I am not talking about earning more points but costing more. I'am wondering how many players that have so many points that this method would not effect them at all compaired to the general population in the game, and do those players have a higher tendency to horde, (if not ) then what is the problem with trying this in one arena to see how it would work. I realize trying this method is not as simple as how I'am portraying it here and I did not get into any details either at this point, but could this be tried.
It wouldn't be fair. People would complain some were treated more fairly (less unfairly) than them. HTC would have to deal with an accusation of bias to some players, for however long the teeming masses of whiners would feel the righteous need to make it last. The present situation is fair, and already people are borderline accusing HTC of bias.
It is simply not comprehensive enough and not a better alternative to what we already have.
The players with that many perks have a not-negligible proportion (just a guess on my part, but I'm pretty sure it's accurate) of more experienced sticks, and it's my experience that they can change a furball as much as ~3-6 green to average sticks. Give them an uber plane and the effect increases proportionaly. They wouldn't even need to horde, they'd be free radicals screwing with the homogeneous and predictable dynamics of "warfare" in the MA because nothing would stop them from being unevenly distributed, independently of overall numbers (since ENY-perk system as you propose means nothing to them)..
It didn't work before people had masses of perks, and it's going to work less now.
I agree with your assessment, but I bet the thread complaining about losing their perks would dwarf this thread. There would probably have to be some type of exchange to keep people from freaking out over it and other then free flight time for perks lost I can't think of many options and thats quite unlikely.
Yep.