Quality of life (or play, if you will) in Ranked queues

Okay, I don't typically use the boards but I figured I'd pitch an idea and see what kind of reception it provokes.

Lately, it seems, that ranked is very rarely fun to play especially in the lower elo's because there's a lot of stagnant (as far as skill is concerned) lower spectrum players players and "problem" players in the mid-to-high elo spectrum. It sets a somewhat defeated atmosphere for players who are trying to compete and climb and causes a lot of blame for players who really aren't directly the root of the problem, but rather the root of the problem is that there's no way for many players to learn/practice. Obviously one of the bigger obstacles to this is that a player has to WANT to learn and improve, and the general hive-attitude of players (especially in low elo) is rather counter-productive to that. I realise that there have also been future updates announced that are in the works to try and combat this issue but I reasoned that throwing extra ideas in to the mix couldn't hurt too much.

My thought for ranked would be to implement a seasonal lockout for the critically problematic players (i.e. the ones not interested in learning/improving or really playing cooperatively with any other players either tbh). Now, I'm aware that I may not know enough about the match making fuctions to be aware of all possible pitfalls to this idea so I welcome constructive criticism. I feel that the easiest way to do this, would be to take a win/loss approach. I'm aware that placements can be somewhat less that accurate and place players higer or lower than their game skill properly represents, so I could understand if a grace-period based upon ranked games played was thrown in. However many games until someone who was maybe carried through a few placement matches and was artificially placed significantly (a slight above-skewed placement theoretically would be unaffected by this method) too high to fall to where their skill represents. After said grace-period a player should face a seasonal lockout if their loss-rate approaches too high. ( such as 69.5%+ )

I feel this is generous enough to allow for players who may effectively be at the bottom of the ladder and have poor enough luck that they win less than half of games, but are still making an effort to improve. The benefits are that it removes players that don't desire to learn and restricts them to normals ( or other ranked queues, assuming they all have individual lockouts) and incentivizes them to learn and improve if they want to keep playing competitvely in ranked next season. Additionally it will weed out other problem players such as: those who intentionally ruin games either for their own amusement or to try and artificially drop elo to smurf with lower skill players, and will get rid of players who have recieved a boost and/or are account-sharers. This would also make it so these things will not be needed to be reported as frequently (at least on the tail-end) and lighten the burden of reports requiring review.

Stand-alone I imagine this idea wouldn't be perfectly effective, and would probably be required to be paired with other changes as well. Some negative consequences I expect would be detriment to queue timers, as well as gaps in the ladder ( which would have to be adjusted as players were removed) so results for the players benfiting from such a system would probably be delayed. Since the idea is loss-rate centric, it wouldnt be very restrictive of players with a suspect increase of wins so the account sharers/boosters would still ahve to be caught on the "win's end" of things. It also, mights make it problematically easier for behaviorally-defective high-skill players to rapidly climb the ranked ladder again on a new account after a ban.

• obligatory Teemo-mention as per Boards guidline for etiquette *