Guild Wars 2

Has the thread been going long-enough for the “Not sure if serious…” meme to start?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Official-state-of-skill-lag-and-server-optimizations/first#post3036297

Well I can think of one possible “player-controlled” solution to this mess:

Use those BG and SoR “war chests” you guys have to transfer your top guilds to JQ’s T1 opponent the week that you have your “easy” match to make sure JQ doesn’t win those weeks either.

(no Gem Purchases though don’t want to reward ANet for this fiasco)

I mean if the people on BG and SoR are truly upset about JQ’s “easy ride” you can do something about it.

Well since we know that SoR can be such great “politicians” when it comes to “Server Diplomacy” the question now is:

Can SoR and BG put aside their age-old emnity to 2v1 JQ into 3rd Place in both of the “Big 3” Matches?

Caroline.4987:

Jared: Umm…you wanna give Tarnished Coast four first place finishes? =S That’s almost guaranteed to screw one of the T1 servers out of third place…

I wouldn’t be surprised if many T1 WvWers feel this way:

I don’t care about the finisher and I don’t care about coming in first, but the thought that JQ gets to karma train and relax for almost half of the league schedule while SOR and BG have to burn themselves out is just irritating as hell.

Either of the two Schedules the OP suggested are more balanced than the one ANet implemented. In the second one things are more fair/balanced overall but with less competitive actual matches.

The one in the OP might give TC “second place” but everybody knows the 3 T1s are stronger and it is more of a “consolation prize” and having the “big 3” go head-to-head 4 times would really decide that.

The actual schedule ANet came up with however is just kitten.

Aurust.8961:

Le Rooster.8715:

Aurust.8961:

Truearrow.3527:

Aurust.8961:

Truearrow.3527:

Aurust.8961:

Cosmic Sparklejunk.3514:

Fingers crossed for an SoR/SoS/Mag for the inaugural league matchup tonight.

That would be an interesting matchup IF SOS and MAG agree to double team SOR hardcore…. I mean SOR will still completely destroy them but there will be fights atleast.

Im pretty sure i would speak for the rest of SOR, that we would welcome an official 2v1 in that scenario…..

You are in for a surprise if you think anything about Maguuma will be a “pushover” scenario, ask Jade Quarry or Tarnished Coast, you will have your hands full with us let alone SoS, we can que 4 maps with skilled guilds and pubbies.
Many thanks to our dedicated guilds and players, Paralda/Pyro, Diviniya and Razi/Ark, Bony/DERP, Xushin and his pain train for making this happen. We pulled together as a server and got it done against the odds and efforts to the contrary. I’m very proud to be Maguuma right now. 7 weeks of tears gold league, that’s what you are in for, come at us bros, kitten ppt, give us an open field to wreck you in or a smoking hole in the side of a tower or keep to farm you in.

You lost to SBI, we just had SBI and SOS, our hands were most definitely not full…….. Ill give it a day before the debate about who has better roamers starts due to Maguuma QQ.

Grats to SoR and SBI for winning Coverage Wars 2, since they cant do it alone they have to work together because they are afraid of what Maguuma will do to them in open-field. Ask these guys if they feel like winners, get used to seeing this, your turn is coming in the next couple of weeks.

Oh wow, because of that scary pic now I am just sooo scared of Maguuma…..

At least you will learn to PVF.

Hopefully it doesnt come down to the point where forums are more fun than wvw like it was fighting SOS…. i’d rather not practice PVF but actually wvw.

The Hypocrisy in this post is Strong…

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

Narsil.6579:

I got lost after poker and starcraft,

To put it into context of GW2:

1. Playing ‘The Meta Build’ in Guild Wars 2 means you’re playing the most effective/efficient/fotm build possible.
2. Playing ‘The Metagame’ implies you’ve taken your opponents into consideration when making your build (IE. Not the meta build)

Therefore, by all accounts, these sentences make sense:

“I am playing the metagame, by using a build that is anti-meta [not meta]”
and
“I am playing the meta build. Because I hate the metagame.”

I’m not saying the sentence is wrong. I’m saying the word ‘meta’, in its current context, is silly

I wouldn’t completely agree with this interpretation.

If you want to “mince words” then there is a difference between “playing the meta” and “playing meta” and in your above example you are trying to use the former as an incorrect use of the latter.

It is flawed beyond that though because most games and activities have multiple valid “metas” (even if they only have a single prevailing or popular zeitgeist strategy “The Meta”) so it is for example much harder to define when a Chess player is playing “The Meta” as there are many valid strategies, gambits, openings, and approaches.

If we accept that “The Meta” is the prevailing optimal strategy, the utilization of as much knowledge (both in-game and out) as possible for advantage, then discussions of how well one does (or does not) play “The Meta” is about implementation of the prevailing strategy.

How well someone “plays meta” is a completely different discussion (and not necessarily limited in my mind to just “pro” or “anti” meta but rather how skilled the player is at deducing and interpreting all the prevailing factors that make up or change the current zeitgeist and developing strategies and tactics to either enhance or counter it).

For example, “the metagamer” in PnP RPG terms was one who was less interested in “playing their character” than in always using whatever means were available to their character’s advantage, ignoring (or using) “story” or “rules intent” or “group dynamics” to their advantage.

It’s a nuanced difference, but it is a difference

Heinel.6548:

Johje Holan.4607:

A mechanic that adds to PPT for the stronger side is still power creep. And I’m not convinced of the argument about the points on stomp benefitting the under-populated side.

There’s no need for arguments when facts fly in your face. BG is the lightest of the top three, and is only competitive now because of point on stomp.

If you have not actually try the mechanic, you are in no position to criticize it’s efficacy.

Actually there is a “direct contradiction” to that…

BG even as “the lightest of the top 3” can put out more than enough people to dominate any match with T2 opponents and when facing most of the potential T2 Gold League Servers there will be long stretches of time where “skillful havoc play for Stomps” simply isn’t possible because BG will have more Roamers on the Map (in addition to the Map Zerg) than total number of Opponents (sometimes from both Servers combined).

I personally think the problem is one of scaling – 3 PPS is too high/impactful but 1 PPS might be too low (honestly we don’t have any stats/metrics yet to know if the change is impactful to participation. The 3 T1 NA Servers haven’t faced each other in a Match since it went in. BG-JQ-TC is the closest we have to a match we can draw data from and I haven’t heard anything one way or another on relative action in the Ruins since it went live, especially since it also went in with PvE content which impacts WvW participation on those 3 Servers).

Personally I think they need to redo the entire Scoring/PPT System but two “simpler” changes I can see them making are:

1 – Increase the PPT Values of Camps and Yaks and restore 1/2/3 per Stomp (still makes it valuable but increases its impact)
2 – Make the progression 1/1/2 as that reduces overall impact but still makes owning all 3 valuable.

What irks me the most though is there is one obvious change they should make but won’t which is people with Outnumbered shouldn’t contribute any Points when Stomped. That is where the problem with +3 PPS was “ugliest” for me – why should I go out and snipe or havok on BGBL when killing me is often worth as much or more for BG as anything I might earn through sniping Yaks? (and please don’t come back with “oh just take the Ruins” because in these situations BGBL is effectively on “lockdown”)

ForTheToast.com

Padawan?

Regina is like “Jedi Master-level” at Forum Relations

Killer.4709:

but if sos is fighting bg the match is already over so why balance the game for a match like that, balance it for servers that have even coverage…

Because my clueless friend, starting this Friday we will have “Season 1 League Play” where you will be lucky if you see an SoR-BG-JQ match more than one time during the next 7 weeks.

You will likely have 6 weeks of matches with 1-2 “T2” Servers in it and let’s face it all 3 T1 Servers are more than capable of “farming” the Ruins in those matches just like they spawn camp T2 Servers during them now.

ANet determined that up to 3 Points per Stomp was too much and they adjusted it. It’s actually rather embarrassing the way you are going on as if they “nerfed it into the ground” when it isn’t that huge a difference:

• Everyone Holding 0-1 is the same as before
• Holding 2 is 1 point less per Stomp but is still Denying points to a Server
• Holding 3 is an advantage Denying points to both opponents

Alex.6483:

Haven t read up in a while but what about Banner Regen warriors? Useful at the moment for zerging?

Banners are tough to use in the Zerg. Most fights are too mobile for the buffs to be reliable and the Warrior is forced to give up too much (loss of all Weapon Skills/Swaps) if carrying it around.

There are also plenty of sources for Regen while Burst Healing and (especially) Condition Clearing tends to be much more important in WvW.

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

If people want to change the meaning of metagaming altogether, then so be it. But let’s not sugarcoat it, the current ‘meta’ was a mistake gone viral.

It just “happens” to certain words. Woe is datum – a word most people won’t even recognize due to the total dominance of its pluralized form.

It’s easy to see/trace how the perversion came about though. There are a lot of Commanders who have a “weak meta” (poor understanding of the overall WvW Metagame) and a person will make reference to this, and someone else will ask what they mean, and they will give an example (poor siege utilization, or failing to secure a Tower before tick) and the new person takes the example as an overarching definition.

But let’s be honest, which bugs you more:

• the misuse of the term "meta
• people who use the term “mostly unique”

I don’t read it that way as I see the definition of “metagame” as an all-encompassing term for a variety of different elements:

• Preferred Class Builds
• Strong Group Compositions
• Prevailing Strategies and Tactics
• Current Beliefs and Opinions about the above
• Perceived intent of how the game is meant to be played

In such a context the word I think works fine. It can still be used incorrectly (as can most of the English language) but it does have an appropriate usage and context here in GW2 WvW.

Radian.2478:

The most recent update stated “Static siege sites will no longer be affected by the siege decay timer.”

I don’t see a difference. When placing a ballista build site, the siege decay timer is still there. After completely building it, the decay timer is still there too.

That might be because “Static Siege Sites” are things like Boiling Oil, Cannon, Mortars… not “Player-Placed Siege”

Guys you are just splitting hairs at this point.

Prior to Seasons/Leagues people mostly transferred for the fights.

Since the announcement more people are transferring for the Rewards.

The way ANet structured Leagues and have communicated Rewards hasn’t helped. The way certain T1 Servers are recruiting and funding Transfers isn’t helping anything either.

There’s enough blame to go around for everybody.

While I agree with your point in general Sykko that people transfer to T1 for the relatively constant action, I also feel the game overall would be better off with:
1. Lower Map Caps
2. A 4 NA League Structure with T1 in its own bracket

NA T1 experiences more lag than any other Tier in the game especially in EB. A lower Map Cap will both improve gameplay and convince some to avoid transferring due to queues.

Allowing the top 3 to only play each other for the duration of a Season will still allow people who like the T1 playstyle to move there but will actually discourage people from transferring their for “easy wins” which is what many of the matches in Gold League are going to be now.

That’s what is driving a lot of this discussion – how can you “defend” T1 as a place for great matches when in a few weeks all 3 Servers likely won’t be fighting each other in the same match together?

Rawnoodles.1398:

PLX GvG

• Thanks DIE for setting up with us! It was fun! We appreciate setting up with you guys. Looking forward to future matches.

You know, these Noodles posts got a lot more enjoyable to read when I realized his own personal theme song was “A Whole New World”

Thor.1756:

Butter.3024:

And just quick question does SoR also buy guild? Or just JQ and BG buy guild

No server buys guilds. Most servers offer what gold they can to transferring guilds to help cover their cost of transferring. The assertion that they pay guilds anything above that cost as a bribe to get them to come over is ludicrous.

Just paying the full transfer costs for 10 good-sized WvW Guilds is a pretty amazing outlay of Gold that JQ just spread around.

elkirin.8534:

The final ratings winner at the end of the season may easily be decided by scores made against servers 4-5-6 NOT vs fellow t1 servers. I would suggest that winning the league may come down to which server is most proficient in completely crushing the spirit of a lower ranked opponent.

I doubt as many gamers will be playing GW2 WvW by the end of the league as we have at the start, hopefully I will be proven wrong.

Good luck all.

Your post would mean more if Devon hadn’t already said it is a 1st-5 points/2nd-3 points/3rd-1 point Match format.

The head-to-head and 3-way matches will decide it most likely. Ratings won’t factor into it.

We don’t know for sure, but the most likely (fair for all teams) matchups will be:
1v2v4 3v5v6
1v2v5 3v4v6
1v3v4 2v5v6
1v3v5 2v4v6
2v3v4 1v5v6
2v3v5 1v4v6
1v2v3 4v5v6

It keeps the weakest (#6) Server from ever having to face 2 T1 Servers and a balanced rotation for everybody else.

That means how T1 Servers match up 1v1 is more important than the 3-way Match.

Because of that we don’t really know how all the transfers will impact that yet… but I feel pretty comfortable saying that JQ didn’t buy all those Guilds up for a 3rd Place finish >.>

style.6173:

Traxien Cion.9261:

TC does not want this. Every match up we’d have would be a 100k+ stomp that’d kill our server.

I’d like to see a matchup of TC, FA, and either SoS or Mag this coming week. I’m not convinced that TC is as strong anymore with the various guild moves and breakups.

It’d be interesting to see for sure…

My fear is we will still draw queues on that kind of match while remaining borderline outnumbered against T1 opponents :P

I don’t think you get suppressed in /say which should work fine for most fights if people know to look for it

you can also get them to join on your squad and use that channel

MyPuppy.8970:

How about just multiplying Vitality/Toughness/Healing Power, then?

Yep that works much better and can be fun for everyone.

Outnumbered Players can become “mini-World Bosses” staying alive while the zergs swarm around them.

There are still issues though as the game has way too many lockdown CC’s with no DR. It would be a small step in the right direction though.

It might even be too late for this solution to work if BG is starting to crack as well.

7 weeks of JQ and SoR beating up on each other and everybody else will be so much fun… in that “no fun at all” kind of way

MasterYoda.8563:

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

I’m not sure that’s completely accurate. BG is still a very formidable Server with strong population and good coverage.

Morale and momentum definitely currently favor JQ and SoR but I wouldn’t count BG out just yet.

If however, your attitude spreads through BG and catches on Gold League just got even worse

BG can’t even take back their Garrison, Bay or Hills this week SoR has them with all upgrades, also BG will take 2nd place this week.

That just might be why I said morale is with JQ and SoR at the moment

I’ve seen BG bounce back multiple times from finishing 3rd in a T1 match to take first easily the following week.

Honestly, if things are as bad as you say at least League matches only featuring BG-TC-FA-SoS/Mags might actually be fun so it might be better for the League overall (even if that isn’t want BG wants to hear at all).

Grove.2835:

JQ is currently stacked so much and with their dedicated WvWers, they will get #1, they recently bought a HUGE BG guild. BG’s ppt can no longer hold up to SoR or JQ and are vastly outmaned during most timezones.
With their numbers JQ and SOR will have winning though boring weeks while the other servers in the league may be a bit more even.I still hope for good fights here and there though, even if its just showing up during your primetime and give it all you got and have fun.

I’m not sure that’s completely accurate. BG is still a very formidable Server with strong population and good coverage.

Morale and momentum definitely currently favor JQ and SoR but I wouldn’t count BG out just yet.

If however, your attitude spreads through BG and catches on Gold League just got even worse

Refresh.4386:

Peetee.9406:

You must play on Jade Quarry…..

JQ’s ridiculously overstacked now, SoR nor BG stand a chance

No need to lie Sea of Sorrows is fighting them right now and BG and SoR have more then this maybe even TC has more.

Are you related to Nanyetah Elohi by chance or just high on the same drugs he is?

Also I’m afraid ANet is currently banking on the idea that when Leagues and Seasons start the new “WvW Achievements” are going to pull tons of PvE/Casual Players into WvW completely eliminating the population imbalances.

Sadly I don’t think it is going to work, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that is what they are thinking…

bjchase.3074:

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

I might very well be wrong about their hardware implementation, but I’ve never seen/heard anything about LA lagging when a 3-way fight is blocking CPU Cycles in Stonemist…

Where you there for the Karka invasion event long ago? Lag worse than SM 3-way battles.

I have guesses about their architecture… however it is pointless and off-topic to talk about them.

The real point of this thread is can something be done by ANet to help address the ever-growing Server imbalances we are seeing.

How about we stick to that topic?

NornBearPig.9814:

Isn’t ‘Full’ is determined by currently online not total accounts on a server? So large amounts of people can get in during off hours?

I believe it is a combination of both in this game. Only ANet knows for sure though

I might very well be wrong about their hardware implementation, but I’ve never seen/heard anything about LA lagging when a 3-way fight is blocking CPU Cycles in Stonemist…

Regardless it’s a tangent to the topic – ANet will know best what their infrastructure is and whether it is viable or not no matter what we post here.

I think the main focus of the thread (that hopefully we can all agree on) is that disparities in Server Populations and Coverage are hurting WvW, and that even though they always have it is being brought to the fore again by Leagues and a lot of transferring taking place around them.

It would be very nice to see ANet doing something to redress population/coverage imbalances rather than encouraging/facilitating them.

I’m not saying I support his proposal, just trying to explain it

I don’t think any Servers are FULL right now.

They generally increase caps when they have Trial Weekends so that is probably what we are seeing here.

It’s not helping population/coverage balances in any way but so long as PvE and WvW Servers are linked it is what it is.

Honestly an easier solution for ANet is to simply lower WvW Map Caps. 6 Hour Queues for WvW should do a nice job of getting people to migrate off

(not to mention reductions in Skill Lag and general Server performance)

Pretty sure that is a bug…

BlazeQ.1095:

If I understand the op correctly, It means dedicated Servers for WvW that are separate from the servers we now know. I would support this for multiple reasons. But adding more servers to the data centers might not be a financial feasibility. I love the idea, I just don’t know what the costs would be to add the servers needed to do so.

WvW already runs on its own Servers (that’s how WvW could be down yesterday while Servers were still up).

The challenge is they would have to handle the idea that a single Player Account now had both a PvE Server and a WvW Server associated with it. The changes necessary for that could be small, or huge, or somewhere in-between depending on how it is coded.

Yaro.3251:

OK so my main is 314 WvW rank and 39 fractal lvl. Where should I go?

The idea in Zenguy’s post is you stay (or go) to whatever PvE Server you want for that, and then separately also choose a WvW Server Allegiance for Matches. There would be fewer WvW Servers than PvE Servers and the idea is to keep them all better populated/balanced.

The “key” phrase is 1 Key – 1 Function and to me “entering chat” is one function.

People copy+paste recruitment messages and other such stuff into Chat all the time without any penalty. I bet several already use macros for it.

It would certainly be nice to get “Official Confirmation” but this sounds pretty safe to me.

Lurch.9517:

Wouldn’t the guys that are obsessed by PPT under the current system just exploit your system by keeping all their structures permanently ‘aggroed’ by 2nd accounts so as to farm defence events?

First, I think we can all agree that “Defense Events/Contesting” should take more than a single person attacking.

Second, how is that any worse than the wXP Trains we have going with their farming and flipping? Or just allowing a Server to rack up points overnight while not fighting anybody?

Excellent Suggestions!

Whether it is Karma+Badges or “pure Badges” I love the idea of a Level 50 wXP Scroll!

Sanduskel.1850:

fail is a verb neither a noun nor an adjective.

EPIC FAIL
(Languages… they evolve yo )

LostBalloon.6423:

If you look at the points trends, you guys push really kitten tuesdays, and guess what day they decided to unfortify and desiege all our kitten :P

Well at this rate nobody is actually getting to play on Tuesdays so it should all balance out!

Mark Katzbach.9084:

Mark Katzbach.9084:

We’re currently looking into a bug related to WvW. Until this issue is resolved, we have suspended WvW matches to investigate and resolve it. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.

(Message that should have been posted after Bloodlust went live)

selan.8354:

yay FA went from 20ppt vs jq to being this

I say leave it – now this would be a fun match!

Make TC prove they can overcome the deficit with FA and SoS pushing to keep TC down… almost like a Handicap System :P

Decklan.7540:

You want GvG? Be prepared for thousands upon thousands of “Nerf warrior/guardian/ele” threads to appear in your new sub-forum over night.

It’s possible we would see that though I guess you haven’t done much GvG if you think that Necros, Mesmers, Engis, and Thieves have no place in GvG (Rangers… yeah that’s another story).

Thieves are key in their roles as Spikers/Strikers taking out the other team’s Ranged and finishing off downed stragglers. Mesmers are useful in all the various ways they are strong in WvW including Veils, Moas on opposing Commanders, and plenty of Support capabilities in addition to Glamour/Feedback. Engis have a large amount of CCs that can be used to impair opponents’ abilities to move/stay grouped as well as providing Support/Fields and AoE depending on spec.

I think actually it is one of the reasons why GvG was gaining in popularity – more Professions/Roles/Builds are viable in it than in a WvW Zerg.

While I’m not a fan of PvP Amulets/Trinkets/Gearing it really is the ideal place for ANet to get GvG up and running relatively quickly.

Custom Arenas already generate income for ANet, allow for Spectators, and options for “Custom Match Settings” including Team Size and any other “rules” ANet chooses to implement.

“Deluxe Custom Arenas” could help cover any increased infrastructure costs and help fund future “Deluxe Custom Maps” more suited for GvG than the current sPvP ones.

In the meantime, I think a bunch of the existing Conquest Maps would be a whole lot more fun in 15v15 or 20v20 modes. Battle of Khylo might actually feel like a “battle” for example

If reports are accurate DB lost most of their SEA guilds this past week.

Anybody who has fought them knows that their NA is dedicated but not very large (Mag, EBay, and even YB have ticked higher than DB during NA prime). Most of DB’s points came from their (relatively) strong SEA.

While it is possible their SEA is choosing to tank in order to drop down, I think it is far more likely you are just seeing the results of ANet’s decision to group NA T2 with T1 in Gold League.

Cactus.2710:

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d just like to make a note of one thing that I think people aren’t considering when they transfer to stacked worlds. You will not, repeat will not, be able to receive the reward based on overall world place in the league, unless you achieve the meta achievement for the season. If you aren’t able to get into WvW much, you won’t get the rewards. So it is absolutely taking a risk to transfer to a world that has a large WvW population.

You really don’t get it, do you. The great majority of WvW’ers … at least the ones that have been playing it since launch … don’t (or at least didn’t) play it for “rewards”. We played it for an enjoyable and entertaining competition against other players in the context of medieval warfare involving equal measures of team strategy and individual player skill. You, or at least ANet, sold the game on that premise … minimal focus on gear and heavy focus on content. The great majority of what ANet has done in the meantime, however, and virtually everything that you (Devon) have personally done, has been contrary to that. You’ve taken the fun, excitement, and entertainment out of WvW and turned it into something to be endured. And you keep doing it over and over again.

+1
/stands and applauds

Because if they put GvG in Custom Arenas (even a special “Deluxe Arena”) it could likely pay for itself.

Ostra.3927:

Keep in mind Rackhir… the whole reason they dropped the original tiers was because the big three were complaining all they ever faced was themselves.

Anet catered and added the random matchups, which then caused the major blowouts and the incentive to stack to the big three.

If they go back to the big three facing eachother, they will just start complaining about “boring” matchups again. Anet will not do this.

Actually now all the T1 Servers do is complain when they aren’t matched up against each other.

The format I proposed ensures the Champions League changes every 7 weeks. They will still get some variety but overall the matches will be balanced (or seemingly as close as we can get) and intense every week, and they will now be theoretically fighting for something beyond Ranking.

In the current format every T1 Server is likely to have 2 matches out of 7 against 2 T2 opponents which have proven to be largely non-competitive (even more so now with the latest round of guild swapping that took place). The “Big 3” will face each other all together only once:

1: 1-2-3 4-5-6
2: 1-2-4 3-5-6
3: 1-2-5 3-4-6
4: 1-3-4 2-5-6
5: 1-3-5 2-4-6
6: 2-3-4 1-5-6
7: 2-3-5 1-4-6

They will have 4 “head-to-head” matches with a T2 Server in the mix. So far historically those matches have also proven to be fairly non-competitive.

So the current Season is on-track to provide at best 1 really competitive match out of 7 weeks.

Maybe all the recent transfers were enough so even those “head-to-head” matches are more competitive but I’m not betting on it.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Making T1 the Gold league by itself won’t help push players into transferring to lower tiers (which I believe is one of the reasons behind the League idea).

With T1 and T2 as the Gold league, there may be just enough boring weeks of blowouts that some guilds might consider transferring, but not enough to destroy WvW with too many blowouts.

That’s likely what they are hoping but they are taking a horrible risk. The current format will definitely encourage people to move off the #4-6 Servers when facing 6-7 weeks of less than fun matches, but ANet better start praying that more people do decide to move rather than just quit the game.

If I were in charge I would have set it up for more long-term sustainability/success:

Champions League: #1-3
Gold League: #4-12
Silver League: #13-18
Bronze League: #19-24

With Gold League having 9 Servers most would only face the #4-5 Ranked Servers once while hopefully experiencing much more competitive matches overall.

The #4 Server would get “bandwagoned” to hopefully receiving enough numbers that when it is “promoted” to Champions League the following Season (especially seeing transfers from the “relegated” Server) that it is competitive there.

There would be a constant “transfer cycle” every 7 weeks for people who enjoy “Champions League” play while hopefully all the other Leagues see a bit more parity outside of the pending #4 Ranked Server.

To me that is a much more viable and sustainable model than the one they chose to go with.

I think the OP’s post was a shot at Devon Carver, who after announcing he will be playing on NSP suddenly finds his Server in the #2 Bronze League slot instead of middle-of-the-pack…

The change is better for overall balance I think but I fear to see what will be left of TC, FA, and the loser of the Mags-SoS-DB battle to escape Gold League after 7 weeks of lagtastic stackathon battles.