I don't think accurate zsums will happen within 5 or 10 games anyway
Because.. you don't think?
Oh, you got me. Ok, I know that accurate zsums will not happen within the first 5 or 10 games for most coaches.
It's actually definitional in the construction of the method.
You're applying an additional inducement value on teams which have not established their actual performance rate.
On the contrary, they have established their precise performance rate so far
. You seem to be operating under the illusion that a team has a particular zSum at which it will sit, whereas we know that performance of teams changes as the team itself changes. Rolled a +ST? Awesome. Lost the AG6 Wardancer? Less so.
As we've discussed your zSum will fluctuate in a range correspondent with various factors. But you know where those factors don't really apply? Hmm. I wonder where that would be?
But TV doesn't change appreciably for low games teams while TV++ is an instant swing of 100 (that's 5 skills or an extra positional!) for a 1 game team. These teams are nominally mechanically identical since they have had no chance to add anything yet.
And we're measuring performance. If the 100TV is too much then it will swing the other way. That's how the system works.
Ugg... we know how the system works, but it only really works in aggregate, it doesn't work particularly well on individual games, BECAUSE IT CANNOT. Again, rather definitional, but especially with large zsum multipliers you will almost never actually be at the 'real' value which would produce that 50% goal. And exactly to the point, we're still discussing the space within the method where it simply does not have enough results to produce an accurate measure of your performance. Why? Because it doesn't really measure your performance in individual games (again, this is completely definitional as the system is described), it seeks to measure your performance over several games. If you disagree then you need to simply make zsum a static value of +1, 0 or -1 which only applies after your last match. That would be really pointless, but you know where it actually applies? Yep, in that low games played region.
I'm not sure what 'missing half off all teams' means. And you can game the system however it's implemented, that really isn't a consideration in my opinion.
Typo - half of all teams. The median games played is 5, so any factor not implemented before 5 games misses half the teams. And gaming the system absolutely should be a consideration. It's the ability to game it which got us here.
I don't think gaming the system is what got us here. I think the nature of CRP in open ladders got us here (and CRP generally within different TV bands). Making a killer cpomb team isn't gaming anything, and allowing for huge TV differential pairings also isn't gaming anything. But likely we are working from different definitions of 'gaming the system'.
I equate it to 12 wizards. If that's too much we'll just let the system self correct.
That would be great if you had any sort of self-correction happening. As it is you don't, which means you're talking nonsense. And you know it.
I'm not really talking nonsense though and I think you know it. 12 wizards surely is nonsense, but then so is a multiplier of 50 for TV++. It's all nonsense really because the goal of making every match a 50% outcome is nonsense.
If you are actually serious about it you would take my question seriously and develop a system which handicaps rookie teams since TV++ hasn't kicked in yet. Seems that's about 10% of all games if we take your median number of 5 matches per team before retirement. And certainly making sure that first game any coach plays is 'fair' should be the highest priority.
Well if we're worried about individual games and not the aggregate at least.