D-Lyrium

Not sure if it was patched or not (it would be a weird thing to get through testing...) but those options definitely work now. I hate being even mildly confrontational, but in addition to being covered in the handbook, this was answered four posts above yours using the exact same terminology. Can we, like, at least look on the same page of the same thread before asking questions? Thanks.

<p>An "Alter Ego" is just an alternate character that the worker uses. This can be anything from just a change of picture (Edd Stone, Edd Stone Looking Happy, Edd Stone Wearing A Singlet, etc, etc), to a full on new bio and whole new character everything (Billy Gunn, Mr Ass, Billy).</p><p> </p><p> Sometimes these are linked to a promotion (usually if the company has trademarked the stage name *coughWWEcough*, or if it doesn't make sense for them to appear as that character elsewhere). </p><p> </p><p> You might, for instance, have three Mick Foley alter egos (Cactus Jack, Dude Love, Mankind), two of which would be WWE-specific (maybe even all three, since WWE bought ECW so probably own Cactus now too).</p><p> </p><p> To create an alter ego, go to the worker's profile, click the yellow text above his picture ("Mick Foley is a x year old x..."). There's a section on this page where you can pick an existing alter ego the worker already has. However i you change his picture, his name and/or his bio yourself, when you click save you'll be asked if you want to save the details as an alter ego. If you're only changing his picture, probably not, but if you're changing his name you probably do. </p><p> </p><p> At the bottom of the screen that pops up is a percentage bar. This is the likelihood that he'll use that alter ego if hired by another company, although if you're creating it in-game, I'm pretty sure all alter-egos you create will be specific to your promotion, so I'm not really sure what that bar does unless you leave the company, the worker gets fired, and the AI re-signs him there later.</p>

It doesn't matter from the battle sense. If you've managed to get a guy over, nobody cares whether he has 'star quality' or not in 2020, the fact you've managed to get him over would be enough. However, the act of getting him over in the first place is going to be more difficult if he doesn't have star quality. So the stat itself still matters, but having people with loads of it doesn't matter that much if you've still managed to get them over. Edit: a better way of putting it; it matters to the worker, but it doesn't necessarily matter to the company. Hope that makes sense.

As tryker said, the latter issue is because everyone is rated on a 'passive' skill. Active skills: Entertainment, Microphone, Acting, Fighting, Selling. Skills where they're "doing" something. Passive skills: Charisma, Overness, Menace, Star Quality, Sex Appeal. Skills where they're just "there", not doing anything. To be considered 'interesting', an angle needs at least one person (it only has to be one) rated on something active. Otherwise, they can't go more than four minutes. Angles only rated on passive skills would be minor "worker enters building" or "two workers stare each other down then leave" angles, where nothing 'interesting' happens but they get the crowd excited. Nobody wants 10 minutes of The Rock walking down a hallway, even if it is The Rock. Hype videos would be another example of this. They're cool and all, but after a while you kinda want to just get on with the actual show. With regard to scripting, only 'active' skills need to be scripted. You can still click the button for passive roles, but it'll be unset automatically when you save the angle. If you go back in to edit the angle, you'll see only the active skills are still scripted. So if you've got Aaron Andrews (rated on entertainment, scripted) cutting a promo on Wolf Hawkins (overness, off-screen, scripted), the game will automatically unscript Wolf when you save the angle, because he's not doing anything to need a script for. You can't be off-screen and rated on an active skill, so therefore you can't be scripted whilst you're off-screen.

It's in the same place it's in for handshake deals. Roster > click worker from the list > click the < or > next to Popularity to get to the contract pane, click Release button. The only reason the button wouldn't be there is if you were looking at the general Workers screen and not your own roster.

Yeah, best way would be to run two tournaments, and then have the tournament winners face each other in a grand final. Bottom right corner of the booking screen: Toggle Brands button. Book the segment, then if necessary, toggle it back on again. Firstly, the "must be four minutes long to count towards the show grade" thing has been replaced entirely (in 2016 I think) by Major and Minor impact. If an angle has a Major Impact, it counts, regardless of how long it is. If it has a Minor impact, it doesn't and isn't even mentioned in the show results after the event (hype videos, worker entrances, etc etc). The game also now uses multiple different methods of calculating show ratings, so not all angles are necessarily included. Check out the Angle Focus on the product screen. In terms of actual length, I have seen that longer angles between talented workers tend to do better. USPW in particular are a little bit hamstrung (intentionally IMO) by their product. Their fans aren't interested in sitting through angles longer than 5 minutes, but angles shorter than 5 minutes struggle to get excellent ratings (though can still get very good ratings) - at least in my limited experience with them. There are two kinds of penalty related to angle length: Fan attention span (the ADHD penalty, as I call it), ie, "the fans didn't want to see an angle this long". That's related to the product, and from what I've seen so far, the talent of the worker doesn't affect this. They won't want a 6 minute Rock promo and more than a 6 minute Dean Malenko promo. Assuming the product supports longer angles, how long they can go for depends on the entertainment skills and perception/momentum of the worker. If they go too long for their popularity/momentum, you'll get the "overused" note as normal. If they go too long for their skills, you'll get "X doesn't really have the skill to talk for this long". Most reasonably entertaining upper level talent can handle 15 minutes in my experience, though the likes of Hawkins and Andrews (good, but not The Rock) struggle to go much beyond that. I haven't actually started an SWF or CWA game yet (boo, the evil enemy!), so I'm not sure what someone like Emma Chase or Jack DeColt would be capable of. Emails > Mail Settings, set anything you want to interrupt autoadvance to Important instead of Received. In this case, on page 2, Worker Contract Offer and Worker Contract Offer Updated (in case the AI counter-offers you).

<p>Agreed with the intent of the suggestion here.</p><p> </p><p> There's two types of hiring issue at work here. The first is huge companies signing up tonnes of insignificant (to them) indy darlings and bloating their roster massively. That's a separate issue and has been addressed in the latest patch as OP mentioned.</p><p> </p><p> The other issue, the one relevant to this suggestion, is at the other end of the scale. Workers who CAN help the big companies, the big stars of their rivals (and their own stars) aren't being valued highly enough.</p><p> </p><p> Blackman's hit the actual issue on the head IMO. Basically, the AI isn't trying hard enough to keep the stars it has (or to acquire a rival's bigger stars), which means that if you're playing as a company like TCW, it's too easy to keep hold of the likes of Aaron Andrews and Wolf Hawkins even against USPW's vast fortunes. USPW shouldn't be hoovering up a ridiculous amount of workers from the rosters of tiny companies who would be "Unimportant" on their own roster. But they SHOULD be seriously throwing money at their own Major Stars, Stars and Well Knowns, and trying a lot harder to out-bid TCW and SWF for their top stars.</p><p> </p><p> As TCW, I should be scared when the likes of Andrews, Bach, Hawkins or Chord's contracts come up for negotiation. They're all perfect fits for USPW's product, none of them have any relationships or Attributes that would make them likely to turn USPW down to stay with me, but at the moment it's more like "this might cost me a bit more than before but it's all good". It feels like USPW don't really want them. And while I'm supposedly a smaller company with limited financial resources, in reality I can easily afford to match what USPW - a much bigger company with a huge cash reserve and turnover - are prepared to offer because frankly I'm making too much money as it is.</p><p> </p><p> They shouldn't keep increasing their bid exponentially until I drop out, and end up paying Andrews $30,000,000 per show just because they can probably afford that. But they should have a bit of extra room in their negotiating budget to account for the cash reserves they have, and the fact that outbidding me will hurt me a lot more than giving Aaron a bit of extra money will hurt them.</p><p> </p><p> I think at the moment the calculation basically says "his value to us is $x based on his popularity and skills. Therefore our maximum bid will be x + y. If they outbid that, they can have him.".</p><p> It should be more like "his value is $x to us as a worker. We normally go up to y% more than that if we get into a bidding war with someone. However, we've got tonnes of money, so we'd have no problem going to z% if we have to to poach him away from our rival, but not beyond that as it sets a dodgy precedent for the rest of our talent. Our maximum bid is x + y + z".</p><p> </p><p> For some workers in some companies, z might take him beyond what they can physically pay. That's fine, it happens. </p><p> For some, it might make him really obscenely expensive, but do-able financially. Then it becomes the player's decision; is he worth that much to me? Can I replace him? Right now, that decision is being made much lower down the pay scale, so it's a lot easier of a decision to make. Yes, I can pay him that, it's fine.</p><p> </p><p> I'm not saying USPW should be overpaying like this for EVERY worker. If I'm TCW, and I've made a star out of a technician with low entertainment skills, USPW are much less likely to be interested, obviously. They shouldn't do it "just because they can". But guys like Wolf and Aaron are exactly the type of worker they <strong>should </strong>be chasing. That would provide an incentive for me to make a star out of a guy they won't be interested in, since I'm supposed to be the alternative product.</p><p> </p><p> One final thing: This might all be unnecessary if companies didn't make quite so much money by default. If TCW made less profit each month, it would be much more difficult to throw so much at Aaron.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="thadian" data-cite="thadian" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47568" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I also wish we could get a slightly more indicative wording - for example, it might be confusing whether Rowan and Harper are HW or Big BW. What about Big Cass, is he a Giant? I mean, he's as tall as Big Show, taller than Braun, but only half the mass of Braun or Show. So would he be Big? Because I think of Super Heavy as those... King Kong Bundy, Tugboat, Earthquake and Loch Ness. I am iffy on whether Vader should be a Big HW or Super HW, given I have seen his Vadersaults and flipping piledriver powerbomb things in Japan. <p> </p><p> So I wish it were just a little more indicative of what defines a category.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's part of the problem we had in previous games, and the reason the categories are so vague. People can be the same weight, and vastly different heights and body shapes. They can be the same height, and vastly different weights and body shapes. They can be the same height AND weight and have not-so-vastly-but-still different body shapes. It's hard to categorise them well.</p><p> </p><p> Like you rightly point out, Cass and Big Show are the same height, but they're very obviously not in the same size category. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47568" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>WWE was using Finn Balor as a Heavyweight, who's shorter in height than Neville (PAC) who was their cruiserweight champion. AJ Styles would barely make Light Heavyweight and is short.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This isn't really relevant to the issue though. Rey Mysterio was WWE Champion at one point, it didn't suddenly make him a heavyweight?</p><p> </p><p> If the mod you're using has the WWE title set to a minimum weight, the modder obviously hasn't watched WWE for about 20 years... that's about the only thing I can think of that would make a guy like Balor not able to compete with WWE's main event talent.</p><p> </p><p> Increasing/decreasing size categories can affect things like star quality, but there's no reason you can't have high star quality at any size category, and star quality is the main thing that determines who can and can't main event in a company like WWE. Mechnically, a Skinny Lightweight with 100 Star Quality is just as valuable to the WWE as a Ripped Heavyweight with 100 Star Quality.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jomosensual" data-cite="Jomosensual" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="49818" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Has anyone tried out this feature yet? Adding some promotions into my database and am curious if I should add one to another promotion already. My idea is to give 5Star an American sister company <strong>but IDK if that would work out or not since they're in different countries.</strong></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think this sounds like pretty much what the feature was designed for, actually. Companies owned by the same 'umbrella' but that operate independently (ie, not a child company or development territory) - I want to use Dragon Gate and DG:USA as an example, but I've got no idea if they're owned by the same company or not and someone will call me out if they're not <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />. Or companies that are so closely linked that it wouldn't make sense for them to become unfriendly with each other (like CHIKARA and WIF).</p><p> </p><p> Basically part way between an alliance (a friendly group of completely and utterly separate companies) and a child relationship (company 1 is owned and operated entirely by company 2 and is subservient to it). </p><p> </p><p> A bit like, say, Audi and Skoda. In the UK at least, if you want to buy a Skoda, you go to a Skoda dealer. If you want to buy an Audi, you go to an Audi dealer . They're different brands, competing in the same market (though based in different countries) and in pretty much every way are separate companies. If Audi lose money, Skoda are unaffected. But behind the scenes Volkswagen Group own both so they're unlikely to allow them to go at each other in a public war of words. This analogy falls down a bit because the manufacturers don't actually own the dealerships, they're independent, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN LEAVE ME ALONE.</p>

Realised this whilst explaining the feature to another user earlier. Currently, chemistry only works for tag team partners or two workers in singles matches. It would be great if this could be expanded. Tag Opponents These are the easiest to explain so I'll start with them. Firstly, tag teams should have chemistry when fighting each other. There's no doubt that The Hardys and The Dudleys should qualify for tag chemistry with each other, but also IMO they should get a bonus for facing each other as teams, too. Edit: Actually this probably isn't needed; in the above scenario both teams are already getting a bonus for partnership chemistry. The examples of occasions where the teams have chemistry together as opponents but not each as partners would be rare enough to make this useless. Secondly, individuals who have chemistry between them should also get a bonus if they're on opposing sides of a tag team match. Maybe half the normal bonus, to represent the action being diluted by other workers (a third if it's a six-man tag, a quarter if it's an eight man tag). Multi-Man Teams If all three members of a team have positive or negative chemistry with each other, the whole team should get a bonus or penalty. Currently, if an experienced tag team (EDIT: I meant a team with chemistry, not necessarily experienced) tag with a random partner, the match gets no bonus. This is fine and makes sense and should continue. However, if all three workers have positive or negative chemistry together, they should get a portion of the bonus or penalty that a normal tag match between them would get. Ie: Swarm I and Swarm II - Good chemistry. Swarm II and Swarm III - Great chemistry Swarm I and Swarm III - Good chemistry In this example, if all three swarms are together in a six-man tag, there's no chemistry bonus currently. They should get at least some bonus to represent the fact they all have positive chemistry with each other as partners. If one of them has the opposite chem to the others, or none at all (ie, if I and III had poor chemistry or neutral chemistry) it would negate the whole bonus. As a completely different suggestion, it'd be great if you could define 'trios' like you can with tag teams, and give them experience and a name. Multi-Man Matches If all the participants in a multi-man match (like a triple threat) have EITHER all positive OR all negative chemistry with each other, the match should get a bonus (once) for chemistry. Based on the average value of the chemistry involved. For example, let's say there's chemistry as opponents between: Wolf Hawkins and Joshua Taylor (Great) Aaron Andrews and Wolf Hawkins (Good) Aaron Andrews and Joshua Taylor (Good) Currently, a triple threat between those three would get no bonus at all. Under this suggestion, it would get a bonus similar to the bonus a singles match would've gotten for between great and good chemistry, closer to good (I'm assuming the levels map to a numerical value somewhere in the code). As above, if the chemistry looked like this: Wolf Hawkins and Joshua Taylor (Great) Aaron Andrews and Wolf Hawkins (Poor) Aaron Andrews and Joshua Taylor (Good) There'd be no bonus, because the negative would cancel out the positive (even if there was "more" positive in terms of values) - otherwise loads of triple threats would get bonuses/penalties. This should only apply if ALL workers have the same... polarity? of chemistry with each other (but not necessarily the same level).

This is kinda-sorta covered by the talent trades system, at least for human players, but I agree that this would be a good addition to allow the AI to more easily utilise workers in these situations and make the system simpler overall. Either that, or make the system so that if you have a talent trade agreement in place, workers exclusively signed to the "main" company automatically appear on the other company's roster unless they both hold a show on the same night. That way the AI will be able to use them without having to 'loan' them specifically (which they won't do). Maybe have some kind of filter for "Loan Talent" so that your roster doesn't get flooded with guys if you're not the main company in the agreement, and limit the AI to booking a handful per show. Also, perhaps have a clause in the worker's contract negotiations that says "Will Be Shared With Friendly Companies" (which is only applicable if they're on an exclusive deal), so that not every single worker in the main company is available. You could also then introduce a block so that friendly companies (who have access to the worker anyway) won't sign him themselves, otherwise you'd get a situation where NJPW sign Omega to an exclusive written deal and hell breaks loose.

If two workers have chemistry when fighting each other, it only applies to singles matches between them. If Andrews and Hawkins have good chemistry, the bonus won't apply to Andrews vs. Hawkins vs. Taylor, and it won't apply to Andrews and Bach vs. Hawkins and Taylor either. If Hawkins and Taylor have good chemistry when tagging with each other, it won't apply to Andrews, Bach and Stone vs. Hawkins, Taylor and Hammond because you've introduced a third element which disrupts the chemistry. However, it WILL apply to Hawkins and Taylor vs. Andrews and Bach vs. Chandler and Johnson, because Hawkins and Taylor are still a two-man team in this match type. To pre-empt the obvious followup question, you can't have chemistry between more than two people (so you can't have trios chemistry, or chemistry between all workers in a triple threat). And even if all three of the workers in a triple threat have chemistry when fighting each other, you still don't get the bonus. So if Andrews and Hawkins, Bach and Andrews and Bach and Hawkins ALL have good chemistry (how bloody lucky are you?!) then Bach vs. Hawkins vs. Andrews still won't get a bonus. Managers have chemistry with each client individually. If Goldworthy and Titan have great chemistry, that doesn't mean Goldworthy will have great chemistry with Shark. If you run an angle with Goldworthy cutting a promo for The Behemoths (Titan & Shark), it's possible to get penalised for chemistry with one client and a bonus for chemistry with another in the same segment. Managerial chemistry is completely unaffected by match type, They'll have chemistry with their client whenever they're on screen together. Managers will never have chemistry (or at least, will never discover/get the bonus/penalty for chemistry) with clients they don't actually manage. So if you have an angle where Floyd Goldworthy cuts a promo on behalf of Nick Booth, unless Goldworthy is set as Booth's manager, they won't get any chemistry notes in that segment because as far as the game knows, Goldworthy isn't his manager, he's just there.

Currently, all lists in the game (IIRC) are sorted alphabetically. This causes confusion when users are looking for options which do exist, but are 'hidden' amongst names of workers. This is most obvious on the Bonuses screen, where sorting by 'Entire Roster' is an oft-requested option that already exists but is hard to spot unless you know what to look for. Would it be possible in VB to sort the list alphabetically, but keep certain items on top? I know it's possible in other languages but I'm not that familiar with VB. As an 'extreme measures' workaround, maybe "1- Entire Roster", "1- Unemployed" would work, albeit look hideous.

(Disclaimer: Not a staff member, or Adam). Whilst in general I'd like the ability to add/remove regions, I'm not sure it's a simple change that can be patched into 2020, because it would also mean overhauling how companies increase and decrease in size. Currently, it's structured so that to increase in size, you need to hit certain levels in certain areas. If you added the ability to add/remove game areas, you'd need to re-work the whole mechanic. Not saying that can't be done or would be a bad idea, it's just unlikely to happen in this version of the game. You'd also need to re-work popularity spillover code. And Broadcasters (slightly). Again, can be done, but probably not in this version.

As far as I know, legacies are still 'types' of regeneration. So if regeneration is turned off entirely, legacies won't happen either. You need to use the Turn road agent note. When you get to that angle in the show, the Handle Changes button will become active. You're right though, the handbook doesn't mention that. I've reported it in the typos thread.

Hmm, that's a bit weird? They're definitely set to allow graduates, yeah?

You need some training facilities for them to graduate from.

Yes, but I totally understand why you haven't found it. In the dropdown list of workers to give a bonus to, one of them is "Entire Roster". However, as this list is sorted alphabetically, nobody notices this option exists.

Only the aims which are actually different match types count for this. I'm pretty sure it explains that in the product screen (or somewhere, anyway). For instance, they need to be Wild Brawl, Technical Masterclass, High Spots, Car Crash, etc, etc, not Work The Crowd, Lift The Crowd, etc, etc.

Don't take this the wrong way, but... try it and find out? If you don't want it to affect your main game, start a new 'test' save or copy your main game and try it on the copy. For questions as specific as this, the only way someone is going to know is if they happen to have done that exact scenario themselves, or they try it themselves for you to let you know. The former seems unlikely, the latter you could do faster yourself. Not trying to be mean, just pointing it out.

I did bring that up (many patches ago, when it wasn't working properly), I argued it should be under show costs, but it was felt that worker bonuses was the best place for it (or at least, not a bad enough place for it to warrant changing). To be fair, they technically are bonuses paid to workers, so... I guess.

Assuming you're in the alliance you're trying to create titles for; Office > Alliance > View Titles > Create Title (the game has often been criticised for the interface being obscure and unintuitive but I really don't think it can be blamed here ). If you're not part of the alliance, then no. The only way would be to add a player, play as the owner of a company in the alliance, then add the title as above, then have that player leave the game. Have you checked your Backstage screen? What're you paying for in there? Probably hotels (even just organising them costs money, just not as much as also paying for them), transport costs, etc. If you've got a lot of workers on the show, that soon adds up. If it's not that (and I don't know why that would've changed since your last show), then... not really sure to be honest!

I'm not sure anyone besides Adam (and maybe the dev team, but probably not) knows for sure; whilst the handbook explains a lot, I think knowing exactly how the match engine worked would kind of ruin the game for me, if I know exactly what ratings matter, and how much, and which don't, etc. Finding out how Basics works was a bit like someone telling me the tooth fairy wasn't real. ¬_¬ I've found that being really good at one top row skill is usually better than being mediocre at several, though. Though a lot of it likely depends on your product. From a worker's point of view, being more well rounded would lead to more job opportunities, as more companies will be interested in you. But from a purely match rating perspective, and just from my own experience, I've had better results from a guy with 90 brawling, 20 technical than a guy with 60 brawling and 60 technical, assuming a similar level of fundamentals (basics, psychology, etc). So I'd assume - and again, I have no more knowledge than anyone else in the matter other than what I've seen in my games - that the game primarily uses the stat the worker is best at as the main component of the calculation. Unless, of course, the match aim specifically states which skills are more important (that 90/20 brawler isn't going to be much cop in a technical masterclass, whilst the 60/60 guy can handle that much better).

<p>I like it, personally. If you want someone to be portrayed as a main event level talent, it forces you to actually book someone like a main event talent, instead of just saying "hey, you're a main eventer. Good job. Now job to everyone constantly in 20 minute matches that people will be fine with forever for some reason. Everyone will be delighted that you're taking up half of our TV show, because I told them you were a main eventer".</p><p> </p><p> It's not perfect, particularly when your company isn't very popular as worker's perception can swing back and forth a bit more frequently than I'd like at lower level feds, but overall I find it an improvement from a realism/authenticity point of view.</p><p> </p><p> Edit: Oh, and divisions (as opposed to pushes, which were always an entirely different thing) are totally still in the game. From your Roster screen, click on either the yellow text at the top ("Aaron Andrews is a 33 year old white American male..."), or the worker's perception ("is considered a Major Star..") or their morale ("has normal Morale"). Those will all take you to the same screen. That's where you can change anything about the worker in your company, such as who he's managed by or what brand he's on. One of the options is Divison. All the 2016 options are still there (plus "women's" now, as women's division isn't a "push" by itself any more for obvious reasons).</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="janS" data-cite="janS" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47811" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>How does the Venue & Location setting "importance" affect the game?<p> </p><p> Did the developer journal get deleted? Couldn´t find the thread.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=542407&highlight=journal" rel="external nofollow">Journal is here.</a></p><p> </p><p> Importance is just used for the AI, they will prefer to book more important venues, when those venues make sense for their circumstances. For instance, you could set Madison Square Garden to be really important, and companies will try to use MSG when they're in the Tri-State area and are booking a show with an expected attendance that makes sense, rather than a generic or similar sized venue. They won't book an important venue that's much too large or small for their expected attendance, but if multiple venues would suit their needs, they'll pick the most important one.</p><p> </p><p> It has no effect on gameplay (unlike, say, a Hotbed which can affect attendance), it's just there to let the AI know that "hey, if you're booking a show in this area and this venue/location size makes sense for your size/show type, you should use it instead of another one that's less important because this is known for wrestling".</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="njmcfreak" data-cite="njmcfreak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47811" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Stupid question, but where is everyone getting unused pictures from? I love creating a bunch of computer generated wrestlers in a real world mod, but I also would like them to have pictures. Any threads in the mod section I should look for?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The Cornellverse comes with many "free worker pictures" ("free" in the sense that they're unused by the workers already in the database). Search your Pictures>Default>People folder (either in game or out of game) for "CVFP", they're all labelled "CVFP_<Ethniciity><Gender>_<number>". A lot of them come from a glorious mod called the ThunderVerse.</p><p> </p><p> The awesome folks over in the mod forum keep churning out new ones at quite a pace, too, so you'll likely find some there.</p><p> </p><p> I think someone did a real-world pack of "free pictures" which are actual photographs, too.</p>