RE: How can we balance the long term economy of Splinterlands and encourage card combination?

I haven't really ever thought about the issues that you have brought up. At least not in these terms. And I think having the cards BCX as part of the Rshares formula is interesting.

I have thought about the larger issue a bit, though. I believe that the real problem that everyone wants to address is farming, which is to say accounts that play merely to drain value from the system with no actual interest in playing the game as a game. This behavior is most rampant at low levels, and to the extent that it is possible to farm, it will always be most rampant at the lowest level where it is possible. For a farmer, why advance further?

But the thing about playing the game for the game is that any player that is doing so will want to see that they have a path to advance. A game where you are stuck at the lowest level and can't advance isn't any fun to play. So, measures that try to address the drain but also make it more difficult to advance in the game run the danger of discouraging real players which is surely not the goal.

If I have the problem wrong, then naturally, my thoughts on solutions are meaningless. But when it comes to combining accounts and cards, I think players who want to play the game for the game aspects want to level up. Few accounts with leveled cards are clearly the way to do this.

So, addressing the problem by simply cutting off rewards at the lowest levels becomes a sword that cuts in multiple directions. I think it might be better to try to find a scalpel that only cuts at the problem.

One approach would be to link rewards to how far a player has advanced with the rewards they have previous earned. To advance from Bronze III to Bronze II requires a certain amount of reward value. Players can earn rewards to move from Bronze III to Bronze II. When the player has exceeded the amount of reward value needed to actually enter Bronze II their rewards are reduced (perhaps drastically) if they don't advance into Bronze II. This can be done between all levels, with the severity of reductions tuned to address the problem as it actually exists at each level. Now the rewards are more directly linked to combining cards and doing the kinds of things needed to advance in the game.

Another approach is to introduce the idea of "game equity." When you buy your spell book you gain some game equity. When you buy new assets (like card packs) you gain game equity. Game equity can be earned by advancing levels, combining cards, renting cards, whatever. Game equity is gained for doing things that the governance board believes add value to the game. Likewise game equity can be depleted. Staying at the same level for extended periods of time, selling off reward cards, transferring DEC from your game account all reduce game equity. Game equity is lost for doing things the governance board believes drains value from the game. Now, the amount of game equity amassed can be part of the rewards formula. Players who retain their assets to advance in the game are rewarded more than players who cash out. At some level of cashing out, or not progressing, the game could reduce future rewards to zero. Here rewards are directly linked to the value the player is bringing to the game, which is the say in relation to the player not farming.

I really don't know. But my feeling is that the more directed a solution is toward the actual problem you are trying to address, the less collateral damage you risk doing.