Quote:
Originally Posted by dkgo
Dynamically assign teams based on how strong they are at the start of each season. Give better rewards at higher tiers.
An overall rating cap would be the simplest way to do it and a reasonable first effort. A more accurate way would weight live cards lower since they aren't as good as historicals at the same overall.
|
So I put all my 'good' cards up for sale at ludicrous prices in the AH before the ranking is made, then bring them back so I can win the lower league in easy mode.
Higher rewards at higher tiers mean 'the rich get richer' and then an insane number of forum threads decrying that.
My initial though had been some sort of transaction limit for the live roster... maybe not swapping more than 5 cards in a given season. But while that would have a big impact at stone, iron and bronze, meaning people couldn't just load their teams up with 26 perfects in one shot, it would also mean that people who did well in tournaments and pulled some good improvements from packs would also be stuck, and I'm not good with that.
And once I got to Gold, I found I wasn't making more than 1 or 2 moves a season, anyways. so it wasn't going to impact me at all. Clearly, it's not a great answer.
We all want the 'fairest' system possible in a uniquely unfair world. There are those who can outspend others 100 to 1. There are those who can put in 100+ hours a week grinding tournaments where others can barely manage 5. There are people who have taken the time to study and understand the game mechanics and the rules and how to best use them to their advantage. Are you going to punish those who can spend more to make those who can't or won't spend feel better? Are you going to punish those people who can invest time?
And if we're just going to all have equal outcomes instead, why bother?