Why should lower star cards have the advantage in Elo mode in a tie situation? I can understand giving them a leg up in Type 2 play, but there's no reason for type 1/Elo to do so.
Limiting the star count of your deck to 25 is enough, giving low star cards an auto-win in a tie situation just makes it hard to use 4 and 5 star cards.
This is an extra reason why Elo is dominated by 3 star cards. I feel so unsafe using a 4 or 5 star card in Elo knowing that in a tie I have a 50% chance to lose vs another 4/5 star and a 100% chance to lose vs anything else.
So then make a deck of all 2*. Then you won't have to worry about it...
That's like saying why should 5* have so much more dmg than 2*s... It's good that it's this way, Cards like Sliman would DOMINATE ELO if the rule wasn't it place.
I think you see it this way because you are looking a from a 4/5 star point of view, if it were from a 2/3 star sometimes its a miracle a 2 star ties a 5 star, obviously not all the time. Since they are of a lower star value you would expect to beat them so the one time they manage to tie you can't you just let them have this one.
You make it sound like 5 stars have the same stats as 2 stars. By your logic you are saying it is unfair that Bob Joby can beat Dorian if they Tie. What are the chances of a 5 star tying with a 2 star? 5 stars almost always have atleast 5 pills spent on them and who wants to 5 pill a 2 star (probably more because 5 stars are a lot stronger) to inflict a measly 2-3 damage? And if you change it you create more dilemas. If a player uses a no pill Dorian against a 2 pill Bob Joby then the Dorian should win? Even tho it was a wreckless and stupid move and the other player just wasted 2 pills for thinking strategically? You are just finding things to complain about, I can garuntee that if higher stared cards could win you would come back saying the exact same thing. Get over yourself.