to have a system of allowance in solo/duo (ranked) champ select?
How it would work:
-If a player is trying to select a character that seems to overlaps in role and position with another already selected, his team has an opportunity to veto his selection with 3 votes against. (examples: someone trying to select Ashe with a Caitlyn already on his team; someone trying to select Brand with a Heimerdinger already on his team; someone trying to select Nasus with a Yorick already on his team.)
-There is nothing to keep the team from accepting a sensible, agreed-upon champ selection, so the system shouldn't cause any issues in that way.
- If the player's selections are all vetoed, he will be assigned a random champion that would not require allowance (i.e. a versatile champion or one belonging to a role that hasn't been filled)... or that player could be booted with the normal penalty for dodging.
- If a player can make a case to his team, by reasonably communicating his intentions and ideas, there is a good chance his selection will not be vetoed. He can even say things like "Look at my Ashe win rate on LoLking; that was done mostly in 'support' role."
Basically, I feel like the most common type of trolling is a late-pick player "calling" a position, and then refusing to play another position, regardless of what is picked. Yes, I know that the conventional meta is only a guideline, and not a law. Yes, I know that Ashe and Caitlyn can be a successful lane combo, especially when unexpected. But is there something so wrong with a team having to agree to the implementation of an unconventional strategy? Generally those strategies will fail if the team is not on board anyway.
I get that players would complain that their "freedom" was being limited, but it would really only be their "freedom" to go against conventional wisdom, demonstrated effectiveness, and their own team's wishes. If you want to try an unconventional strategy, I believe it should be done with an arranged team, or at least in normal.