Hadros Lux is pretty much useless

Since Hadros Lux was introduced as a true Apex, It had been a pretty dominating creature. I always enjoyed using it in PVP. Because people complained about Hardros Lux, it has been nerfed to basically being useless. Well, For those that want to do it nerved, you got your wish. The developers of this game refuse to give a boost reset and now the boost are tied up. Is this what the complainers want? I have no use for Hadros Lux. It doesn’t even deserve to carry the name Apex anymore. In fact, most of the creatures in the Apex category are underwhelming and are over matched by a lot of Uniques. Even Cera is out perform by MonoRhino. Is this the intention of the developers? I don’t know. I just wish these creatures such as Hadros Lux would not get nerfed anymore. It’s a disservice to a lot of players, who basically put in a whole year to get it to level 30, only to get it nerfed, and not to mention the boosts it is tying up, since there is not reset. This is quite discouraging.

15 Likes

Lux isnt useles. It got a nerf. it needed one since it was still 1turning a big majority of the roster, which isn’t healthy even if it is an apex. It now has the ability to slow opponents again (for 2 turns instead of 1). It has more utility than jsut big damage.

28 Likes

Have you used it in the Gyroshere or the Shores?

2 Likes

I like having the turn 1 decel option. Lux can still do rampage damage with full vulnerability+ decelerating impact.

1 Like

I’ve used Lux in the higher arenas and it’s still very viable when fully boosted at a higher lvl. Useless is an exaggeration, but it definitely doesn’t pack the same punch.

7 Likes

I actually LOVE the Hadros with decel now. But I think it should get 1500 attack back

5 Likes

What I think is crazy is that they nerf creatures like Hadros while also creating viable creatures to counter them!

So you kind of get a double whammy when you lose a rampage, lose some attack, and get bleeders becoming way more viable and new creatures that will rend and bleed too.

A boost shuffle is the very least we should have been given. But I suppose everyone would just pile them into the next Dino that would become too oppressive and that would be nerfed next patch.

4 Likes

Lux may have got nerfed but it needed it really badly as it was insanely broken, and its still pretty good although I agree with the boost reset, just give us one already ludia!

2 Likes

Just because it isn’t super strong anymore doesn’t mean it’s useless. Mine does just fine–I simply can’t hurl it at nearly any creature I want and expect it to either walk away with a win or leave the enemy hanging on by a thread anymore.

2 Likes

OP is 100% right. Basically, Apexes were a problem in lower arenas because those who worked hard for a full year, while keeping boosts for them, would finally show up there, and crush those who didn’t bother to do the same thing. End result: Those low level players asked for nerfs and got them. Apexes were perfectly fine in the top two arenas.

If you think that they have been nerfed “just right”, you’re dreaming… Here’s what’s the top 3 players are using currently (check how many Apexes they are using… You won’t need a calculator…):image
imageimage

8 Likes

To be fair, IDGT switches his lineup like every day. Pretty sure he has every single dino in the game fully boosted.

7 Likes

I agree, but still, the fact remain that all top players are slowly dropping Apexes. At this point, I’m wondering if we should not change the name for them, since they don’t deserve the name Apex anymore… What would be a good name between Unique and Legendary?

4 Likes

Nice to see people not running Hadros and Magnus on every team for a change! And yes, they were barely nerfed, change my mind.

Even if Hadros isn’t in the top 3 team, it’s still used throughout the top 100, and Magnus is too (even more commonly than Hadros is). The only difference is now it has a more varied moveset and doesn’t beat the best fierce dinos in the game, which really is how it should have been in the first place. I’ve also seen a notable uptick in Mortem users too, so that’s good. Most teams now seem to be running some of the better uniques like Scorpius, Indotaurus, Phorurex, Compsocaulus, Testacornibus, and of course Skoonasaurus, all of which have arguments for being at least somewhat nerf-worthy in their own right. If you think Apex are worse than uniques, I think it’s more the fault of these particular uniques than the rest (since they had to be buffed/strong to deal with the old Hadros and Magnus in the first place). But you cannot honestly believe that Hadros is worse than something like Indoraptor, Stygidaryx, or even Thor at this point.

9 Likes

It’s not hard to presume that those who are still using Apexes in the top 100 may not have the luxury to be able to swap them all for better/newer Unique and being able to fully boost them too while at it.

What those nerfs have likely done, is simply making sure future Apex will be better, until most players start to use them, and then they get nerfed again. Power creep anybody?

Last, I still stand my ground. Instead of nerfing Apexes that were fine in the top two arena, they should simply have made them not playable in lower arenas. Everybody would have been happy,… Seing 3 out of 4 Apex in the top arenas, for me was normal. Seeing 1 out of 4 is not. Not for something that is called Apex.

Let’s think about a future where all 7 Apexes have been released now. After the usual crying, the last 3 get nerfed as well. So if we are lucky, we may see two Apexes being used? Not really worth the trouble of doing raids every day of the week for one year isn’t it?

7 Likes

It’s funny you mention power creep, because yes we are seeing it now, but nerfs are the only way to combat power creep (since they’re the only alternative to just buffing everything in the game, which is in itself the power creep).

This wasn’t all about the lower arenas either. Ceramagnus and Hadros Lux were on pretty much every team. The entire meta revolved around them, the few dinos that could counter them, and new powerful Apexes that were introduced at the high level of power that Hadros and Magnus had allowed the game to climb to. I honestly think the nerfs put the Apexes in just the right spot. Magnus went from being used on pretty much 100% of top 100 teams to being used on maybe 1/2 to 3/4 of them, indicating a much healthier overall meta for it. It’s strong, but it’s no longer a must-pick. Meanwhile, another Apex in Mortem jumped up from hardly used to respectable usage in it’s own right, now that Hadros isn’t beating it for some reason. Frankly, it’s good that some players are choosing to drop Apexes: no one wants to fight the same seven Apex dinos over and over again. The more dinos we have around the same strength at the top of the meta, the more fun the game will be.

I think the reason they may look weak is because of those new and newly buffed uniques. Ever since 2.7, Ludia has introduced new uniques that were quite powerful, and buffed others up to their level. Ludia must have realized that new dinos were better recieved if they were competitive on release (compared to stuff like Poukandactylus and Antarctovenator), so any new uniques HAD to be extra strong to stand a chance against Hadros and Magnus - that’s how much of an impact they were making. But compare these dinos to some of the older uniques, and it doesn’t even feel like they’re in the same rarity. Ludia did good in eliminating a meta dominated by two Apexes. Now it’s time they do the same for some of the uniques they brought up to that same level.

7 Likes

And they will. And then they will replace them with other OP dinos that people will boost. Then they will nerf those. You and I have been around long enough to know what game Ludia is playing @Mudkipz. It certainly is not about achieving ‘balance.’

11 Likes

Finally, a lesson from Ecology. In ecology, there’s a difference between an environments diversity and turnover. A competitive environment like JWA is no different, so we can apply some of the same concepts here. Diversity is how many organisms exist in an environment at a given time, or in this case how many dinos are viable in the meta. It’s calculated by the number of originations minus the number of extinctions. For JWA, originations would be dinos being buffed or losing counters to enter the meta, and extinctions are dinos being nerfed out of the meta. Turnover is a measure of how frequently and to what extent the specific organisms comprising an environment change over time, or by how much the meta dinos change, and is found by adding the number of originations and number of extinctions.

Now what we are currently seeing is high turnover: new dinos are entering the meta, but they’re leaving just as quickly. When you hear people talk about Ludia buffing up one dino one patch only to nerf it a few patches later to bring up a different dino, this turnover is EXACTLY what they’re noticing. This is good for Ludia’s wallet (since players have to keep divesting and investing in new dinos every month), but not for the metagame because it doesn’t actually increase the number of viable dinos. For that, the game needs to have high diversification, with as many dinos viable in the meta as possible. Looking at the calculation for diversity, we can infer that this requires a high origination rate (dinos being brought into the meta) and a low extinction rate (dinos being nerfed out of the meta).

While this may at first make it sound like we should never nerf anything, this doesn’t mean nerfs as a whole are bad. You have to remember that dinos enter and leave the meta relative to the game’s overall power curve. If one dino is significantly stronger than everything else, then you can either buff all the other dinos up to its level (bringing the curve up to the dino), or you can nerf the one dino (bringing that dino down to the curve). These both accomplish the same thing: the op dino being brought to the same level as everything else. The main difference is that nerfing is far more efficient. If there are 20 dinos in the endgame arenas, either change results in an origination rate of 20 (20 dinos entering the meta), expect that the nerf requires only 1 change vs 20. The trick is to not overnerf the 1 op dino, which unfortunately Ludia doesn’t have a great track record with. That said, given Ludia’s tendency to overbuff or overnerf, isn’t it safer to limit balance changes to as few changes as possible? And isn’t it more efficient efficient nerf rather than buff?

For this reason, I’m confident that these nerfs were good for the game. Already we’ve seen diversity increase with stuff like Mortem entering the meta again, while Hadros and Magnus have yet to be dropped entirely. Honestly I view the Hadros changes more like a rework than a nerf: re-gaining the supposedly OP deceleration ability in exchange for a bit of damage. In terms of Hadros’s matchup with Mortem, Mortem gaining vulnerability immunity was FAR more impactful. With only the changes to Hadros, it loses 525 damage on turn 1 (don’t forget it can still rampage on turn 1, you wouldn’t want to use decel against Mortem anyway). With only the changes to Mortem, it loses 1500 damage on turn 1 by not inflicting Vulnerability. THAT’S your big nerf. And frankly it’s a matchup Hadros had no business winning in the first place. But that doesn’t mean that it’s a bad dino.

8 Likes

You should read what I just posted, I discuss exactly this. It’s high turnover, not diversification (you’ll understand once you read the post).

1 Like

I read it. Very nicely written my friend, but it is more about Ludia lining their pocketbook than anything else. This is not natural selection @Mudkipz, it is product manipulation and bait and switch. It is not nature (ecology), but greed that you are seeing hard at work. Why else would there be no boost reset? You have been around almost as long as I have, I am sure you can see the pattern here.

And I am not arguing about the nerfs BTW.

7 Likes

I wholly agree. I only argue for what should be done to maximize the player experience and create an ideal competitive environment, but I wouldn’t fool myself into thinking that Ludia shares this goal. Like I said in the post, Ludia can maximize profits by maintaining high turnover, which has the added benefit of appearing to listen to the playerbase (by nerfing and buffing certain dinos) while sidestepping the main reason why we ask for these changes in the first place (to create a more diverse meta with more overall viable dinos).

4 Likes