Quote Originally Posted by kaynide View Post
I don’t think it necessarily needs to allow “stronger” decks, but just more cards gives more options, otherwise it just boils down to most cards likely gets the win.
If that is truly a concern that SE has, perhaps they don't need to implement the "If you own more than 200 cards, ..." thing I suggested above (as that would indeed make your deck stronger); however, I do think that they should at least implement something like the baseline change that I proposed, which was:
  • If you own less than 30 cards, your deck can contain cards with an aggregate total of up to 9 stars.
  • If you own between 30 and 59 cards, your deck can contain cards with an aggregate total of up to 13 stars.
  • If you own more than 60 cards, your deck can contain cards with an aggregate total of up to 17 stars.

This would give players the same number of aggregate stars to work with as the current rules, but it would allow for more flexibility. For example, with 17 stars total, you could have one 5-star card, one 4-star card, two 3-star cards and one 2-star card; you could even have three 5-star cards and two 1-star cards if that's how you wanted to play it. If this would create imbalance issues, they could limit the number of 5-star and 4-star cards you have. In any event, something really needs to be done to create situations where it actually makes sense to use a 4-star card. Otherwise they're just sitting there collecting dust because, under the current rules, you have to use a 4-star card instead of a 5-star card, which (in most situations) is an unfavorable trade-off.