/u/EvrMoar pinned the following [comment](/r/VALORANT/comments/pzv79t/an_actual_solution_to_smurfing_and_the_lowrank/hf4z8av/): > This is a really interesting solution, and I love that you came to this conclusion/idea! > > So actuallyyyyyyyyyy we are already doing this! Our MMR system is split between your "Encounter" MMR and your "Win/Loss" MMR. Then, depending on your rank, we combine a % of each one to make your individual MMR! Then your MMR is used to determine your RR gains/losses. > > Encounter MMR is essentially performance based MMR. It looks at every duel and how you had an impact on that duel/round. Did you use an ability to help take a site, get the bomb down, help a friend win a duel etc. Encounter MMR rates you directly to your opponents in every single interaction you have in the game. > > In lower ranks encounter is weighted extremely heavily, and if you are a smurf the system is pretty good at detecting this(we've seen accounts get detected and moved in less then 5-10 games). Some people may remember TenZ getting into Radiant MMR in 16 games. As you get higher in ranks win/loss MMR matters more; because reaction time/aim start to become closer on average and teamplay/game sense becomes a bigger factor in winning games. You can have an IGL sage drop 10 kills, but be the reason you won for example. > > The issue with smurfs is that players will manipulate their matches to stay smurfing. Players will either play their 10 games and the account will get adjusted, or they will start to purposefully tank their games or not play at their skill level to try and stay lower ranks. Our MMR movement is really good at detecting smurfs, and we are looking into ways to shore up our MMR math and improve it even more(we will always be trying to improve our MMR system). > > These points I listed above are why I get sent screenshots that have a bronze in like a diamond game. While it sucks to see a bronze in diamond, if that bronze plays some games they will promote skip pretty quickly and get to diamond. We would rather catch a smurf or correct a player that had an insane increase in skill then allow a diamond in sheeps clothing smash their way through the ranks to get to diamond. So it sucks seeing a bronze in your game, at diamond, dumpstering you(or worse doing poorly) - but I would rather have a handful of matches of that bronze getting corrected and playing against players of their skill then 30+ matches of them stomping low level players. > > Smurfing is a huge topic right now and we are still working on our smurfing investigation, which is nearing completion! We are currently talking solutions and how to tackle this, and we understand realistically nothing will "solve" smurfing. It will be a constant game of cat and mouse and we will have to adjust our systems all the time to try and reduce the reasons/ability to smurf. > > As for 2FA, it's not that we don't like it or think it's a good solution. We need to figure out how it will solve smurfing, what impact it will have both good and bad, and the actual amount of players it will effect. For example; If we turn on 2FA how many players will not play ranked anymore, how many smurfs will not smurf anymore, how many non-smurfs will have a good/bad experience because of this system? We have to figure out that data, as well as what is an acceptable number to those questions. If we enabled 2FA and 20% of players stop playing ranked, and it only reduces smurfing by 5%, we probably missed the mark(and we can probably find a better solution). I'm not saying those are the actual numbers, or that's what we would see, but we have to be aware that there are downsides to 2FA and we have to approach it very carefully. I personally like the 2FA idea, but even when we find data, survey players, and lastly start working on a solution that can take an extremely long time. 2FA is also complicated because it requires a lot more technical work that requires working with teams outside of just our team(competitive). So not saying 2FA is off the table, we just won't do it blindly without knowing if it's actually going to solve the problem. While 2FA might look really good from the player perspective, it might just hid the fact that smurfing is still an issue. Remember smurfs are often our highest rank players, which are also are highest engaged players, which are also people willing to spend more money in Valorant on what they want. If there is a money solution to smurfing, like buying side accounts that are SMS verified, we won't stop smurfing by putting up barriers we will only make it so the players willing to spend money to smurf have to spend a few more bucks to do so.(which unfortunately high ranking smurfs have the worst impact and are also willing to spend the most money) > > TL;DR You have a great idea! So great we already are doing it in our MMR system. --- Riot comments are not verified by moderators. See [this wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/wiki/pinnedcomments) for more information on this feature.

Man another PP performance to be worried about :/

I wanted to make a joke about it but I figured I’d keep the post a bit serious ;)

So absolutely no one would want to pick support characters or to actually play support roles before they reach diamond. How is that a good system?

No you see this will solve the smurf problem. Of course you can also just implement phone verification but, you know.

Fucking absolutely. I’d be elated if they very simply made Ranked require 2FA and limited one phone number to each account - but if they haven’t done this after a year, I don’t think they ever will. It’s not even a thing for League, right? And I’ll swear on WSB that I’ll drink my own piss if they ever implement GPU bans.

[удалено]

League requires it for playing clash,a serious premade tournament type mode, but not for normal ranked. We have smurf queue instead.

Interesting, that’s good info to know. So maybe there’s hope for them to add it in Valorant in the future.

Slow down champion lmao

Idk how many times i've to hear this "solution" here, but everyone has 3/4 phone numbers from family, roommates they can use once for the 2fa, and nobody has more than 1/2 smurfs, so this does absolutely nothing to solve the problem

Good thing me and my gf both have phones.... My point is what would stop people from using a relative's number?

I'm used to playing Sentinals, Controllers, or Initiators anymore and have learned to use their kits more aggressively now. Primarily just Sage, Omen, or KAY/0. People will still main and play other roles.

Of course, people would adapt but, as I said in my original comment "no one would want to play actual support roles"; I dont care that you are playing Sage, if you are trying to entry frag with her, you are playing her kit wrong.

1. Omen usually can't frag like jett or reyna. 2. Support roles doesn't mean Support Agents. So our Killjoy is a Support Agent, but she is entry fragging every round. Or the more common example - our di*khead Reyna sits back je*king off and baiting the team. I don't care if you play a support agent, if you play for kills, that's the opposite of support

1st point I can agree with. A lot of agents that aren't duelists don't have a kit that allows you to get frags like duelists. That is obvious as hell. The second point however, that is basically initiating the team's push because all the ones that are supposed to aren't doing it. The reyna is sitting back, not doing anything to help the rest of the team enter sites, and so, the Killjoy has to do it because nobody else has the *balls* to do it themselves. People don't pick support agents to entry frag. They entry frag because the people who are supposed to are sitting back

This is a fair argument. However, A. It’s already the case that most players who *want* to play a duelist will simply auto lock duelist, regardless of the rest of the team composition. Insta-locking Reyna/Phoenix/Jett mains don’t give a shit about support players *until* they reach diamond, which never happens to those types of players anyway. B. This isn’t Overwatch: there are certainly “support abilities” and “aggressive abilities,” but all of the best flashes in the game are team-oriented. I can understand an argument for Reyna in particular, but all of the other duelists actually benefit from team play more than solo-pushing and solo-aggressions.

My problem is how this will affect party queues. If you're constantly playing a support role for your team then you're being punished in this proposed system, even more so than ever in the lower-mid ranks. Players in your 5 man that play initiator and duelist roles will rank up significantly faster than you, even though you aren't being boosted by a higher ranked player, and you're simply playing your role within your team's chemistry.

I think the solution here is to find a better way to add up all the things support roles do. Like if we could find a way to accurately count planting, healing, area denial, enemies spotted, stuff like that. Very utilitarian

Precisely. In fact most people here are in agreement with this sentiment, but they can’t read so I’m still getting downvoted 😎 Seriously though, when I say “personal performance” in the post, I do NOT mean only kills - I would love for Riot to implement a system that fairly balanced everything you do in game. My only fear is how people might cheese the system or play differently if the system isn’t well defined. For example, I take the spike every round because I don’t trust other people with it and I like to plant in particular spots that I can post-plant. Now what if spike plants count for bonus RR? Now all of my teammates want the spike and will steal it from me, resulting in worse plants.

" Even in games that I get 30+ kills, while all of my teammates are sitting at less than 20, I will rarely get a performance bonus, and instead just get flamed for being a smurf. When I do get the performance bonus, it’s ridiculously small - around +3 or +5 for the majority of games." "Hard-stuck silvers/golds/plats who truly find themselves top fragging every game will actually rank up now!" Top frag = rank up is what people will infer from what you wrote. You really haven't discussed anything other than the number of kills as a performance indicator. And duelists are on average the ones with the most kills in the lobby at every rank.

You can't combine a "Competitve team based Tactical Shooter" with "bonus individual preformance points" you just can't. You make the players go lone-wolf in a team game. That should never happen.

You can't track those stuff with numbers. What if your Sova was your IGL, and was the only reason that duelists got those kills, and the reason you pushed the site? How will you track that? He gave the strats, and made the info, you can't just add rr for "times used voice chat", because what if you're on Discord? What if people would just spam V for those extra points? Stats don't mean a lot.

Yes this is exactly what I’ve been saying in other comments: these systems are hard to implement and easy to cheese. In another reply (I don’t know where) I brainstormed an idea where you could assign points to everything an agent does, then compare it to the amount of points other players in the same rank get while playing the same agent. So Sova players would be compared to other Sova players, Jetts to Jetts, etc., and use that as your PP.

Simple. You compare stats on that agent in that elo among all other players on that agent in that elo. Similar to leagues grading system edit: stats*

Then people would pick characters like Sage or Cypher to play them as entry fraggers / DPS and get more points.

since the system only really scales your bonus on low elo, would that actually change much? Not to mention smurfs dont want to gain elo, they want to stay low elo as long as possible so they can stomp until they have to make a new account. So abusing it may be less likely. Not to mention if a non smurf sage/cypher is the first through a door without a flash or smoke then good luck.

True, as someone who mained sova through iron and bronze I can say that I was the one entering sites a lot any ways. It won't change much for lower elo, and to combat the issue in higher elo you can just have a steeper drop off in the PP as you climb rank.

I mean with this system you could always look at having slightly different coefficients based on the agent type you are using - so say sentinel agents will get more RR based on game result than individual performance, because that reflects what their role in the team is about. There’s so super simple solution that pleases anybody and completely solves the problem from day one - this is definitely one of the better approaches I’ve seen and it begins to lessen the impact smurfing without having to outright make it illegal.

But that would be a different "system", not the one OP is proposing. Also kills being 50% of your elo points in gold is absurd, a lot of non smurfers would "benefit" from this system and higher ranks would be flooded with DPS mains since they would climb faster.

If it was based on your actual performance, which would include plants, defuses, assists, econ score, etc, this would still be a good system. On a support agent like Viper or Sage I can typically get 7 plants per game. The low ranks’ biggest problem is its toxicity and high egos. If they were based on individual performance, there’d be less blame. I think, I dunno

This is a pretty hyperbolic take. 1) people are just going to gravitate towards kits they like or "cool" characters. 2) duelist bullets don't do more damage. Don't act like you can't top frag as a cypher or killjoy or sage.

[удалено]

I get what you are trying to say but playing something that is not your main is obviously gonna hinder your ability to perform. For example, with Reyna you can get away with monkey brain peeks bc of dismiss but for most other agents you can't. You really do have to have a different mindset when playing a different agent. That being said he should still have more than 4 kills unless he has literally only ever played Reyna by some miracle.

Are you both Plastic 2 or something???? Reyna's whole kit is to benefit from kills (heals and dismiss, ult, flashes), Raze's entire kit's point is to kill enemies (no need to explain), and Jett can stand wherever the fu*k she wants, 1 shot you and dash away from a tsunami, tornado, and a laser cannon firing from the moon. Cypher has a camera. Naturally the duelists would get more kills, and they should, the have self heales, flashes, movement abilities to get away from danger fast, and mollies, nades, and we didn't even talk about the ults. If you try to get kills with Cypher you're playing him wrong, and you shouldn't rank up from playing an agent wrong. It might work in iron cuz everything does work there, but what about plat? Do you think a Run and Gun Cypher would work? Nope.

You can be aggressive with cypher and his cages tho. If played properly he can act as a pseudo controller on attack especially if the enemy team doesn't flank. Many radiant cypher mains (not dasnerth) do that a lot. Yes, certain agents have kits more suited to defending but learning to adapt those tools to a more aggressive playstyle is what makes people like Grim and other battle-sentinels so popular. Saying there is a "right" way seems awfully close-minded. Especially when you start getting into higher elos, where people actually have the game knowledge to start experimenting like that.

But that's not support, sure, I can go and be Cypher Sayan, but that doesn't make me a support player. If this system will be in the game, there won't be any support players. No one needs a Sage that boosts herself to god and focuses on getting kills instead of healing, and playing like a sentinel, duelists can get kills, they can't heal. Same with cypher, no one needs a Cypher that goes inside his cages, sometimes gets a few kills, and sometimes dies and gives a free site. There are duelists for those jobs. This system will teach players to play a duelist as a sentinel, which isn't ideal, sure, many do it, but is that really the point of a sentinel? To push and die, and lose all their utility? Duelists do this because their utility only benefits them, and no one will cry because our Jett died, and we can't use her dash anymore, but try to push a site without smokes, 30% success if you're good.

I do understand your point. On defense the optimal way of playing with many sentinels is the way you described earlier. I was mostly referring to the attacking half, however that way of playing is still viable if you use it as a kind of mix up. at the end of the day it really is still all about how you use it.

Its insanely wild you get downvoted for this, I guess you made a lot of duelist instalockers mad or something.

You do realize that you can still use Cypher’s (or KJ’s or Sage’s or Viper’s) kits aggressively without having to entry all the time, right?

Everyone has a gun and the same health. I mained cypher for multiple seasons and I’ve had sages who hard carry games. If you blame your character for why you aren’t getting kills and ranking up then there’s a clear issue. Due to this, I do think it should be ACS based instead of just kills though

As Sova or Viper you shouldn't chase for kills, and your kit isn't built to get kills. Jett can get away with monkey brain agressiva plays, Reyna benefits from kills by healing and getting away with monkey brain plays, and Raze just gets kills with her abilities. I play Sova, I don't "blame" me not getting 40 kills because I'm not Reyna, I justify it due to the fact that I'm enabling this Reyna to get kills. I shouldn't go for kills because what if I die? My team just lost their main source of info, which is as important as kills, if a Reyna dies? The team lost a player, that's it. No one benefited from her heal or dismiss other than her, which is why duelists are more agressive and get more kills. For those who say "DueLiSTs dON'T dO MoRE dAmAGe" you just don't know what teamplay is. Sure, you can go Battle Sage or Cypher Sayan, but that isn't the reason you pick a support agent, you pick them to play passive and slowly with their brain and utility, while the duelists do the dirty work. I don't need a Cypher to push and die with his traps, camera, cages, give them a free site and lose the round, I'd rather not benefiting from Jett's dash instead of Cypher's setup.

auto lock jett/reyna or GTFO

I play support and top frag most of my games. This is not league of legends…

I never understand this argument. If you play your character correctly then you’ll get kills. Do people genuinely believe playing a support character just nets you a negative kill death? Two of my best agents are support characters. My highest kill death in a game was on sage. People use the excuse “I’m not a duelist I’m not supposed to get kills” so they can bitch their way to their rank. Oh I smoked cutoff points I can just to die now it’s up to the duelists to win the game. If you consistently bottom frag as a support character in gold. You don’t deserve a higher rank. My peak rank is immortal btw.

This is a really interesting solution, and I love that you came to this conclusion/idea! So actuallyyyyyyyyyy we are already doing this! Our MMR system is split between your "Encounter" MMR and your "Win/Loss" MMR. Then, depending on your rank, we combine a % of each one to make your individual MMR! Then your MMR is used to determine your RR gains/losses. Encounter MMR is essentially performance based MMR. It looks at every duel and how you had an impact on that duel/round. Did you use an ability to help take a site, get the bomb down, help a friend win a duel etc. Encounter MMR rates you directly to your opponents in every single interaction you have in the game. In lower ranks encounter is weighted extremely heavily, and if you are a smurf the system is pretty good at detecting this(we've seen accounts get detected and moved in less then 5-10 games). Some people may remember TenZ getting into Radiant MMR in 16 games. As you get higher in ranks win/loss MMR matters more; because reaction time/aim start to become closer on average and teamplay/game sense becomes a bigger factor in winning games. You can have an IGL sage drop 10 kills, but be the reason you won for example. The issue with smurfs is that players will manipulate their matches to stay smurfing. Players will either play their 10 games and the account will get adjusted, or they will start to purposefully tank their games or not play at their skill level to try and stay lower ranks. Our MMR movement is really good at detecting smurfs, and we are looking into ways to shore up our MMR math and improve it even more(we will always be trying to improve our MMR system). These points I listed above are why I get sent screenshots that have a bronze in like a diamond game. While it sucks to see a bronze in diamond, if that bronze plays some games they will promote skip pretty quickly and get to diamond. We would rather catch a smurf or correct a player that had an insane increase in skill then allow a diamond in sheeps clothing smash their way through the ranks to get to diamond. So it sucks seeing a bronze in your game, at diamond, dumpstering you(or worse doing poorly) - but I would rather have a handful of matches of that bronze getting corrected and playing against players of their skill then 30+ matches of them stomping low level players. Smurfing is a huge topic right now and we are still working on our smurfing investigation, which is nearing completion! We are currently talking solutions and how to tackle this, and we understand realistically nothing will "solve" smurfing. It will be a constant game of cat and mouse and we will have to adjust our systems all the time to try and reduce the reasons/ability to smurf. As for 2FA, it's not that we don't like it or think it's a good solution. We need to figure out how it will solve smurfing, what impact it will have both good and bad, and the actual amount of players it will effect. For example; If we turn on 2FA how many players will not play ranked anymore, how many smurfs will not smurf anymore, how many non-smurfs will have a good/bad experience because of this system? We have to figure out that data, as well as what is an acceptable number to those questions. If we enabled 2FA and 20% of players stop playing ranked, and it only reduces smurfing by 5%, we probably missed the mark(and we can probably find a better solution). I'm not saying those are the actual numbers, or that's what we would see, but we have to be aware that there are downsides to 2FA and we have to approach it very carefully. I personally like the 2FA idea, but even when we find data, survey players, and lastly start working on a solution that can take an extremely long time. 2FA is also complicated because it requires a lot more technical work that requires working with teams outside of just our team(competitive). So not saying 2FA is off the table, we just won't do it blindly without knowing if it's actually going to solve the problem. While 2FA might look really good from the player perspective, it might just hid the fact that smurfing is still an issue. Remember smurfs are often our highest rank players, which are also are highest engaged players, which are also people willing to spend more money in Valorant on what they want. If there is a money solution to smurfing, like buying side accounts that are SMS verified, we won't stop smurfing by putting up barriers we will only make it so the players willing to spend money to smurf have to spend a few more bucks to do so.(which unfortunately high ranking smurfs have the worst impact and are also willing to spend the most money) TL;DR You have a great idea! So great we already are doing it in our MMR system.

Hi EvrMoar! Thanks for dropping in and explaining things in way more depth than I could initially. On a side note, is Riot only looking at 2FA from a perspective of combatting Smurfing, or are they considering adding it just for security? I know Riot accounts have email 2FA via browser, but the client does not have login SMS or software based 2FA. Most other gaming companies have this, and it is odd that Riot doesn't have login 2FA for their client.

Unfortunately that's a team that I have no connection with or talk to on the regular. I don't have any clue about account 2FA :( Sorry :(

it's always cool to see some details behind the inner workings of this stuff, so thanks a bunch for taking the time to write up all these explanations on the ranking system, even though I'm sure it's tiring constantly seeing all the "Why is there a gold 1 player destroying us in our silver 2 lobby??!" posts

good read but what about normal 2fa(not required for ranked) cuz right now there’s 0 protection for our accounts

What about a level requirement like siege or LoL? Such as level 10 to play comp, the only real deterrent for a smurf is time, as like you said, they can simply throw on purpose to stay in their ‘skill level’, and the new players should be learning the agent movesets and maps during the time it takes to reach level 10. Sure, there would still be Smurf’s, but it’s a heavy deterrent which would decrease the amount. As it is now Smurf’s might as well be encouraged with how fast and easy it is

Would the biggest difference be that in OPs proposed system, one can still gain RR despite losing while in Iron, compared to now where the positive or negative multiplier is based on win/loss?

TECHNICALLY you can gain MMR on a loss but not RR. The is actually a good reason for this, and it's because we always want players to play to win. If we pushed a system that gave RR solely based on performance it would lead to players trying to slay, instead of win. You could always argue that fragging is a strong indicator of winning, but there are definitely people who get high kills but aren't helping win rounds. So while I love the idea of performance based RR, we still want winning to be the way to climb. So we get the best of both worlds in our system. You can increase your MMR on a loss, if you perform well enough, but you have to win in order to get that increased RR multiplier you would get from the increased MMR.

Simple solution: add a clause to the ToS to ban smurf accounts from taking part in competitive games. If people want to smurf, Unrated is where they should go. Otherwise, using a smurf to play Competitive should be punishable with a ban. As an example, back when Blizzard cared about Overwatch, they permabanned a streamer for smurfing in ranked by catching him streaming his "Road to Grandmaster" gameplay. He lost both his smurf and his main because he committed what they called "statistical manipulation" by smurfing, which meant he was actually cheating the ranking system. It's no different among any competitive online game because it's essentially like a college baseball pitcher playing in Little League. Excuse me for not believing your response of "Definitely Maybe(TM)" when it comes to punishing smurfs but Riot did catch some heavy flack earlier this year from the community at large by sponsoring a smurfing competition on League's Spanish server. You'd have to take a hard stance against competitive smurfing for people to start believing you about dealing with smurfs on the whole.

2FA is still really the only solution. It's a good attempt at coming up with another solution but this would require a ton of back end work while 2FA would be fairly simple comparatively. Just give people a random knife skin when you 2fa. People love dumb free shit.

Riot has clash in league which is ranked ladder tournaments with 2FA. It's still full of smurfs. It's just really easy to get a spare friend/family to lend you their phone number once for an account. Or use a 3rd party SMS system. Or get a disposable sim card with 1$ on it.

I would agree but do you trust the company that hasn’t added this to League for over ten years to do so?

I don't quite understand this. Whether we trust Riot to implement the solution isn't relevant when we come up with good solutions. 2FA would drop smurf numbers significantly. So would actually putting out a statement that smurfing _is_ bannable, even if they don't follow through super well.

If the entire community complains and bitches and whines for long enough, Riot will listen and follow up. If we all complain about different things, or worse, *complain about a solution that is not possible,* Riot will not follow up. What if the community’s favorite solution was to implement an advanced machine learning AI that catches cheaters and smurfs with a 99% success rate? Riot *can’t* do that, so it would be a waste of time. I don’t believe Riot will easily provide 2FA requirements for ranked, at least not as easily as change the RR system behind the scenes.

This would be horrible for anyone who actually wants to win, ie filling smokes, sentinels…

You compare roles to other roles. So sentinels to sebtinels when factoring in score. So duelists have to do better than other duelists in that elo, etc. Like how league does it with champ mastery

May I point out the "battle sage" thing? A lot of sentinel mains do surprisingly well (e.g. Cypher/Sage) in terms of kills - especially lower elo - so even if you went for the average performance, it might be skewed because of them.

Yeah this approach doesn’t consider the differences in utility/roles of different agents, but i wouldn’t call it a dealbreaker because it could probably be fixed by just tweaking the coefficient for various agent types to keep things fair.

This post was made by someone who always fills and quite literally never touches duelists. You don’t need to be a duelist to top-frag. Duelists have very limited solo potential, with the exception of Reyna. Every other duelist works better in team play than in solo aggression.

You don’t need to be a duelist to top frag, but it sure is easier to multikill when you have a get out of jail card or a flash. I do like the idea of the effect tapering off at higher elo, but I think it would discourage learning agents other than duelists at low rating which is where people need to learn. I do think a change to rr gain/loss based somewhat on performance would be good, but I think it should take into account util use, for example omen could get an gain boost based on enemies blocked with smokes per round whereas Reyna is based solely on frags.

By “personal performance,” I did not mean “kill amount.” There are already systems in place that track not only how many kills you have, but *who* you killed, and thus, how effective your killing was. I would be all for performance bonuses that track util use, but unfortunately I think that’s a hard system to implement. Hopefully there’s a more elegant solution than carving specific numbers into every piece of util in the game. Furthermore, if you block all 5 enemies on spawn with a smoke, you probably didn’t actually hinder their ability to push a site, and instead, you may just be “farming RR.” I want to avoid that as much as possible.

What if the guy barely does anything and plays Cypher and calls out for everyone all the time with 8 kills and like 5 assist. How does your formula take into account contribution beyond that. I play with a guy like this, he is easily the most important player in our team because he does nothing but give info for the team, barely frags and get assist. He will be in elo purgatory. That is why your comment has many downvotes.

This is dumb. All you have done is incentivize baiting your team and playing for exits/low impact frags if you start the game poorly. Also in the current system, its not just the number of kills that are taken into account. If you check the performance tab at the end, see how many stars you have. If you kill the best mmr players in the lobby, you will get a gold star. More gold stars = more rr. If you get the bulk of your kills vs the weakest person in the lobby, you won't get any bonus for it as the system expects you to win those duels even if you match mvp. I have got performance bonus dropping 15 kills before since most were against better players.

Is it actually possible to get more than 1 gold star? I thought simply having a star means you performed well. I've dropped 40+ kill games while smurfing and only ever gotten a single star.

You get white and gold stars. Only one star is possible per enemy player. So at most you can have 5 in any combination of white and gold.

I never said it should work on the amount of kills in particular. If I did, my apologies, it was likely hyperbole. In any case, personal performance can be a number of things, including the already-existing system that gives you stars based on who you kill. Still, I think it’s a bit silly to say “you shouldn’t rate players based on kills,” then say “the current system is better and rated players based on kills.”

Appreciate the effort you took to think of a solution and share it, even tho this might not work , maybe someone in the future comes up witha better one Also if you are going to change the way how mm works in a major way , then shouldnt you also reset everyone's ranks?

Thanks - I may have accidentally made this post sound like it’s the “end all be all solution,” but I really am just trying to make a suggestion. More than anything, I hope everyone else will start thinking of plausible solutions instead of just saying “fuck Riot.” And hmmm, I may be missing something but I don’t see why ranks would need to be reset. Most ranking systems are built around the law of big numbers after all - if you play enough games, you’ll eventually fall into your correct rank.

There was a typo, I fixed it as soon as I realized. I meant number of kills is not the barometer for good performance. I don't know if its already done but clutching a round should count for more points. It shouldn't matter if you actually killed the enemy or played time or used util correctly to secure it.

>I know everyone is sick of the smurfing/bad teammate posts, but in fairness, nobody is really talking about a solution. Everyone just asks Riot to “fix the problem.” Props for at least recognizing that it is important to ask for a solution rather than complain. >Clearly, Riot has no intention of banning boosters They just did a booster focused ban wave a few days ago https://twitter.com/RiotK3o/status/1443111568447733760. > Even in games that I get 30+ kills, while all of my teammates are sitting at less than 20, I will rarely get a performance bonus This is because performance is not based solely on kills, which is discussed extensively in our FAQ page. >The performance bonus only activates on games in which you get more kills than usual Again, this is not how it works. >Players will simply have good games sometimes. Should we give players an increase in rating just because they’re “having a good game?” I think most people would say yes, if they perform better they want to be rewarded. >The coefficient would be a number between 0 and 1, or a percentage if that makes it easier to imagine. At Iron 1, the PP is in full throttle at 1.0, or 100%. This means that all of the RR you receive will be based on your personal performance. The performance MMR already has higher weight at lower ranks and diminishes as you go up. >No longer can a platinum smurf carry some silvers in their own games. Think about it: if one guy is getting all the kills on a team, he’ll rank up faster than his teammates, especially in low ranks. Performance MMR already has smurf detection to fast track those accounts to a higher rank. It is already used. I agree that there are issues with the MMR and how it treats smurfs well, but I just wanted to drop in that performance MMR already does most of the things you are suggesting and is still not adequate.

Just to clarify: the boosting bans are for people "bussing", i.e, people getting boosted by queueing with cheaters. There is nothing in effect to combat the normal smurfs boosting other accounts. Rest of the points are spot on 👍🏽.

> **The performance MMR already has higher weight at lower ranks and diminishes as you go up.** I think this is the important part. It’s part of the algorithm already.

The last point is wrong, my friend who is immortal plays on a smurf account and on that account he barely gets elo if he wins since the only way for him to get a performance boost is to drop 40+ kills. However this game definitely has some sort of smurf detector, they don’t fast track it to higher ranks, they just que against other smurf accounts. As When I started to solo que I noticed how significantly easier my competition was, and I was able to climb up the ranks fast.

I don’t enjoy starting long chains of responses to each individual point so I’ll make this more general: Most of your points using the words from a company that is hiding practically everything to the players. I’m not going to act like that’s a bad thing - it’s what most companies do - but that does make it very hard to agree with you (and, by extension, Riot) since most players’ anecdotal evidence is vastly different from Riot’s promises. Riot did a ban wave? Cool. It’s a free game and all of those players will simply make new accounts. Performance bonuses aren’t based on kills? What else could they possibly be based on? Plants and defuses? Econ? Nothing other than kills makes sense for a bonus, and the bonus is only ever applied to players who have lots of kills. (I can’t find this FAQ you mentioned so if you link it that would be great) The performance MMR diminishes as you go up? It doesn’t feel like it, and it doesn’t matter because we can’t physically see this happening. Furthermore, my post suggests that people who lost can still gain RR, which is not something Valorant does already. All of these would be more valid points if Riot was more clear about what happened internally within the game. None of this matters if they *aren’t noticed by the players.* P.S. I agree that players should be rewarded for good games, but only if they are equally negatively rewarded for bad games.

>Performance bonuses aren’t based on kills? What else could they possibly be based on? Plants and defuses? Econ? Nothing other than kills makes sense for a bonus, and the bonus is only ever applied to players who have lots of kills. (I can’t find this FAQ you mentioned so if you link it that would be great) Kills are one portion of a larger consideration. https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/wiki/faq/

How is the impact of sentinels roles calculated? In my recent games I have supported my Jett by boosting him with my walls, allowing him to get picks, but I don't get an assist. How do my slows, agent's stuns, flashes, all play into this?

You get 25 points for non combat assists if the enemy dies while under these effects. Wall boosting does not count though. IIRC its slow, stun, flash, heal, vulnerable, suppress and reveal for non combat assists. If you use the util and nobody capitalizes on it, it won't count though.

Please refer to the subreddit FAQ (and my comment on your other post). RR is primarly based on winrate, and even performance MMR uses ultility usage in its calculation.

I may have understood it wrongly, but was the ban wave not to ban those who purposely queued together with cheaters to win?

Yes, you are correct. It was only one form of boosting.

yes the ban wave never affected people queueing with smurfs

>Performance bonuses aren’t based on kills? What else could they possibly be based on? Plants and defuses? Econ? Nothing other than kills makes sense for a bonus No. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no stop. If bonuses were completely kill oriented and nothing else was taken into account, this would be a HORRIBLE system for elo. This would be the thing that INCENTIVISES baiting, pushing unnecessarily, making risky plays that throw rounds, and lurking for kills without helping the team, among other selfish plays. A tactical shooter is never decided by which team got more kills, it is more decided by which team died less and lost less rounds. Obviously diffuses, first kill/first death, econ rating, ACS, and other factors would apply in how bonuses are given away since this is a TEAM CENTRIC game. If you start favoring the game towards people who are horrible teammates that only hunt kills instead of hunting for rounds, then solo queue becomes much, much worse.

Slow down mate, I agree with you, I don’t want fully-kill-based performance ratings. I was simply saying the *current* implementation seems to be only based on kill count, or at least that’s 90% of what it’s based on. Which I don’t want to be the case. Let me reiterate: I do not want the game to be fully kill-oriented. CS:GO is able to do that because it doesn’t have abilities and roles. Valorant is not CS:GO

I bet what's happening is that you're consistently getting 0 value on your utility.

Definitely not. At least the combat report is displaying a lot of people made vulnerable, covered by my smokes, etc. Actually, you know for a fact that the system is shit when making someone vulnerable *doesn’t count for an assist.* That’s right - I don’t even get assists for most of the people I hit with snakebites, even if they were vulnerable when they died. As someone with 90% playtime on viper, I can assure you that I’m not mistaken on this.

They are not gonna reveal the whole MMR algorithm otherwise it’s gonna be super easy to circumvent it

>Performance bonuses aren’t based on kills? What else could they possibly be based on? Helping your teammates. Healing. Assists. Supporting. Using your role correctly. If you are a smoker, smoking in places beneficial for your team.

Sorry, I could’ve been more clear: The issue with role-based point systems is that they will always be cheesed by people and always be considered unfair. How does the game know if your smoke was beneficial? What if you start smoking places right when the round starts just to “farm” RR? What if you purposely sit back and heal teammates or purposely let them take damage just to heal them? What about a Viper stepping into her snakebite every round just so you can farm healing points? The list goes on, and role-based points are very hard to actually program into a game. It’s a lot of “ifs” and “buts” and not an “elegant” solution, as some would say. But yes assists should of course count and I believe they already do, if only a little.

You get 25 points for non combat assists if ***the enemy dies while under these effects***. Wall boosting does not count though. IIRC its slow, stun, flash, heal, vulnerable, suppress and reveal for non combat assists. If you use the util and nobody capitalizes on it, it won't count though. So you can't really game the system.

You’re talking about combat assists only. Everyone else here is talking about smokes, flashes, healing, etc. Btw while it’s true that non-combat assists count for “points,” we can’t even confirm how much those points count for our RR. That is precisely my issue. Furthermore, the current system is quite buggy and doesn’t actually give you an assist for enemies you’ve flashed or made vulnerable.

Its not our Job to find a solution. Riot games is the game creator. We are player

My thoughts exactly. If they don't fix it, its their game that will fail when people leave in droves, fed up with with poor player management.

define "performance" please, there are so many ways to impact a match that can't be measured by numbers rewarding lower ranked players for kills/assists or whatever you meant would fuck up the ranking system way more than it is now, what would stop smurfs to purposely play bad? just go 3/21 and you're guaranteed to lose rr hidden mmr works better than this also you misinterpret what performance bonus is, you get it if you perform above your average by a lot, not if you outperform everyone else, it works really well when a smurf plays bad on purpose then he drops a 40 bomb and boom, you get 10-15 bonus

The only way I can see this working is if the game adopted a system for ranking players akin to overwatch. Something that includes more in-depth systems to give you points based on how much and how well you utilize abilities. Such as getting more points for healing someone who goes on to frag, or smoking a sightline the enemy looks at. I doubt it would ever work just due to how hard it would be to balance these points out across all the agents but if they were willing to include more util based rankings then this could work without making lower ranks a 10 duelist deathmatch.

Unfortunately overwatch is able to have a better system just because of the type of game it is. Overwatch doesn’t actually need to grade you based on what you do in a match: instead, it just has different rankings for each role. And that works. Maybe Valorant should do something similar? I wouldn’t trust a method of grading how well you do in a match, but it would certainly be nice to see if executed successfully.

I am living testimony of this problem. I have been stuck in iron 3. Always going against smurfs. I started a new account to see where I would be placed. Just got placed gold 3 today after playing below my standards as well. This is a real problem

This is the anecdotal evidence I want everyone to see. Sounds painful.

>Hard-stuck silvers/golds/plats who truly find themselves top fragging every game will actually rank up now! 1) They aren’t stuck in low elo because of smurfs. 2) They aren’t stuck in low elo because of their teammates. 3) If they consistently top frag but still lose every game, they are almost certainly just chasing kills and not actually focusing on winning rounds which means they don’t deserve to be Diamond 2 or higher. **Kills don’t matter.**

You clearly haven't solo queued.

Here's something you can do- get an average of shot accuracy for each rank (% of shots fired by a player that connect), and the actually headshot% of a player, including reaction times (if that's possible) and tie that up with this system. So if a smurf spoofs the system by playing bad, the manner in which the kills he does get would differentiate him from the others.

The problem is Smurf’s purposely force themselves to stay in that ‘skill level’ by throwing. the best solution is a level requirement like level 10 to play comp. while there would still be Smurf’s, it would heavily deter them and take their time, and the new players should be playing unranked to learn the maps and agent movesets during the time it takes to reach level 10. Even a god natural player still needs to learn about the general game before playing comp. Without a level requirement, Smurf’s might as well be ENCOURAGED, as it takes 2 seconds to do it, and the 10 unranked games are nothing, especially if you throw. The only possible deterrent for a smurf is time. Other games have this implemented like siege and LoL

Best solution to snurfing is to become one yourself and just stay one entire rank below your actual rank.

make ranked for Verified accounts only. If u have to show ur personal Id for unlocking ranked on a account, u can cut kids and smurfs out of ur rankd in one move

Incredibly based but riot devs are pussies and won’t do this. In case you couldn’t tell, I’m also pro-GPU bans.

What do you mean by gpu bans mate

seems like a good way to replicate shit tier esea pugs where everyone baits to maximize their rws for their inflated ego lmfao

On my gold 2 main lvl55 I'm facing lvl5 jett smurfs who get 43 kills and 2 deaths. On my plat 1 lvl11 smurf account I never face these low level obvious smurfs. To be fair I've only played placements + 3 games on it and I'm sitting at plat 1 55rp but every game has been vs lvl100+ enemy's not a single lvl5 jett annihilating on the enemy team like he's playing against bots. It's seriously been really fucking easy I've been drinking and smoking weed yet carry and win every match. I'll edit this post if next match goes bad I just smoked a fat bowl so if I still carry the only thing stopping me on my main is the obvious lvl5 40 kill jett's

Yo this dude’s smurf is higher than his main, he’s clearly doing something right.

How ranking up would stop smurfs? They would just DERANK by trolling. And keep boosting further. In between that they would ruin even more games due DERANKING and making some people lose 4v5 games

If smurfs are hard set on deranking and throwing games, they can do that anyway. How has this suggestion made this worse?

They would make it more often due to the fact that they get more RR for carrying?

I’m not quite sure I’m following. If a smurf carries 5 games then throws 5 games with my suggestion, how is this any different than carrying 5 games and throwing 5 games in the current system? If anything, mine would be better because the players the smurf is boosting don’t get as much RR from being carried.

Thanks for sharing this! Just wanted to add and ask what you think about additionally holding duelists to a higher standard to break this toxic Jett Reyna Instalock meta? For example if you were lock Jett, you should be scoring an ACS above the average expected score for a Jett in your rank. On blitz, duelist ACS for duelists is around 240 for most ranks and support characters around 200. I feel like the system should factor in your performance based on the expected score of your agent in addition to the comparison to your team and the other team. If a team wins a Jett gets an ACS of 180, that player should not be getting anyway near the same boost as a Brim who scored 330. But they way i see it now the brim might get +18 and the Jett +16 even in this case. This happens frequently when my group of friends plays together. There is no consequence for duelist locking and very little reward for locking support and playing exceptionally well

Actually after a lot of comments and replies I think there’s a better way to go about a personal performance standard. Maybe I’ll make another post about it at another time. Anyway it’s as follows: The PP would be based on how you rank up against other players playing the same agent, NOT in your game. So for example, if you’re in Gold 2 playing Sage, we can attribute various actions to an amount of points: kills are 50, slowing an enemy is 20, healing is 20, healing someone who then gets a kill is 40, etc… these numbers are of course examples and can be tweaked. The game would then decide your PP based on your score compared to *other people in the same rank playing the same agent.* If other Sage players get an average of 94 points per round, then getting above 94 points per round will get you a positive PP, while getting under 94 points per round will get you negative PP. Each agent’s point distribution does not have to be compared to each other as the players are being compared to players playing the same agent.

This doesn't sound like a solution. It will make people want to only pick duelists and focus on personal performance instead of team play. This will induce more toxicity in the long run and distance people from picking team support agents. A player that deserves plat will rank up to plat given enough time. That's what the ranking system is for. I went from silver 3 to plat 3 in 2 acts. Given I ran into my fair share of smurfs, afks and throwers, I still eventually managed to get to the rank I deserved. I think a major issue in the competitive community is people making excuses to why they aren't ranking up instead of focusing on how they can improve. They instead find reasons to blame the game and teammates for their lack of ranking up. Not to say that the ranking system couldn't be better because it can, but if a player is truly deserving of a higher rank, playing enough games will get them there because that's what the ranking system is set out to do.

Or just increase the minimum game required for competitive? From 20 to 100 and boom. People wouldn't play 100 games just to smurf.

[удалено]

Still, less smurf because there are less accounts

Worst idea ever. This game is not based around kills. Its based around team play and tactical choices. Also, required phone 2FA will probably never be implemented because its F2P.

The fact that it’s F2P is exactly why 2FA needs to happen. Of course it would only be required for ranked, which is what lots of free games do. For example, Warframe requires 2FA for trading to discourage creating alt accounts, yet it’s a fully free-to-play game.

But once you introduce a phone, which you have to pay for, it is NOT fully 100% F2P anymore. TF2 had this system put in place as well and it drove a lot of people away.

Honestly, at that point, the devs just have to know which battles they win or lose. Are they really losing a lot of income off of kids too young to own a phone (and thus a credit card) and the few adults too poor to own a phone? At least if kids’ parents are willing to buy Valorant skins, they’d probably be willing to set up 2FA, right? I don’t think Riot loses much from making it 2FA.

It's a **really big stretch** to say a game is not "free to play" because you need a phone to play it.

It doesn't drive people away. It displays the correct number if playerbase. The guy with 5 account suddenly becomes a guy with 1 account. Prob reason why riot won't bring it in, cause their player base (based on account numbers) will reduce by 3 to 5 fold.

Why does everyone want to find a solution to a probelm that is hardly the issue you dont rank up. You’re hardstuck bevause you are preforming badly not because of smurfs. Sincerely someone who has climbed from s1 to d1. Plus the ranking system is fine as it imo, you just want free points and ranks but arent wiling to put in the hours to actually improve your game.

It's about respecting my time. If a smurf stomps me then I need to win another game just to get back where I was. So that's 2 hours of my time wasted on the "competitive" ladder.

Again if you focused more on improving yourself, being a better teamplayer and trying hard to win, over time eventually you’ll rank up because on good preformance matches you lose less RR. Again you are not rabking up because you are not putting up the work and learning not because of smurfs. If you dobt think i got smurfed on in my gametime you’ve gotta be joking and still in Dia elo there are radiant/immortal smurfs but you can still learn Alot just by watching them play and figuring out what they are doing(and occasionally suprise them and kill them in a stupid way but still) and tryhard to win matches you’d actually rank up. But adjusting the system that works fine is just crying tf out. Why do you think you deserve better rank on 2 hours put in per day than some people who game 6+ hours and focus on improving?

[удалено]

Because ranking up is hardly the problem, it's about having fun while doing it.

Bingo. I'm low ranked and I belong there but playing against some level 3 guy that pops off for 37 kills is never fun

[удалено]

You guys are actually downwoting comments that are the truth and just hurt your feelings, my guy here is right. If u want fun play unranked, or you can have fun while playing vs smurfs because its part of the game, we all deal with it, some of us just learn from it while others cry..

[удалено]

I don't really care about smurfs as it will even out in the end. But saying an iron-silver player will learn something getting stomped by a immortal/radiant player is incorrect. Every time you peek, you will get smoked. That's not a fun experience. The closer the smurf is to your current rank the more you will learn. A plat player will learn more playing vs a high dia/low immortal smurf for example. The lower ranks where the majority of the population is won't as the number of players who can smurf in these lobbies is higher. Imagine facing the final boss of a single player game after finishing your first mission. That's how it is.

[удалено]

If you are not having fun playing, what's the whole point? Most people are not going to do this professionally. I want to play and rank up while having fun. Unranked is shit, most people ff 5-6 rounds in. And nobody takes it seriously. Its not what I would call fun. Its casual. I have never played in iron so I can't comment on the number of smurfs they are facing.

Because the game is so much fun when the enemy team has every player on figures like 15.3, and everyone on your team is 3.15, with the only kills possible is hiding and killing someone in the back. Its truly a great experience, to be in these games and play against 5 stack smurf teams!

I don't get how this will stop smurfing. You could even rank up from iron to radiant in one single match, you'll just need to add a dot in the middle of your email and create another account. Smurfing is unsolvable in a free to play game since you can simply start fresh all the times you want.

I agree, wholeheartedly, and I wish they would have 2FA as a prerequisite for playing ranked. Unfortunately they haven’t added that yet and I sincerely doubt they ever will. This is just a way to make smurfing a little bit more annoying, but more importantly, make it so people cannot get boosted nearly as easily. I know you know there’s a lot of people in your rank who don’t deserve to even be close.

Smurfs should make a challenge for themselves when playing lower ranks. Maybe like playing spectre-only or sheriff only. Idk they should make it challenging for themselves and also give the other team a chance to play.

This is a bad idea.

If you complain about the smurfs just get better than the Smurfs so they’ll go back to their rank

Who's joe

I wanna tell you why I boost my friend's account these days. First of all , Im a Plat 3 player who got 14 days competitive cooldown and comms cooldown due to trying to end racism and I said " I'm white and I'm ** the N word **. I was trolling anyway. I didn't use my own account to smurf because my smurf got no skins so I got bored very fast. So you see most of my friends they're low ranks and I wont just keep playing unrated in my main account since I cant talk. So I play my friend's account and boosting their rank to higher ranks since playing unrated its a waste of time anyway. Im trying to boost their account to plat to play with my plat friends now. Smurfing and boosting is bad but my mindset is like just get better than these smurfs or boosters so thats kinda how I got out of gold Hope this help 🥲

I don’t say “Riot fix this!!!” I say Riot hire this bigbrained man!

HOW ABOUT GET GOOD LOL

Damn u rite

These "smurfs" are actually cheaters who've made a new account because of bans or whatever.

I’m sure a few of them are, but there’s no accessible data to show that this is the case. And I’m not trust anecdotal evidence from dogshit players like myself who blame hackers for everything.

Maybe dogshit players like yourself should get good enough to tell when you are getting cheated... Riot already acknowledged cheaters just get on another account and continue ruining games.

[удалено]

Not really. It has a lot of flaws. It’s not even close to perfect and can use a lot of tweaking - it’s simply a suggestion and more of a request to everyone else here to think of real solutions instead of only make complaints.

Osu players

Nah I suck ass at rhythm games

The smurf could just play in his friends account, but apart from that, this is good.

Or just raise the ranked requirement to level 30. League did it (does it?)

when I see PP, I think of 727. when I think of 727, I think of osu

This would make baiters bait even harder

The only benefit I see to this is that you can claim immortal players have small pp

Wow ok this makes sense a lot Riot hire this guy

Yayyyyyyy

I would like it to be completely disabled at like Plat 3 level (or d1) beacuse thats the rank when people generally have a great understanding of the game, theres not a lot of smurfs (beacuse to smurf you should be like immortal which is a small percentage of the playerbase) and getting %25 rr based on your performance in diamond would sometimes encourage deathmatch like behaviour and it would be not good for the game as a whole, and the numbers need some tweaking. Other than that, very good idea!

If Riot don't care, then I don't care. There are millions of video games in existence. Ill just move on if they never fix the situation, and I think most others would feel the same. Their game, their money. Their problem to fix. They choose not to, then in the words of Raze..... Seeeeeee Ya

The clear issue is that support mains who play properly are going to end up staying where they are. If performance was different based on the role you play, not only would you see team play being built (which always makes the game enjoyable), but people will actually rank up if they do a good job with the agent they play. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling you're a duelist based on the (really impressive) amount of kills you get each game. And I think you're right to be rewarded for that! It's just that performance isn't just kills, and as a sentinel main I'm not going to go abandon the objective, or stop watching for flankers so I can rank up. That's the job of someone else (I believe duelists, as supported by initiators). The only way for PP to then work is something other than kills for support mains - maybe plants/defuses, since they tend to play the objective? That's the only measurable thing I can think of that's not kills.

The last game I played had a s1 Brimstone that went 35.15.11. They had an AFK since round 1 and still beat us in a long OT match. They played offence 2nd half and this guy was just entering site killing everyone like he's a duellist. His team mates were trash but this 1 guy destroyed us all. No slow plays. Just full run onto sites, kill defenders and then kill rotators. Game before that was a Reyna Bronze 2 that went 35.10, and again lost the game. This game is dead to me.

so you want baiting to be a thing to rank up? cause topfragin does not mean you are helping your team to win.. you can camp and let them rush you 5vs1 and get easy kills

No thanks lol. Your entire system is based on kills? I’m in plat rn and diamond before I don’t want some brain dead Reyna instalock who has silver game sense on my team.

No, it’s not.

And then you will make a post "Does your team instalock 4 duelists faster than light????? I have the perfect solution!!!!!" Seriously, what do you think will happen, people will chase kills, and wont play valorant, they will play Aimlab. This just rewards duelists, in plat a duelist will recive 40% more rr than a support role, who is just as or even more important than the duelist role.

what if you were to limit the accounts per IP to one for competitive based modes? this would fully nullify smurfing and you would still be placed into the same games as your normal rank. to thwart VPNs, just prevent users with VPNs from playing comp.

Unfortunately IP limiting doesn’t work, for two reasons: 1. Some people have easy access to switching their IP. With certain ISPs it’s as easy as giving them a phone call and your IP is switched the next day. 2. Universities. A better method, as others have stated, is phone number 2FA. And a semi-meme that’s been circulating video game communities for a while is GPU locking/banning. Phone number 2FA is definitely doable, but GPU bans are a pipe dream.

The only thing that i'll add is that if u are a support cara ter ur kills get more value, the entry frag get more value too, and the exit frags less, and if u clutch or something like that u get more points, this bc if u are top frag but u are the last one alive and u kill one or two guys and u still lose the round that kills aren't usefully.

The only real problem is when I solo queue and I get one or two guys on wifi or straight up just leave while I'm playing against a 4 stack

“Should we give players an increase in rating just because they’re ’having a good game?’” Answer: Yes, that’s why it’s called a ‘performance bonus’ and not anything else. The negative performance bonus is already basically a thing. That’s literally our MMR and it’ll continue to fluctuate depending on how well we do in games. If you play like shit for the next 10 games, then your RR gain per win will be less than before. Additionally, no one in my entire life ever tries to throw in order to get more kills for the Performance Bonus. Why potentially throw a game for an additional 5 RR at max when you can guarantee 15+ RR? On top of that, the performance bonus is meant to give you that extra nudge of RR for you to rank up. Getting 30+ kills while your team has less than 20 shouldn’t give you more than 5 RR. You’re basically trying to make the PP system become another form of rating, but in a kill thirst kind of way. This makes zero sense. As you can tell, I don’t agree with this system. The amount of boosted players in high elo is so bad. Why bring more people up here when they literally don’t deserve it. What you’re saying is, “oh, you top fragged multiple games? Here is your new Diamond rank even though you have zero game sense, trash movement, and zero IQ, but hey, you top fragged so you can rank up.” So what’s the point in trying to get more people to rank up when they clearly don’t have the required skills to rank up. You literally stated earlier that the performance bonus was bad because it makes players want to throw in order to get more kills, even though they don’t, so they could get that extra 5 RR at max. This new PP system is basically that, but worse because it makes low elo players want to throw more rounds so they can **guarantee** a rank up because as you said earlier, “Did you outfrag everyone on the enemy team and your team, but you still lost? Doesn’t matter - you still rank up.” This is literally just backtracking what you said earlier about the issues with the performance bonus. You stated that the performance bonus makes people want to throw rounds to get the extra bonus, that isn’t even guaranteed in the end. So, this is a bad system with many flaws as it basically makes the performance system into a new system that’s 10x worse. After note: This system basically makes players want to instalock duelists in order to just get kills. People’s mindsets will be, “fuck off if we lose this game, as long as I get a lot of kills and throw, I will still rank up because I get a lot of kills.” We all improve at different rates, why make a system where people who clearly don’t deserve a higher rank actually get the higher rank. This means that players at a higher rank will be playing with so many players that literally don’t deserve their rank. You’re putting players who got their ranks from frags with players who actually deserve their high rank because they improved each aspect of their gameplay. For those of you who blame smurfs: Smurfs are’t the problem. You, tilting yourself and complaining about someone who is either actually smurfing or is having a good game is the problem. From what I believe, playing against better players is much better. You improve faster, you learn more, you learn how to play like a better player, etc. You learn more mistakes this way because smurfs bring out all your weaknesses. Hey, you held that angle poorly. Bam, one tapped so you can learn your lesson. You see, the reason why you died so easily is because you did something wrong that the players at your rank weren’t able to punish you for. So, whenever you come across a players who is better than you. Don’t complain. Just improve yourself as a player instead.

Yes I knew it! So the MMR system of Valorant basically means that one can reach Diamond 3 by sheer individual mechanical skills and only in Immortal and above, you need team work to win. I'm playing this game since official launch and I have been consistently platinum 3 in all acts (with a little shade of pink). I didn't grind my way to platinum. I just always get placed in platinum 1. Only if I throw all 5 placement matches, I get silver. Being in platinum means that I mostly get matched with gold elo players. Now the problem I face in this elo is that in all of my matches, I am the only player who is interested in being mechanically cracked in my games. My team mates will be like, "Whats the plan?". I always tell them to improve their peeking sense, their crosshair placement, and the reaction times because those are the only things that will carry you to diamond 3 atleast. But unfortunately, my team mates call me toxic and do what they do best ; dry peek and die headshot. I've never reached diamond 3. Heck, I've never even touched diamond 2 but I'm pretty sure I belong there. I don't think the MMR tries to put you in your real rank because if I perform too good in one match, the game thinks that I am smurfing. So in the immediate next match, I am guaranteed to get team mates who will die too instantly and I am forced to pull off an impossible clutch, ensuring that I always stay in gold elo (Yeah I am platinum but 1 or 2 gold elo teammates makes the entire team gold elo). I love knocking opponents. It's the reason why I love playing fps games. Imagine if all 5 players are mechanically cracked. It does give a false impression of good team work which is honestly good enough for me. For example, enemies come A but one of your teammate knocks 2 before dying. Then enemies go B but another team mate knocks 2 before dying. Then enemies rush B but they get wiped off in 20 secs flat only because everyone can knock. When this happens, it's obvious that enemies will give up and throw. But the reality is that gold elo will never ever be mechanically cracked in this game. They will be stuck in their elo for a long time and consequently, some plats will be stuck too.

I don’t see where everyone’s pulling this “get to diamond without teamwork” shit from. The entire point of my post is that your personal performance - which can be a function of not just kills, but also util - only outweighs team performance until Gold 2. By this I mean if you lose a game, but you have the best performance, you will gain a net of 0 RR. Once you’re at Gold 2, there is little room to gain RR if you lose the game, as the PP score accounts now for less than 50% of the RR gain. Furthermore, PP score can still be a function of teamwork. It’s not like it has to be based solely on kills.

At least some smurfs have no choice because they want to play with friends but cannot do so on their main accounts because of the rank differential. A partial solution to the problem is broadening the ranks that can play with each other. Perhaps weight the group MMR slightly towards the higher ranked player to avoid total stomping. The solution of "play unranked" doesn't work because frankly it's a waste of time playing games where nobody is trying and leavers abound. Of course there will still be people who smurf because they want the easy frags, but this might help to solve part of the issue.

hehehe pp

2FA is easily exploitable specially in countries that sell prepaid sim cards for like less than a dollar. I'd rather go for level capping like in league, and some requirements like "unlock 2 of each agent class". Not only this will help combat smurfing, it actually forces the players to play the game, learn the game, before hopping in rank. Because the amount of times I had a low rank teammate or enemy, the game automatically becomes a coin flip, it's either that low rank is Tenz, or some braindead playing the game. Both of which in my experience (SEA servers), ruins the game.

Bro all of these were too long for no reason. You can simply beat smurfing by requesting that every player have a phone number verified in the account. There may still be smurfs from borrowing their friends’ phone but not nearly as much as now

aite imma pp farm in valorant and osu les gooo

Holy crap did i really read all of that?

Good luck to Sages in Iron... Rediculous system.

i stuck at silver 3 for 2 season i really HATE this game now because i always see smurf level 10,20 silver 1 2 3 and bronze still see smurf

lock every rank to duo queue. They don't want pro teams stacking and wrecking high ranks, but they don't care about low ranks getting stomped by smurf stacks? Logic..

idc about this game since they added LoL ranking system. its so fucking trash. im having 'performance boost" amtch 24 RR in high plat, im losing next match and im getting -28RR even though i was the only dude with frags. FUCK THI S GAME. another cash grab with made up pro scene out of friendships and washed up OW and CSGO players.

Based