Soul Gem Season Updates *Updated (12/13/17)

cpeyton3535

"Gambit only generates 2 Red and Purple AP at power level 5, instead of 3. Gambit now destroys random Enemy AP (2 at power level 4)"

Only.  Ha!  Sorry, makes me chuckle that one.



So not that this makes much of a difference with respect to the "slight nerf, major buff" change described, but I wonder if the AP destruction can, on occasion, result in no destruction?  Meaning a random colour is targeted then AP destroyed, but a colour with no AP can be targeted resulting in no net AP loss?  

I seem to recall She-Hulks AP drain working that way, though maybe I have that wrong.



Anyway, might make the AP destruction slightly less effective in the early rounds.

The way it's worded, though, it would suggest it targets AP directly meaning you are losing 2 a turn period.

Toughwolf13

So, when Peggy gets boosted, you can just place her in a team with Gambit and kill the other team before it even

fires a single skill.

Awesome!

LifeofAgony

thedarkphoenix said:

LifeofAgony said:

Except, as has been stated many many times, Peggy passive is, say it with me, Conditional.  Once Peggy is below certain health threshold, the power goes *poof*

Unconditional AP gain and now AP destruction is borked.  Broken.  Busted.  Ridiculous.

Theres no other passive in the game that’s in the stratosphere of similar for comparison purpose.

So basically once she's dead... what a condition. They should add that to gambits powers so people can "feel" better about it.

No actually, the threshold is either 40 or 30% health depending on how she’s speced.  Which again, is still infinitely better than gambit since it’s conditional.

huktonfonix

thedarkphoenix said:

LifeofAgony said:

Except, as has been stated many many times, Peggy passive is, say it with me, Conditional.  Once Peggy is below certain health threshold, the power goes *poof*

Unconditional AP gain and now AP destruction is borked.  Broken.  Busted.  Ridiculous.

Theres no other passive in the game that’s in the stratosphere of similar for comparison purpose.

So basically once she's dead... what a condition. They should add that to gambits powers so people can "feel" better about it.

These Peggy comparisons are disingenuous.  She is an incredibly powerful character, probably my most used 4* and one that I frequently choose to use instead of a 5*, but she doesn't do what Gambit does.  Her yellow applies a 3-4 AP tax each time you fire a power, and can be shut off by damaging her.  Gambit's black applies a 2 AP penalty EVERY TURN.  This is a huge difference, as (unless you're using your own Gambit), it's highly unlikely you're firing powers every turn.  In the rare case that you are, you're going to be bringing Peggy below the damage threshold quickly anyway.

DeNappa

Wumpushunter said:

I know everyone wants to talk Gambit, but just one response on CL/shield rank, please. This topic ends my game.

I think it's clearer for everyone if that is discussed separately. And hey, what's over here?

JHawkInc

Wumpushunter said:

Brigby said:

S.H.I.E.L.D. Clearance Level Maximum S.H.I.E.L.D. Ranks
S.H.I.E.L.D. Clearance Levels 1 through 6 will now have both minimum and maximum S.H.I.E.L.D. Ranks. The ranges are listed below:

1. Rank 1 through 14
2. Rank 7 through 19
3. Rank 10 through 26
4. Rank 15 through 31
5. Rank 20 through 46
6. Rank 27 through 68
7. Rank 32 and higher
8. Rank 47 and higher
9. Rank 65 and higher

@Brigby Is this for story pve events? If so you have killed my game. You are forcing a 3 star player into 5 star land with these stupidly low maxes on CL6.

Wumpushunter said:

I know everyone wants to talk Gambit, but just one response on CL/shield rank, please. This topic ends my game.

I've been thinking about this, actually. It's a little hard to assess, because I'm well over 100, but on gut reflex this still rubs me wrong.

Broken down by levels, rather than by SCL. Just to give us another way to look at it.

• Levels 1-6, SCL 1 only
• Levels 7-9, SCL 1-2
• Levels 10-14, SCL 1-3
• Levels 15-19, SCL 2-4
• Levels 20-26, SCL 3-5
• Levels 27-31, SCL 4-6
• Levels 32-46, SCL 5-7
• Levels 47-65, SCL 6-8
• Levels 66-68, SCL 6-9
• Levels 69+, SCL 7-9

Rank level is meant to be a measurement of roster strength, right? That's why they changed XP recently to only give XP for things that directly increase your roster. So as you rank up, your roster improves, you gain access to new SCLs with greater challenges, but greater rewards. And they drag you up kicking and screaming, so you can't use your advanced roster to stomp your way to the top of lower SCLs.

It all makes sense in theory, but it still doesn't feel right. The reality is that we see individual experiences and can't really reverse-engineer whether these are good divisions or not. Gut reflex says they shouldn't be enforcing SCL minimums quite so early. What exactly is a level 20 player, and how much easier are SCLs 1&2 that such a character is locked out of them? Why force the training wheels off so early? It would make more sense as a gradient. Maybe someone who has gotten their way to level 20 has gone through some growing pains figuring out which characters to roster/level and isn't quite equipped for SCL5, and wants to keep playing one of the earlier ones until they get more established. But someone who is unlocking rank 9 probably doesn't need ranks 4-5 the same way, you know? Instead of limiting people to 3 SCLs available at a time, let earlier players have access to more of them, and drill down a little as you move up.

Then we have the issue that's probably what's bothering you, the cross from SCL 6 to 7+ and the 5* essential node. They've made the 5* node not necessary for progression, so anyone capable of SCL6 can ease up to SCL7 without having all the 5*s and still get those rewards, but the reality is that the 5* essential node IS still necessary for placement. Basically, anyone who plays competitively and goes for placement in SCL 6 or lower becomes **** the moment they reach Rank 69, unless they also have all the 5* characters.

So the question of the hour, are these ranks adequate measures of the player expected to be in these SCLs? Can a Rank 69 player reasonably expect to have enough 5*s to still have any hopes at placement? And if not, at what rank SHOULD players be forced to move up?

The biggest hiccup is for competitive players, and the risk of force-moving them up to a minimum of SCL7 before they are capable of even attempting to be competitive at that level. Probably not a huge number of players, but I don't really see a reason to inflict extra growing pains on people if not necessary. Especially not people willing to learn the game and play enough to be competitive.

I don't think it's broken, but it reminds me of the early days of SCLs, when higher ranks were required to get into them, and makes me wonder if the system would be better if we went back to those rank unlock levels, and then put the minimums in on top of THOSE levels instead.

Basepuzzler

Every other nerf has been drastic and murders the nerfee.  Yes, maybe this isn't enough of a change for Gambit, but the devs can easily make another change to weaken him if, as expected, he continues to dominate.  If they go too far and nerf to the point that everyone who just spent money on him goes and files for refunds it's  a bigger problem.  

I expect another small nerf in a season.

Also, this change makes it require different to bring in 2 color AP boosts.  So the turn by turn math is somewhat irrelevant since your starting AP will be 4. And some turns you'll only lose 1.

tldr, small nerfs are better than huge ones, and another small one that's actually a nerf should come soon 

udonomefoo

I JUST finished my Gambattery two days ago.  Haha.  At least he got me a top 10 finish in Nef Foes.  *shrug*

PenniesForEveryone

huktonfonix said:

thedarkphoenix said:

LifeofAgony said:

Except, as has been stated many many times, Peggy passive is, say it with me, Conditional.  Once Peggy is below certain health threshold, the power goes *poof*

Unconditional AP gain and now AP destruction is borked.  Broken.  Busted.  Ridiculous.

Theres no other passive in the game that’s in the stratosphere of similar for comparison purpose.

So basically once she's dead... what a condition. They should add that to gambits powers so people can "feel" better about it.

These Peggy comparisons are disingenuous.  She is an incredibly powerful character, probably my most used 4* and one that I frequently choose to use instead of a 5*, but she doesn't do what Gambit does.  Her yellow applies a 3-4 AP tax each time you fire a power, and can be shut off by damaging her.  Gambit's black applies a 2 AP penalty EVERY TURN.  This is a huge difference, as (unless you're using your own Gambit), it's highly unlikely you're firing powers every turn.  In the rare case that you are, you're going to be bringing Peggy below the damage threshold quickly anyway.

Exactly.  When fighting Peggy I will likely save up all my AP until I can match her under 30% and then unleash the fury.  So the net AP lost fighting her ends up being 0.  With Peggy I get to choose when/if I destroy my AP.  Gambit would be completely different in that you actually lose that AP every turn whether you want to or not.

huktonfonix

PenniesForEveryone said:

huktonfonix said:

thedarkphoenix said:

LifeofAgony said:

Except, as has been stated many many times, Peggy passive is, say it with me, Conditional.  Once Peggy is below certain health threshold, the power goes *poof*

Unconditional AP gain and now AP destruction is borked.  Broken.  Busted.  Ridiculous.

Theres no other passive in the game that’s in the stratosphere of similar for comparison purpose.

So basically once she's dead... what a condition. They should add that to gambits powers so people can "feel" better about it.

These Peggy comparisons are disingenuous.  She is an incredibly powerful character, probably my most used 4* and one that I frequently choose to use instead of a 5*, but she doesn't do what Gambit does.  Her yellow applies a 3-4 AP tax each time you fire a power, and can be shut off by damaging her.  Gambit's black applies a 2 AP penalty EVERY TURN.  This is a huge difference, as (unless you're using your own Gambit), it's highly unlikely you're firing powers every turn.  In the rare case that you are, you're going to be bringing Peggy below the damage threshold quickly anyway.

Exactly.  When fighting Peggy I will likely save up all my AP until I can match her under 30% and then unleash the fury.  So the net AP lost fighting her ends up being 0.  With Peggy I get to choose when/if I destroy my AP.  Gambit would be completely different in that you actually lose that AP every turn whether you want to or not.

Or pay the 2 AP tax once to stun her or nuke her below that threshold.

Wumpushunter

DeNappa said:

Wumpushunter said:

I know everyone wants to talk Gambit, but just one response on CL/shield rank, please. This topic ends my game.

I think it's clearer for everyone if that is discussed separately. And hey, what's over here?

I posted there, but where will @Brigby come to first really, a player post or his own post. Obviously here since he has 3 responses here already.

Player1575

@Brigby any reason why doc ock isn't in the tokens we get for selling 5* gambit? Looks like every other 5* is in there besides him. 

Warbringa

Yeah you guys went way too far on nerfing 3* Gambit.  You only needed to add your allies may not fire red or purple powers if you had a black Gambit cover.  That is all you had to do.  Now he is pretty bad, great job with the nerfstick.  At the same time, your nerf for 5* Gambit actually makes him better.  Destroying 2AP per round is ridiculous.  I struggle to understand how the development team actually analyzes their changes and assume they actually do not play the game.

OzarkBoatswain

I think 5* Gambit will still be the best character in the game, but maybe he won't be brokenly good. If your team doesn't use many special tiles then his purple doesn't do much. The AP drain is now similar to fighting The Hood -- an annoying fight to be sure, but using passives like Black Bolt's is still good against it.

RIP 3* Gambit.

Deadsider

Player1575 said:

 H@Brigby any reason why doc ock isn't in the tokens we get for selling 5* gambit? Looks like every other 5* is in there besides him. 

Mercy.

Warbringa

Ozark Boatswain said:

I think 5* Gambit will still be the best character in the game, but maybe he won't be brokenly good. If your team doesn't use many special tiles then his purple doesn't do much. The AP drain is now similar to fighting The Hood -- an annoying fight to be sure, but using passives like Black Bolt's is still good against it.

RIP 3* Gambit.

Actually it is way better than the Hood.  Hood does steal and can steal multiple AP....eventually but is completely board dependent on his steal ability and can be somewhat mitigated by opponent's matching strategy.  In addition, he has terrible health.  

Gambit automatically destroys 2 AP per round at 5 covers.  Meaning in most rounds you are really only net gaining 1 AP per turn since his power is a passive that fires automatically regardless of the board.  In addition, his health is nowhere near as terrible as Hood's is.  Slowly down his AP gain to 2 from 3 is nothing since he is now even more effective by slowly down the opposing team AP gain by nearly 66% (assuming you don't get to match 4 or 5 on most of your turns).  

CharlieCroker

Ozark Boatswain said:

I think 5* Gambit will still be the best character in the game, but maybe he won't be brokenly good. If your team doesn't use many special tiles then his purple doesn't do much. The AP drain is now similar to fighting The Hood -- an annoying fight to be sure, but using passives like Black Bolt's is still good against it.

RIP 3* Gambit.

Recommending you use Bolt against Gambit is akin to going into a match vs Thanos with your tank at quarter health.  At best ambitious, in reality suicidal.

And his purple still hits pretty hard if you let the countdowns go off.

ZeiramMR

cpeyton3535 said:

"Gambit only generates 2 Red and Purple AP at power level 5, instead of 3. Gambit now destroys random Enemy AP (2 at power level 4)"

Only.  Ha!  Sorry, makes me chuckle that one.



So not that this makes much of a difference with respect to the "slight nerf, major buff" change described, but I wonder if the AP destruction can, on occasion, result in no destruction?  Meaning a random colour is targeted then AP destroyed, but a colour with no AP can be targeted resulting in no net AP loss?  

I seem to recall She-Hulks AP drain working that way, though maybe I have that wrong.



Anyway, might make the AP destruction slightly less effective in the early rounds.

The way it's worded, though, it would suggest it targets AP directly meaning you are losing 2 a turn period.

They have said it will not target an empty color. I forget if they said Team-Up AP is included in the random selection or just the six colors.

My expectation is that it works exactly like a Loki Mischief countdown, except it destroys AP instead of stealing it. Which means it would only destroy 1 AP if it picks a color with only 1 AP. But guess we will see in a little over a half-day.

Brigby

*Updated article with ability level numbers

Wumpushunter

Omg it says specifically versus tournaments now on the horrible shield rank update. Am I saved?