> No, what currently is going on is the guys at the top are getting too much of the rewards. A 20 - 1 ratio is too big .... They also get a 30 -1 ratio in end of season rewards.

If you actually read my earlier response, you'd know why that's a stupid thing to say.

> As pointed out its healthy to give more to the lower level players as it keeps them around and keeps them motivated to keep climbing to higher ranks. In return they are more likely to spend their funds on the game thus helping the whole games ecosystem.

As I also pointed out, we should give more cards to the lower level players **RELATIVE TO THEIR CARD COLLECTION**. And that's happening currently. 

> You did not counter my arguments, you simply gave your opinion in which I and many others do not agree with. I am fully opened to be convinced but you have yet to accomplish that.

I did counter your arguments. I explained why they are garbage. People on discord backed me up on that, yet you discard anything we say. That's not what 'fully open to be convinced' means.

> You make blanket statements like, this isn't poker while not understanding how both are very similar to each other. If you don't understand the poker industry or its history perhaps you should take a more subtle approach when speaking of things you have little knowledge on.

I know how poker works, so I know it's not at all the same as SteemMonsters. And I've been careful with what I've said about the similarities between SteemMonsters and the poker industry. However, fact is that SteemMonsters and Poker aren't the same. Similar in some ways? Yes. But not the same. Just saiyng "Poker does this, so we should also do this", is a really, really bad argument.

> I have provided you with my points and arguments but you seem to not want to accept them. Which is fine ... I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. All one needs to do is go read the most recent update post to see the majority of the community doesn't like the changes. If cuts were even across the board then it wouldn't of been nearly as bad and something I could support but as is, I view the cuts as unfair to the little guy.

Have you ever thought about the fact that *maybe*, **MAYBE** there is a reason that the reductions weren't even? And if we're doing even reductions, we also gotta reduce bronze to uhhh, 0 cards? Or wait, if we follow your reductions, we'll have to reduce bronze quest rewards to about -4 cards per day. 

"Congratulations sir, you have now been charged 4 cards for completing your quest!"
Would the community like that? Nah.

There are reasons for why the reductions weren't done equally everywhere. Some very good reasons. Fact is that:

Champion III quest reward is reduced by 4 cards/day to 16 cards/day.
Champion II quest reward is reduced by 2 cards/day to 18 cards/day.
Champion I quest reward is reduced by 0 cards/day to 20 cards/day.

Now you gotta note that it is **WAY** harder for a Champion (Especially for a Champion I) to:
1. Get to the required league.
2. Finish their quest there.

---
As I've mentioned earlier, you're 20:1 statement makes no sense, since it really only counts in extreme cases where:
The 20 cards are rewarded to really good players with really good cards.
The 1 card is rewarded to very new/really bad players with really bad cards.

Does the 1-card player figure out that melee doesn't attack from the back and ranged doesn't attack from the front? Voila, there he goes into silver!

So stop repeating arguments I have already **countered**. Yes, I said "countered", because I list a valid reason for why it's not a good argument, which you don't seem to do with my arguments.