Great point Hex and top post Oldfart.
While that segregation was a notorious change, this game definitely needs to cater for two main types of players.
The competitive players who prefer small teams with a huge emphasis on teamwork and winning and the casual players who enjoy larger, more chaotic, social teams.
The competitive players rarely call backup, as it stands to compromise their teams' co-ordination and when these players are in the bronze district ( as silvers ), newer players don't stand a chance. Hence why they leave.
It's also the case when silvers or "yellows" go up against a team of competitive gold players... They want to leave, but they have a second option to continually dethreat back to bronze.
Newer players will benefit a lot more playing with better players, than playing against them and the current system sees the former happening a lot more and it's understandable that some don't have the desire or patience to help them out, which is fine. This is why at least one segregation would be beneficial over none at all, IMO.
Old-school players have posted RTW scoreboards that have predominantly large teams with varied threat-leveled players and that is exactly what newer players will benefit from. They should have good players to learn from on their team as well as some newer players on their opposition that may give them a decent shoot-out or two. That's what I would hope the casual district to be like.
Meanwhile, the competitive players will have their 2vs2, 2vs3, 3vs3 matches with little to no desire to use the backup system.
Just played a round of the new Beacon game-mode with what I can only describe as a Call of Duty weapon patch.
The current game is extremely slow paced compared to many popular shooters these days. A trend which became very apparent after 2010. COD has always been fast paced and with it's surge in population during the MW and MW2 days, triple A developers started to add infinite sprint, increased sprint speeds and increased weapon accuracy.
A personal example is the change from Battlefield 2 to Battlefield 3. BF2 was much closer to this game's pace and weapon handling and BF3 became a COD clone. No loss of accuracy simply meant the AR or SMG with the highest RPM was often the best choice and shotguns became OHK.
It also has to do with the higher percentage of millennial gamers who desire higher kills-per-minute for higher dopamine releases. A new player to this game gets absolutely none of that. Assists don't count, as they are merely "kill steals". Battlefield 4 even introduced "assist counts as kill" in an attempt to keep them happy.
As lame as it all sounds, this game's graphics and engine may not be a problem at all when it comes to how "dated" this game may feel to people who are used to current shooters.
Personally I enjoy it. It reminds me of BF2 and CS in a GTA setting, but food for thought all the same.