Let's take this logic and take any category such as activation: TRM activates so much so fast relative to other decks -> Increase Dark Side decks activation -> Compensate by increasing light side decks activation -> Activate 12 force by 2nd turn -> Decks with highest fastest activation become the best
Wait...weren't decks with highest fastest activation already the best, in step 1 of this progression? If increasing the activation of Dark Side decks is the problem, then maybe you should just accept that only 3 dark decks are able to keep pace with TRM's activation, instead of trying to add jet fuel to the activation for 17 more dark decks?
Not sure I'm following you here. That is my point, that it doesn't appear to balance the deck that has very high activation compared to the rest, where we add fuel to the problem and add activation to the rest. Balance IMO would mean adding additional risk and variance to the LS high activation deck so it's not as probable to win because of it's large activation differential.
-> Add more cards that reduce the variance of missing your pulls like Force/Used/Reserve Pile pulls
I feel like you're way off the reservation now. What do these cards have to do with how many top tier decks are in the meta? You could make these cards (or not make these cards) regardless of whether each side has 3 strong decks or 20.
-> Add powerful characters with cheap deploy GMT, Herra, Solo etc.
What does this have to do with how many top tier decks are in the meta?
I'm simply laying out a quick example of a progression of power creep, since we were also discussing power creep. Power creeping certain cards way above others means they become more likely to be auto includes and we narrow down the relevant card choices. If we had made those cards to pair with specific decks/objectives, then we would reduce down the likelihood of the same cards being played in a majority of all decks.
Solution for super powerful characters like EPP Maul, LSJK, BFBH, Screaming Lando, Blizzard 4 etc.? Add variance by affecting those characters impact when they are played. Have interrupts like Mandalorian Mishap and Mindful of the future. Or if that requires too many cards for too many matchups, create effects or shields that water the power cards down. Not create LMFBM, or LSRS, or Super Dooku, or Maul LH.
What does ANY of that have to do with how many top tier decks are in the meta?
Again I'm addressing our topic of power creep we were discussing earlier.
Also this is an example of narrowing down the field of relevant cards played down to the same cards in the same decks for the same matchups over and over again.
A good example to take from Decipher was Han Solo. Captain Han Solo compared to General Solo for example (deployment restrictions or incentives to play in specific decks) which I think made sense.