Ludia Forums

LUDIA please talk to METAHUB first about re-balancing

Metahub could be considered to be the Serebii of the Jurassic World Alive community.
Metahub has some very experienced players with a lot of insights into the competitive battling world and they have a great understanding about what they’re talking about. Balancing competitive battling games is never an easy task at the best of times and evidentally I believe you could do with a bit of help in choosing which creatures and moves to rebalance, how and why.

Considering that many of your customers are ‘paying’ to unlock/level up certain creatures only to have them nerfed later is not a good business model. You will lose trade as players quit in disbelief when you continually cause them to lose money invested in a game for nothing at the end of it.

STOP. LOOK. LISTEN TO METAHUB FIRST before trying to rebalance dinos/hybrid and moves, not after - when you’ve inevitably broken the meta (again).

MetaHub is a free resource for you (and us) please use their professional expertise before implementing any more game-breaking/meta wrecking/dino killing changes to JWA. I only say this for the sake of our (the gamers) sanity and for your own profits and success. TQ


I second this. I do not agree with EVERYTHING Metahub says but for the most part they are always based on sound logic, unlike what the recent changes have reflected in the case of Ludia’s balance team. These changes are incredibly strange (if they get implemented) and balancing could be done a lot better than this. Really disappointing, coupled with all the other bugs still present.


I just totally agree! Finally we found some kind of balance between tanks-raptors-bleeders-immune etc but Ludia is going to reshuffle everything upside down.

Even if you’re not a game maker and have some common sense, you can see how disbalancing Ludia acts. Making dinos OP then nerf them, making others OP. And then trying to nerf something balanced.

1 Like

Totally with you

1 Like

Agree. Ludia claims that dinos win “the right % of battles” (for example the flyers) but then I see how the AI behaves during tower strikes and I have to wonder. If they test using the same AI, I could see how those numbers could be misleading as sometimes the AI will do things that make no sense. Raptors opening with strike, just off the top of my head.


Hello everyone. Where can I find that info about re- balancing Dinos? I see there are a lot of people who worry about it, but can’t find any posts confirming that. Thank you.

I like Metahub. For about 10 seconds I thought this was a great idea. I go there often for articles. When the Dinodex is working I look at that as well. I even check out poceman’s youtube videos on occasion.
If Metahub and their staff want to playtest and give their advice, all power to them, but I am sure Ludia has their own playtesting team that takes thing into consideration that Metahub might not.
Metahub’s playtesting ranking system involves using challenges of various creatures at the fixed level of 26 in friendly challenges.
Now this may be great for determing the absolute top when you have your creatures at the fixed level of 30 but there is a huge flaw in this entire ranking system based on resource usage.
Example: Is anybody competent player really going to level a key ingredient like Sinoceratops, Ouranosaurus, or Kentrosaurus to level 26 in the game?
How often does the average player go head to head with characters that are same level in the PVP?

Ludia has to make new creatures to generate revenue as people look for the new thing. Dracorex Gen II comes to mind.
Ludia’s playtesters are the ones who look at the new creatures and determine what does and does not work, and tries to balance it based on a resource availabitliy issues.
Now besides the beforementioned cash cow and most likely soon to be nerfed Dracorex Gen II, I believe they have done a good job at balancing.

For the best playtesting they would have to give Metahub people access to new potential information and coding and that requires trust. Do you think Ludia is going to trust metahub considering how many times they have done datamining and leaked the information based on that datamining?

Speaking of coding, they have had an error on their dinodex for over a week, where not all the tier rankings are filled out and their is coding issue displayed on the bottom.

To be fair our opinion if asked about this would or could include the items you mentioned above. We limit the tier list this way because it’s the only sensible way to make it understandable for general players.

Fwiw, we aren’t data mining with permission, but we aren’t data mining without it either.

Regardless, Ludia has done a great job at general balancing.


Polls are another option, just a thought… not that this isn’t a great idea, was thinking about it earlier.

I feel like if they do its a small minority… I look back at the recent fix to lethal wound was listed as a 2 turn cool down but was only one for months.

Then someone did a bug report on this forum about it got a mods attention and they instructed them to email support… and a week later it was fixed… if someone at ludia plays they either dont play bleeders and were happy for its cooldown to be 1 turn instead of 2…

Communication is key that’s the main thing.


But sometimes they miss things, it’s good to have second opinions. I just hope that any input given by MetaHub is taken seriously by Ludia, to avoid any other ‘gross miscalculations’, and paying customers not getting the things that they are paying for or expecting when things get rebalanced.

I don’t exactly have a problem with your tier list and how it is determined. I understand it and appreicate it. I was not attacking it, I was just trying to explain to the OP that Ludia has actually done a great job in balancing. Actually, I wish the coding error would be addressed on the Dinodex so the results of your staff’s hard work could be fully displayed.

Overall ,I think your website does a wonderful job advocating and presenting player concerns. I visit the website almost daily.
If there was a merger or collaboration, I believe those concerns may be addressed in the beginning, but afterwards I think it would be harder for your group to be hypercritical with Ludia as needed, if you are working close with them. I am not saying it is impossible, but I think that is just the nature of humanity. So I actually like the seperation of Metahub and Ludia. I think it would be better for the game in the long run.

1 Like

I agree with you, and they do get second opinions, I think from various sources, including this forum. I do believe they read Metahub and address some of the concerns presented there, but I guess we can never be sure unless Ludia says as much.