Closer games means the matches were prob harder therefore more points. I’m guessing your 13-5 was a sweep so the game was easier, therefore less gains

If you went 13-5 but had the lowest acs on your team while when you won 13-11 you had the highest, it does make sense

After rounds won vs loss (ex. 13-5), it's average combat score, not kill death ratio.

Post game you see the leaderboard which shows average combat score (ACS).

Things that increase your ACS beyond just kills are having first bloods or early kills, and multikills.

You can have two players get the same amount of kills but the one who got them earlier in the round and had multikills gets a higher ACS.

The ranking system also takes into account your rank and the enemy teams rank.

In your 13-11 win you might have had a higher average combat score and the enemy's rank was probably higher.

Honestly, I’m convinced that there is absolutely no rule to the way it works. The max number of r you can gain from a tie is 10. My immortal friend decided to smurf in silver for fun (I think it’s cruel personally tbh). He dropped 52 kills (DOUBLE his entire team combined), and still managed to get a tie (14-14) because his teammates weren’t all that great. He gained 2 r. Out of a potential 10. When he dropped 52 kills.

This is an explanation of how MMR works, not whether MMR is a good or bad system. The information in this post is from a collection of comments by Riot EvrMoar, one of the lead ranked system developers.

What is MMR?

MMR (matchmaking rating) is an always hidden internal number Riot uses to match players together during games. It can be thought as your "weighted rank". While visible rank it is meant to encompass your current progress, MMR represents an estimated destination due to loss streaks, win streaks, consistency, and win rate. Since the specifics are purposefully hidden and proprietary, the only information people can give you is inferences. The algorithm behind the MMR system is very complicated, but the core workings of it are extremely simple.

If you’d like a fuller explanation of Elo rating systems, the original chess rating system that things like an MMR system are derived from, you can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

How is MMR used to make matches?

Simply put, the system matches player MMR, not visible rank, when placing people in a match. Since visible rank is only a person’s progression to their true rank, players are instead matched to have similar projected skill, or MMR.

Here is an example. Normally, a Gold 1 game would try and make both sides have an average rank of Gold 1 with a rank deviation of maybe only a division or two for each player (this is how it would be done purely on visible rank for a fair match). However, the system knows that team 1's first player is on a 10-game win streak of stomps with a 65% win rate. This means that even though they are ranked G1, they are most likely not truly G1. As a result, that player might be instead put in a low plat game to compensate for their "high MMR". This can be confusing, because you can sometimes see people in your matches that you feel do not belong there, even though they statistically do.

What types of MMR are there?

A few actually. The three that players will often talk about are ranked, unrated, and performance MMR. Ranked and unrated MMR are the stats for each respective queue – they control matchmaking and do not affect one another (unless you are playing your very first ever ranked game, then your unrated MMR is used as the starting estimate since you don’t have a ranked MMR yet). Performance MMR is a special MMR used in ranked to sometimes give you bonuses for playing well in a game. It records your average performance in past games (KDA, combat score, spike plants, utility usage, and much more) and grants you an RR bonus if you outperform that average during a game. Please remember, this is not outperforming the other players in your game, so getting match MVP is rarely important.

What affects my MMR?

Winning. The system is still just a ladder, so your history of wins and losses is the single most important factor in MMR. When you win, your MMR goes up, and when you lose, it goes down. Since all players have their own unique MMR value, winning against a team of people who have an average MMR higher than yours will award you more points. Likewise, losing against a team with lower average MMR will knock you down more points. The system is designed to award you higher rungs on that ladder for beating other players above you.

How does MMR affect my RR?

Because MMR is a projected destination, the system will adjust your RR values to get you to that destination faster. When your MMR is higher relative to your rank, you’ll be given increased RR gains to help you get to that higher rank faster. Likewise, low relative MMR will give you diminished RR as the system tries to push you down.

This isn’t always clear to see. If you win a game 13-1, you might expect the game will reward you with a lot of RR. But the system might see that you just came off a loss streak and have a 40% overall win rate. Because of this, you will be rewarded with very little RR because the match is treated like a fluke. This means that different players in the same match can have different RR awards, even if they are the same visible rank with the exact same combat stats. RR is a result of your consistent win/loss trend, not individual games.

The goal of MMR is to expedite players to reach a rank where they are consistently winning and losing (true rank), rather than having to play the shear number of games necessary to reach your average rank from standard, unweighted games. This is why Smurfs who are placed low can very quickly rank up, and in some cases skip ranks in the process (yep, if your MMR is way too high for your rank the system adjusts and gives you a free rankup). If you find yourself hard stuck with an extended 50% win rate, chances are you’ll see that your RR gains are roughly the same up and down because your MMR and visible rank are close to one another.

Here is an Ask Valorant article detailing much of the same points: https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/dev/ask-valorant-rank-rating-edition/

So why don’t we just use MMR with no visible rank?

Put simply it feels bad for players. Having a tangible rank with an emblem is something people enjoy and allows you to see a journey of where you progressed from instead of just always seeing where you might end up (this is in part why the ranked triangle shows your progress). Here are some additional comments from Riot EvrMoar on why having a very MMR dependent system didn’t work as well on game launch.

“So our previous system was a little more tied to your MMR, almost 1:1. There were some rules that made you deviate, slightly, where your rank wouldn't be exactly your MMR - But that would self correct pretty quick.

Also, to be clear MMR and Elo are used interchangeably. People use "Elo Rating" because most of these systems are Derived from the Elo system(google Arpad Elo!).

So before, we got a lot of feedback that it felt very "swingy" and if you had one bad game it would maybe drop you too quickly. Or if you had one good game it may effect you too much. In the new system, you can get high MMR and say you belong in that rank, but you prove you belong at that rank by consistently playing at that MMR.

The new system will give you more points for a win, and less for a loss, if your MMR is higher then your current rank. So, for example, if you are in Gold but your MMR is Plat, you may be playing against Plat players but as long as you are at least 50% win rate you will climb(because you will be getting more for a win and less for a loss).

Hidden MMR also optimizes matches to be fair, and with it being hidden we can make math tweaks to better the system. It lets us keep a smooth flowing ranked system, while maintaining a strict fair match system.(Also it lets us prevent reverse engineering easily and people finding exploits)”

https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/kxh45h/valorant_competitive_team_ama_on_20_update/

You get more or less points based on your hidden mmr.

So for instance if your rank is plat but your MMR is immortal the system will reward you more points to get your rank and MMR closer together.

The same happens in reverse. If your rank is HIGHER than your MMR, then you will gain less points for a win and lose more when you lose.

So if you are bronze and losing -25 for a L and gaining +16 for a win, the system is trying to get your MMR and rank in sync. It is trying to get your bronze rank closer to your iron MMR

Individual performance doesn't mean much.

The result and round difference is all that matters (Along with how far your hidden mmr is from your visible rank)

I could be wrong but I heard that you get more points the better you play like how well you use your abilities. Just something I heard idk

Losing is frustrating, but it happens. The ranking system, on the other hand, is getting closer and closer to driving me away from the game.

Win 7 of 9 games, 1st or 2nd fragger almost every game (as a sentinel), no promotion. Win the next game, promoted. Lose 1, win 1, lose 1, demoted back to starting spot. Cool.

It's hard to analyze anything in isolation because it depends on the game score, your KDA, the ranks in the game, etc., but I'd be surprised if there was a single person out there who didn't go "huh?" at least several times when looking at their post-game arrows.

The way I understand ranking is that the score line is the most important factor and round difference in particular.

​

You had a 5-13 loss, which is a pretty onesided game but you did not derank. My guess is that this was a huge mmr loss and you were right on the brink of deranking. Think in terms of health you had 1/100HP or something. Then you get absolutely obliterated 1-13. There is nothing redeemable from a loss like that. You were probably close to a derank and this threw you over the edge to the bottom of Plat 1 I'm sure, and then two more losses regardless of performance and boom you are gold 3.

​

Now, I think part of the problem is that once you are demoted you aren't put in the middle of the mmr or anything. It's all very fluid. As in, a close loss that demotes you can generally be countered with one solid win to rank back up. I've done that a lot myself. In your case, your losses were so huge that you were already on the brink of a derank and your two close games(alone in a bubble would never be enough to derank) when paired with the huge 1-13 was enough.

It’s the 1-13 loss. The promotion/demotion icons have terrible clarity. When you derank you don’t start at the top of the previous rank. You go as far down as your loss brings you.

Two big defeats with tbh awful performances followed by two normal defeats. You not deranking twice in that case would be pretty weird if you ask me.

The only case where you wouldn't derank is you having like 300+ games in that act making your mmr gains much lower -> lower chance of upranking/deranking.

There is no proper system. It's bogus

https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/lrfdpp/ranked_faq_and_common_questions/

This will answer most of your questions. As well as this:

What is MMR?

MMR (matchmaking rating) is an always hidden internal number Riot uses to match players together during games. It can be thought as your "weighted rank", where it is meant to encompass not only your rank but your variation from it due to loss streaks, win streaks, consistency, etc. Since the specifics are purposefully hidden and proprietary, the only information people can give you is inferences.

Here is an example. Normally, a Gold 1 game would try and make both sides have an average rank of Gold 1 with a rank deviation of maybe only a division or two for each player (this is how it would be done purely on visible rank). However, the system knows that team 1's first player is on a 10-game win streak of stomps. This means that even though they are ranked G1, they are most likely not truly G1. As a result, that player might be instead put in a low plat game to compensate for their "high MMR". If they win that game, the system receives confirmation that they are indeed ranked too low right now and rewards them with a high amount of RR change to help them climb faster.

Likewise, players on a loss streak might be an indication that their rank is inflated, and they need to demote faster to reach a rank where they consistently get 50% win rate. Having a loss streak gives you "bad MMR" and means you lose more RR per game (and gain less).

The goal of MMR is to expedite players to reach a rank where they are consistently winning and losing, rather than having to play the shear number of games necessary to reach your average rank from standard, unweighted games. This is why Smurfs who are placed low can very quickly rank up, and in some cases skip ranks in the process.

However, MMR can cause some confusion. There is no real way to know whether you have "good or bad" MMR except from trying to look at your recent losses and wins. As a result, receiving only +18 RR on a great win in your eyes might not make sense, even if the system sees the win as a fluke in an otherwise streak of losses that should not be rewarded. Not only that, but since every player has a different personal MMR, your G1 friend might win +25RR in the game he played with you while your own G1 account only won +19RR, even if you have the exact same combat stats.

If you’d like a fuller explanation of Elo rating systems, the original chess rating system that things like an MMR system are derived from, you can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

This is an explanation of how MMR works, not whether MMR is a good or bad system.

Even if you lose 13-0, you will only get 1 red arrow, meaning there’s no real indicator to show how much elo you lose when you fail to win. You just have to guess when it comes to that by taking into account your personal performance and the outcome of the game.

there is always only 1 red arrow, unlike when u gain elo, so it might look strange. But you gain and lose more/less based on ur performance (kd) aswell as the overall score in the game, so if ur team dominated more u get more elo.

They don't mean anything, just ignore them.

If you're not at the top of your team, you are gaining very little elo per win.

Here is link to wiki that explains pretty much what you're asking:

Tiers

There are no placement games for Ranked. Everyone starts in Copper 5 and has to grind up the ranked ladder.

The difficulty/matchmaking scaling comes into play in a background system called "Hidden MMR". This system judges your Win/Loss against various difficulty opponents in Ranked and tries to approximate your actual rank and grant elo accordingly.

Its all a bit confusing but basically when you start playing ranked, if you win a lot, the game will start matchmaking you against tougher teams until you start losing, then toggle between easier and harder until it has found the sweet spot, using this data to estimate your rank/skill level and try to give you "fair" matches.

The system is in constant flux based on your W/L and its been annying for many people because Ubisoft hides the actual math, so no one knows how their being evaluated.

It actually starts you at around gold hidden elo. The better or worse you do will determine how far up you make it. The ranking system in siege is really convoluted and confusing so I’d suggest looking up how it actually works if you’re interested in knowing where you actually fall.

all those hateful videos you see about siege, most of those happen in ranked good luck

I had to force my boys to play ranked and we made it to gold but homies couldnt handle the sweat so we dont do ranked no mo. I was pretty happy to get to gold tho i didnt think we had it in us.

6 levels away myself! it’s almost feels daunting to hop into one when i finally unlock it lol

2 points:

1. Are 2nd and 3rd at Champs the same as at the 16-team Masters Berlin?
2. I think non-winning podium finishes should be worth slightly more, and that 4th should give points. Something like 1/3 of 1st for 2nd, 1/5 or 1/6 for 3rd, 1/8-1/10 for 4th, depending on what the top value is.

Other than that, I like this rating, and I like that it gives points for doing things domestically, since I think that carries some importance.

He got in a ranked game with some Tier 2 players while playing with Alfajer and the Tier 2 players started calling Alfajer "faj" apparently to make them seem like they were close/friends which they obviously weren't. Chron interpreted it as them calling Alfajer a f-slur and posted about it on Twitter.

Even though I can never look at Chron the same after he tried to cancel young pros for like no reason, his success and longevity makes him the GOAT for me fs

Where are the LOUD/MIBR/Brazilian/Americas fans at? Do they still think Aspas has anything left to claim in GOAT debate?? Hell if Alfajer performs better than him in this event than he goes above Aspas in all time list lmfaoo

The only thing is after it is was cleared up and settled, Chron misunderstood them again and went back at them calling them liars in a tweet instead of messaging them privately to handle the misunderstanding. He just kept trying to cancel them and ruin their careers instead of just talking to them to understand the incredibly lighthearted and nothingness joke they said. Once it was cleared up that could’ve been it and it wouldn’t have been a big deal, just a misunderstanding. But then he went at them again after Verno simply said that they meant no harm and to not send hate to either side.

we run this game