Yes, Woolly mammoth is arguably OP, there are only 5 epic non-creatures which can stand a chance against Woolly mammoth if you don’t have your own mammoth. I’m glad you learned your lesson about it, please don’t try to start something related to this again please, thank you.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. I realise now that the addition of Eucladoceros and the nerf to 4200 HP might make a difference, so I’m not sure if it is OP anymore. Could you please clarify?
Well, if they don’t, many of us will end up leaving the game. Some of the best players in my alliance left the game when Ludia was determined to keep the rat for almost a year. Many of us expect each version to be the nerf of Yoshi and Indo2 and we will not last forever.
The language that is being used here is insulting to players who use creatures that are placed in the game by Ludia. I don’t think it is fair, to attack players because they are using the resources that have been allocated to them, due to where they live zone wise, or due to some lucky finds. You can’t tell players, “they should have known a creature was going to get nerfed, so it’s your fault for using it.” If there is any blame, it should fall onto Ludia and only Ludia for not making things balanced,
We need to agree upon this, otherwise it can always be used against us no matter the creature that was nerfed .
Also, if you agree with this, than anything that is balanced “nerfed” is a correction of a mistake made by Ludia. Which means all creatures that are augmented/balanced/nerfed after their initial release, should get a free boost reset. This means, any change of skills, abilities, immunities, armor, crit chance, hit points, etc.
By the way,
Let’s talk about 1.13. This was not a simple nerf of one or two creatures. This update created some serious discussion among some of the discord player base of a possible boycott of purchases from Ludia, as well as changing of the online game feedback. It might have got some traction, but everything was derailed due to COVID-19.
So why did 1.13 bother so many players? They nerfed 4 out of the top 5 creatures and 10 out of the top 20 creatures as determined by a large group of the player base at the time. [Release Notes] Jurassic World Alive | Update 1.13
This indicates Ludia knew it made balancing mistakes earlier. The problem from the customer perspective, is this was a large percentage of where the majority of the players have placed their boost or planned to place their boosts. Why should the players/customers suffer for Ludia’s balancing mistakes? There should be a full reset on all creatures that are “balanced” with any type of change, and this should be retroactive. If it is easier for Ludia, there should be a a full reset every patch. They can’t claim this game is beta anymore. Many players have lost some trust in this product. They want to to know why they should trust and invest in this product. If our purchases can become worthless, at anytime, why should we make those purchases and support the game, when other games actually give some type of guarantee? Boost resets, will rebuild some lost trust.
It isn’t an attack at all. I’m pretty sure I stated things simply as they are. Players that don’t know about the nerf system, and players that don’t care, invest in whatever is most convenient.
If the rest of my post was implying that it’s a foregone conclusion that players are supposed to know not to invest in disproportionately overpowered dinos, that is pretty much dismissed by that fact that I mentioned “out of ignorance”. Ludia never issued a public statement on the matter, so of course the players can’t be expected to know what to invest in.
I am of the firm opinion that it isn’t the players’ fault.