Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-12524333-20131030104225/@comment-11490363-20131030153138

AndRollOut wrote: Hm, on balance, I think trading will not break the game, and may stoke more interest in it.

There will be more MTM R5s in existence, but they will be highly diffused throughout the TFL population. If you look at the Ravage thread and assume those unlucky sods with only rav bots or only rav alts traded, it would still be their 1st or 2nd R5 for most of these players. That's not a huge upgrade in power level. Instead of 100 decks running around with 9x R5s and 50,000 decks with only T2, now you have 50,000 decks with possibly 1 or at most 2 MTM R5s in there. That's not too horrible, power-inflation wise.

In raids, even full R5 decks are helpless on Day 1 - you hear T1 players complain that their base decks of awesome R5s are quickly replaced by 9x raids. So a flood of Grimlocks still won't make raids a walk in the park, people must still get raids (still making Mobage money). I hadn't considered that raid cards are really more important than previous deck, but overall I still think it would be a problem for power creep.

In any one episode, trading might only allow people to get say half of one MTM they reeeeeally wanted. Sure, not a big deal, but over time, this accumulates, relatively quickly too, so that power creep is indeed a problem. The T2/3 players would be able to catch up to the T1 players without paying, and once equilibrium is reached, they could just trade for the second best card (im assuming the T1 players won't trade their rewards, but raids sure) and be barely a step behind. Also at that point, you have 2-3 times as many players with big bad decks and power creep is again necessary to incentivize people to pay again. Also, why would I pay if I can just trade for the best or second best cards?