A meta by definition means the ‘most efffective tools available’. It can only become meta when something is, statistically, used by most to win.
Hence, It ALWAYS takes a lot of guts by developers to nerf a meta because it is a nerf on something used by, statistically, the most players in the game to win.
I applaud for this change if it goes through, and I hope Flare doesn’t back down just because of players not wanting the meta to change due to them being part of the meta.
Historically speaking, nerfing meta has always brought good things to the table even though players who were part of the meta made a lot of noise.
Remember Toxic Cloud and Ceres? Players are still using them effectively to win, but the statistic has been brought down significantly. Ultimately, instead of most players using Toxic cloud and Ceres, we ended up having a relatively healthier diversity of combos.
To further this point:
Just because something is meta doesn’t mean it has to be nerfed. For example, if there are 3 items, A, B, and C – out of all the successful raids, 34% uses A, while 33% uses B and another 33% uses C, then by definition, A is the meta. However, in this example, A is not overpowered because despite being a meta by definition, the percentages are close to each other.
Likewise, if out of all the successful raids, 90% of successful raids are donkey users, then obviously the meta is totally out of balance and needs a huge nerf. It is only by nerfing the donkey that the depth to the game can be restored. If the nerf brings down the percentage to a much lower amount but is still the highest among the guardian, it is fine.
The above is obviously just an example. Only Flare knows the statistics. Precisely because of that, I hope Flare relies on the information and go through with the nerf if the information shows the need to do so.