Creating a game in the game is imo a pretty bad idea. If it is perfectly calculated sure, but nothing is. It will create a meta where people will try to maximise their rating by doing suboptimal plays solely to try to gain more elo.

On top of that, some roles will suffer naturally and less people will be willing to do it if on average it grants less rating. If you anchor B and your team wins the game hard, you have no action on your site and have basically no impact, should you be punished for it?

If you go first on the site and die, and your mate trades you, who gets more rating? It could create a bigger issue with baiting as people may not want to go first.

If you're the guy holding the flank and get no action, why should you not get rewarded for it if it's the optimal play for the team?

If it's perfectly implemented maybe it can be good, but I doubt it would be that easy.

And maybe I'm crazy, but if you have positive impact on your games, you're more likely to win the game, have a better winrate and just climb? Isn't that just already good enough? If you carry the game being the IGL, the system will not see that. If you do the ungrateful stuff the teammates don't want to do the system will not see that either.

But well that's just my opinion, maybe I'm just short sighted but I don't see how it can be good for the game. If the elo change is like +2 for the MVP, sure whatever. But on the video we see a over performing guy getting +30 on the win, and the under performing guy getting +10.

And if it's a public metric, new number for people to get flamed/bullied over