A thought: What if the Middle were the Average

Reports very, but it's safe to say the majority of the player base sits somewhere around Bronze 1/Silver 5. Give or take a tier or two and I think that's reasonably accurate.

I'm no stats wizard but that seems odd to me. Why would the bottom be the biggest? Shouldn't it be a bell curve? For the sake of argument, let's just say that it shouldn't, and the existing system is at least distribution wise where things should land. We also seem to be in some agreement that quality of matchmaking was sacrificed for queue speed increases. I'm not inherently opposed to that, but the way LP gains are situated, it doesn't seem like it makes for an accurate assessment of who should climb and when.

Based on all of the arguments I'm making above, what if the system were changed to the following:

• Gold 3 is now considered the average, and players are slanted toward it.
• Any player below Gold 3 will inherently gain more LP for wins than they lose for losses.
• Any player above Gold 3 will inherently lose more LP for losses than they gain for wins.

In this system, MMR would still attempt to match you with like-players but, considering we acknowledge that this is a (currently) flawed system, the LP adjustment would allow for those less quality pairings to be mitigated with standardized LP losses/gains.

In short, what I'm imaging this system would do is value wins and losses more accurately, given that match-ups are operating on large and inconsistent disparities from one game to the next. I don't know that I'm perfectly correct, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

It should go without saying that things like Victorious skins would need to be retooled for, say, Diamond or something. But that's a conversation for another thread.