Any system that's based on individual performance based on KDA doesn't work in League. Because in League, it's about winning and losing. A 0/50/0 player can make the play that makes you win the game. I can't judge my 0/5 support and say he's bad because he's 0/5, but he gave our carry 4 kills and saved his life three times. The problem is, a rating system can't take that into account.

In Halo: Reach, winning and losing games doesn't matter so much as your KD. I can be a 3k Elo player playing with a bunch of 1k Elo players, and I'll probably win. But, from the way I understood it from 2 minutes of browsing, a 1k Elo player killing that 3k Elo player is going to gain a lot of Elo, as compared to the amount he loses by dying to that player.

I understand that k/d alone wont work. Thats obvious. But setting thresholds could work. a super negative score such as -10 and 5 or less assists, should only punish that player. It could be done, i think they are just too lazy. As with other things (servers for example).

It wouldn't surprise me if they set up a system where the ratings were all based on votes from your team mates. They set up the Tribunal, so that kids can go on the Internet and vote to ban people from the game; why not go all the way?

Again, a 0/50/0 player may make the game winning play. You CAN'T base Elo on KDA or anything to do with that, simply because it's entirely possible for the abnormal to happen. You would need a player at a very high (pro level) level of play to judge each game, to tell you who made the right plays and who didn't, so you can distribute Elo gain/loss.

Elo is an imperfect system. But there are far worse systems, and so far no systems (to my knowledge) that are better. Feel free to develop a better system for a game like League of Legends, but it's very difficult. You really do need time and money to put into it.

As for Bungie's rating system - correct me if I'm wrong, but is Halo: Reach drop in drop out like most FPS games are? If so, that's why a KD rating system works. Wins and losses in overall games don't matter as much, and you can have many different player levels in one game. But in League, where winning and losing is the only thing that matters, and you can't just drop out of a game - that's the only constant measure you can really use.

Also, in the past, Riot has had trouble with servers (anyone remember patch day in Season 1? Literally unable to play for a day or two). They did an overhaul, but it took time. They're probably working on the problem, but it isn't as easy as flipping a switch that gives them extra physical servers.

The game is based on winning and not killing. I was just watching a match that at 30 minutes was 8 blue kills 25 purple kills, Blue had 2 purple inhibs down and purp had only pushed the mid tower.

K/D/A don't mean much in a game based on winning. Gold and experience denied means nothing if you let them catch up on it anyway. Those 3 in mid died 4 times without taking 1 enemy out and lost 1 tower, while 2 pushed top and bot right down to the inhibs? Yep, those deaths totally mean their Elo should be at a loss.

1. No. Halo: reach is not drop in/drop out. That is one of the things that separates it. Therefore that argument is entirely invalidated. (Also, you made my point. It shouldn't be based on just win/loss, and someone CAN drop out and screw the team)

2. The player that went 0/50/0 absolutely should not be rewarded for doing just one thing right, even if it wins the game. That means it would be all luck and happen stance for the situation. They may have done one good thing, they should still be severely punished for the 50 bad things.

When someone murders 50 people and then buys a hobo a sandwich, that doesn't mean he gets a pass for the 50 murders. He can be congratulated for doing the right thing that one time, and then severely punished for his heinous crimes.

Elo isn't just imperfect. It is broken when it comes to team games like LoL. It's that simple.

All they need to do is take 2-3 weeks, shove everyone in a small hot conference room, and hash it out. It will be messy. Lives will be threatened and Farts will be dealt en masse, but its for the good of riot games over all.

P.S. The only reason games matter so much in LoL is because of the Elo system. So using that as the support for Elo doesn't make sense. You can't rightly argue that it is good because it is good.

1. The only way to win is to do certain things to get to nexus, which means they are involved in winning. That is easy stuff dude. Figure it out.

2. No. They should remove Elo altogether. It doesn't work well enough. But more to your point, YES. If you have a bad game you should be punished as badly as you did. EVERY time. This would work, because if it was a fluke, you would do better next game and go up. I you had a fluke good game, then next game you wouldn't do as well and would go back down. Its no different then someone getting lucky with team mates and being carried to a higher Elo. The only difference is that this way, there is FAR less luck involved and way more skill.
Instead of being screwed because of team mates, people would go up and down based on THEIR OWN SKILL. There is no logical way that this type of system wouldn't cater better and more accurately to a team game.