I’ll just copy my response from the other thread to continue the discussion, though I did add a few things.
The article brings up some decent points. Your notes about maintaining ability parity between the class moves and the futility of giving fierce attacks the ability to cleanse deceleration are spot on. Having vulnerability instead of decel might work as a solution to the resilient meta. As a counterpoint though, plenty of resilients focus heavily on deceleration (e.g. Stegodeus, Gigaspikosaur), but they aren’t overpowered. In fact, some are among the weakest members of their rarity. So how can deceleration be an inherently overpowered ability? I would argue that the main problem is that a select group of high damage resilients (e.g. Diorajasaur, Mammolania, Hadros Lux, Ceramagnus) benefit too heavily from getting to attack twice in a row. I would rather address their damage output directly, instead of nerfing the entire class when many resilients aren’t even close to OP. And even if some resilients do benefit too much, dinos two-shotting dinos from the class they counter is pretty common. What cunning or fierce worth their salt can’t finish off their fierce or resilient opponents in two hits?
The issue of dodge removal is… complicated. Its an objective fact that many cunnings don’t use dodge at all. On one hand, that means that any changes to dodge removal on resilient attacks wouldn’t have any impact on a significant number of cunning matchups. On the other hand, if dodge is such an uncommon ability, why does every resilient and their mother need the ability to remove it? I think precise could work as a solution here, allowing some counterplay, but giving multi-turn dodge moves and cloak a mich needed buff (since they would only get bypassed, not removed, requiring resilients to continue to use resilient attacks and potentially sacrificing damage output). In any case, I think a classes primary moves should benefit that class in the majority of matches against the class they’re designed to counter: that means that focusing resilient attacks around dodge removal isn’t very helpful. Now to be fair, vulnerability is absolutely a viable alternative to deceleration to fill this requirement (as are shields). If dodge removal is to be addressed, it should be done with the knowledge that it by itself won’t have as strong an affect on the cunning/resilient matchup as some people might think. But then again, maybe that’s what some people want?
One thing that surprised me was that I was kind of put off by the tone of superiority that the article seemed to be written with. Now it is an opinion piece, but sections of it felt like you were speaking for the whole community, which based on your poll clearly is not the case. The majority isn’t always right, but dismissing the dodge removal argument like everyone who holds it doesn’t have the brain cells to know what’s right for the game is kind of condescending. Saying you turned the poll data into an article isn’t quite accurate when you mostly sideline the most popular suggestions in favor of promoting your own solution. The arguments for said solution are well constructed, don’t get me wrong, but it doesn’t quite match the ethos of “making the community’s voice heard”. It’s true that changing dodge removal won’t make as big of an impact as changing deceleration, but maybe some of us don’t think resilient attacks themselves need to be nerfed that much. And then to end the article with a call to action to Ludia to implement your solution, as if this is what the community agreed to, is perhaps reaching too far (though you never call for any specific solution, its pretty clear from the article which one you would prefer). I would never call on Ludia to implement a feature that most of the community was still divided on, and Gamepress has even more influence than the average forum user. If you just wanted to write an article about why you think deceleration is the problem with resilient attacks, that’s fine. From that perspective, it’s a great article. But don’t act like the community has any sort of consensus on the issue when your own poll shows that this clearly is not the case.
That said, I hope you don’t take this as me bad mouthing Gamepress. You guys consistently put out some quality articles, and I respect the experience of the authors as some of the highest leveled players in the game. I can’t say I would be 100% against swapping deceleration for vulnerability, but I do think the problem of high damage resilients could be addressed more directly, instead of affecting every dino that uses resilient attacks. Even if you let some of these dinos retain superiority attacks, there are far more balanced or underpowered resilients than OP ones - wouldn’t it be easier to just leave resilient attacks alone for the most part, and instead focus on balancing those select problem resilients in other ways (lower damage, decrease attack multipliers, replace resilient attacks with normal impacts/rampages, reduce or remove resistances, remove their ability to cleanse distraction, etc.)? It may take more work, but I think there would be far less collateral damage. Besides, some dinos (like Ceramagnus) may still need additional nerfs even after this switch. That’s just my take though. I would be very curious to see how this change would impact those balanced and underpowered resilients, and to see how giving the resilients who already do too much damage access to vulnerability plays out. I guess we’ll have to just keep throwing ideas around.