I had been thinking for a while on a way to distinguish good players from bad players in a better way than the current system does. Since this system already has 5 "tiers" (no medal, bronze, silver, gold and platinum medals), I wondered if there's a way to use this in a more efficient way than it is now. Here's what I came up...

Elo Tiers

Each player begins his ranked quest at the no medal tier, with 1200 elo points (as it already is). As you play games and raise your skill on the game, so will your tier raise as well for more competitive players. The higher the tier you're at, the better, more comunicative, more skilled and more willing to win players you will find.

How to upgrade your tier

There will be two ways to upgrade your tier. One is to reach a certain number of elo points. This is mostly a target for good players that want (and can) up their tier sooner than others. The second will be to have a certain amount of elo points and also a certain amount of games played. I.e.
to upgrade your tier from
-No Medal to Bronze Medal you would need to reach 1500 elo points or have at least 1200 elo and 50 games played.
-Bronze to Silver, 1600 elo points or 1300 and 200 games played
-Silver to Gold, 1700 elo points or 1400 and 500 games played
-Gold to Platinum, 1800 elo points or 1500 and 950 games played

After each player reaches these goals, the game should ask them if they want to raise their tier or continue playing on the tier they're in. Each time a player joins a new tier, his elo points get reset to 1200 and has to make his way up to that tier's goals (games played do not reset). (this means that you can't collect 1800 elo from the first tier and just jump to Platinum tier). Also, if a tier seems hard for a player and keeps loosing games, he will always have te option to go down a tier and in order to keep player quality to a certain standar, automaticaly tier drops will happen if a player has too low elo or a big loss streak. I.e.
for a player to drop from
-Platinum to Gold, he would have to be under 900 elo or have a 10 loss streak
-Gold to Silver, under 800 elo or 12 loss streak
-Silver to Bronze, under 700 elo or 14 loss streak
-Bronze to No Medal, under 600 elo or 16 loss streak.

Pro's and Con's

Pro's:
Better player quality as you up your tier
You can get to an upper tier if you work hard
After you reach a goal, you can instantly try and play with better players and not pray to God that other players won't bring you down again.
Better, more detailed Ladder ranks (one for each tier)

Con's:
The upping in skill may be overwelming for some players.
Players that reach a higher elo will find matches harder until there are enough people joining their tier. In time this will fix itself though.
It will take pro players to reach their actual tier longer than the current system. (The player quality of the players in each tier will make up for that though)

(Please write on your comments Pro's and Con's that you think this system has and I have missed)

That's about it... Tell me what you think, if you agree, if you don't, or ideas of your own or how to make this system (or a different one) better than the current...

This thread was created in response to this comment from another thread:

i dont even

Splendid, but guess what, riot doesn't give a ****.

Buy a brain, maybe then you will...

I said it on my second post... We don't just say "change the system Riot", we also have ideas... After that, it's not Riot that doesn't give a ****, it's the community that doesn't support these ideas... If the community does not promote an idea like mine (not nessesarily mine, maybe someone else has something better in mind), how will it reach Riot's ears to even consider it??

tl;dr

LoL's community at it's best... "Cosntructive critisism" ftw!! Combined IQ below average (maybe even negative)...

no

amount of games played doesn't necessarily correlate with skill level

I like the approach though, well thought out

That's why it's the amounts of games played WITH a minimum in elo points. If someone has 50 games in No Medal but has 1000 elo points, he can't go up a tier. He still needs to get that 1200 minimum to "level up".

P.S. What's with the downvotes?? If you don't like my idea, why don't you step up and tell the rest of the community WHY you don't like it or if you have something better to offer... But it's all typical... I bet it's from those 1400 elo guys with 20 ranked games who never played ranked again because they're to scared that they will drop to elo hell with the rest of us, and they just LOVE to bash on the lower elo guys about how they DESERVE their elo and they are elite pro's by being carried at 1400... Chickens...

So if you play 950 games do you go directly from No Medal to Platinum? Or are the games counted cumulatively? So you'd have to play 1700 games assuming your ELO is bad?
What happens if e.g. a person drops from Platinum to Gold because of a loss streak, but is still above 1800 ELO? Is he reset to 1200 ELO and have to suddenly gain +600 ELO? Is he reset to 1200 ELO and risk dropping again upon dropping to 800?
What happens if e.g. a person drops from Platinum to Gold and still have above 950 games played, would he have to play 950 games again assuming he won't reach 1800 ELO again?