Methodology + privacy. Anonymised composite from multiple real engagements (2024 - May 2026). No real client name, school identifier, account handle, or order number appears. Protects individuals under Australian Privacy Principle 12. RR savings below are TetraGG-observed estimates from our internal pool; Riot decay rules tune patch-to-patch — verify current numbers via support.riotgames.com before applying.
The setup
Composite picture: a Chinese international student in postgrad medicine at a Melbourne metro university. Sat at Immortal 2 going into SWOTVAC (the 4-week pre-finals block). Time commitment to study went from ~3 ranked nights/week down to ~1 ranked night every 9-10 days.
The math at that activity level is unforgiving. Pulling from our rank decay explainer:
| Days inactive | Imm 2 RR loss |
|---|---|
| 0-13 | 0 |
| 14 | 75 |
| 21 | 150 |
| 28 | 225 |
| 35 | 300 |
At a baseline of 1 game per 9 days during exams, the client was looking at crossing the 14-day window twice, eating ~150 RR cumulatively, plus the MMR-readjust drag that follows long gaps.
What we did
Designed a decay-protection schedule rather than a climb plan. Goal was zero rank movement (both up and down), at the lowest possible time cost to study.
The protocol:
- 2 ranked games every 9 days, scheduled in advance against the client's revision timetable.
- Verified Master Coach duo (Immortal 1+, native Mandarin, AU time zone). Not to carry — to ensure the games went smoothly and didn't tilt-spiral the client into a 4-loss night.
- Pre-committed emergency block: if the client couldn't play a scheduled night, we ran 1 unrated warm-up the next available evening before the ranked games, no exceptions.
- No solo queue allowed during the block. Variance in solo queue was the single biggest threat to the goal.
That's 12 ranked games across the 4-week block, vs. the client's normal ~30 game volume.
What worked
- Schedule, not vibes. Decay-protection only works if the games happen on the dates that prevent the 14-day window from triggering. Calendar-blocked sessions had a 100% completion rate; ad-hoc "I'll play later" sessions had a ~60% one across the composite sample.
- Duo as smoothing, not as boost. The Master Coach kept games clean — econ called, rotations called, tilt managed. Win-rate over the block was ~58% (composite estimate), which moved net RR by +~25 — basically flat, which was the goal.
- No solo queue rule. Counterintuitive for someone who normally plays 30 games a month, but the 4-week block isn't a normal block. Variance is the enemy when the budget is 12 games.
What we'd do differently
- Pre-SWOTVAC warm-up week. We should have programmed 2 baseline duo games the week before SWOTVAC started, to make sure the comms protocol was fresh. We added this to the default offering after this composite cohort.
- Bigger conversation about whether decay-protection is the right product at all. For some Immortal+ clients, accepting a 1-tier drop and re-climbing in summer break is cheaper. We now run that math during intake.
Cost breakdown (AUD, GST inclusive)
| Item | Qty | Unit | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Master Coach duo (per match, Imm 2 client) | 12 | ~$22 | ~$264 |
| Pre-SWOTVAC warm-up duo (added retroactively) | 2 | ~$22 | ~$44 |
| Total | — | — | ~$308 |
Reference: a Diamond → Ascendant re-climb done as pure boosting would have run ~$240 from our pricing matrix, but only after the decay had already happened. Protection cost ~30% more than the cheapest reactive option and saved the client the time of re-climbing during their summer term break.
Related reading
- Valorant Rank Decay Explained · OCE Rules — the rules this strategy works against
- Valorant Placement Matches Strategy 2026 — what happens when you return from a long break
- Valorant AUD Pricing Explained 2026 — full price matrix in context