Hey, really appreciate the thoughtful breakdown—and I do think a lot of your points make sense in isolation. That said, the goal of this whole idea, imo, is to test a system that invites more player types to actually show up & participate.
We’re not launching a final product here—we’re running a sandbox.
So while I get the argument for trimming things down to 3–4 brackets, I’d argue the reverse:
If we don’t test more, we won’t know which player segments are showing up, which brackets are working & where we’re missing traction.
A few quick clarifications:
Liquidity across brackets is something to watch, but that’s precisely why this format matters—let the data show us where things are sustainable.
I agree the system needs to be easy to understand—but I’d argue locking people into one bracket per season actually simplifies that, not complicates it.
Bots are here because we can’t ignore them—this mode can either absorb card supply or be gated for manual diehards. This test explores both angles side by side.
If we limit the menu too early, we end up baking in assumptions before we’ve seen actual results. The whole point here is player-driven evolution—the brackets with poor turnout, lopsided cooldowns, or confusing UX? They’ll be the first to go. But let’s start with options, and trim back from real feedback.
Again, appreciate the feedback—and I think once we’re through a full few seasons of data, this’ll all be a lot clearer.
I can get behind a sandbox testing concept :)
I think we should do 4 for 2 seasons and then try another 4 for 2 seasons etc and then we can try refine it down from there.
10 is way to many. Especially if you are locked into one. We need to slowly engage the wide community into survival. Not overwhelm them