My only disagreement with the OP, is that the pick order allows some empirical knowledge on who's "better." You contradict this when you say that the elo rating a player has (the rating they're "ordered" by) is the sum total skill of the teams they've played with. This statement completely disproves any empirical knowledge you may have.

Additionally, what if someone is currently climbing in elo, and thus eventually finds themself on the bottom of the picking order when he/she reaches a higher elo bracket. Now what if someone in said queue with the climbing person, is currently falling in elo... they both call the same role, now you've just thrown the game because the person with the actual better skill is a "lower" pick and thus, lesser skilled...

Your opinion on this?

EDIT: I believe ranked queue still sorts by elo, normal games however do not... this is my understanding, could be wrong, but that is my understanding thus far.

700 down votes reflects just as much attention as 700 up votes. I want someone at Riot to look at and consider the problem. So... thanks for your support ^_^

Then you misunderstand what it means for a game to have rules.

Riot has come out and stated that the ability to leave during champion select is not intended to be used for a strategic advantage and players who repeatedly dodge deserve to be punished. They have issued at least one sweeping wave of bans for players who abused the queue system by dodging repeatedly for strategic reasons.

I could argue that tackling a receiver who is about to catch the ball is smart, but I'd be ignoring the fact that the rules of football make it definitively wrong. It's Riot's call. If they say it's wrong, it IS wrong.

You say that strategically choosing to dodge demonstrates skill. Rather than discussing whether that's true, let me ask you this. Let's say both the first pick and fourth pick both want ADC. If Riot took your advice, they would make following pick order mandatory, so the first pick would get to be ADC and the fourth pick would have to play something else. As the system currently is (where the only guideline is "Don't be a jerk"), first and fourth picks have to work out an agreement to see which of them could fill another role.

Don't you feel that the latter system tests the players' skill? Compromise, sacrifice, and teamwork are some of the skills you need in order to play this game well. Under your rules, those skills would not be tested. Neither player has to demonstrate that they are a team player. Under the current rules, those skills are necessary to avoid having the team fall apart before the game's even started. As a result, the players who have those skills form more cohesive teams and perform better than teams who rage at each other. Your ruleset would be a benefit to selfish players who don't have enough skill to compromise and work things out.

Bump for red!

Thanks mate, I can see how I didn't articulate my thoughts well.

When I made the comment about a players elo score "currently reflects a summary score of the teams they played with." It would be more accurate to say that given the current state of the game their elo is reflective of the average skill level that they and their team mates have played with. The more empowered you make the individual to avoid poor teams the more their elo will reflect both their skill as a player and their ability to assess a good team.

-------

Part 2: I would hope that two players relatively close in elo would have similar skill levels, and most likely giving one a role over the other wouldn't cause a complete games loss.

Example (worst case scenario)-

If players A and B call mid, and player A is our over ranked worse at mid player who does get the go ahead to play mid then player B has to play another role. Our worst case scenario is that they are so role locked they also lose the role player B was put into.

In theory you have lost 40% of the game. Assuming each player in the game represents a potential 10% of the games outcome. Then Players A and B lose their 10% of the game each and their opposition wins their 10%. We could argue till we are blue in the face about the exact numbers for roles and which roles contribute more, but as a rough model this gives a place to speculate based off of.

My next point would be that in such a scenario with such a terribly role locked individual (player B) player B is in 4/5 games be a detriment to their team because they are unable to play more that one role. They are either going to be a detriment because they did not get the role they are best at or because they pushed someone else out of a role they where good at in ~4/5 games. Such a player should probably not be a high ranked player anyways, because they are poor at approximately four-fifths of the game anyways.

I do not feel that the current system tests people's ability to compromise and sacrifice. The unfortunate bit is that the current system rewards the uncompromising because they do not receive the dodge penalty if they go ahead and lock in the same role. The current system punishes 4 other players for the selfish act of 1, and the most skilled decision at that point (when two players are locked into the same role) becomes a game of chicken on who will close their client first. Also laughably it won't be the player who locked in the same role. That is not a very fun game. In games where the first pick goes ahead and picks a different role they demonstrate sacrifice and a commitment to team cohesion, but they may not see any results out of that decision it is not a skilled decision it is a complete guessing game (they may as well flip a coin). When a player asks their team for a certain role they certainly are not making a sacrifice in fact they are potentially asking their team to sacrifice for them. In effect they are being selfish and demonstrating a lack of the skills you thought players should be rewarded for, and that the elo system should reflect.

Teams in which two players call the same role then one is forced to give up that role NEVER form more cohesive teams. There is always a mild undertone of loathing in those games. Those tend to be the teams that rage at each other as soon as the first mistake is made.

The best teams are those where players do not feel slighted at the start, and those games usually start with players working out who is playing where by picking in order.

Also +1 for getting me to start talking that out. Thanks mate.



PS -
I understand rules, in terms of queue dodging it is riots position that we shouldn't queue dodge as a tactical decision I am questioning.
Defensive pass interference is kind of a poor example because it represents a rule that is designed to remove an unfair advantage. If a defensive player tackles the receiver then the defense still makes progress towards turning the ball over, they stand to lose nothing if they could tackle receivers immediately, and passing would rapidly be removed from the offensive strategy. Such a rule promotes a healthy meta game in football. In league queue dodging does not harm the other team, it actually slows your rate of elo gain in comparison to the opposition. While it can be frustrating for players who have high queue times to have to re-queue they still did not lose any elo based on your dodge. The issue of high queue times because of large differences in elo should, in my humble opinion, be addressed as a problem with the slowness of the sorting algorithm being run by riot. If Riot wants to get really serious about lowering those queue times they need to task some of their better software engineers with creating a more efficient sorting algorithm, or if those software engineers say it can't be done they need to employ someone with more skill.

Sorry the PS got so long.

Thanks for the support, bud!

Please riddle me this:

Why can't we all just get along and let each other pick whatever the phreaking hell we want?

Which world is going to end if we do?
Which country will fall into chaos and despair if we do?
Which plague will devour humanity if we do?

I don't get it.
I really don't get it.

Yes sure you'll be "outcomped" at times. So what? If you're cooperative yourself, you'll "outcomp" the enemy more often than not on average.

What's so bad about this? Why is rewarding cooperative play bad?

I_just_don't_get_it.

The simple fact is there will always be issues and people *****ing about whatever. Seriously, just get good at everything and learn to enjoy everything and you don't need to have issues any more. That said, pregame and postgame should be made available in reports so it's obvious why exactly the karthus went 0/30, because he was to ***** to take a different lane.

if someone calls a role in draft or ranked and they're picking after me, I take it even if I didn't want to play it. If they say, "please" or make it a suggestion, I don't. But whenever last pick says, "going top" or, "I'm top" or just, "top" I will lock in Singed like nobody's business.

**** that guy