User blog comment:Care Level/MVP Status/@comment-15244341-20130824183911/@comment-9593635-20130824203908

• "If you coordinate with the other team, that means each one of the players gets 4 MVP votes, so the losers don't lose as much LP and the winners get more. Of course that's not going to work every game, but it can be done and it will be done."

The biggest problem here comes from Game Theory: if only one person gives an honest vote, in this setting, then the person they voted for gets MVP more often than not (since the other votes are distributed evenly); there's little motivation, with this in mind, to NOT give an honest vote.

Also, as far as increasing the net LP per game, I've addressed that possiblity in one of my anticipated objections: " Possible solutions include broadening the rating system in order to penalize the least-recognized members of a team (as recieving the least votes for MVP does, ostensibly, constitute being voted "LVP") or weighting the overall LP gain on victory and loss on defeat.  Alternatively, the total LP gained/lost for a team can be calculated before votes, and, after votes, the total LP loss can be redistributed with the after-vote percentages of gain/loss shared, weighted (as in the current system) based on MMR."

Essentially, with that system, if everyone got MVP, everyone would also get LVP, and the net result would be zero. EXCEPT that if one person voted honestly, their vote would likely get MVP and the others would share the LVP penalty, meaning that the person that they vote for wins, to the detriment of everyone else; it only reinforces that problem with pre-arranged voting.

• "Also, the MVP thing is pretty much skewed. Your lane opponents are the ones you know more about."

If this is strictly true, though, we could expect everyone to rate their own lane opponent as MVP, assuming that said opponent did better than the laner in question. That still leaves the votes of (a) everyone that won their lane (and, therefore, didn't necessarily vote their opponent as MVP) and (b) the jungler as swing votes.

Alternatively, say top DOES go 5/0/1 (because their jungler brought their Winnebago) and mid and bot lose badly, causing the game to end early (how else would it end early?): what kind of vote distribution would we expect? We'd probably see no one vote for losing bot/mid laners as MVP (since they lost badly); top would probably get those votes. Top, unable to vote for themself, would likely elect their jungler. Top gets MVP, Jungle gets Runner-Up, and, based on the scenario described, that sounds about right on the scope of who was valuable in that game.

Per-game MVP status doesn't necessarily mean "You're the best player here"; it means "You contributed the most from your team in this particular game", and I feel that'd be reasonably represented.