Ludia Forums

Should a dino be stronger because of his rarity?

#1
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Well,Lots of you think that because you make time to earn dino and turn them into hybrid,Hybrids should have better stats and be more useful than the “vanilla dino”
And because its hard to get a unique ,lots of you think than it should wreck at least 2 or 3 common at the same level.
I have start to see that when people have start to complain about the famous dracorexgen2.
And for people,the main problem is: “Its a common creature” instead of “he is way too powerful”.
Well,does it mean that all common creatures and vanilla dino should be garbage that you never see in the late game?
This game should be only for hybrids and monster dinosaurs?
At least,i think hybrids should have lowers stats than a common or vanilla creatures but more options to fight.
What do you guys think about it?

1 Like
#2

Strongly disagree.
Just check topic about d2, it’s mostly the raw power with non counterable move AND a swap out possible after only one turn the problem. It being a common is anecdotic at best or laughable once you see its hybrid.

On your topic yes I think higher the rarity better the dino. Harder to make should mean stronger.
But the important point is that you need to take into account categories.

A unique tank should be better than a legendary tank BUT a unique tank should lose against a legendary tank breaker. It shouldn’t be a tool that wrecks them all. For example the fact that erli is capable of one shooting tragodistis is really bad. It means there are no proper counter once erli got its cloak (barring alankylosaurus, but we know what it’s worth at the moment sadly).

8 Likes
#3

I think of the increase in rarity mostly as an increase in moves/options.

If you had a level 20 T-Rex whether she was Common, Rare, Epic, Legendary or Unique, very little would change in her stats, but she would gain abilities as her rarity increased. So basically a Rare Rex fighting a Legendary Rex they would be equal stats wise but the Legendary would have more moves available than the Rare which would give her an advantage.

1 Like
#4

I voted yes, but I do think that generally higher levels means better stats and moves but I would like there to be some exceptions or something added to the mix that makes lower rarities more viable too. Otherwise it’s just a race to get the rarest Dino’s and get them to high levels. I love the hybrids I think they are awesome! But I understand some ppl wanna use non hybrids which is understandable. However, with our current rarity system they have no chance of having a competitivly viable team. So in other words yes rare Dino’s arnt easy to get so I would hope they have something that makes all the effort to get them worth ur while, but at the same time it makes me sad to see everybody’s team colored only green rather than a bit more of a mix of colors. My teams mostly green so can’t say much but that’s the meta right now.

#5

I saw from the beginning a trend of common to better meaning an increase from single-usefulness to greater utility.

To that end, no, a greater rarity does not and should not mean “stronger,” but rather either (a) better at what it’s meant to do or (b) more diversified than either of its parents.

Allosinoceratops is one of my first examples coming to mind for (a). The Allosaurus is a tankbuster, and is pretty good at it. The Sinoceratops is a weak tank but has the ability to stun-charge; the bulk of the parental traits were Allosaurus. So the final product is a bigger, better Allosaurus with a mild addition for utility.

First example coming to mind for (b) is Monostegotops. Worse at stun-locking than the Stegoceratoos, worse at weakening than Monolophosaurus. However, through their combinations, we get one of the most coveted and versatile Legendaries available even though it’s not really “stronger” than either component part because it’s utility is just that high.

So should a legendary or unique be better than it’s parent? Yes, to a degree: it should be better at a focused job or more versatile. No, to a degree: unless it’s a marginal increase, no increase in rarity should be substantially better in every way than its previous incarnation (with the possible exceptions of jumps from common-to-legendary/unique).

1 Like
#6

We shoot ourselves in the foot and severely limit our choices in the arena with the thinking that a unique needs to be vastly superior then anything else. There is alot of people on the very forums who will complain if one their uniques gets killed by an epic or lower quality but then those same people will also complain about garbage dinos and lack of good spawns.

If the difference between rarity were smaller we would have far less garbage dinos and bad spawns. And a far more diverse meta… and im not thinking all commons need to be like dg2… more like we need more commons being like tawny. In there useability.

2 Likes
#7

This is the problem. Because JWA isn’t about dinosaurs, it’s about hybrids, you won’t see common or rare dinosaurs further up the Arena. The game is directed towards collecting the dinosaurs suitable to your level initially, and then focusing on the dinosaurs that make hybrids and then super hybrids. Really the game should focus on dinosaurs and at the very least making them so that they are all viable at the higher levels. Maybe then teams might be more varied.