Do you think it ought to change?
Now, obviously Ludia are allowed to buff or nerf their creatures as much as they want, and they have no legal obligation to change things, but I’d argue they have a moral obligation to.
At this point in the game, I’d argue we have more overpowered creatures than ever before. For the first time, we have multiple non-superhybrids in Tyrant, and even an Epic non-superhybrid in between Tyrant and High Apex. We have non-hybrids in Apex. For the first time, we have the High Tyrant tier, essentially showing that those creatures are the most broken in the game’s history, maybe with the exception of Monomimus.
And there will probably be a bunch of nerfs to followup. Now, a lot of experienced players know not to invest in disproportionately overpowered dinos since they’re most likely to be nerfed—Procerathomimus for instance. But obviously, either out of ignorance or indifference, there are a lot of players who have and will likely continue to invest in such dinos.
These are the same players that will come crying to the forums when the nerfs are eventually dished out, and they are the same players that turn hostile when the mere concept of a nerf is brought up in forum discussions (now, not all of them are like that, and not all the people like that invest in overpowered creatures, but you get my point).
But there is an important issue here. Do you think that Ludia should reimburse players in some way—by providing a free, total boost refund for instance—after nerfing their creatures?
- I do
- I don’t
- I don’t care
But regardless of what you pick, it’s clear that Ludia need to get their act together. They’re recent balancing changes have been atrociously nonsensical, and almost wholly ineffective.