Thane of Fife

If you change the owner's size preferences, then go back to the Estimated Roster size on the company page of the editor, the estimated size will change. It's not a question of being near the low or high end of the range, it's that the range will be completely different.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="spiffyone" data-cite="spiffyone" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47568" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Honestly, I don't know why the size labels were changed in the first place. They were pretty damned clear prior to 2020.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think you were probably just used to them. While I agree that it's fairly obvious that Local < Regional < National < International < Global, I think Small and Cult don't easily fit in that scale. Also, the names don't really correlate well to what they mean. A company with 30 pop across the entire world would have been Regional, while one with 50 pop in the US South West and North West would have been Cult. I think that that's very counter-intuitive.</p>

Are you using a mod? A lot of real world mods (in my experience) seem to increase the injury/content risk for match types relative to how those match types are defined in the default database, so the match types might not line up as well with the products.

This seems like kind of a silly suggestion, but I'm hoping it's easy, so I'll make it anyway. When converting older mods, there are some companies that have really small women's divisions. Even the "Small Division" option in the current product menu can leave them very understaffed (this is especially true because I don't think owner size preferences affect the size of the women's division). In some cases, these companies will be so understaffed that they offer so many contracts that they end up overshooting their target and becoming considerably overstaffed. It would be nice if there was an even smaller option than "Small" to make these conversions work a bit better. I'm imagining average roster sizes perhaps half the size of the current "Small."

<p>A few things I've noticed from converting databases:</p><p> </p><p> Most of the default personalities from TEW 2016 convert more or less as you might expect, but not all of them. My experience has been:</p><p> </p><p> Balanced becomes no personality</p><p> Class Act becomes People Person</p><p> Company Man becomes Professional</p><p> Egomaniac becomes Scumbag</p><p> Free Spirit becomes People Person</p><p> Grizzled Veteran becomes Gloomy</p><p> Jerk becomes Scumbag</p><p> Master Politician becomes Driven</p><p> Normal Wrestler becomes no personality</p><p> Party Animal becomes Class Clown</p><p> Rookie becomes Stalwart</p><p> </p><p> So if you're converting a database that used the default personalities, you might want to watch out for Egomaniacs (who have now become Scumbags), Grizzled Veterans (who have now become Gloomy), and Master Politicians (as Driven seems likely to be more neutral than Master Politician would have been).</p><p> </p><p> When converting gimmick ratings, generally, it seems like the break point for "Can't Play" is somewhere between 50-55 and "Plays Well" is around 80. That said, just changing gimmick ratings doesn't seem to be enough to make someone good or bad at Mysterious/Occult gimmicks, and while it can make them bad at Offbeat/Unstable gimmicks, I haven't seen it give out a "Plays Well" attribute.</p>

So, I've been messing about with a converted CVerse 2010 database. Both NOTBPW and USPW begin with undersized women's divisions, and so they immediately hire a bunch of women. What I can't figure out is that they both start at Medium size, and USPW has about twice as much money as NOTBPW does, but NOTBPW is offering exclusive written contracts and USPW is offering handshake deals. Does anyone know what the boundary for offering written deals is?

On the worker's roster page, click on the yellow text at the top or the part where it lists their perception (for example, "Is considered a major star by the fans". It opens a second page where you can assign a brand, a division, or a manager (among other things).

Couple of thoughts (take them or leave them as you like): WWE is set to have a small women's division, but they're eight women over the recommended roster size. You might consider changing them to a Medium division so that they'd fall into the recommended range. For Impact, I think Madison Rayne should be playing a heel. Also for Impact, I think the popularity values are a bit all over the place. The numbers for the top workers may be reasonable, but some people whom I would have considered to be midcard types have pop values close to the major stars, and the bottom tier seems like it might be a bit too far below everybody else. I think a lot of the people at the top and the bottom need to be squashed into the middle. The ones that most stand out to me are Havok and Madison Rayne. The last time they wrestled, Havok pretty much squashed Madison. I'm not saying that Havok should necessarily be as over as Madison (though honestly I think that would be reasonable), but she should probably at least be close enough that Madison wouldn't be furious at putting her over. Meanwhile, I feel like Taya and Rosemary are more over than Madison is, though you could argue that they just have more momentum. Or, looking at the Figurehead page where it lists the Major Stars, I feel like many of the people on the list should not be on it. If I was going to name who I feel are Major Stars for Impact (or at least who they book that way), it might be: Brian Cage (if he still works for Impact), Eddie Edwards, Michael Elgin, Sami Callahan, Taya Valkyrie, and Tessa Blanchard. Moose, Rhino, Rich Swann, Rob Van Dam, and Rosemary are people I could go either way on. But I have a hard time seeing people like Dave Crist, Madison Rayne, or Willie Mack (among others) as qualifying as Major Stars.

This is good stuff, you guys. I'm liking these. Fragile Grace Wrestling (FGW) FGW was founded by a group of investors with a unique idea on how to stand out in the joshi market: hire pretty girls and throw them into brutal deathmatches. It remains to be seen whether their vision will succeed or if it will just turn people off. Core and Current Product: Junior-Deathmatch Combined Women's Wrestling: Entire Promotion Weight Split: No Match/Angle Focus: Three-Ring Circus / Highlights No Face-Heel Divide, Integral Stables, No Managers

<p>There are quite a few products in the TEW 2020 set that are not represented in the CVerse by companies that are open or yet to open. I thought it would be interesting to have a thread for people to propose yet-to-open companies for some of these products. Some are easier than others.</p><p> </p><p> My looking through the database suggests that the following products are orphaned:</p><p> </p><p> Attitude Entertainment</p><p> Avantgarde Puroresu</p><p> Bar Room Entertainment</p><p> Campy Fun</p><p> Catch Wrestling</p><p> Deathmatch</p><p> Deathmatch Lucha Libre</p><p> Episodic Entertainment</p><p> Episodic Sport</p><p> Gory Hardcore (*)</p><p> Hardcore Evolved</p><p> High Flying Hardcore</p><p> Historic Lucha Libre</p><p> Hokey Southern Rasslin</p><p> Junior-Deathmatch Combined</p><p> Lighthearted Entertainment</p><p> Lucha Libre Slobberknocker</p><p> Modern Throwback</p><p> Monster Battle</p><p> No-Style Style</p><p> Performance Art</p><p> Pseudo Sport</p><p> Puerto Rican Hardcore</p><p> Risque Adult (*)</p><p> Scripted Reality</p><p> Skit Based</p><p> Slobberknocker-Deathmatch Combined</p><p> Strong Puroresu</p><p> Telenovela</p><p> </p><p> I've marked Risque Adult and Gory Hardcore because they were reasonably recently represented by WEXXV and BSC, respectively, but feel free to pitch for them anyway.</p><p> </p><p> To give an example of what I'm thinking of:</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fed to the Lions</strong>: FTL</p><p> FTL is a <strong>Scripted Reality</strong> show run by NetStream. It follows a fake wrestling promotion, and all of the drama and storylines are based on (scripted) behind-the-scenes politics. Even in the ring, they often reveal who is supposed to win beforehand, and the drama comes from the question of whether they will act professionally given their backstage issues. Contains more than a few pokes at the wrestling industry as a whole and at USPW in particular.</p><p> Core and Current Product: Scripted Reality</p><p> Women's Wrestling: None</p><p> Match Focus: Ensemble / Angle Focus: Highlights</p><p> Face-Heel Divide isn't enforced, Yes Stables, Yes Managers</p><p> </p><p> Any ideas?</p>

It may be that the Risque and Attitude companies are scoring slightly less because I had to make the angles slightly shorter to fit their products. I would recommend only comparing directly between rows (that is, compare different workers in the same product), and comparing the between-row impacts between columns. If only because all four rows were done by rerunning a show four times, whereas the columns had to be done on separate saves. I didn't look really hard, but the only ones I noticed were for road agent skill and bad locker room morale.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Thank you so much for this test, but... The base we are looking at is Popularity. I see you kind of got that afterword because you were like "not sure why I didn't do them separate".<p> </p><p> Having one with and one without pop gives us a medium grade, and there is virtually no difference between the products you tested. As you said, you had you tested the 100 pop and 0 pop separate, and maybe used totally different products, maybe the "Wrestling as a Sport", something that leans more on skill rather than pop, we would have seen drastic different results.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think you may be missing the point. Having one with pop and one without pop would of course mean that the one with pop would score much higher (we could guess about 60 points higher).</p><p> </p><p> The intent was to look just at the effect of sex appeal and star quality on an entertainment-rated angle. The actual ratings of the angles don't matter as much as the difference between them. Since the average pop - and the actual entertainment skills - in each case are the same, we would expect them to rate similarly. Just for you, I went back and reran the Attitude cases, but this time with only one worker, with her pop set to 50, and got very similar numbers (certainly inside the error band due to randomness).</p><p> </p><p> The reason I looked at a couple products was because of the T&A setting from TEW 2016 - I wasn't sure if there would be a variation in how much of a bonus was applied based on product. My conclusion was that it looked like there was a very small weighting between sex appeal and star quality, but it was very hard to tell, so I didn't think it would be worth running any more products.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cwamaniac" data-cite="cwamaniac" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I’m curious if anyone else decided to to run tests to see how or if the sex appeal stat affects angles?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I ran a brief test with a handful of different women rated on Entertainment, varying their popularity, star quality, and sex appeal. Their charisma and microphone skills were locked at 50, the others were either 0 or 100. I also checked with three different products - classic sports entertainment, risque adult, and attitude entertainment - to see if there was a difference (I wouldn't expect a huge difference).</p><p> </p><p> In each angle, there was one person with 0 pop and one with 100 pop; otherwise, they had the same sex appeal and star quality. Not sure why I didn't just put one person in the angle.</p><p> </p><p> </p><pre class="ipsCode"> ............................Classic Risque Attitude Low SA/Low SQ................41..................43.................42 Low SA/High SQ...............49..................48.................48 High SA/Low SQ...............48..................50.................47 High SA/High SQ..............54..................51.................49 </pre><div></div><p></p><p> </p><p> There clearly is a gain with a higher sex appeal and star quality (as I would expect, given that the handbook says there is). There is some variability in the results, so it's hard to tell exactly which is more important, but to me it looks like Classic Sports Entertainment puts a bit more weight on Star Quality and Risque maybe a bit more on Sex Appeal. But it also looks like there's a diminishing return for having both (at least in terms of ratings - I didn't check popularity gains).</p>

I think part of the "problem" (for lack of a better word) is that some people want to book shows that are wrestling-adjacent. Like a variety show or a burlesque that happens to have a strong element of wrestling to it. In real life, you could look at Lucha VaVOOM (I assume). The game has the Skit Show product. BSC was described as having heavy improv comedy elements if I recall correctly. It's not hard to imagine that something like GSW could have crossover with rap elements. There are tons of possible talents that could be mixed in with wrestling - dancing, singing, violin, stand-up comedy, and the list goes on. And in a show that heavily relied on these, it would be important that workers were good at them, not just popular. None of these things are really represented in the game, because, frankly, it's a game about wrestling. But there's no real reason to think that someone who's great on the mike (like the Rock) would be a great stand-up comedian. So it always feels kind of unsatisfying if you're trying to run something like this. All that said, I think that for the basic, wrestling-focused products, I'm good with sex appeal being shifted to be more pop-focused. High sex appeal should help you get over faster; it shouldn't just give you great ratings off the bat.

One thing you can try if you're not getting as many as you want is to run the quick fill again. Even if it says it can't make as many workers as you want, if you run it again, you will usually get more. I suspect this is because it generates workers first according to some basic demographics and then looks for pictures for them and throws out any workers it can't find a picture for. Since there are fairly few Hispanic, black, and masked women in the free pictures, if you're generating workers anywhere where these are likely to come up, you will probably get fewer than you want (because as soon as it generates a third woman in a mask, it has run out of pictures). This might not help you that much in Mexico (where I suspect it would be drawing heavily on the very limited pools of Hispanic and masked women), but in areas where it is likely to draw on the larger picture pools of white and Asian women, running the quick fill several times should get you a decent number of workers. (It would be nice if there were more pictures, or if the quick fill would look for a picture and then create a suitable worker to match, though).

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47568" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I can't find anything for storylines in the handbook (looking for 10 min. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />). I know they increase heat if the segments are greater than the heat level, or vice versa. What about the frequency: will it lose heat if it's not advanced for one week?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Go to the Storylines page in your office and click on the little question mark in the top right of the window and it will take you to the right part of the handbook. There are several ways that it can lose heat for not being advanced - I'm not sure I understand them all, so I won't try to explain them.</p>

My experience has been that it will give you something that is functional, but a) It's pretty bad at translating products. A lot of the time, it gets kind of close - close enough that it will sort of work - but it's very rarely right on the money. So, translating the 2016 CVerse saw AAA get Attitude Entertainment and SWF get Classic Balanced, neither of which seems right. You'll probably need to go through and change all of the products after the conversion. b) I think rosters are much larger in 2020, so companies set up for older versions of the game seem to go on big hiring sprees. Again, with the converted database, between USPW, SWF, and TCW all hiring, the indies got gutted. In particular, I noticed that GSW and AAA both lost almost their entire upper cards in the first two weeks or so.

I don't think that there should be a general minimum length of angles. Here, though, I think that if eye candy or comedy is a big enough part of your product that you are required to have some on your show, I wouldn't think that 1 minute would be enough to satisfy the fans. So, while I would say, in general, that I agree that very short angles are entirely reasonable, when looking specifically at meeting your product requirements, I think you should be required to spend a bit of time on it. I'm open to disagreement.

<p>With TEW 2020 allowing Road Agent notes in angles, I think it would be interesting to allow angles to be booked as Comedy or Eye Candy segments, essentially with the intent that these segments would count toward the show requirements for these kind of matches (e.g. if your product required at least one Eye Candy match, you could put on either an Eye Candy match or an Eye Candy angle to meet that requirement).</p><p> </p><p> From a realism perspective, I expect that most companies that use these kinds of products regularly don't include them constantly. That is, I expect that, even during the Attitude Era, there wasn't an eye candy match on every episode of RAW - but there might have been an eye candy segment. It gives more reason for those bikini contests and catfights. Likewise with comedy. Allowing angles to count toward these requirements might allow for a better representation of some types of products.</p><p> </p><p> From a gameplay perspective, this could help to both make products more exact (in that, for example, even an all-male Attitude product (like old SWF) could be required to have eye candy segments of some type) while also allowing more user flexibility (for example, a Skit Show product could now be portrayed as comedic throughout or as a mix of comedic angles with relatively serious matches). Even for cases where players want to use all of the match types regularly, it allows a bit more flexibility in booking individual shows without straying out of the basic product parameters.</p><p> </p><p> In terms of implementation, I would think that there should be some minimum length for these angle aims (to avoid people throwing in a quick one minute angle to meet the requirement) and probably limits on how they have to be rated. So an Eye Candy angle might require at least half of the workers to be rated on Sex Appeal, and a Comedy angle might require them to be rated on Entertainment (ideally, it would also take into account their attributes).</p><p> </p><p> Thoughts?</p>

I think that that sort of thing has to do with the product. By default, AAA is Traditional/Mainstream, where Aerial is penalized. If you add Modern into the product on Day 1 (before the goals are set), I think that you will be less likely to see goals like that. Source: I just ran about two dozen sims of the first day of an AAA game where I did that, and while I saw "No Psychopaths" very frequently, I didn't get any goals pertaining to other styles.

I doubt that Alicia is too expensive for AAA. To give a vague, roundabout example: One of my current saves started with a custom local women's fed (Wrestlevania, by Vampella). Rapidly bleeding money, I formed a profit-sharing alliance with AAA and QAW (and I assure you that I have not been pulling my weight in that agreement). Even with USPW and NOTBPW stealing pretty much all of AAA and QAW's top stars, the money I was getting from that agreement was enough that I could hire Tiffany Jade when USPW let her go and still have more than enough left over that my funds were going up at >$10,000 per month. And that's just me mooching off of them (and note that I was not playing it frugal). At game start, the employment tab suggests that Strong wants about $1000 per appearance more than Jade does. I think they could easily afford her, they just choose not to for some unknown reason. TEW13. I think TEW07 might be where BSC became available. And it's interesting to me that you say Catherine won't let you change the product, because my experience with TEW16 is that she totally will. You can go straight from Low Modern to Key Feature Modern on Day 1 and she won't say a thing. I think you're thinking of the limits set on the product in the editor. Almost everything in AAA is locked either to Heavy and up or to Low and down; only Modern and Realism have much flex. But Catherine will let you go straight to the maximum of both of those immediately.

But that's largely because there were so few places for women to go up to. It was only USPW and NOTBPW. And I feel like they both pretty reliably poached AAA talent. But there aren't many spots above AAA, so there aren't that many places for their talent to go. I guess that my point is that - in my experience - that's true of pretty much every company. It's very rare for Regional promotions in the game to rise up to Cult. I don't see anything unique about AAA failing to make the jump. For one thing, AAA has very nearly the same product as the largest wrestling company in the (game)world, so I'm not sure it makes sense to say that it's outdated. For another, Catherine Quine's data says that her style preference is Cutting Edge Wrestling (in contrast to Farrah Hesketh, who prefers Sports Entertainment). All said, though, I don't want to come across as complaining about AAA closing - time passes, things change (and as I think I said earlier, I was expecting them to close). I just disagree with you on the merits of AAA - I think your opinion is being shaped more by the game's AI rather than the situation that the game sets up in 2016 (which I would argue suggests that Catherine is preparing to modernize and expand AAA).

I can't say I have as much experience as that, but how fair of a comparison is that? I almost never see companies move from Regional to Cult unless they started the game with a wide popularity base already in place. 5SSW has that in the default data, and AAA doesn't. While a player can overcome that pretty easily, the AI doesn't seem to do it. I mean, how often have you seen CZCW grow to Cult? For me, the answer is the same as with AAA - zero times. What stops CZCW from being dead weight? (I will also note that every company I have ever seen rise to Cult goes out of business or gets bought out and closed in short order.)

According to Wikipedia, there was some degree of PPV over phone lines: See here for the article.

It looks like you can only see them if new style colored lists are enabled. I'll go report that as a bug.