Well, it finally happened. People kept saying that all the resilients are too strong, and lo and behold, Ludia nerfed pretty much all the resilients. I’m wondering what you all think about this.
First of all, the vast majority of resilients didn’t need any changes. Out of the 60 some dinos in the game with “resilient” attacks, how many ACTUALLY needed nerfs? Maybe half a dozen? Seriously, I want someone to give me a list. Whatever it is, it’s a limited number: it doesn’t warrant class-wide changes. Plus, I’m not convinced that deceleration is inherently problematic. Dinos like Stegodeus and Diorajasaur are basically all resilient attacks, and most people seem to agree that they’re balanced. Resilients are even some of the weakest dinos: the seven weakest legendaries on the most recent Gamepress tier list are all resilients.
No, the problem seems to stem from the fact that certain dinos are doing too much damage considering their ability to gain a speed advantage. Stuff like Hadros Lux just had too high a damage output given their survivability. But instead of doing simple damage nerfs in these few select cases, Ludia instead decided to revamp the entire class.
The funny thing is, while losing the ability to decelerate is a big nerf for many resilients, for others it just makes the existing problem of too much damage that much worse. Ceramagnus didn’t need RS to gain a speed advantage (since it has Group Acceleration), so now it can use that move slot to apply Vulnerability and hit even harder. Thanks Ludia.
For Vulnerability to even stand a chance of working, a few considerations would have to be made. For one, understanding that most resilients don’t need changes, many could have their resilient attacks swapped out for the similar superiority attacks. Secondly, since Vulnerability increases damage output (which is the innate problem here), resilients would need widespread damage nerfs corresponding to this change (which ironically is probably the only change they needed in the first place). Well, neither of these things happened: it was just a straight rework of the entire class, whether they needed it or not. So not only did Ludia choose what I believe to be the worst possible way of dealing with the few problem resilients that actually exist, they implemented this “solution” in what is probably the worst possible way. Perhaps worst of all, there won’t be a boost reset for this MASSIVE change; but that’s a hit unrelated to the actual change itself, so I won’t be discussing it here.
As I said in the main thread and previously, I’m extremely disappointed in these changes. I sincerely hope that Ludia takes a chance to receive some feedback first before implementing these changes. To start, let’s get your thoughts on the matter:
Do Resilients (as of 2.8) need to be nerfed?
- Yes, the entire class
- Most of them do
- Only some of them do
- No, they don’t
What is/are the main problem(s) with the resilient class (as of 2.8)? (If “Other”, please explain)
- Dodge removal/bypass
- Distraction cleansing
- None (problem with the Fierce class instead)
- None (problem with the Cunning class instead)
- None (Resilients are fine)
Do you agree with how Ludia handled the 2.9 resilient changes? (If undecided, put “other”)
- Yes, entirely
- Yes for vulnerability, but it could have been done better
Should Ludia reconsider how they are implementing the 2.9 resilient changes?
For posterity, if Ludia does go through with these changes (as they seem inclined to do), should there be a boost reset?
Thank you for the feedback! I look forward to seeing where we’re at. If I’m wrong, so be it.