upcoming alliances can I ask you a couple of questions?

[Mabi black.1824]

 

Spoiler

 

Chaba.5410

 

•  

Posted 17 hours ago

  18 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

there is a problem with how teams are matched and built.

 

Absolutely.  Anet acknowledged this years ago in that "New Worlds" post I linked above.  Having smaller "servers" would have allowed them to build teams that are closer in population to each other and possibly avoid situations where a server is Full and unlinked for so long because they need to create teams divisible by 3 even if the result is teams with larger populations beyond the Full threshold.
My personal concern with World Restructuring is whether they are going to allow transfers or not after teams are formed for a season because mass transfers ultimately defeat the goals of the new team-building method.

 

 

 

while we were talking about something else this answer stimulated me to make this post, with a couple of questions. the first question I would like to ask anet. while you have the work in progress on alliances, in your great work project there is still the sweep for some modification ? that maybe we could build together with anet and its community in a serene and affectionate way?

 

now, let's imagine that we have alliances. all players select their alliance and trusted friends to play with, other guilds choose to run alone and other players choose to run without even a guild. perfect everything is ready.

I use uropa only as an example. now the system distributes all players, guilds and alliances in 36 different teams. because I imagine in EU 4 3-way tier and each team consists of 3 servers, 1 up and one down week after week. every 2 months redo the matches (not to balance the number of players, you do not need we already have alliances that have built similar teams) with the aim of matching the teams in reference to how many war points they are able to generate. so you can always maintain / guarantee a good competition between the teams that face each other.

ranking and season of 12 months and we will know which are the 3 best teams of Eu of NA of ASIA that will have access to a special event of 1 week.

in that same week the players, the guilds the alliances reorganize select and choose again with which trusted friends I want to play the new season.

the system resets everything, creates new 36 teams and everything starts all over again.

practically every New Year's Eve you will have a completely new wvw built in a balanced way (alliances + guilds + players) and completely random.

 

and from here comes the second question that I ask all the friends of the forum , to understand if it is something that you might like? is it a compromise that somehow preserves the concept of team / server that in your opinion can be an added value ? you will still have a team for which you will be motivated and extremely competitive.

 

( for the concern of chaba I propose transfers allowed to everyone but only by reservation, skip if someone takes your place )

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Karagee.6830]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

 

  Hide contents

 

Chaba.5410

 

•  

Posted 17 hours ago

  18 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

there is a problem with how teams are matched and built.

 

Absolutely.  Anet acknowledged this years ago in that "New Worlds" post I linked above.  Having smaller "servers" would have allowed them to build teams that are closer in population to each other and possibly avoid situations where a server is Full and unlinked for so long because they need to create teams divisible by 3 even if the result is teams with larger populations beyond the Full threshold.
My personal concern with World Restructuring is whether they are going to allow transfers or not after teams are formed for a season because mass transfers ultimately defeat the goals of the new team-building method.

 

 

 

while we were talking about something else this answer stimulated me to make this post, with a couple of questions. the first question I would like to ask anet. while you have the work in progress on alliances, in your great work project there is still the sweep for some modification ? that maybe we could build together with anet and its community in a serene and affectionate way?

 

now, let's imagine that we have alliances. all players select their alliance and trusted friends to play with, other guilds choose to run alone and other players choose to run without even a guild. perfect everything is ready.

I use uropa only as an example. now the system distributes all players, guilds and alliances in 36 different teams. because I imagine in EU 4 3-way tier and each team consists of 3 servers, 1 up and one down week after week. every 2 months redo the matches (not to balance the number of players, you do not need we already have alliances that have built similar teams) with the aim of matching the teams in reference to how many war points they are able to generate. so you can always maintain / guarantee a good competition between the teams that face each other.

ranking and season of 12 months and we will know which are the 3 best teams of Eu of NA of ASIA that will have access to a special event of 1 week.

in that same week the players, the guilds the alliances reorganize select and choose again with which trusted friends I want to play the new season.

the system resets everything, creates new 36 teams and everything starts all over again.

practically every New Year's Eve you will have a completely new wvw built in a balanced way (alliances + guilds + players) and completely random.

 

and from here comes the second question that I ask all the friends of the forum , to understand if it is something that you might like? is it a compromise that somehow preserves the concept of team / server that in your opinion can be an added value ? you will still have a team for which you will be motivated and extremely competitive.

 

( for the concern of chaba I propose transfers allowed to everyone but only by reservation, skip if someone takes your place )

 

 

I think Chaba did not understand how the system is supposed to work. Alliances are locked for a period, you can't get more people in once the season starts. Different alliances and people without an alliance are assigned to one team based on some algorythm (insert Toby-Michael Scott meme here) and will be bound until the new season begins. At that time they can play with the alliance of their choosing, provided it has fewer than 500 members.

I'm pretty sure the idea is to mix and match alliances as well based on participation patterns. If a team is made of alliances A+B+C and another D+E+F, the following season you may have A+E+G and B+C+D. based on participation patterns both in terms of overall participation and time slots covered. This is what they claimed they were trying to accomplish, so we take it for what it is. Now, if a miracle occurs and the participation stays exactly the same over time, maybe the algorythm will match the same alliances, but my impression is that's not how it's going to work in reality. And of course single players will end up in random teams all the time.

In essence you would be limited to groups of 500 friends (and I think community groups on EU servers won't reach that level, that's my impression).

Edited June 22, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Chaba.5410]

5 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

 

 

 

while we were talking about something else this answer stimulated me to make this post, with a couple of questions. the first question I would like to ask anet. while you have the work in progress on alliances, in your great work project there is still the sweep for some modification ? that maybe we could build together with anet and its community in a serene and affectionate way?

 

now, let's imagine that we have alliances. all players select their alliance and trusted friends to play with, other guilds choose to run alone and other players choose to run without even a guild. perfect everything is ready.

I use uropa only as an example. now the system distributes all players, guilds and alliances in 36 different teams. because I imagine in EU 4 3-way tier and each team consists of 3 servers, 1 up and one down week after week. every 2 months redo the matches (not to balance the number of players, you do not need we already have alliances that have built similar teams) with the aim of matching the teams in reference to how many war points they are able to generate. so you can always maintain / guarantee a good competition between the teams that face each other.

ranking and season of 12 months and we will know which are the 3 best teams of Eu of NA of ASIA that will have access to a special event of 1 week.

in that same week the players, the guilds the alliances reorganize select and choose again with which trusted friends I want to play the new season.

the system resets everything, creates new 36 teams and everything starts all over again.

practically every New Year's Eve you will have a completely new wvw built in a balanced way (alliances + guilds + players) and completely random.

 

and from here comes the second question that I ask all the friends of the forum , to understand if it is something that you might like? is it a compromise that somehow preserves the concept of team / server that in your opinion can be an added value ? you will still have a team for which you will be motivated and extremely competitive.

 

( for the concern of chaba I propose transfers allowed to everyone but only by reservation, skip if someone takes your place )

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your questions or how they relate to what I posted in another thread.

Your first question is asking Anet if there's a possibility to modify the design of World Restructuring?

Your second question is asking us on the forum if we are going to like the reshuffling every time new teams are formed?

 

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

I think Chaba did not understand how the system is supposed to work. Alliances are locked for a period, you can't get more people in once the season starts.

You can't get more people in if the Team is marked as Full.  FTFY.  The only saving grace is Full won't be linked with open because a Team is a single entity, not a group of linked servers.

"World Transfers

We understand that even though this system tries to keep guilds and alliances together, there will be times during the season when people want to change teams. Because of this, there are plans to allow transfers between worlds during a season. This means that new worlds will have size restrictions on them, as they do currently.

Players will be able to select worlds from the WvW panel in game. Worlds that are available for transfers will show up in the new WvW world panel."
 

"How does the alliance system fix anything if people still will be able to transfer? Currently, the plan is to change where we allow people to transfer, and to be more responsive to transfer restrictions for teams that are overpopulated. Some of the details of how this will work are in the original post about World Restructuring."

 

"Are players able to transfer?
NA vs EU transfers will still be available. It's a service that can't go away and has to stay. Currently, you get to pick a team if you transfer between regions. Eventually, there will be more granularity for how people can move between the teams."
 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[subversiontwo.7501]

Just as a PSA: It's fairly well known that communication isn't Anet's forte and pinning relevant threads on their forum is no different. Even the thread collections pin has not been updated since it was made in 2019 and has an odd mix of half of related information and plenty of outdated information. So as with everything else, I assume Anet intended to keep it at least somewhat updated and then just forgot. Diku has spent alot of time adding links in that topic but he has also perhaps added a bit too much and weaves his own suggestion threads in with information posts so it is pretty hard to follow. It isn't his responsibility to keep an overview and keep it easily navigated though, it's on Anet.

So just to add to what Chaba has already rich-text linked here:

2018 WR announcement

2018 WR update 1

2018 WR update 2

2018 WR FAQ

Alot of things people keep asking questions about are already answered somewhere in these threads. Even if the explanations are not always lengthy and some data (like images) has been lost over time, there is usually enough to draw logical conclusions if the question isn't answered directly.

There are plenty of things both in the OP and in the posts that the devs make later in those threads. So most questions from how many worlds there will be (flexible, divisible by 3), to how the worlds will be sized (equal) and distributed (spreading equal-determined pieces out) to how you will be allowed to transfer (with guild, with gems, cross region) are all answered there.

One rather important thing that is constantly overlooked but that I couldn't find anymore either is the comment on transfer caps. I have a feeling that might have been in the now defunct image in the transfer section of the original annoucement. They speak of "three states" that govern paid transfer and then point to the broken image. As I remember it, it spoke of that every world will be set full at each 8-week season start but that there will be a 10% margin for groups assigned to the server to bring group-members in by normal transfers. Beyond that, there will be no paid transfer at all to any server set as full and most servers will be. The only servers you can transfer to for gems will be those that have first lost players going into those 10% margins on other servers. That is one of those things that are explained very quickly and low-visibly but that are very, very impactful if you consider what they do and how they change the new system from the old system.

Edited June 22, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[Karagee.6830]

2 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Just as a PSA: It's fairly well known that communication isn't Anet's forte and pinning relevant threads on their forum is no different. Even the thread collections pin has not been updated since it was made in 2019 and has an odd mix of half of related information and plenty of outdated information. So as with everything else, I assume Anet intended to keep it at least somewhat updated and then just forgot. Diku has spent alot of time adding links in that topic but he has also perhaps added a bit too much and weaves his own suggestion threads in with information posts so it is pretty hard to follow. It isn't his responsibility to keep an overview and keep it easily navigated though, it's on Anet.

So just to add to what Chaba has already rich-text linked here:

2018 WR announcement

2018 WR update 1

2018 WR update 2

2018 WR FAQ

Alot of things people keep asking questions about are already answered somewhere in these threads. Even if the explanations are not always lengthy and some data (like images) has been lost over time, there is usually enough to draw logical conclusions if the question isn't answered directly.

There are plenty of things both in the OP and in the posts that the devs make later in those threads. So most questions from how many worlds there will be (flexible, divisible by 3), to how the worlds will be sized (equal) and distributed (spreading equal-determined pieces out) to how you will be allowed to transfer (with guild, with gems, cross region) are all answered there.

One rather important thing that is constantly overlooked but that I couldn't find anymore either is the comment on transfer caps. I have a feeling that might have been in the now defunct image in the transfer section of the original annoucement. They speak of "three states" that govern paid transfer and then point to the broken image. As I remember it, it spoke of that every world will be set full at each 8-week season start but that there will be a 10% margin for groups assigned to the server to bring group-members in by normal transfers. Beyond that, there will be no paid transfer at all to any server set as full and most servers will be. The only servers you can transfer to for gems will be those that have first lost players going into those 10% margins on other servers. That is one of those things that are explained very quickly and low-visibly but that are very, very impactful if you consider what they do and how they change the new system from the old system.

Right: so instead of having a clean 8 week period when everyone's locked in they decided, again, to go down the rabbit hole of having a transfer window with heavy restrictions. That doesn't change much except it seems something likely to delay the whole process or making it fail completely due to incompetence.

There is a simpler solution than transfers: shorten the season's length to 6 or 4 weeks and draw match ups between teams in a more logical way (ie. the same way pvp works so a team with 3 platinum alliances shouldn't be matched with a team with similar sized bronze and silver alliances) not by sending teams up or down a tier. With more parity in numbers you won't have lopsided, unbearable matches anyway. Then you only need to run a routine to assemble the teams at the beginning of the month. They could also easily rank alliances (and the players within the alliances) the same way they rank players in pvp and then organise the following season's matches based on the ranking of alliances within a team (just like a conquest match won't have 5 platinum+ on one side and 5 bronze on the other). If that was the case, a 4 week team window would be better than 6 or 8 as it would allow for a more frequent mixing of alliances. Let's be clear players will be attached to their alliance, not quite to their team in any scenario anyway. No transfers allowed, as you can restructure alliances and individual selections every month.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Dawdler.8521]

10 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

There is a simpler solution than transfers: shorten the season's length to 6 or 4 weeks and draw match ups between teams in a more logical way (ie. the same way pvp works so a team with 3 platinum alliances shouldn't be matched with a team with similar sized bronze and silver alliances) not by sending teams up or down a tier.

SPvP is literally sending players up/down tiers based on winning/loosing.

[Mabi black.1824]

15 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I'm not sure I understand your questions or how they relate to what I posted in another thread.

the exact words you used are: ''having smaller servers would have allowed them to build more similar teams''

in europe we have 5 tiers, and the 3 teams that face each other are composed of 2 servers. in this way we saw that it is difficult to form simi teams, also put free transfers and the result was a bit of a mess. so I suggest for Europe to reduce 4 tiers, and the 3 teams that face each other are composed of 3 servers.

in this way we will have a greater number of servers and consequently smaller in size. these servers will be filled with alliances, single guilds and individual players. and with the reworked transfers the effects we could get a great result as ''similar teams''

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Your first question is asking Anet if there's a possibility to modify the design of World Restructuring?

yes exactly, I do not want to create problems or delays, keep all the work you have done and are doing; I would just like to understand if somehow we can have alliances and preserving the concept of team to better feed the competition.

[Karagee.6830]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

SPvP is literally sending players up/down tiers based on winning/loosing.

Eh your ability to misunderstand is uncanny. The tiers in pvp are divisions, things like Platinum 3-1, Gold 3-1, Silver 3-1, Bronze 3-1. The possibility of 5 platinum 3 players (alliances) facing 5 bronze 1 players in a ranked conquest match is...zero.

Just so we are clear: there are people in Platinum 2 with a win rate of around 55%. Those people would have a 90%+ win rate if they were playing against Bronze 1 players and not similarly ranked players.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Sahne.6950]

2 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Eh your ability to misunderstand is uncanny. The tiers in pvp are things like Platinum 3-1, Gold 3-1, Silver 3-1, Bronze 3-1. The possibility of 5 platinum 3 players (alliances) facing 5 bronze 1 players in conquest is...zero.

because there are no bronze 1 players. Those are a myth. Has anyone ever met anyone that is Bronze 1? generally curious here.

[Karagee.6830]

8 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

because there are no bronze 1 players. Those are a myth. Has anyone ever met anyone that is Bronze 1? generally curious here.

Ok I went for the hyperbole, but silver players do exist and in large numbers. So 5 Platinum 3 players v 5 Silver 2 players, possible or not? In wvw terms in the current system, it would be like pitting the strongest team against a medium or low population server on its own.

I think Bronze is mostly there to cripple your rewards if you don't play pvp enough.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Sahne.6950]

2 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Ok I went for the hyperbole, but silver players do exist and in large numbers. So 5 Platinum 3 players v 5 Silver 2 players, possible or not?

I think Bronze is mostly there to cripple your rewards if you don't play pvp enough.

its is defo possible. If it is literally just those people Queueing on offhours. The matchmaker widens the skillrange every few seconds... if you are in a 6+ minute queue in offhours... it might happen.

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Your second question is asking us on the forum if we are going to like the reshuffling every time new teams are formed?

the question is not exactly if you like the reshuffle, the question is whether you like to still have a team as you had it before, when alliances go live, of course only for a 12-month season and then it will be canceled to build a new one. but at least we do not lose something that gives an added value in this mode.

Team concept: The team is not the guild that players build, nor is it the group of guilds that players always build and choose to play together. first of all the team is a container that the administrator built. 

and during the season it is only the team that is ranked and that can win, so all the players socialize, aggregate, suffer and rejoice all together in the common interest that is the team. the result of your guild or character comes only later for pure personal ambition or a small aggregate of players.

hence my second question. since for me it is clear and evident that the team is a precious and characteristic value not to say fundamental of this mode of play, is it also for you?

[Dawdler.8521]

19 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Eh your ability to misunderstand is uncanny. The tiers in pvp are divisions, things like Platinum 3-1, Gold 3-1, Silver 3-1, Bronze 3-1. The possibility of 5 platinum 3 players (alliances) facing 5 bronze 1 players in a ranked conquest match is...zero.

Just so we are clear: there are people in Platinum 2 with a win rate of around 55%. Those people would have a 90%+ win rate if they were playing against Bronze 1 players and not similarly ranked players.

But they are constantly complaining about unbalanced matchups due to low population on the sPvP forums...

T1 dont fight T5 in WvW either.

[Karagee.6830]

7 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

But they are constantly complaining about unbalanced matchups due to low population on the sPvP forums...

T1 dont fight T5 in WvW either.

I'm just saying they can rank and mix alliances in teams the same way the rank and mix players in pvp. And there would be no off-peak shenanigans in all of this because the matches and teams would be determined based on the overall population of alliances not based on who is online at one time or another. In pvp terms it would be the same as matchmaking with every ranked pvp player online and available all the time.

A system where one goes up and one goes down is not needed if the teams are similarly sized, which is the whole point of alliances. So you can match teams who are similar in strength based on the alliances within the team and their estimated strength based on previous results

15 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

its is defo possible. If it is literally just those people Queueing on offhours. The matchmaker widens the skillrange every few seconds... if you are in a 6+ minute queue in offhours... it might happen.

Well, it might create a match with 5 Platinum 3 and 5 Silver 2 players, obviously....but that's not what I said. I said 5 platinum 3 on one team and 5 silver 2 on the other, didn't I?

Edited June 23, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Sahne.6950]

5 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

I'm just saying they can rank and mix alliances in teams the same way the rank and mix players in pvp. And there would be no off-peak shenanigans in all of this because the matches and teams would be determined based on the overall population of alliances not based on who is online at one time or another. In pvp terms it would be the same as matchmaking with every ranked pvp player online and available all the time.

Well, it might create a match with 5 Platinum 3 and 5 Silver 2 players, obviously....but that's not what I said. I said 5 platinum 3 on one team and 5 silver 2 on the other, didn't I?

ohhh... that is NOT possible. you can only duoQ and matchmaker tries to even out the elos between the two teams. aka it will shuffle the bronzes and the plats.

[Karagee.6830]

1 minute ago, Sahne.6950 said:

ohhh... that is NOT possible. you can only duoQ and matchmaker tries to even out the elos between the two teams. aka it will shuffle the bronzes and the plats.

Exactly.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Sahne.6950]

you can not queue with 5 people. Like i said you can at maximum duoQ. Ergo the teams will be mixxed with the platinums and bronze.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Karagee.6830]

7 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

you can not queue with 5 people. Like i said you can at maximum duoQ. Ergo the teams will be mixxed with the platinums and bronze.

Yes and you can do the exact same thing with alliances, except in that case you are not limited to who is online at what time, you can pick from all the alliances when you create teams.

You can still game the system and create distortions probably, if an alliance goes from 10 average players one match to 200 skilled players the next, but number limits for teams would take care of that partially and then the alliance 'rating' would adjust based on their match performance.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Mabi black.1824]

13 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

There is a simpler solution than transfers: shorten the season's length to 6 or 4 weeks and draw match ups between teams in a more logical way (ie. the same way pvp works so a team with 3 platinum alliances shouldn't be matched with a team with similar sized bronze and silver alliances) not by sending teams up or down a tier

your suggestion is clear and intelligent. in my post I suggested redoing the matches every 2 months as we do now, assuming that the teams will be built very similarly in terms of flow / population the balance will take into account the ability to make war points of each server. to keep the competition always at the top.

in theory it is a bit the same thing the very effective teams to get points (capture / defend / kill) will have more gold players than others less effective with more silver players, just to understand.

[Karagee.6830]

34 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

the question is not exactly if you like the reshuffle, the question is whether you like to still have a team as you had it before, when alliances go live, of course only for a 12-month season and then it will be canceled to build a new one. but at least we do not lose something that gives an added value in this mode.

Team concept: The team is not the guild that players build, nor is it the group of guilds that players always build and choose to play together. first of all the team is a container that the administrator built. 

and during the season it is only the team that is ranked and that can win, so all the players socialize, aggregate, suffer and rejoice all together in the common interest that is the team. the result of your guild or character comes only later for pure personal ambition or a small aggregate of players.

hence my second question. since for me it is clear and evident that the team is a precious and characteristic value not to say fundamental of this mode of play, is it also for you?

Thing is though. The alliance limit is 500 people. Do you have more than 500 people you know and enjoy playing wvw with? Because the natural thing to do would be to all be in the same alliance, wouldn't it?

I have a hard time thinking Gandara pulling together all people who want to play together could fill an alliance, but maybe I'm wrong. And before new teams are put together you can always recruit people/guilds you enjoyed playing with in you own alliance, wouldn't you?

So yeah my suggestion may have problems if there are large swings within alliance populations, because if an alliance suddenly double in size because 2 merged or halves, it would be hard to assess a previously acquired rating would not be very accurate and you'd have to go deeper. But yeah I don't know. I suppose matching alliances and people simply based on participation and the moving up or down may be much easier to implement.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Mabi black.1824]

3 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Thing is though. The alliance limit is 500 people. Do you have more than 500 people you know and enjoy playing wvw with? Because the natural thing to do would be to all be in the same alliance, wouldn't it?

I'm fond of so many friends and fellow adventurers here, and I'm even fond of so many enemies (mine is a sick mind) probably not so many. but that is not the point. in any case I can continue to play with some friends. well. 

as I wrote above the team is another thing compared to a group of friends. it is a container that the administrator creates and that will be filled with many things that somehow play the same music. I'm not saying to keep it as we have it now, but I wouldn't want to lose it completely for at least a whole season of 12 months and then we do it all over again.

 

what is my fear?

 

my fear is that of no longer having that container that anet has always guaranteed me. being in a team for 60 days and then a different one for another 60 days. become exactly like all those cowards who transfer the day after the links. I'm not that stuff, and I don't want the new system to force me and force me to become one. for me it would be really sad.

[Dawdler.8521]

22 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

what is my fear?

 

my fear is that of no longer having that container that anet has always guaranteed me. being in a team for 60 days and then a different one for another 60 days. 

Except that happens now. You have no idea what link you get or if you are the link and this "container" of yours is a minority on the new world.

[Chaba.5410]

8 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

the exact words you used are: ''having smaller servers would have allowed them to build more similar teams''

in europe we have 5 tiers, and the 3 teams that face each other are composed of 2 servers. in this way we saw that it is difficult to form simi teams, also put free transfers and the result was a bit of a mess. so I suggest for Europe to reduce 4 tiers, and the 3 teams that face each other are composed of 3 servers.

in this way we will have a greater number of servers and consequently smaller in size. these servers will be filled with alliances, single guilds and individual players. and with the reworked transfers the effects we could get a great result as ''similar teams''

Implementation would be new servers added that people and guilds could transfer to.  These new servers would have small populations that could be fitted in to help create teams that are more equal in population to each other, yes.

It requires people to actually want to fill up some new servers though.  Who would do that?  You don't need to reduce the number of tiers to do that since apparently when EU had four tiers the queues were too large.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Chaba.5410