Guys, we need a new word.
I’m over sandbagging. Sandbag. Sandbaggers…
anyway, I think most of you are looking at it all wrong.
While I do concur that his tactic is both A. In play and B. Effective; there’s not going to be an easy way around this.
The best of the above suggestions is an updated form of power limits/requirements. But simply making it for the first X, Y or Z out of 25 is not removing the problem, it’s just recreating it with extra steps.
I think what will ultimately have to happen is some kind of grading system (think: raid level-based unlocks) combined with a heavy focus on top 20 heroes of each player , wherein the players top 20 determine their level ranking, not their overall team or alliance power.
Otherwise, just introduce team number caps at the very highest level so that when the tactic progresses to meta which it surely will, 25 man teams play 25 man teams, 10 vs 10, etc and lock the rosters for the whole season. If teams lose some of their original 10 nominees, too bad. No replacements from the alliance pool.
My team are under 10m, within the top 15 in our division and have a few inactive players at times. Although if our numbers grow to just over 10m due to individual progression and we decide to drop inactive players to retain or league status, does that make us sandbaggers? I think it’s the deserved choice, not the dodgy one. Why should all the hard work we’ve put into our AW techniques (ie levelling that top 20, better comms skills, teamwork, etc) push us into a league that we’d struggle in? That seems counterproductive to fairness.
But at top level? Why not - make it harder for them