Yep, that seems to match up with what I was thinking and as always 'optional' fixes everyones problems, but does seem to be something unwanted by the devs.
I possibly didn't emphasise it enough as this is the CCL forum, it is just where I found the TV++ discussion. The overall ranking wouldn't be something I foresee being used for a specific CCL team ranking for a single season, it would be an overarching thing (as I imagine it). You could do it many ways. Fully based on entire coaching history (from implementation), a Coach Championship Ranking which carries over season to season and ranks coaches overall for all teams played in the champ ladder, a 'official league/ladder' ranking, for all games played in any official manner, which maybe feeds into a new world cup invitational, making sure the truly best of the best go into it, no matter their preferred ladder etc.
Essentially though, give people a way to see how good a coach they are in general, and they likely will care a lot less about how good they are with one single team run as a point of prestige. Sure, try to win the individual thing, it is something to aim towards, but performing well even if you don't win the tournament then matters to them.
Indeed, which is exactly why I say you would need to implement a new ranking system -first-, before TV++ would fully make sense to take over, based on the general objections.
The system itself works perfectly well for what it does. Yes, the random win/draw/loss numbers I put were '50%', when that wouldn't start that way, but the point is more that seeing your 50% win rate (once you have earned the TV++ to make it that way) is what most people hate. "If I'm better, I should get the wins!"
But to win over people and get them on board, and to have it make sense overall for the game, you would really need to make actual rankings. So a -team- can be 20-3-2 (zSum +17) as you mention, but a -coach- could be Master Rank #7 (or whatever naming/numbering system picked).
As to how that ranking system would work, that would be for people who have been involved in game development more than me, and understand how best to do this. But from my point of view, if there was an overall coach ranking (not just a single team/league ranking) it would greatly ease the transition to getting even games through something like TV++, as the win rate isn't the only thing that matters to show how good you are.
Currently, someone who goes 20-3-2 looks like a pretty good coach (depending on the team), with TV++ they wouldn't necessarily look as good. That is peoples problem (ignoring the fact that -everyone else- would also have the same problem, so you should still be getting better rankings than average joes) and having a coach ranking would mean people have something to make playing those games/teams more valuable. I'm sure it would need some kind of weighting on ranking points to prevent just making new teams every 5 games to never get too big a negative, but again, that is for game devs to worry about. I'm just talking about the perceived problems the community has against TV++, which often end in 'well it is just shit' arguments because neither side are talking about the same thing.
Maybe a bit of a necro to this thread, but as someone who has historically been against TV++, I think I know why after reading through a bunch of these posts and wanted to add my piece. The problem is the ranking system, not TV++ itself.
Lets take the two main systems I see. The 'sports team' system, used by for example football/soccer, and the 'online gaming' system, used by most competitive online ranked games.
Football/Soccer - teams are 'uneven' going into the game, like BB without TV++. Skill means one team will be more likely to win than another, even with similar 'players', like BB without TV++ (can't just buy good players without a good tactician/manager and win everything, but you can win more than you used to. Just like a powerful team in BB). Rankings are based on wins/losses and points ascribed to them, like BB without TV++.
Most competitive online games - Matchmaking tries to balance things to 50% winrates, through arbitrary rules we won't go into as they are different per game, but all aim for the same end result. Good, meaningful matchups. BBs TV++ would mean you can artificially -create- players who are harder to beat, meaning matches happen much more regularly, but would likely still default to matching with similar skill players
when there is no team difference. This covers the first two points above in the 'football' style approach. And now comes the big one. RANKINGS. These systems use some form of league/ranking ladder that shows -points- or -rank-, not win record. So Mr Fancypants McWinsalot may go 14/14/14, but he did it against people the system though should be beating him regularly, and so he is higher ranked than someone who goes 14/14/14 -against worse opponents-. Mr McWinsalot has the same result, but from 'harder' matches. Someone with 14/14/14 while being bad at the game would go something like 0/4/38 with the same TV++ adjustments that Mr McWinsalot had. That shows skill on his part. He is better, even with the same results. He is higher ranked.
This is where things fall apart for BB. As good as TV++ might be for seeing who is -truly- the best, because even with all the boosts to their TV, a new coach is going to lose a LOT of games -before- they become competitive through sheer TV bonuses, and a great coach will win a bunch before the TV bonus they give away outclasses their skill, it does not address rankings. And everyone is looking at the system as it is now, a football based system. And tbh that is rubbish. You don't want to see Mr Worldbest at 14/14/14 record. It makes no sense. Because you aren't seeing that those results were against people who were good enough. You are just seeing results. Instead, you need to adopt a completely new ranking system to make TV++ acceptable. /most/ of the coaches who hate the idea of 50% winrates would probably be on board with a ranking system where they see they are in the top 5% of coaches, instead of team win rates. And the great thing is, with a ranking system, you could be ranked based on your overall performance, not just with one random team you got great rolls on.
So yeah, long story short, in my mind TV++ isn't actually the hard sell, it is a new ranking system. Get that sorted and TV++ suddenly makes a ton more sense to me, and will allow actually seeing who the best is, and giving the top coaches a reason to play to try and climb the rankings against their peers, instead of just picking a race with no great record to try and push for a qualifying spot.
Aging does indeed stop that. You are right that there just needs to be a solution to endless skilling with res active.
And to clarify, I think it is important to have a clear 'this is how it should work' message really, even if it is currently bugged. The whole 'I think it should be this way' stuff is to show there are other sides to it, and reasons why people might prefer one way over the other. I wouldn't want to see a 'bug fix' happen to put the system one way or another purely because the devs take the opinion of a few community members as the gospel for everyone playing. I know it doesn't always happen, but it does sometimes feel that way!
Right now we're in a situation where it is clearly broken in some way, and there are a lot of plans being drawn up by different groups for running their leagues/ladders based on beta info, and that could all turn out to be a waste of time and effort, leading to people being disappointed.
In reality with res ladder and spp gains, you will just endlessly fire people until you get perfect skillups on your players. No skaven player will have a stormvermin without claw etc. Why would you, when you can just keep skilling them until you get claw, and then it will never die. Eventually leading to perfect teams (that could ofc be created by people at the start, but I think a lot of people will want to avoid those perfect teams if they don't have one themselves)
If you have to choose one option, the res = no spp option is the one that makes the most sense, and results in the better experience for players. If you want to gain skills and things, you have to risk the players for it to keep the ladders healthy.
A toggle does mean people can do whatever they want, and is the ideal option, but if you have to have one or the other, no SPP gain just makes the most sense (in my opinion!)
@VoodooMike Surely you would agree being able to not have progression makes sense when there is a reason for it. And as you so clearly point out 'unless you are using team editor teams' is a reason.
Editor teams are literally one of the new features for the game. Why introduce the ability to create specific team setups for league and ladder play, and the res format itself, which essentially ensures no losses to a team, and then not include the option for that style of play?
"Here kids, we've build you some goals in the garden to play with. What ball? Nah, we don't think you need a ball to play in the garden."
@VoodooMike Yeah, that is basically what I was thinking. Essentially they are just having their start gimped. Stunty teams have a harder time than others. So lets ensure they have a harder start too. Can't possibly go wrong.
Halflings do better when teams DONT have the skills (or more of the skills) to demolish them. Much like every other team in the game, shockingly.
So does this mean a 1k TV Halfling team has a matchmaking bracket of 800-1800, or does it still cap at 500 difference, so they matchmake between 800-1500?
edit - after some discussion and realising this will be how TV+ works too, in reality it means they will still match against teams within 500TV of them, but with TV+ records as if they were 1300TV. So in essence they will just be playing with the same TV brackets as all current teams, but are just more likely to be playing against the better coaches. Which feels like (assuming your belief of how TV+ ensures fair games) you are just forcing halflings to play against better coaches, within the 'fair' 500 TV bracket. Surely this means Halflings will essentially be handicapped by always playing better coaches?