ELO gain/loss is not solely affected by both teams ELO. There are probably thousands of metrics that the system uses to determine who it will think will win/lose.

I think it may be a good idea if the Matchmaker also looked at how many times a player was banned in the past 1-2 month period, and lessen the ELO loss a team receives due to the system assuming this player will continue bad behavior (and negatively affect the game). Or even place a player who's ELO may be high in a lower ELO bracket (Ranked or Normal) due to constant bans/suspensions/reports of bad behavior.

The Matchmaking system and the Tribunal should be a co-operative system, not a separate one. The Matchmaker SHOULD take into account a player's Tribunal history, and I think the Tribunal should get a player's matchmaking history (e.g. see if they have been going down-and-down the ELO ladder with consistent ELO losses, negative K/D, things of that nature, even if the Matchmaker assumed that player's team would win.)

About a dozen. In general, Team PB&J introduces developers when they worked on a feature that is being released so hopefully players will meet some more soon Devs that have worked on the new Tribunal features have talked a bit on the forums over there already.

You said it takes around 300 matches to get to your true elo. Are these 300 matches the normal "getting to my elo" time considering a constant value for Skill in playing Lol?

I mean, if my Skill to play this game is always 1, then it makes sense that after 300 games I'm at my elo. But since human beings usually learns from their mistakes, guides, streams and in depth analysis of champs, how can those 300 games be accurate.

I might believe that considering you can always learn, there will be a % of players who will keep increasing in their skill, would that cause to reset those 300 matches?
How true can be your elo when you're actually improving on every match? Is there any analysis being done on the rate of how players improve?

True elo is a 100 gap? 200 gap? 500 gap?

I find that a major source of the problem is that players think it is OK to behave a certain way because they have done so in other games in the past; to these players it seems ridiculous that we do not tolerate such negative behaviors in League of Legends.

The 200-300 games metrics takes into account the natural improvement a player gets playing those games.

Didn't know that before
Awesome

Thanks for taking time. I guess I'm a 1300 elo player then

IDK it sounds good and all... but this doesn't take into account allt eh times that you get a dc'er a mismatched duo partners on your team, trollers, leavers. i have lost countless games do to these events. IMO, Elo should be left for 1v1 play NO ONE man can win you a game. if one fails hard ussually the rest fall of and lose as well. Leave Elo for 1v1 games. Like Mortal Kombat on-line. Perfect place for Elo based rankings.

Edit: Bring on the down votes

The 200-300 games does take into account the random DCs/AFKs. That's why the number is so high... which is something we are trying to fix.

Thank you for your quick respond Sir! BTW, I cant wait to see the new Remodeled X-mass Baron Nashor in summoner's rift winter! ^_^