Can we fix team ELO please ? At least partially ? Something ?

[yakko_]

There's no real need to open comparisons to "esports" broadly. Which ones? Some work with consistent teams and would have ratings in accordance with that, but that's different from the individual ratings, as I said above. For rating individuals in team games where your partner randomly changes from game to game, there's a well-designed system ready to go, which would work much more accurately if it just assessed the team's chance of winning a game--and the rating adjustment that comes with it--according to the strength of the team.
(For finer tuning, we could explore how disparate teammates really affect the play. I believe the weakest player at the table has much more potential to bring the team down than the strongest player has to bring it up. (In the example I gave of 150 & 450 vs 300 & 300, this would mean the 300s are actually favored.) But even just a linear first approximation, using the teammates' average rating, would be a tremendous improvement over the status quo.)

[groverapid5079]

On tbhp's point, team rating systems used in competitive games, such as TrueSkill, compare the combined strength of each team rather than teammates against each other. Each player then moves according to the team result and to how uncertain their own rating is, so a newer player moves faster than an established one, and nobody gains or loses because their partner is stronger. For free for all games like Innovation, the usual fix is to treat a multiplayer result as a set of pairwise results, so finishing second still counts as beating the players below.