MrTroy03

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51004" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Well in 2016, Adam put a homophobia owner goal in the game so he's clearly not above discrimination.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't think that's fair, as ugly as it is, it simulates the real world, not everyone is some lovey left leaning person who agrees that people of all sexual orientation, race, religion, age and color are equal, especially in old world mods run by grumpy white businessmen.</p><p> </p><p> I doubt Adam will touch this because its so sensitive these days, although it would simulate a racist owner in the 60's or 80's.</p>

You can sort of simulate this by making a Hatred relationship between the owner and talent. If / when that Owner dies or leaves, that would allow that person to interact with the company in question, but to me that is realistic. New owner, new rules.

<p>Or... at a minimum CAP the number of wrestlers who can leave at a time to go into Politics at 1 per company... this would prevent the fleet of main eventer's leaving for politics all at the same time.</p><p> </p><p> <img alt="LVyQ3oP.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/LVyQ3oP.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

This is more of a follow up to my other thread asking to reduce/nerf the politics random incident. That is certainly one way to do it, but this suggestion may be better. Have the current "Low, Medium, High, Extreme" to add another option, "Custom" or "Detailed" where then it pops up a 2nd box, and for each TYPE, you can choose Low, Medium, High or Extreme, for the police incidents, overdose, appearing in magazines, going to make movies, going into politics etc. so that we can nerf other aspects. For me personally, "Extreme" seems to be the most realistic in regards to a bunch of stuff happening over time, but the Politics thing makes that rough. I am playing as WWE right now and about 50% of my main event is gone for 1 to 3 years all going into politics. I still want a lot of random incidents like police and drugs and movies but want to limit politics to medium or low to mimic real life.

I like it, you could even do, "entire history of promotion", "last year", "year to date", "last month", "month to date", or, if feasible, a slider range for from and to, to just look at the last 2 or 3 years etc.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Kalmus" data-cite="Kalmus" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50817" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>To me the biggest kick in the jewls was when I got kicked off after 3 months. And in those 3 months I had 3 shows that missed the required number by 1 point. So out of 12 shows 3 were bad 9 were good and got higher then needed. I was lucky enough to have my own broadcaster so I stuck it out for that year to get back to a proper TV. In that time grew 2x in size and was able to go on a big boy tv.<p> </p><p> Only for them to throw me off after 2 months due to 3 shows missing a rating by 1 or 2 points.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's too rough. To me it should be based on wrestling positive / neutral / negative and patience level as well as margin of missing AND time slot.</p><p> </p><p> If you are in Prime Time on a huge network and they are paying you big bucks per show, then yes you should have tighter windows, but not even then should it be 3 shows. If you are in a lesser time slot the wiggle room should be greater both in margin of missing and patience.</p><p> </p><p> If they expect an 80 show and you are getting 70 - 75, that should be "annoying" to them but should really never cancel the deal early, they might consider not renewing it. If they expect an 80 show and you are delivering 40 or 50, then yes they might consider cancelling the show as it may sink their network if its prime time, but this also tie in to whether the network is wresting positive or not, patience level, and even things like the economy.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="nerodragomir1" data-cite="nerodragomir1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="50816" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I definently don't want to go back to that 2016 way for contracts.<p> </p><p> There are many things I wish 2020 would do how it used to do in 2016. The contracts are not one of them. Every few days I'd have people asking for more & more money. It was very annoying in 2016 & I'm glad they removed that aspect.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I agree it was annoying, maybe for extreme cases only? Like where you hire someone for $15,000 a month and they get insanely over, like 80 or 90 and are now would $200,000 or $400,000 a month to WWE, they could put up a stink and ASK to renegotiate or become very upset... if the wrestler has a business / money mindset. Not all the time like TEW 2016, but for rare situations like this.</p>

I agree with this, there could even be a non-compete agreement for large broadcasters that says if you leave them you can't sign with another broadcaster that has "Big" coverage in USA for 6 months etc. like WWE does with talent.

It should also depend on the worker personality and if they are self aware if they are going to be great. Yea, if you turn into the next Shawn Michaels you could be making a million dollars a month in 6 years, but that's no guarantee for sure. Today, right now, you can make $15,000 a MONTH, guaranteed, for 10 years. Most normal people make a few thousand a month, not counting doctors and lawyers etc. so guaranteed few hundred grand a year to some nobody wrestler who might make $30 or $60 thousand a year in a normal job sounds amazing unless they KNOW they are going to be the next Rock. The other solution would be similar to the TEW2016 solution. Where on long term deals, if a worker becomes significantly more valuable, they ASK you to renegotiate the deal. If you don't they either become upset, or could "sit out" their contract (unless its like 5 years left etc.) if you refuse to raise their pay.

I would like the option to exclude talent that does not currently have an in-ring role from drug tests. This wouldn't be if they could have an in ring role, but whether or not they do have an in ring role right now. For example, Steve Austin is retired but got busted on an internal drug test for Steroids. His only role is Road Agent. I know I can "take no action" against him, but I would prefer just not to test him in the random pool. I think it would be nice to to have an option to either include / exclude people who do not have a wrestler / occasional wrestler role, or better yet, a toggle for each role. This would give the most flexibility where you could still test Announcers / Color and Personalities since they are on TV but exclude Road Agents, or just only wrestlers etc. If they are currently assigned that role, they are eligible for drug tests. This could mimic the real world WWE example where "occasional wrestlers" aren't necessarily included in their wellness policy. If I unassign them from all roles I have set to be included in the testing pool, they won't be tested.

Yes I like this.

I would like to see a few changes to the Medical screen. First of all I would like to see some form of separation between true Medical issues and all other issues such as rehab, politics etc. It's just messy to me to have it all one one table. I would also like to be able to double click on a column to sort by name or sort by length away. Even if we have to stick with the "one table" view, perhaps add header rows and have a section for Medical and a section for others, such as politics, rehab, vacation, pregnancy etc. Also, one type that is "missing" is sitting out contract. I have Chris Benoit sitting out the rest of his 1.5 year remainder on his contract but he doesn't show up on this list of unavailable workers. The issue would be called "Sitting out contract" or something similar.

I use autobooker a lot and this would help me identify autobooked title matches as well.

I would like to see an icon in the segment line, perhaps a tiny little title belt, to show that some kind of title is on the line in this match. It can either be at the end of the name, or a new column to the left or right of the segment name that displays a little belt icon if the match is for some form of title. This will make it easy to spot auto booked title matches. I would still like the ability to not autobook title matches, but this will help.

The Dish Mexico broadcaster is set to debut in 2008, this was not checked when the game came out, but has been fixed in a patch, so now the game sees that there is a TV deal in place for a broadcaster that doesn't debut until 2008. I changed Dish Mexico to debut in 2003 in my copy to fix it. The other fix is to delete the deal with WWE.

A workaround that I do and did in TEW2016 is manually go to the workers screen, filter to find the child company, and then add my development workers to the shortlist, so that I get any emails about them.

Actually they are doing "All Out" again on September 5th, so that seems like the "end of August" PPV.

You might want to consider adding the "AEW World", "AEW Women's World" and "AEW World Tag Team" titles to the database. I see the pics, but the belts aren't there. I wouldn't add the TNT title as there is no guarantee of the TV deal they have now. Obviously the belts won't be doing anything until the company opens, but once they open they will have those belts. It also appears now that "Double Or Nothing" will be their yearly Wrestlemania at the end of May. Tony Khan said its their biggest event of the year, so you may want to add it in as a season ending event. They haven't shown yet if any of their other PPVs will be recurring each year. As of right now the game will just invent belts for them which is OK I guess.

I agree this should be part of the diary, not just an email notification.

<p>I look at it like this. I am new on the job, surely <em>someone</em> knew what was going to happen on the next show before I got hired, right?</p><p> </p><p> So I autobook. I autobook a lot in general, but look at it like this. Autobook the first show, or first few shows if weekly, see who the AI throws together and generate stories on WHY those people are fighting. Look at their profiles, ranks, title histories and personalities and just make up some stupid reason they are fighting.</p>

I like the new placement mode, but I would like drag and drop even better.

<p>This is already semi-in place with relationships. If there is a hatred relationship between an owner or booker the worker will refuse to work for them.</p><p> </p><p> I've pissed off a few workers that developed a Hatred relationship between my user avatar character and them and they refused to open negotiations with me.</p>

Post this in the Mods forum for the best chance of help. This is the suggestions forum for new features.

<p>It would need to be personality based. I wouldn't want that all the time, but that would be motivation to find another booking job for sure!</p><p> </p><p> Naturally if you worked for Vince McMahon you would get exactly this all the time, and it could be fun for a year or two.</p><p> </p><p> I see it as being personality based and how "hands on" the owner wants to be. A completely hands off owner would give only general guidelines for the next year/two years etc. like no hiring anyone over 40 and keep the top star over etc.</p>

<p>I love being Booker. Yes it can kind of chaff sometimes, but I love the extra challenge. I autobook most things I love the feeling of "running" a company, not necessarily picking who wins all the matches on a B show, big picture, the main event, negotiating all the best TV deals and PPV deals to give me maximum profit AND coverage in all areas, I love contract negotiations with workers etc.</p><p> </p><p> Booking gets in the way sometimes for me. That may sound counter intuitive as I have MORE control as an Owner, but as Booker it "feels" more as if you are part of a corporate structure where you have your own performance metrics to reach on top of revenue and size, all the while managing your roster. I view it as like being the General Manager of a fast food restaurant, you are the big boss in a LOT of ways, scheduling, day to day decisions, hiring, in a LOT of ways it is "your" restaurant, but there is still someone else above you who spices it up a bit, so like 90% control.</p>