagged table for mana gain, as evidenced above (and below), where a difference of 2 gems exploded can equate to a real difference of 2 mana gained under certain circumstances and a difference of 0 mana gained in others.
Simply changing it to 51% would have none of our (possible) products land on a 0.5 line and not be subject to this rounding scheme (the first time that additional 1% would come into play is with 50 gems of one color exploded, rounding to 26 instead of 25, which should not be possible):
1 gem = 1 mana
2 gems = 1 mana
3 gems = 2 mana
4 gems = 2 mana
5 gems = 3 mana
6 gems = 3 mana
… and so on
51% is therefore effectively the same as saying “use standard rounding rules” and I happen to agree with it. The net gain above what is currently in game is that sometimes we’d get 1 more mana than now… about 25% of the time when using a mass exploder, if we look at this table:
Most notably at 1 gem and 5 gems exploded, putting a little oomph back into small scale exploders.
Also the, the rate of mana gained based on what you have exploded would be a bit smoother and easier to predict for mass exploders, with very little overall effect on their ability to chain into themselves (the stated reason for the nerf in the first place). Even though the banker’s rounding might be viewed as technically more “fair” if our numbers were of a much high enough scale, the fact that we can so often hit exactly 1 gem of a given color with certain interactions skews this quite a bit. In contrast, mass exploders that don’t have a storm on their own color generally run out of steam pretty quickly without a ton of lucky cascades, usually being much more than 2 mana off full and requiring a swipe match either way, and those that do run a storm of their color get a great majority of their mana from cascade matches.
The main issue I see is for this change is that a single explosion match would generate, on average, 2-3 more mana (of disparate colors) than it does now. I can’t see this making random single doomskulls “too good”, and mass matched doomskulls all calculate as the same explosion for mana gains so the point is moot there. It is mostly the the passive explosion talents and traits (and now potions), which are already really good, that there might be a potential issue, so lets take a look at those.
That being said, the main thing that makes the passive small scale exploders good is mostly the ability to board clear into the same converter setup more than once, and cascade additional mana and possibly 4+ matches (for additional explosions and cascades and chances at hitting a setup) especially with storms. So while the proposed change likely won’t affect the advantage state of passive exploders at all except for extreme edge cases, it might make it a bit easier for them to transition from disadvantage to advantage, with a “lucky 4 match gave them full mana” even if they get “unlucky cascades”. But “let them get 4 matches with the trait active and hope they don’t get lucky” generally isn’t how you (effectively) counterplay that anyways, making this also somewhat of an edge case.
The issue with potions is that each one would generate an additional couple mana or so, giving a bit higher floor to start any given event battle with. However, again, when potions “land well” (and you have an appropriate team), you get a win condition cascade so the proposed change really only affects disadvantageous drops. While less of an edge case, I think this would also help make the explosion potion be more considered “always favorable” even if you don’t use a storm and it messes up your initial 4 match board, because sometimes you might want to use a non-storm setup in an event but the addition of explosion potions at the lowest purchase tier severely hurts their comparative viability.
Lets end with what I don’t agree with. I don’t agree with bringing up an edge case scenario as the main crux of the argument here, and this is very much edge case. I think it hurts our position to try to request a change that this is only being brought up again because it caused a loss when I think this is the exact kind of scenario the nerf was meant to create - one side being 1 or 2 mana short so the other side can eek out a win. It might have even been possible for this very match to have ended sooner against you if the opponent got an extra mana or 2 tagging a random doomskull. You might not have got an extra turn from your doomskull match and not even been afforded the opportunity to cast the scythe even if it was full, or had a board setup where it wouldn’t have granted you a win. It could easily be argued the other way that “because they got that 1 mana from that random doomskull, I lost”. That doesn’t really matter to me. I think it should be changed on its merits, those being that the “50% with bankers rounding” is a silly confusing mechanic that also unfairly punishes an entire class of troops when “51% or standard rounding” could fix a lot of those issues without affecting the balance of power on the stronger options that rely on this too much.
TL;DR: Yes, make it 51% please. Or just use standard rounding instead of banker’s rounding.