Originally Posted by Wyndrydyr
I can't remember the last time someone decided that football was boring and they should play with two quarterbacks to 'change it up because it was boring.'
Perhaps not, but formations without a quarterback
aren't unheard of. To be fair, this evolution certainly wasn't born of boredom, but rather an attempt to challenge the football meta, so to speak. The idea behind any gimmick play or formation is to take short-term confusion and uncertainty (perhaps extra yardage gained due to the disruption created in the defense) and hope that it confers a long-term advantage (points on the scoreboard).
Back to LoL. While many seem to feel strongly that the current meta is the best way to play the game long-term, I'd make the argument that strict adherence to the bruiser top, ap mid, jungler, adc/support bot lane formula has the potential to put a team at a disadvantage.
Even if we assume that the current meta is optimal in terms of distributing cs/kills and balancing the laning and teamfighting phases of the game, isn't it possible that knowing the other team's likely approach to the match confers an advantage to the team willing to deviate from it? In short, isn't it possible that playing "sub-optimally" (i.e. 1-3-1 or some other similarly alien formation) for a short period could be disruptive enough to the other team that the efficiency sacrificed could be more than made up for in disruption to the opposing team's coordination?