Bomb's new Gladiator Set nerfed?

[GrauGeist]

@roviobeni, @roviohuzz,

I’m playing Bomb’s set, and it looks like Gladiator’s Punch is only giving +30% additional damage, not +100% damage as described:

“All allies deal 100% more damage against a banner, that’s below 50% health.”

Can someone else confirm that Bomb’s set isn’t as described?

Note – when people spend LCs and such to acquire and enchant these items, it is very important that they do what they say. In this case, the damage should double.

Topic

[datguygamer]

@graugeist Really? I’ll have to see for myself.

[GrauGeist]

Yeah. I see it does +30% for allied birds of all sorts of attacks. Supposed to be +100%. I started enchanting mine, so I’m not entirely happy with the set being weaker than stated.

It’s somewhat better than Finisher, but clearly worse than Scissors. If it did what it said, it would be competitive with Scissors, arguably better, creating more choices and variety in Arena.

[WhiteAsIce]

I can confirm that it’s only a 30% boost. I tested it with multiple team compositions, and it has been x1.3 the entire time. This also affects rage attacks against the banner too, so Red’s rage attack will do 30% more damage.

[GrauGeist]

Thanks for the confirmation. Sucks that it’s not what it says.

[Anonymous]

That’s bleeping ridiculous! @roviobeni @roviohuzz Anything to say?

[allan]

it is sucks, wasting LC to get it..

[Jamairoqui]

Seems to me that double damage for all birds is way too strong. It would be *almost* the same as having TJ proc on every move for every bird. They might have intended for it to be 100% extra, and found out that it made the game too lopsided. +30% for all birds is a happy medium, a big advantage, but not so big that you couldn’t overcome it with the right strategy.

[Jamairoqui]

If it were 100%, my hunch is that in a month or two everyone would be complaining about how Arena battles were unwinnable unless you had the Bomb set, just like people were complaining about Valiant set a month or two ago.

[RedYoshi45]

@jamairoqui
If you say that then I’d add that 8k+ healing using Sweet Witch is pretty high, too. Or Resurrection giving your opponents an advantage right when you don’t need it. It’s all a question of perspective I guess. Some like the challenge that these set items provide when you’re battling them. Others like to have that one strategy they can use for all fights in the Arena.

[Jamairoqui]

Resurrection doesn’t proc every turn, neither does TJ, nor critical hits. FWIW, 8k healing is approximately 30% of the total banner health (assuming a fully enchanted banner with lvl 52 set items and emblems), which (probably not coincidentally) is the extra 30% of damage done by the Bomb set.

The fun in Arena is figuring out a way to counter whatever new wrinkle gets added to the game. But with Valiant, for instance, there was no effective counter to it. In order to remain competitive you had to have Valiant (in contrast to the Venom team, where the addition of the Mana set combined with the Weakened Healing emblem degraded the effectiveness of the Venom lineup). My hunch is that if the Bomb set allowed every bird to deal double damage every turn, it would develop into a counterless set with no real way to deal with it except to get one yourself, much like Valiant was. (And my recollection is that nobody really liked the pre-nerfed Valiant set, unless they had it (in which case it was great!).)

A lot of what Chimera does with ABE is the classic measure/countermeasure you see in warfare. One side develops a new weapon, and cleans up tactically until the other side develops its own version or an effective defense.

[RedYoshi45]

@jamairoqui
The thing is, even with 100% bonus damage for Bomb, you’d never be able to deal as much damage as Sweet Witch can heal in a turn. That’s something I consider overpowered because while the opposing banner keeps being healed, I can only watch my own health bar melting away if I don’t have the Witch AND the Sweet item set. Only thing I can do, as you already said, is to get my own Sweet Witch which would – theoretically – produce an endless battle.

Yeah, Valiant is unfair. It’s been nerfed but it’s still unfair because it’s the “there is no alternative” option especially in higher leagues. Like Thorns is the “there is no alternative” option in lower leagues (unless you’ve been in a higher league before).

[GrauGeist]

Even if it were “too strong”, there is nothing wrong with that. It’s one bird out of a 3-bird team. And everybody gets one of the pieces in a few weeks, so there’s only the one offhand piece to chase, where Valiant required a top and bottom.

And 30%? Sure, it’s better than nothing, but why 30%? Why not 50%, or 40%?

But my biggest issue with the thing is, if Rovio decided to nerf it, then they still need to match the description to the effect.

And back to Valiant, I am seeing more non-Valiant in 50/12 play. For whatever reason.

[Pointless]

But currently it isn’t just one of a team of three, is it? It applies to all allies, so IMO is OP. I agree that 30% is fine (although could be 40-50%). I could also see 100% bonus applied to Bomb only, that would introduce a dynamic that might make me move away from Sea Dog…
But I certainly agree that nerfing a new set (or incorrectly advertising the set) is unfair…that should have been addressed before it was even introduced.

[GrauGeist]

Except, Gladiator (as described) isn’t even close to “OP”.

If Gladiator simply did what it says, it’s effectively removing 25% of the banner, for 25% of 26,000 — 6,500 health.

Sweet Witch heals a lot faster than this set damages, and I don’t hear cries to nerf Sweet.

If anything, Gladiator gives people a chance to “race” Sweet Witch.

[Pointless]

You are looking at this backwards. If you think that you are reducing the Banner by 25%, based on 100% bonus damage dealt below Banner health of 50%, you are critically ignoring the extra damage at that level. A Power Team at 50/12 is dealing at least 5-6K (barring any crits) a turn, which translates to at least 10-12K with advertised Navigator, which is nearly 50% of a full Banner’s health. A good team can take a Banner down to below 50% health in 1-2 turns with crits, so you are now winning consistently in 2-3 turns with this 100% damage effect. Do you still think this set, as advertised, is not OP?

[GrauGeist]

Not in the slightest.

[Pointless]

So an effective 33% reduction (at least) in Banner health is appropriate? Can’t imagine why that would be considered OP at all…

[GrauGeist]

No, 25%. The rest of the damage would have been done even if using non-Set gear.

And the actual comparison point would actually be Bomb w/ Scissors getting an average number of AOEs which can happen at any time, not just after the banner has been reduced below 50%.

[Jamairoqui]

@smwforever45 I tried a few battles with Sweet/Witch with TJ and I see what you mean. Unless she gets knocked out/up for a three-count, it’s rare to have the banner go below half. The funny things is that I don’t remember that Sweet/Witch teams being all that difficult to beat when I’ve faced them (or at least they don’t stand out that way).

I suspect that Chimera tested Gladiator with 100% extra damage and found it was way too powerful so they reduced the damage effect. Maybe if it were always +30% damage, and not just “+30% if < 50%,” that would compensate a little for Sweet/Witch.

[Pointless]

Look at it from the perspective of attacks versus simply the health of the Banner. If you were able to KO a Banner in 6 turns, you would know be able to do the same in 4 or so, effectively a 33% quicker battle, so it’s not just about 50% of 50% being 25%.
I also don’t think you can compare, in terms of damage to Banner, Scissors (33% to do an extra 40% damage to all) to Navigator as advertised (100% chance for all allies to do 100% extra damage to Banner if below 50% health) at all. You whole team is effectively doing 50% more damage to the Banner of the course of the battle with advertised Navigator, whereas with Scissors, your Bomb only is doing 13% extra over the course of the battle.

[GrauGeist]

If I could kill a Banner in 4 turns, Gladiator does it in 3; if it would have been 8, it’s now 6. In most cases, it’s cutting a turn, maybe two, off the battle, which is fine.

Scissors hits all the time. Gladiator needs the banner to be below 50%, which is simply a faster finish to a fight that you are already on the way to winning. Not a big deal.

[Pointless]

Um, no, Scissors does not hit all the time…33% chance.
Add Navigator to Valiant (65%) and Reset (25%) to keep your Birds up and the Enemy down, and if you have Navigator as advertised at 100%, then it is clearly OP. It does add a non-RNG element, even at 30%.

[JJAtelier]

The fact this set has a global effect heavily incentivises the scummy go all face strategy. As mentioned it’s definitely a win more type of set if you go first, so it definitely has the potential to dethrone scissors.

That said I don’t see it being great for coming back into the game going second but I might be wrong considering how power users with Valiant can snowball so I’d say the gladiator set is strong but not overtly so.

[GrauGeist]

No, Scissors can trigger from the very first use. Gladiator doesn’t do anything until the Banner is below 50%.

[Bubbley]

On more than one occasion Rovio have advertised that a weapon does something it doesn’t quite do. In this case it seemed so good that players went for it immediately, which is really rotten if you used up LC which you cannot easily replace. I think it would have been nerfed anyway if the 100% is the correct figure for initial release.

There is not much that hasn’t been changed since release. I was personally pretty upset when Scissors was nerfed. Modifications are a constant which we all have to live with. Some are obvious but some do seem to be done by stealth as the recent thread started by @whiteasice revealed.

Edit: anyone who did spend thinking the advertised damage was correct should claim a refund.