Hmm. Let me see how I can explain this better then, because you're saying what I would expect you to say, but you're not seeming to understand what I'm saying in return. First, let me say, the system works; we're not disagreeing on that. What we're disagreeing on is whether the system is any good. Just because it works, doesn't mean it can't be improved. I was under than impression that the system was much better than it actually is until I read this guide, and that's why I'm surprised.
Anyways, let's dissect this.
I used the potential that a sub-average MMR could be undeserved because that situation happens literally all the time. I believe I already stated "everyone has been on loss streaks where nothing they did seemed to matter," but let me give you some examples. A player has won their lane multiple games in a row, transitioned that into pressure around the map, and good team-fighting, and still lost every game. A support player protected and healed their Marksman as much as their cooldowns would allow throughout the lane phase, but their Marksman really liked to walk up and get poked for no reason, making their efforts wasted. The fact is, you're not the only deciding factor in a team game. So that's what I mean by undeserved. You don't deserve to have someone be toxic, or afk, or intentionally feed, but sometimes it happens. This is one of the cruxes of the argument. When something is solely based on wins/losses, especially a team game, it takes much longer to progress when you don't get rewarded for good individual performance, and simply have to hope the next game goes better.
Next, in a case where a player deserves to be higher, and their MMR has been lowered due to unfortunate circumstances, or just started out lower, it should be easier for them to win; absolutely. But like before, it's a team game, and one player doesn't always get to decide the outcome. Over an extended period of time, yes, that player is certainly going to rank up to where they belong. But it's about the experience. It's about not having to play 100s of games to get where you should already be. It's about not spending 100s of hours to have the game tell you what you already know. Like I said, the system works itself out eventually, it's just a very unfulfilling eventuality.
Next, nowhere did I say, or anyone else suggest, that a stagnant +/- 10 LP per win/loss system would be better. It should absolutely be dynamic, but the way it is now makes no sense. A player with lower MMR might have an easier game, but they get less LP. And a player with higher MMR has a harder game at a rank where other players don't. Your Gold 3 analogy is a prime example. A Plat 5 player with Gold 3 MMR is playing other people with Gold 3 MMR. They have a 50% chance of winning those games, but will slowly degrade to Gold 3 if they keep that up, eventually placing them where they belong. A Silver 1 player with Gold 3 MMR is also playing players with Gold 3 MMR, and they also have a 50% chance of winning those games, allowing them to slowly climb to where they belong. However, this situation would be much better if the Silver 1 player was allowed to play other Silver 1 players, swiftly dispatching them and moving up in the world. Similarly, the Plat 5 player would be destroyed by other Plat 5 players, and he would quickly return to where he belongs. The graduated MMR system simply takes longer to do the same thing. I just don't see a reason to keep it. They need to either remove ranks, and stop confusing people, or change their ranked system to better reflect players' skill, by allowing them to more easily reach their appropriate division, and reward them more for their teamwork and gameplay. I prefer the latter, obviously.
Here's where I hit a roadblock, because your second to last statement makes no sense to me. It was probably a misunderstanding, but here it is. I stated that a player would be more easily (as in, more quickly, and with less hassle) able to get out of where they are, assuming they deserved to be higher, if they were only playing players in their same rank (or division). Then you said, that means the player is near where they should be. But, the premise was literally the opposite... that this player is already not where they should be. So, no, they are not near where they should be, and yes, playing players that are in that division makes perfect sense for allowing them climb out of that division, again, assuming they don't belong there. Eventually they will start playing players that actually challenge them, and then they will be where they belong.
Finally, I guess I just have to keep saying more of the same thing. Yes, the system works, but it's rather slow and makes things much more difficult than they have to be. I disagree that it's easy grind to where your division and your skill match up, because as we've discussed, it may take quite some time for your MMR to match your actual ability since it's only based on wins and losses. If they integrated personal performance into the MMR calculation, that would be great. If they made your ranks more indicative of your MMR, not just inevitably, but consistently, that would also be great. But right now, neither of those things are happening, and so I would say the system is not exactly great.
I hope that makes sense, and sorry for making this so long. I just didn't want to communicate anything incorrectly this time.
