When you think about same players playing together all the time, then there is no solution to that. Either you will have them exact same strength long term or you keep them on a certain (pre-determined, same-for-all) distance, you have no chance to get to the "real" ELO. (That can only be achieved when the players also play individually and/or in different teams as well.)
The problem in this scenario is that you have no information about who contributed how much to the win. This is not solvable, mathematically. You just can argue that you like the convergent solution more bc it typically fits the reality better but mathematically, that doesn't make sense.
Logically, it is wrong to touch the difference in between team-members when you have no additional information about that number. You gain information about the difference between Team A and Team B, so the difference between the teams should be the only thing that changes while the rest stays - without further information - as it is.
It's most obvious when a player, who is ranked high enough, ends up earning 0 points. That basically says, his winning chance was 100%. And then, the winning chance of his team-mates would be also 100%, so they shouldn't get points either, but they do.
The system threats this as if teams would not win together but individually, independent from each other. And that's definitely wrong.
The problem in this scenario is that you have no information about who contributed how much to the win. This is not solvable, mathematically. You just can argue that you like the convergent solution more bc it typically fits the reality better but mathematically, that doesn't make sense.
Logically, it is wrong to touch the difference in between team-members when you have no additional information about that number. You gain information about the difference between Team A and Team B, so the difference between the teams should be the only thing that changes while the rest stays - without further information - as it is.
It's most obvious when a player, who is ranked high enough, ends up earning 0 points. That basically says, his winning chance was 100%. And then, the winning chance of his team-mates would be also 100%, so they shouldn't get points either, but they do.
The system threats this as if teams would not win together but individually, independent from each other. And that's definitely wrong.