I think this is irrelevant, and not a justification for changing the system. Tech against such decks if they're an issue, or play stronger decks -- but changing the system is not the way, especially when it would also open up a way to abuse the changed system by farming crowns without even trying to win anything.
If you're constantly losing 2-0 then you should change something about either your decks or gameplans. If you're not constantly losing 2-0 then there is no real issue because, like I said, everyone loses 2-0 sometimes.
This is a non-issue.
Based upon your response, I doubt I will persuade you to reconsider this position, but let me try.
First, you have made a number of assumptions that I believe are faulty:
1. That frequently losing 2-0 is the fault of the deck or player. The last two expansions have introduced a large number of high value cards. These cards allow a player who draws well to frequently win rounds — even when down cards. Thus winning 2-0 is easier than ever. These cards are often game winners in round 3, so players are more likely to feel a need to bleed rather than dry pass in round — creating more 2-0 opportunities.
2. If a player frequently loses 2-0, all they need to do is tech against bad matchups or play better decks. At best, this is possible only if the players owns the cards necessary to do so — and acquiring cards demands resources one cannot gain while being constantly beaten 2-0.
3. That granting a crown point when a person loses 2-0 despite playing his full hand will promote abuse and “farming” rewards. It is clearly more efficient to try to win two crowns in a 16 card, three round match than to win one crown in a 13 card, two round game — this is not the same as forfeiting after playing one card to collect gg rewards.
4. That players who create “trash” decks to complete quests will significantly benefit from this change. I do have special decks to quickly play cards, neutral cards, units, special cards, and artifacts. Except for the special card deck, I probably have a win rate of 40% with these, and 2-0 losses are no more frequent than with a “good” deck. On the other hand, my junky special card quest deck almost never gets 2-0ed. It is so bad most players are content to pass round one when it is apparent I will go down two or three cards to win it.
5. That the only legitimate reason to play is to be maximally competitive about winning. I often play weaker decks. Sometimes I want to try never-used cards; sometimes I want a playful deck theme; sometimes I want to play art I like; sometimes I set silly challenges for myself (e.g. how tall can I make a peasant militia unit get); sometimes I just don’t want to stress myself with an expectation of winning. Is it really appropriate to malign these choices as “resource farming”?
Second, I believe it is appropriate to use rewards as enticements for desired player behavior. By rewarding players, even when they lose 2-0 — provided it is a complete game — developers help weaker players become more competitive by granting resources necessary for that; developers encourage complete games rather than quick forfeits when games appear hopeless due to draw or matchup; developers encourage use of off-meta decks rather than placing high premium on absolute best success rate. To me there are only positive signal such a policy would send.