{quoted}

so what about the supports?

How do you mean?

The main thought that occurs to me with regard to supports in this context would be the choice of metric. League has long been firm about the idea that, at the end of the match, all that matters is whose nexus blows up. For example, winning a game with a 0/9/2 KDA gives the same MMR boost as winning with 9/0/2 KDA. While good KDA might correlate with success, it's not always so, even for non-supports. For example, sometimes when the team is losing, I'll see people avoid risky plays that might at least give them a shot at victory, and instead focus on protecting their KDA. The MMR system is based on wins, not KDA, and I think that's good.

On the other hand, they might be going for a KDA-based metric here. Maybe that's why they're not putting it on Ranked to start with: they're worried that people will start focusing on KDA instead of nexus explosions, potentially harming their teams in the pursuit of badges. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad move: while there are times when winning the match means hurting your KDA, it may be that people are too quick to assume that their deaths are "worth". If so, this might play an educational role, leading people to more wins by using KDA (or, e.g., CS, or wards placed) as feedback. While theoretically the two measurements could diverge, it may be the case that, especially for lower-ranked players, they'll improve more if you tell them to "just make sure you don't die more than five times" or "focus on getting 300 CS, win or lose".

If they do use such non-nexus-explosion metrics for this system, and encourage people to focus on other factors (like KDA or CS), that could end up being unfair to supports. Even more so than with other roles, supports are all about empowering their teammates (and debilitating their enemies). Sure, the Assist stat represents some of that, but it doesn't directly account for (e.g.) clever warding, or saving teammates from deaths.

Was that the sort of thing you were referring to?

{quoted}

They're aiming for giving the game more goals, as well as incentives to play for more casual players. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

That may be true. Maybe the goal is just to give people a sense of accomplishment for time invested in the game. To be honest, I was expecting the system to just be a matter of "get X-thousand wins, get a badge" or something like that, focused expressly on number of matches. But it seems they're trying to tie this to "performance", and I'm kind of curious about how they're defining that.

Sure, it's sort of academic, but if people care about these badges, I don't think it's unreasonable to delve a bit deeper. Is the purpose to provide some kind of guidance or education, by rewarding players for focusing on particular subcomponents of the game? (e.g. rewarding great CS, or keeping deaths low?) That would be an admirable goal. Or perhaps they want to reward people for Champion-specific expertise. For instance, if someone is overall Bronze, but plays Xerath at Gold tier, maybe they want to recognize that accomplishment. Or maybe they want to provide some insulation from abuse for people who play a "trash Champion", with the system intervening to say, "hey, lay off, this person actually is a really good Urgot".

I think knowing more about how they measure "performance" will tell us more about what exactly they're aiming to do with this system. My impression is that it's a little more ambitious than just "give badges for playing X games with a Champion".

I think some people might be conflating the post-game grade with mastery rank. It makes complete sense for game grade to be personal information, same as lp/ip info. will players' mastery ranks also be hidden information? (except of course for the voluntary in-game emote)

Victorious Thresh??