It's past time to limit transfers.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@Ra Ra.9423 said:This isn't a new issue. But recently transfers have been a hot topic among our WvW group. (we're on Darkhaven, currently paired with Kaineng) Guild transfers off of Kaineng apparently happened the first week of the new pairing at the end of March. (here-say, I don't know the whole story) This threw off every match since then, creating a negative experience for our group, and presumedly a good portion of the players left to face the following 7 weeks of severely unbalance matches. And, I presume it caused imbalance on the servers to which they transferred.

Pretty much 100% spot on. We got stacked by the Locusts, that then took all the wanna be tryhards with them when they left. There are basically 6 OG Kaineng guilds left - [Owls], [HELL], [XCEL], [DS], [RaW], and my guild [TACO] but the last 6 weeks has made the other 5 regular WvW players in it quit the game entirely. If there are other OG guilds left, they can't keep a claim on the map long enough for me to tell. I am hoping [DRGN] is still around, but fear they transferred or also got sick of it and quit the mode.

@Ra Ra.9423 said:I believe this will still be a valid concern even when Alliances are implemented. I know Anet is aware of the issue of population imbalance and have tried multiple times to alleviate this issue, but haven't been able to resolve the problem. I think the funny part is that players frequently complain about population imbalance and 'why can't Anet fix it!'. Ironically, Anet can't 'fix' player behavior. It's an issue that has been in existence since WvW began; many servers have died, revived, died, revived repeatedly.

As ANet's main source of income off WvW players is Gems for Transfers (many do it with gold to gems, but some just fork out the cash to not get left behind) I don't see them actually having Alliances ready to go and release until they figure out how to monetize it. I suspect Gems will be involved in forming or changing alliances past the initial picks.

[Dawdler.8521]

@yorick.1305 said:Put an equal numbers of players on each server, cancel transfers, job done.

Can't see what's so difficult about that. In a pvp match of 5 you never have to play against 10.Have you ever seen 5 PvPers stay online for a PvP match that last 168 hours?

Now do you see whats difficult about that?

[yorick.1305]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@yorick.1305 said:Put an equal numbers of players on each server, cancel transfers, job done.

Can't see what's so difficult about that. In a pvp match of 5 you never have to play against 10.Have you ever seen 5 PvPers stay online for a PvP match that last 168 hours?

Now do you see whats difficult about that?

A veiled reference to being outnumbered.

[joneirikb.7506]

TLDR: A whole lot of ranting about the trouble with changing human behavior.

---

Even if we stopped transferring right now it wouldn't help. And any kind of "limit" suggested, would tick of the majority of the user-base, as would any kind of limitation suggested by the forums/user-base.

The damage was there to begin with (gw1 players stacking the same server at beta/launch), it was done again in season 1, and it just never let up. Even if they closed of transferring right now nothing would really change.

If you want to change it, there are 2 obvious ways of changing it, the fast and the slow way. And no-one is going to like either, because as usual most players just wants developers to wave their magic wand and make everything rainbows and butterflies perfect with no effort or investment from the player-base.

---

Slow:

Stop all transfers to anything except medium server and make that free. Similarly allow new accounts only to be created on medium servers.

This means, if you want to play with someone from anywhere else, or a new friend that joined the game, you have to move to a new server, always. It forces people to eventually move about, and stagnates high+ servers, and forces most servers to go through cycles of dipping up nd down in population to go medium, gain some population again as people re-organize themselves on the server and then increases back to high again.

With all the disadvantages that comes with that. It would also need to update server full/medium status very fast to work properly, to shut off stacking attempts.

---

Fast:

This one is going to be even less popular. Delete all servers, make new one, randomly divide all players roughly based on game time around the different worlds, and then completely shut down transfers.

Yup the rage-quit would be real. A much slower variation of this, is to just wait for Alliances since it accomplishes this in a much better way.

---

What alliances will really do?

Alliances will split servers up into many small groups, that can then be randomly placed together to match certain numbers. Meaning that a new server is created and filled with groups, so that no alliance gets a huge numeric advantage over the other (in average, never for specific moments in time). It accomplishes most of the things from the "wreck all servers" part, while still allowing people to play together at all, instead of being randomly split up everywhere.

It will work decently well, it will do what it's designed to do and for the largest part (over an average) reduce the effect of full servers and server stacking. But won't solve any other issues, and might even create a few more drama-situations since players just can't be nice to each others.

---

The largest problem here is, and always will be, player mentality. The majority of players will always flock around "greatest reward, least effort" even if that reward isn't worth a [spike].

The simple feeling of running over others instead of being run over is probably the greatest reward for most players in WvW, and they're willing to transfer to get it.

So the first step should be to find what kind of "reward" the different types of players want, and make a means to split it up so you don't get it just by stacking servers and run everyone over. And once you've tried poking your head at that for a while you realize how difficult that really is because of the design of WvW as a us vs them system with a combat system that mostly rewards numbers over skill.

---

For example skilled players (Roamers, Havoc, Organized Zerg) generally value organization and dedication, so they will move to a server they feel they can make the best use for their skills. Thus they like to gang up with others like themselves.

So one idea to how to get those two move to different servers could be:

In order to make the skilled players (Roamers, Havoc, organized Zerg) split up, add a system so you get less rewards the more players are around you. So in order to maximize own personal rewards you're better off at an outnumbered server, so hordes of pugs doesn't mooch off your rewards. Risk vs Reward. (Players can still zerg for safety, but receive less rewards for it)

Granted, this would never get past ANet's Care-bear-rule, so it won't happen. So the zergs can live happy in the knowledge that the carry-groups won't leave them for rewards.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

relinks every monthonly allow transfers first week before relinkif server is labeled as full, no transfers to that server next relink

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@yorick.1305 said:Put an equal numbers of players on each server, cancel transfers, job done.

• What do you with new players? What if they all want to play on the same world? Now it's unbalanced.
• What if you don't play WvW now and you decide you want to later?
• What happens if your guild an World A stops playing and you get an invite from your fractal partners, but they are on World B, how do you play together?
• What if, as happens, more people on World C stop playing GW2 than those on World D?

Can't see what's so difficult about that. In a pvp match of 5 you never have to play against 10.This is why I'm glad that games aren't designed by players.

[Kaiser.9873]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

There's no rules in transferring

• It costs 500-1800 gems per person to transfer.
• You cannot transfer more often than once every seven days.
• You will not earn pips in WvW for a minimum of 7, maximum of just under 14 days.
• You cannot transfer to a full world.
• Free accounts cannot transfer at all.

What other rules do you propose that would be fair to everyone in the current environment?

If transfers are limited to once in the last two weeks of the match up, then only those already on a coveted world get to choose to be on a coveted world; the rest are stuck with wherever they ended up. If (as has happened), a couple of key groups on your world decide to stop competing (for whatever reason), you'd be out of luck until the next transfer window.

The existing system isn't "good," it's just less worse than the alternatives, at least the ones we've seen posted on Reddit or the forums.mplement?

Only 1 more rule would be needed. No transfer to a T1/T2 link. If the link you move to makes it up to T1, all good. If it does not? All good.

Another, more time consuming option, would be for ANet to really make population status mean something, by calculating the host, and the link together to determine status. Host+link = full; then no transfers. Host+ link = Very High; then limited transfers. No more link populations eclipsing host populations during a matchup.

[joneirikb.7506]

@"Stand The Wall.6987" said:relinks every monthonly allow transfers first week after relinkif server is labeled as full, no transfers to that server next relink

I hope you meant "The last week before re-link" ? Otherwise you're throwing off the entire population right after re-link tries to balance them.

@Kaiser.9873 said:

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

There's no rules in transferring

• It costs 500-1800 gems per person to transfer.
• You cannot transfer more often than once every seven days.
• You will not earn pips in WvW for a minimum of 7, maximum of just under 14 days.
• You cannot transfer to a full world.
• Free accounts cannot transfer at all.

What other rules do you propose that would be fair to everyone in the current environment?

If transfers are limited to once in the last two weeks of the match up, then only those already on a coveted world get to choose to be on a coveted world; the rest are stuck with wherever they ended up. If (as has happened), a couple of key groups on your world decide to stop competing (for whatever reason), you'd be out of luck until the next transfer window.

The existing system isn't "good," it's just less worse than the alternatives, at least the ones we've seen posted on Reddit or the forums.mplement?

Only 1 more rule would be needed. No transfer to a T1/T2 link. If the link you move to makes it up to T1, all good. If it does not? All good.

Another, more time consuming option, would be for ANet to really make population status mean something, by calculating the host, and the link together to determine status. Host+link = full; then no transfers. Host+ link = Very High; then limited transfers. No more link populations eclipsing host populations during a matchup.

Regarding the "no transfer to t1/t2 link." Several of the large band-wagons so far has been on lower servers, for the added benefit of getting a few more weeks of roflstomping everyone on the way up, before hitting the ceiling in T1. So I don't think that would help that much.

[SkyShroud.2865]

If frequent transfer is primary cause of the issue, than all one need is to tackle that frequency.The transfers that really hurt the balance is the one that happen after relink, made by the same guilds and individuals over and over again.

Looking at it, increasing the cooldown between transfer is not gonna help, you gotta increase for more than 2 months, more efficient if is more than 4 months, that kind of solution it too restrictive for this casual community. If you limit the transfer period, people will too cry that they can't transfer friends or newbies, anet doesn't have what it takes to ignore those negativity.

No matter how one look at it, the only reasonable way to reduce transfer frequency significantly without being too restrictive is to increase transfer cost for every transfer made and a cooldown period of 4 months (more than the relink time). Afterall, cost is a important factor for pay to win bandwagoners, they only transfer that frequently exactly because is cheap to do so.

But hey, the devs gonna ignore you, the bandwagoners gonna say "alliance is coming" which we all have absolute zero idea when it is ever gonna come.

Don't bother, gw2 is never competitive, also the reason why esport ditched spvp.

[SkyShroud.2865]

screw this, too confusing to quote

[Swagger.1459]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:fix aoe so smaller groups have a better chance, then population discrepancy ceases to be an issue.something something broken record.

I want to know, in detail, exactly how increasing aoe potential (which benefits larger groups more. and don't forget that larger groups will have access to more boons and heals to protect members than a smaller group) balances populations between all servers?

Edit- And don’t respond like you’re talking to a player, respond as if you were laying out the information to sell the devs on the idea...

[Swagger.1459]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

Would basketball players transfer to different teams every week? Or move in the middle of the season because their team was having a bad season?In fact, sports players move teams as often as their contracts allow them. It's been 50+ years since team loyalty mattered in professional sports... and that was primarily because the owners used their monopoly/oligarchy powers to restrict player movement.

In the US, LeBron moved recently for a ring. Mr Posh Spice bent it all the way to the United States for money (among other things), bent it back to Milan, and eventually to Paris.

In WvW, some people are loyal to the world, which is great. I find it more fun and kind of comforting to see the same people out there. Some people are loyal to their guild. Some people are loyal to a concept, which for some is PPT for some is "the fight." Still others are loyal to the same thing that sports pros invest in: coin, and they'll move to the pips.

It's all part of WvW, even if we personally don't agree with some of the choices people make. It would be a mistake to ignore any one of these constituencies when designing a "fair" system for restricting transfers.

That doesn't mean nothing can or should be done. It just means: I can see why ANet is waiting to throw the whole thing out and start from scratch.

That argument don't make any sense.While is is true competitive people do move teams but they are never part of multiple teams under the same league. This is comparable to "guilds" and not server which with the rep thing and multi guilds, this inherently make gw2 by design not competitive already. You might try to compare the "league" with matchup and "team" as server. But hey, the thing here is you will never see entire team of people move in professional games. No matter how you trying to compare, you cannot delete the fact that what people in gw2 are doing is simply undeniable noncompetitive.

Furthermore, competitive matches are absolutely balanced in population unlike WvW. You cannot make that kind of cheap comparison. What people want is a greater level of population balance, while not at the competitive level, but at least to minimize the non-competitiveness of it.

I really dislike people talk about "loyalty" when it is never about loyalty, it is all about population balance. It is a very cunning way to distract people from the problem.

Makes complete sense to me...

And IWN used the sports references in response to a question asked. Would have known if you checked.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:fix aoe so smaller groups have a better chance, then population discrepancy ceases to be an issue.something something broken record.

I want to know, in detail, exactly how increasing aoe potential (which benefits larger groups more. and don't forget that larger groups will have access to more boons and heals to protect members than a smaller group) balances populations between all servers?

Edit- And don’t respond like you’re talking to a player, respond as if you were laying out the information to sell the devs on the idea...

stealth ambushcouple smaller groups hitting bigger zergcloud formationchokes

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

Would basketball players transfer to different teams every week? Or move in the middle of the season because their team was having a bad season?In fact, sports players move teams as often as their contracts allow them. It's been 50+ years since team loyalty mattered in professional sports... and that was primarily because the owners used their monopoly/oligarchy powers to restrict player movement.

In the US, LeBron moved recently for a ring. Mr Posh Spice bent it all the way to the United States for money (among other things), bent it back to Milan, and eventually to Paris.

In WvW, some people are loyal to the world, which is great. I find it more fun and kind of comforting to see the same people out there. Some people are loyal to their guild. Some people are loyal to a concept, which for some is PPT for some is "the fight." Still others are loyal to the same thing that sports pros invest in: coin, and they'll move to the pips.

It's all part of WvW, even if we personally don't agree with some of the choices people make. It would be a mistake to ignore any one of these constituencies when designing a "fair" system for restricting transfers.

That doesn't mean nothing can or should be done. It just means: I can see why ANet is waiting to throw the whole thing out and start from scratch.

That argument don't make any sense.While is is true competitive people do move teams but they are never part of multiple teams under the same league. This is comparable to "guilds" and not server which with the rep thing and multi guilds, this inherently make gw2 by design not competitive already. You might try to compare the "league" with matchup and "team" as server. But hey, the thing here is you will never see entire team of people move in professional games. No matter how you trying to compare, you cannot delete the fact that what people in gw2 are doing is simply undeniable noncompetitive.

Furthermore, competitive matches are absolutely balanced in population unlike WvW. You cannot make that kind of cheap comparison. What people want is a greater level of population balance, while not at the competitive level, but at least to minimize the non-competitiveness of it.

I really dislike people talk about "loyalty" when it is never about loyalty, it is all about population balance. It is a very cunning way to distract people from the problem.

Makes complete sense to me...

And IWN used the sports references in response to a question asked. Would have known if you checked.

Right, I should quote the other guy too.

[Svarty.8019]

@Ra Ra.9423 said:This isn't a new issue. But recently transfers have been a hot topic among our WvW group. (we're on Darkhaven, currently paired with Kaineng) Guild transfers off of Kaineng apparently happened the first week of the new pairing at the end of March. (here-say, I don't know the whole story) This threw off every match since then, creating a negative experience for our group,

This is key. People always transfer at the point of the Link Announcements. Then the reason for creating the pairings, i.e. GOOD MATCHES, it completely out of the window. Twas ever thus. Anet would rather spend two or more years creating an entirely new system than limit transfers. Go figure.

[SkyShroud.2865]

Previously, on another thread, I mentioned having two leagues. It just came up as I was writing but thinking about it, it may work.

Given that population balance is chaotic not only due to frequent transfer but also because of unpredictable fluctuating population across days and timezones. There are basically multitude of problems.

1. "Weekend" and "weekdays" have the biggest disparity in population.
2. Pay to win bangwagoners every relink

What if we have two leagues? One for weekends and one for weekdays? Basically 3-days (fri-mon) and 4-days (mon-fri).Doing so we can split the weekend warriors and weekday warriors, by splitting them we could gain a clearer picture of the populations and hopefully better population balancing. Naturally, have two leagues can also means less tiers. We can have same old 4 tiers during weekend while 3 tiers during weekdays.

Furthermore, having two leagues would means bandwagoners have transfer two times (each for each league). That effectively double their cost.

Edit: Oh wait, they won't transfer two times, they have to pick which league and stay for good since players are bound to servers

[Swagger.1459]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:fix aoe so smaller groups have a better chance, then population discrepancy ceases to be an issue.something something broken record.

I want to know, in detail, exactly how increasing aoe potential (which benefits larger groups more. and don't forget that larger groups will have access to more boons and heals to protect members than a smaller group) balances populations between all servers?

Edit- And don’t respond like you’re talking to a player, respond as if you were laying out the information to sell the devs on the idea...

stealth ambushcouple smaller groups hitting bigger zergcloud formationchokes

Is that how you would explain AoE changes to the devs so servers become balanced?

And you still have to explain exactly how changes in AoE will make players willingly spread out across servers to balance them?

Do you posses the exact numbers of players on each wvw server so players can know where to go?

[Slick.7164]

Anet should let them all pay gold to transfer before relinks. Give one more week to pay to transfer alt accounts. Then add another Alpine BL and put 4 or 5 servers facing each other in a matchup. Winner could still go up and loser still go down. Anet employees that leek matchup information... Make them pay too. The maps are already built, add another enemy server or two and make it truly World vs World. Anet would win with capital and players would play with something NEW.

[Swagger.1459]

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:Previously, on another thread, I mentioned having two leagues. It just came up as I was writing but thinking about it, it may work.

Given that population balance is chaotic not only due to frequent transfer but also because of unpredictable fluctuating population across days and timezones. There are basically multitude of problems.

1. "Weekend" and "weekdays" have the biggest disparity in population.
2. Pay to win bangwagoners every relink

What if we have two leagues? One for weekends and one for weekdays? Basically 3-days (fri-mon) and 4-days (mon-fri).Doing so we can split the weekend warriors and weekday warriors, by splitting them we could gain a clearer picture of the populations and hopefully better population balancing. Naturally, have two leagues can also means less tiers. We can have same old 4 tiers during weekend while 3 tiers during weekdays.

Furthermore, having two leagues would means bandwagoners have transfer two times (each for each league). That effectively double their cost.

Edit: Oh wait, they won't transfer two times, they have to pick which league and stay for good since players are bound to servers

That’s not gonna work. Players are allowed to play and contribute whatever day or time they want... Not sure why you think it would be a good idea for the devs to tell players what days they are allowed to enter wvw.

[Iozeph.5617]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

It's past time to limit transfers.So can we PLEASE stop allowing random bulk transfers between servers in the middle of links?What's difference this month from last year at this time or the year before? Doesn't everyone (including ANet) agree that bandwagoning is an issue? Haven't we already been back & forth on the idea that there are no good options, as each "solution" makes some things worse (and none entirely address the issue)? Isn't there widespread agreement that the Alliance system will (a) address some of the inherent issues outright and (b) provide a much more robust framework with which to deal with these issues?

Accordingly, why would the OP seek to distract ANet's efforts to "get it done" by looking at any other ideas that would require time from some/most of the same devs ?

The difference is that it's this month, this year, and at this time instead of last year or the year before and nothing's still been done. That, more or less, sums up just how little is being done. Everyone isn't in agreement that 'Alliances' will solve the problem, but even if they were in agreement, so what?

Being in agreement for what will possibly be three to four years after the stated intention to make such a system was floated by Anet in the forums, assuming Alliances actually materialises, will either show a) how little effort has been put into this system, or b) that after stating their intentions to make such a system just how daunting or near impossible the devs assigned to this task actually found it to be. But until such a day comes it's nothing but the same.

This debate is so damned stale. Right now coming to the WvW forums and saying, 'Don't worry, Alliances.' is about as empty and useless as when Obama kept saying, 'Hope and Change.'

The upshot here is that nothing's changed. The subtext being, wait long enough and it probably won't be necessary.

[Slick.7164]

Im just saying to shake things up and let mom's credit card get hit for a few weeks. Don't announce the changes and let the usual relink revenue flow in for a few weeks. Then change it again. Lots of revenue for anet and something new besides 3 v 3

[RisingDaewn.8703]

It was 'time' to balance this linking system, about a year or two ago, but we expected Alliances soon tm, which is now delayed indefinitely.

Since then my server has gotten linked to servers, who got bandwagoned by all sorts of Guilds and players, so they eventually became host servers, although now some of them started to lose alot of population.

Now other servers have gotten, somewhat bandwagoned, but there was one time in T1, where one server won a matchup by 100+ skirmish points.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:fix aoe so smaller groups have a better chance, then population discrepancy ceases to be an issue.something something broken record.

I want to know, in detail, exactly how increasing aoe potential (which benefits larger groups more. and don't forget that larger groups will have access to more boons and heals to protect members than a smaller group) balances populations between all servers?

Edit- And don’t respond like you’re talking to a player, respond as if you were laying out the information to sell the devs on the idea...

stealth ambushcouple smaller groups hitting bigger zergcloud formationchokes

Is that how you would explain AoE changes to the devs so servers become balanced?

And you still have to explain exactly how changes in AoE will make players willingly spread out across servers to balance them?

Do you posses the exact numbers of players on each wvw server so players can know where to go?

please stop preaching, it hurts my disillusioned ears.

[Swagger.1459]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:fix aoe so smaller groups have a better chance, then population discrepancy ceases to be an issue.something something broken record.

I want to know, in detail, exactly how increasing aoe potential (which benefits larger groups more. and don't forget that larger groups will have access to more boons and heals to protect members than a smaller group) balances populations between all servers?

Edit- And don’t respond like you’re talking to a player, respond as if you were laying out the information to sell the devs on the idea...

stealth ambushcouple smaller groups hitting bigger zergcloud formationchokes

Is that how you would explain AoE changes to the devs so servers become balanced?

And you still have to explain exactly how changes in AoE will make players willingly spread out across servers to balance them?

Do you posses the exact numbers of players on each wvw server so players can know where to go?

please stop preaching, it hurts my disillusioned ears.

I’m merely asking questions... For all we know your idea may truly hold the key to balanced servers, and eliminating the need for the server transfer function, but it’s hard to see it when you’re not properly explaining anything. Can you explain more for the community and devs to understand?

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:Previously, on another thread, I mentioned having two leagues. It just came up as I was writing but thinking about it, it may work.

Given that population balance is chaotic not only due to frequent transfer but also because of unpredictable fluctuating population across days and timezones. There are basically multitude of problems.

1. "Weekend" and "weekdays" have the biggest disparity in population.
2. Pay to win
   bangwagoners every relink

What if we have two leagues? One for weekends and one for weekdays? Basically 3-days (fri-mon) and 4-days (mon-fri).Doing so we can split the weekend warriors and weekday warriors, by splitting them we could gain a clearer picture of the populations and hopefully better population balancing. Naturally, have two leagues can also means less tiers. We can have same old 4 tiers during weekend while 3 tiers during weekdays.

Furthermore, having two leagues would means bandwagoners have transfer two times (each for each league). That effectively double their cost.

Edit: Oh wait, they won't transfer two times, they have to pick which league and stay for good since players are bound to servers

That’s not gonna work. Players are allowed to play and contribute whatever day or time they want... Not sure why you think it would be a good idea for the devs to tell players what days they are allowed to enter wvw.

There is no prohibition here. People still WvW everyday. The main thing is we will have two leagues/ladders, whatever you want to call it instead of the current one league/ladder. Basically instead of the current 7-days league/ladder. We will have 3-days league/ladder and 4-days league/ladder, specially, weekends league/ladder and weekdays league/ladder. Of course, this also means we have two WvW resets per week, one for each league/ladder.

Naturally, with two different ladders, you can have complete different linking and matchups. The main benefits:

1. Able to estimate the populations more accurately. It is way easier to calculate 3 or 4 days worth of people than 7 days of people. You can balance it way easier.
2. With more accurate populations measurement, we can then assign the link more effectively
3. Since those are complete different ladders, we can have complete different number of tiers. For example weekend have 5000 people playing, we can have 4 tiers. Weekdays only have 3000 people playing, we merge into 3 tiers. This will provide a greater level of activities during weekdays. This is only possible because of complete different league/ladder.
4. Naturally, with 2 ladders also come with greater varieties of matchups
5. It inherently make bandwagoning not rewarding if we relink the two different ladders on different months. For example, currently we relink every even month. With two ladders, we can have weekend league/ladder relink every even month while weekdays league/ladder relink every odd months. Bandwagoners will then come to a dilemma. If they bandwagon, their weekend or weekday match will be affected. Even if they want to bandwagon, are they gonna do it every month? Unlikely, they most likely would reschedule their play to either league/ladder. This means that there will always be one league/ladder more balanced than others. That also means players (who on link abandonded by bandwagoners) no longer have to suffer for whole 2 months.