lazorbeak

Is it feasible to mass edit attributes onto a group of workers in a future update? I'm looking specifically at "career woman" for Joshi promotions, but it would be a lot easier to mass edit personalities or other common attributes onto a group vs one at a time. Edit: I have no idea how I didn't find this earlier.

When you turn a save into a mod, is there a way to re-set ring rust and fatigue? It seems strange to have people asking you not to use them on the first show.

I've been playing around with the idea of a 2000 mod so I've got a ton of notes, please don't take them personally. Popularity in general is way off: if you look at the default data, 50-60 is where established but non-pushed midcarders like John Green and Robbie Retro live. You have people like Jeff Jarrett, Stephanie McMahon, at that level. In January 2000, Stephanie is one of the top heels in the biggest company in the world and Jeff Jarrett is the U.S. champion and has been in the midcard to upper midcard for the last 5 years. Putting them that low trickles down to the next level, where Raven has a 40 and Sean Waltman has a 45: that means Waltman has the same starting popularity as Harry Allen, former TCW tag team and cruiserweight champ, while Raven is just as popular as the Handsome Stranger, a former SWF midcarder who runs a Puerto Rican promotion. I made this to help create a baseline using the descriptions from TEW 2016, with added descriptions: Worker Popularity Level Icon: 93-100 -very top level guy Huge Star: 85-92 -main eventer in national or bigger company Star: 78-84 -lower tier main event guy Draw: 71-77 -potential main eventer, top level that will sign with cult Well Known: 63-70 -cult level main event guy, upper midcarder in top promotion Recognizable: 58-62 -established name, featured TV performer Regional Star: 41-57- Main eventer in regional to cult fed, mid-level guy in national fed Regional Level: 21-40 -has a recognized name/gimmick, but not a main eventer, even in a regional company Unknown: 1-20 virtually unknown anywhere, may not have established gimmick. Right now, Mr. McMahon, Undertaker, Big Show, Kane, and HBK are "well known" perception, rather than star, despite all five being former WWF champions. Then you don't have multiple time champions and pushed upper midcarders like X-Pac, the Outlaws, Shane & Stephanie at the well known level. Other stuff: Bradshaw and Farooq are listed as heels (henchman), when they were already doing the beer-drinking, card-playing face act. British Bulldog is a face, he should be a heel as he had just feuded with Rock and teams with Angle in January/February. Debra should a face, she turned on Jarrett and is off TV. Gillberg should not be under contract- he makes one appearance in February 2000, and is working indy shows all through 1999 and 2000. Hardcore and Crash Holly should be heels who just worked with Rock & Mankind, and Hardcore is feuding with Jericho. Ivory is listed as a face. Lita has not debuted, debuts in February as a face, should be in developmental. Scott Vick debuts in March, should be in developmental. Stevie Richards should be a face, doing the sidekick/impersonator gimmick. Terri manages the Hardyz for the moment. Trish debuts in March, should be in developmental. Rikishi and Too Cool are red hot in January 2000, and Scotty and Rikishi should probably both have "Hot New Move" and significantly better starting momentum. Droz is not in the game- should either be retired wrestler, or an active wrestler with a spinal injury that will cause him to retire.

What's accurate? Superstars being an "A" show? January 1991 had a triple taping of Superstars on the 7th and the 28th. The best match on the January 7th taping was a 4 minute DQ finish match between Kerry Von Erich and Mr. Perfect: the rest were squashes. The 28th taping is nothing but squashes and one tag team battle royale that goes six minutes. Meanwhile there's a show at MSG that features Savage vs Warrior in a cage, Undertaker vs Snuka, and Demolition vs the LOD. Hogan works 8 house shows in January, plus the Rumble, and NBC special (the Main Event), and a Dark Match. He does not wrestle on Superstars or Challenge, because he doesn't work b-shows.

As a follow-up to my post about understanding how TEW measures the world solely by wrestling fans, here's a post about broadcasters, or why you shouldn't just set coverage as uniform across every country. Like I mentioned earlier, TEW by its nature doesn't count everyone in the world, it counts everyone that might be considered a wrestling fan, from the grandma who watches TV but never buys merch, to the hardcores who go to every live show. In the U.S., that's about 10 million people across 11 regions (between 2 and 3% of the population). Mods generally use national broadcasting deals, but when you break it down by region you can see what the numbers mean and how you can fix issues that come up from population differences across regions. To test this, I made a series of fake broadcasters (Test TS, Test GL, Test SW, etc.), and set WWF at a 90 across the board with a high industry and gave them a primetime slot for each broadcaster. Here's the results for two weeks of testing: Tri-State, enormous: 1.18, 1.14, max of 886,693 viewers. Minimum quality: 89. Great Lakes, huge: .78, .78: max of 587,338 viewers. Minimum quality: 89. Mid-Atlantic, very big: .54, .51, max of 410,170 viewers. Minimum quality: 82. Mid-South, big: .41, .41, max of 311,659 viewers. Minimum quality: 75. Mid-West, medium: .19, .19, max of 146,194 viewers. Minimum quality: 68. New England, small: .08, .08, max of 62,936 viewers. Minimum quality: 61. Northwest, very small: .04, .04, 37,136 minimum quality: 54. Southeast, tiny: .01, .01, max viewers: 8,463 Minimum quality: 47. I couldn't keep the test going, because the AI immediately signed new broadcasting deals and took lower time-slots for the enormous and huge deals, and eventually the very big deal too. I also simmed through from January to Wrestlemania, and WWF ran a stadium show in front of 81,000, with 1.2 million buys from Viewers Choice (a number WWE never hit until 2011), even with Puerto Rico set to "none." So with an enormous broadcaster, a 90 popularity, and a primetime show, you can pull, at absolute best, just about a million people in a region. The Tri-State has about 40 million people, with Kanto just above that (circa 43), and the U.S. Southwest above that (over 50 in California). So you're looking at 1/40 of the total population of a region as a peak, since the Tri-State is one of the biggest wrestling hubs. Broadcaster size scales down, first at about 2/3, then begins cutting in half from big to medium and every level below that, until tiny, which is closer to 1/4 of very small. So what does this mean for mod-makers? The AI is going to struggle to pull better than 75s, so somewhere between "medium" and "big" is probably where most cable networks need to be, with "very big" and "enormous" reserved for the biggest networks. But what about Puerto Rico and Hawaii? Puerto Rico has a population of 3.5 million people, and Hawaii has a population of 1.4 million people. That means they are 1/10 and 1/20 the size of the Tri-State area. A medium-level broadcaster for a promotion with 90 popularity is going to get 40% of the total population of the population of Puerto Rico: since TEW seems to be operating under the philosophy that there are, optimistically, 10 million wrestling fans in the U.S., that's a crazy number. If you keep the ratio the same, you get that Puerto Rico having 3 million people means they'd have, at best, 40,000 fans, and no broadcaster should be bigger than "small," and that includes PPVs (since Puerto Rico is mostly non-English, PPVs should probably be set at 'tiny' or 'none'). Hawaii is even smaller, so no broadcaster should be bigger than "very small." Along with fixing popularity in these regions, this should keep the AI from running stadium shows in these regions. It also lets historical mods run Puerto Rico as a big regional power that has no crossover: Puerto Rico's territory can run stadium shows once a year and still be completely isolated from every other region.

I realize this is a month late, but the one potential issue of scoring like this at the top levels is that popularity is not just "does a non-fan recognize this person?" You have to remember that in TEW, there's only a few million people in each region (at most) who will willingly watch wrestling. Popularity is how willing those wrestling fans are to pay to see that person: it really doesn't matter if your mother-in-law can pick them out of a lineup. Hulk Hogan in 1994 when he signs with WCW is one of the biggest stars in the sport, but he didn't sell tickets as a draw in TNA in 2010, so he shouldn't be a "mega star" in 2020. So that top level is reserved for top level champions in big promotions (Hogan, Austin, Rock at their peak), and may also include crossover stars or people that wrestling fans will pay to see (Rock after he leaves, CM Punk after he quit, Brock as MMA champion), but it specifically not there for "legends."

Yep, I'm giving what I think is pretty fair feedback about what seems like pretty significant issues with the base-game in the form it is starting in, and how this is not fun for someone who is new or returning to the genre, and get told (incorrect) information by people who want to say it's my fault I didn't look at every screen closely enough. Some of us are giving feedback on the beta and... some of us are saying it's wrong to have any feedback that's not absolutely positive.

I realize this is a beta, so it's still in pre-release form, but here are my initial impressions. Sorry if this stuff has all been addressed. I'm playing beta patch #9. The good stuff: Personalities and gimmicks no longer being tied to sliders is a big improvement, and should make modding far easier going forward. I like the attribute system in general and think it's a very cool way to give modders the freedom to attach a perk rather than assigning a retirement age. Gimmicks felt like they were moving towards redundancy, so I like the new system that focuses exclusively on gimmick types. The events overhaul is great, as you can now realistically run a schedule other than a traditional modern weekly tv show format. You can run 80's WWF with 4-5 touring shows per week and a bi-weekly double-taping of Superstars and Challenge. The fixes to contracts are great, and seem to bring things much closer to reality both in terms of numbers and the way merch and bonuses work, and seem to at least somewhat be thanks to the info that's publicly available on WCW and WWF's contracts thanks to their lawsuits. The ugly: The UI has been talked about, but it's rough. An 8x5 grid of buttons is difficult to navigate and generally a pain. Moving segments around in the booking view is a huge pain, especially because it *looks* like it should be drag & drop, but instead relies on arrows, which are smaller and more of a pain than TEW 2016's "move up" and "move down" buttons that were at least clear about what they were. Finding out who was managing whom was way harder than it used to be, and involved clicking on the character roles, and even then, it wouldn't tell me who the manager was managing unless I was on the wrestler's page. The bad: I don't expect a show to not have problems, but honestly, some of this stuff is so counter-intuitive that I wonder if it's not for the few dozen people who have "solved" TEW and just power-game it. For people who want to have a fun booking/promoting sim, I'm not sure it's very fun as-is. I started a game as USPW, ran a show, and immediately ran into a hidden penalty about stories not moving forward enough (although I didn't get any warning), and had my show knocked to under 70. How is a new player or someone who is coming back to the series supposed to figure out what's going on? I started an SWF save and my first show was built around a big tag match with Rocky Golden and Valiant against Scythe and Brandon James, it got an 81... and the show got a 68, because there weren't 5 storylines with 70 heat. SWF fell to medium size, entered a shocked state, and the broadcaster is unhappy. This kind of penalty and this level of penalty on a first show, is, in a word, "dumb." "Hmm, Undertaker and Steve Austin wrestled Mankind and Kane, but the show was bad because other than the Austin/Vince story, and the Undertaker/Mankind/Kane story, and The Rock/Triple H midcard feud, there aren't two more midcard feuds, so the show should only get a 70. You have to go to the to the options menu to find the button to turn strict storylines off, but what's especially annoying is SWF is failing this in the default state on day 1: why are we supposed to know about this if the game is starting in a fail state? I also tried playing around with products and some of it is just strange. If you tried to put SWF to its "Attitude Era" product, it says the fans expect at least one match rated on eye-candy. This almost feels like a glitch, it's so strange. I guess it's to replace the ratio from TEW2016, but it doesn't make any sense. I know a lot of these issues: storyline effects can be turned off, but this is just so frustrating as an experienced player, I can't imagine a new player running a show, spending 20+ minutes booking their dream show, and then get a hidden penalty that tanks the company immediately because WWF was failing a very arbitrary penalty on day one.

Really hoping we get some changes to the way ppa vs written contracts are worked out, especially when it comes to fed size. The way it is in TEW 2016, basically everybody on a ppa makes at least 5 times what they should per show, which ends up causing every low level promotion (and even medium touring promotions) in historical sims to instantly bankrupt themselves. It'd be great if the system was balanced to allow more creative control for the workers and less income demands to simulate running a merch table instead of promotion specific merchandise.

Not sure if anyone is still playing this, but I've been tinkering with this again lately.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Warhawk8492" data-cite="Warhawk8492" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I am guessing Aiden English is next to go, or he will be repackaged.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Considering Gotch had backstage issues and English is bigger, younger, and married to a Guerrero, I'll bet he just disappears for a few weeks and comes back with a new gimmick, possibly on NXT.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="K-Nection" data-cite="K-Nection" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Ok kinda questioning why the Hardys aren't broken? That is the gimmick that re got them over. Is WWE afraid of trying to explain it?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="smurphy1014" data-cite="smurphy1014" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Anthem is claiming they own it even though Matt's wife is saying she not only created it (and has video proof) and patented it weeks before they left Impact. She's gone on a couple of epic twitter rants against them and that d@mn owl.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Why would WWE introduce the Hardyz as broken, when all it does is send their fans out looking for this content they can't monetize? Better to re-introduce them to fans that haven't seen them in six-seven years and the generation that is too young to have seen any of their 1999-2001 run, sell a DVD in Best Buy that collects their stuff in six dvds or whatever, then in a few months, do your own version. It's like asking why WWE didn't mention that CM Punk had already done the Summer of Punk before, years earlier, for another company.</p><p> </p><p> They'll work out whatever legal issues there are and do the same or similar shtick within the year. And you trademark a character, you don't patent it. I don't really think Impact has much of a leg to stand on, considering he owns the trademark, and Matt Hardy is his real name, not a gimmicked one.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Warhawk8492" data-cite="Warhawk8492" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>WWE really should give up on making Roman a top level face and turn him heel.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Did you just not watch Wrestlemania or the Raw after?</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="codey_v2" data-cite="codey_v2" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm a die hard Cowboys fan (even got great end zone tickets to see them beat Baltimore this year) and I couldn't disagree more. Maybe outside of the state of Texas where I know they're popular, but in Texas if you like football you either love the Cowboys, Texans, or Titans (due to the Oilers thing) and you don't stop.<p> </p><p> Everyone I know that's a fan, from Dallas down to Corpus, is a fan no matter what, and would still be a fan even if (god forbid) Mark Sanchez was under center for a full season. I mean, that's basically what we had last year when we started every free agent career backup available.</p><p> </p><p> Point is, we're not fairweather fans! If that were the case, the franchise wouldn't stay the most popular through years like last year. <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> As a Packer fan living in Texas, yes, Cowboys fans are not fairweather fans. That's like saying Steelers fans are "fairweather." They aren't, there are just a lot of them. A fair-weather fanbase would be the Chargers, where half the crowd is cheering for the other team, or Arizona, who was bottom 10 in attendance the minute they're not a super bowl contender.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Ayden" data-cite="Ayden" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The Pelicans have been one of the unluckiest teams in the whole NBA in terms of injuries. They have good guards; Jrue Holiday is great and Tim Frazier has been a solid addition. The problem with them is the coaching. The Pelicans go waaaaaay too long in games where Davis doesn't even get to touch the ball. That's insane. It's like the 93-94 Rockets ignoring Olajuwon. You have one of the best all-round players in recent memory and you ignore him on offense? Gentry needs to go...<p> </p><p> I am a massive Hornets fan and this has been an incredible start to the season. Steve Clifford has got them playing fantastic defense and the offense is steadily climbing. I don't think they'll finish top in the East but there is no reason why they shouldn't win their division and get a top four seed, possibly even third ahead of Boston</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Obviously I'm talking about the guards that are actually suiting up: who could forget Buddy Hield, Archie Goodwin, or Langston Galloway? Or the ghost of Lance Stephenson?</p><p> </p><p> I don't think the Evans/Jrue team is anything special the 20 games a year when their limbs aren't falling off their joints, but the depth behind them is totally abysmal.</p>

<p>Well, we're a couple of weeks into the season already. Can someone please rescue Anthony Davis from the worst guards in the NBA? The Warriors are starting to roll into shape after some really bad laziness on defense early on.</p><p> </p><p> Harden and the Rockets are fun again now that Dwight is gone; Harden's performance against the Spurs was nuts.</p><p> </p><p> It remains to be seen if the Hornets have actually made a leap or if they just got a hot start, but they're looking solid.</p><p> </p><p> Not liking what I've seen from D. Rose, but Carmelo and Porzingis are looking good early.</p>

"Even consider shooting the ball?" You know he broke his own record for most made three pointers in a season while finishing second in percentage, right? The Jazz and Timberwolves seem like the obvious dark horses, as both have young players getting better and Minnesota made a massive coaching upgrade. I think Orlando could definitely surprise people by jumping into the playoff picture, although I don't think they have the overall talent to do much once they get there.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I will have to see if Chicago learns how to shoot between now and the beginning of the season. Looking forward to Golden State. There's no way they win 70+ games again this year though.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I wouldn't count on it, Rondo still hasn't learned to shoot and hasn't been a net positive on a basketball court in five years (he spent last year chasing empty assist numbers and playing no defense), and Dwayne Wade is 35 and posted his career-worst shooting numbers last year. It's going to be pretty tough to score with so many guys that can't shoot on the floor at once.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I liked the PPV, even if the pacing seemed off. Two stoppages/non-finishes in a row? That's like having two tag matches in a row, or a manager with clients in consecutive matches - you just don't.<p> </p><p> Also, for being on the heels, Nikki got a big pop. Found that odd.</p><p> </p><p> I can't stand Charlotte with the "Wooooo" and those ridiculous things above her eye.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I saw the screwy Reigns/Rusev thing coming a mile away, but knowing that the show was ending with a main event TKO finish, they probably should've stuck it before Rollins/Balor. I did like the show fine overall, I'm on record as being pro Brock's MMA-influenced style. The finisher/reversal fest WWE main event style is perfectly fine, but Cena/AJ gave us a four/four and a half star version of that, so we don't need every main event to be just the same. No idea what Dolph/Dean was supposed to be, though. That just sucked.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have added an option to the next patch to allow the user to buy their way out of contracts if they want.<p> </p><p> Just a reminder that if people have something they would like to see added or changed, all that they need to do is make a polite post in the Suggestions forum.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thanks, sounds great. Sorry I didn't suggest this, but my initial post was trying to figure out how I could do this, as I recalled in TEW2013 I was rarely if ever caught in a situation where the network just wouldn't accept my request.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CharDeeMacDennis" data-cite="CharDeeMacDennis" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I can't remember being lectured on efficient breach and I couldn't find any cases involving efficient breach after a quick search so I don't think that theory has been tested in a court so I would not want to rely on that theory but I may be wrong with it. <p> </p><p> The contract is between the tv company and the promotion, not the tv company and the previous head booker so the fact that you didn't sign the contract doesn't change anything.</p><p> </p><p> I would also say that your company gaining a toxic reputation is realistic as I can't imagine many companies being willing to negotiate a company that they cannot trust to fulfill their contractual duties.</p><p> </p><p> However, as I said at the start I don't know how it works in the USA and I am very rusty on Scots contract law so I may be wrong but if my memory serves me correctly that Adam has it right with television contracts.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> By its nature efficient breach isn't cited as case law too often, except as a "this is what you should have done." Judge Posner, one of the more famous jurists in America, talked about it in Patton v. Mid-Continent (841 F. 2d 742), a case that's pretty standard in American law schools. In the U.S., specific performance is a very rare remedy and really doesn't work if the show in replaceable. "[T]he only universal consequence of a legally binding promise is, that the law makes the promisor pay damages if the promised event does not come to pass. In every case it leaves him free to break his contract if he chooses." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.</p><p> </p><p> I understand that from a legal standpoint the fact that I didn't sign the contract doesn't matter, but from a game perspective it's about letting the player out of the AI's limiting decisions in a way that isn't about locking the player into booking shows they don't want to book or waiting until you get to the show screen and then last-minute canceling shows which hurts more than just breaching the contract because you're turning away fans from a scheduled show.</p><p> </p><p> This way the game can simulate that it's not an easy or free choice, but at the same time you're not stuck or forced to sabotage yourself.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="d12345" data-cite="d12345" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Think of a television contract as having 2 things: <p> 1. A no compete clause stopping you from taking your show and going home prior to completing the contract if you don't like the network or whatever reason. (unless that is negotiated in advance, which no network would ever agree to. Imagine if The Walking Dead was just like "AMC doesn't have enough coverage for us we're taking the show to HBO. That's not happening if AMC doesn't agree).</p><p> </p><p> 2. The network having ownership rights for the duration of the contract in the country of broadcast. Meaning your tv show can strike a deal with foreign broadcasters so long as they don't air in a conflicting area. Again this is real world tv contracts.</p><p> </p><p> You can't just take your show to a new network mid-contract even if you have the money. The original network has to agree to release you. No new network would take on your show. The new network wouldn't risk the easy lawsuit.</p><p> </p><p> I'm talking how a television series contract works in the real world.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm talking about how they work in a videogame, but the same basic principles apply. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> I want to know why I don't have the option to offer money in exchange for breaching a contract I didn't sign. Your examples don't make a lot of sense to me since Walking Dead is AMC-produced and not a weekly sports broadcast.</p><p> </p><p> You can take a look at WWF's UPN deal here: <a href="http://contracts.onecle.com/wwe/paramount.lic.1999.08.25.shtml" rel="external nofollow">http://contracts.onecle.com/wwe/paramount.lic.1999.08.25.shtml</a></p><p> </p><p> Aside from obvious stuff like being renewed four months in advance, there isn't anything about forced injunctions, specific performance, etc.</p><p> </p><p> Here's a link to the concept of what I'm talking about: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach" rel="external nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach</a></p><p> </p><p> Also, this is a video game, and it is deeply annoying (and unrealistic) to be forced into a contract I didn't sign or to become toxic to all media companies by failing to perform instead of just paying for an efficient breach.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'd imagine the company you're screwing over by leaving would be able to take legal action to stop you being shown anywhere else given that they have a valid contract. I don't think a company could just pay to have the contract ignored if the first company wasn't willing to accept the pay off.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I can't speak for legal systems outside of the U.S., but that's not the law in the United States. Basically in the U.S., the process would be to offer a payment in exchange for a breach, and if that doesn't work, to breach anyway. The network would have to be able to convince a court that the type of harm it suffers from the breach is so specialized and specific that it can't be compensated with money to prevent the promotion from going somewhere else, which would be a very tough sell and would be a bad idea when it came to something like a TRO because it'd have to pay a bond for all the income lost by the promotion during the lawsuit. At best, it might get to recoup the money it lost for non-performance by taking a piece of the new contract, and could get attorneys' fees on top of that, but no, it's not unrealistic for the game to "fine" you a million dollars or so to renegotiate a new deal somewhere.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You can ask for a cancellation, or, you can cancel each taping and very soon you'll lose the slot and take a fine.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Wouldn't that mean I'd be unable to negotiate somewhere else for a period?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41194" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yes, because part of the game is that losing a TV slot can have major repercussions, having an option where you get in trouble and can simply buy your way out of it would negate that. Also, I don't think you could simply tear up a contract and go somewhere else in reality, taking a fine or otherwise.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Which is why I'm not interested in "losing" a tv slot, I'm trying to part ways with an existing provider for a contract I didn't sign, in order to sign a better one, and I'm willing to pay fake TEW dollars for the privilege. What's the point of having a stockpile of cash if you can't use it for things like this? I'm not sure why you think a company couldn't just breach its agreement, sign a deal somewhere else, and settle a resulting lawsuit?</p>

I just took over as head booker of an existing promotion and want to change TV deals; is there literally no way to do this other than waiting out the contract? Is there some reason I can't pay a million dollar fine and renegotiate somewhere else?

There was no pre-steroid Scott Steiner. http://ecwfrenchtribute.free.fr/HTLM/Photos/S/Scott_Steiner/Scott_Steiner_Scott_Rechsteiner_18.jpg