Bull

If I play smaller promotions I tend to just play as the booker just for that little extra challenge that comes with owner veto's, but If I'm playing a big company I play as the Owner 100% of the time. . I despise not being able to outbid the competition just because the cpu owner doesn't understand the value. . It seems especially prevalent in this game. As an example I got into a bidding war for Nicky Champion with USPW. Their initial offer to him was only 232,000 dollars for 2 years, so I made a 255,000 dollar offer for 4 to get him only interested in my offer. Next day USPW had countered with a 318,000 dollar offer. . . There's no way I could've come close to that if I hadn't been the owner, and I actually wound up paying him 435,000 just to keep everyone else away lol

Come on dude. . Is it really necessary to just drop a post like that? If you don't like the idea or disagree that cool, but maybe counter with why instead of just popping in laughing at it and dipping. . Yea I get that, and I do that, like I said it would probably be more flavour than utility, but it would be nice to not have to worry about the game putting weaker staff in more important matches. . Not like it would take away anything.. If anything it wouldn't have to be anything handled by the player just throw check in so that its less of a random assignment of the staff just so you don't have to constantly keep an eye on it. .

Sam Keith I would say personally. . He's held a "World" Title 10 Times. . Although his 2 CGC title runs might not classify as major considering when they occurred. . Dick The Devastator Held the AAFW Title 18 Times but I'm not entirely sure if that would be considered a Major title as it's stated as occurring in the territory days. . I did make a quick scan, but I didn't see anyone else that had more than Sam.. someone else might have more accurate information.

It seems with the new way Road Agents and referees can get overworked it's more necessary to have multiple people in these roles, however they seem to just be randomly assigned as you book matches and angles.. I was thinking it would be cool to have a bit of tier system with these roles so they are better used. So you'll have your head Referees and Road agents who are more likely to be used in your big matches/Main Events and then have your secondary and maybe even tertiary tiers for your midcard and lesser matches. Just something to add a little flavour to these roles if nothing else. .

<p>Always a fan of your work JT.</p><p> </p><p> Went ahead and dropped these on the blue background.</p><p> </p><p> <img alt="9QQ0XTr.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/9QQ0XTr.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><img alt="NcTFZfh.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/NcTFZfh.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><img alt="ozzPIBK.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/ozzPIBK.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also decided I wanted to use the original of LA Star #2 as Masked Patriot so I did a quick color change and flip so they are a little less similar.. probably goes in the alt thread but here it is either way lol.</p><p> </p><p> <img alt="gqzN8ZW.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/gqzN8ZW.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

Might be helpful to get a warning when you are booking a worker in an unfavorable way according to their gimmick. So if a worker has a gimmick that would hurt them to lose to another specific gimmick type you could get a warning when booking them in a match that it would apply.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="RatedRKO16" data-cite="RatedRKO16" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I love the '16 search feature. For me, that being expanded would have been nice. And/Or buttons would be sweet, but I always would have liked to select a range.<p> </p><p> For example, when you chose "average brawling" you would get average, good, great and excellent brawlers in your list. An "average to good brawling" range would be beneficial. The reason being if you've done the search for great and excellent brawlers and wanted to see the good brawlers, you'd have to look through all those workers you just looked through as well. It's not a HUGE deal, but it is one of those things that would make life a little easier.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Maybe something like a quick range setting drop down menu could be added to the search tab. . So select your skill row in one drop down like</p><p> </p><p> <strong>-Primary-</strong></p><p> Brawling</p><p> Puro</p><p> Hardcore</p><p> Technical</p><p> Aerial</p><p> Flashiness</p><p> </p><p> <strong>-Mental-</strong></p><p> Psychology</p><p> Experience</p><p> Respect</p><p> Reputation</p><p> </p><p> so on so forth, then select your range for those skills</p><p> </p><p> 91-100 World Class</p><p> 81-90 Excellent </p><p> 71-80 Very Good</p><p> 61-70 Above Average</p><p> 51-60 Average</p><p> 41-50 Below Average</p><p> 00-40 Needs Work </p><p> </p><p> Or whatever names you'd wanna put in. . and all it would really do is once you select your range, throw a button in there that would just auto populated the boxes with that range, so you pick Brawling with a range of Average it'll auto set the range to 51 minimum and 60 maximum</p>

when you are on the booking screen there is a button in the bottom right corner near the local workers button. to bring in the title which will automatically bring in the champion as well.

perhaps a simple solution(maybe maybe not, I'm no coder) would be to change the picture requirement setting in the options back to new worker frequency like it was in 16 and just just change the settings for it to be... Yes, which would spawn new workers no matter what. No, which would totally disable it. Only with Picture, which would work exactly as when Picture Requirement is enabled..

It's all it what kind of game you wanna play I guess. It's not an overly extensive process to clear out the free picture section of the database. . So if you don't want a bunch of rando's being made you can you can use that method. You'll still have the random pictures in the folder itself you can use as you please, they just won't be utilized in the database itself for worker generation. . Alternatively if you still want non wrestlers to generate just remove all the active wrestler pictures and leave in the ones only meant for non wrestlers.

I think that is simply the owner not wanting to sell, as in they'd rather go down with the ship than let someone else save it. .

Just to add you can also just make sure there are no free pictures set in the database and as long as you have the option set in game to require pictures random new gens won't be created anyway. .

Ok, I don't see where what I said was presented as a statement of fact. . if people think it's an issue cool, I was just giving my opinion for why it might not be. . Forgive me for having an opinion, I'll just keep it to myself from now on. .

It could come from a story standpoint that they are struggling. USPW is still number one and the gap is growing, the whole IRS scandal with Tricky Dick putting them even further behind. Basically you're playing catch up in every sense of the phrase. . It's a difficult start certainly, but not one you can't book your way out of with a little strategy, or if you prefer a simpler approach just some liberal disabling of the stricter penalties lol. and as another alternative just bring ol' Jacky Bruce back in and spam the ever loving hell out of him It would absolutely be difficult for someone unfamiliar though for sure. .

I wonder if anyone would be willing post some of their custom products from 2016? Just to get an idea of what's missing from 2020. I imagine with as many people who want this feature back that they had a number of products that they put together in 2016 that they feel can't be properly replicated in 2020. . Could give a better idea of exactly why it's an issue.

That not really accurate from the tests that I did. Yes the wildly popular ugly people managed to get a better grade than the Highest SA unknown, but it very quickly started to lean to the higher SA workers once the popularity started decreasing to more realistic numbers. . however any bonus that you allegedly get from it on other angle types doesn't seem to be all that significant. . I do agree that if you are gonna rate someone on their Sex Appeal they should at least have some to begin with though.. The only other thing I can add is that it's ridiculously easy to get mangers over in this game. . I hired Jake Sawyer with SWF and basically just put him in angles with the top guys(he was hunting for clients) and his popularity jumped from the range of 8-20 all the way up to the low 40's across the US after the first month..

The thing to consider though is that it's less of an issue with Performance based products. Angles in those products already tend to have less importance and want you to focus on already established stars to get any benefit out of them. The types of products than can utilize them are gonna be more entertainment focused and thus more popularity focused by default. .

I used SWF with Classic Sports Entertainment so Sex Appeal Angles are capped. I think it's just assumed that it's a concrete point based cap, but It's not outside the realm of possibility that the cap scales in such a way that it limits every segment by a percentage. . So rather than saying there is a cap of 80 and no segment will ever score higher, it's an 80% cap an every segment will only perform 80% as well in that Product type. .

<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>0 SA and 100 Pop scored third overall, was the last test 4 minutes or 6 minutes?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> they were all rated on Sex Appeal in the last test so 4 minutes to avoid penalties</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Yea sure it was 3rd overall, but I say again it is THE most extreme scenario and one that realistically would never occur unless it's deliberately set up that way/ Plus, their is zero benefit from it as you are dropping someone with 100 popularity into an angle that's going to pull less than half their popularity in the grade. . and any company that could benefit from it isn't gonna have a worker with 100 popularity in the first place. .</p><p> </p><p> You stand to gain something from actually using the less popular workers because they at least have a chance to gain popularity from it. .</p>

<p>So here's what I did</p><p> </p><p> I made 5 workers, set them all to 50 Popularity set all there's skills to 50 execept</p><p> </p><p> Consistency was set to 100</p><p> </p><p> Charisma, Microphone, Acting, and Star Quality were all set to 75</p><p> </p><p> Menace to 0</p><p> </p><p> and took away all attributes and set personality to Professional.</p><p> Here is an example of Worker 1</p><p> <img alt="JjEmIr4.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/JjEmIr4.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> The only variable was Sex Appeal as I had one worker with 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0 respectively</p><p> </p><p> I turned off every possible setting that could influence the grade, so morale, overuse, crowd heat, and I set them all to have a standard gimmick that was rated as adequate and I made sure every segment was scripted so no bonus from improvising.</p><p> </p><p> The only thing that was knowingly influencing the grades was the announcers, and the road agent. but I made sure to use the same road agent and announcers for every segment. and this was using SWF so the product was Classic Sports Entertainment so there's a cap on Sex Appeal Angles. .</p><p> </p><p> These were the results again everyone here had 50 Popularity </p><p> <img alt="WoPbqNk.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/WoPbqNk.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Next I flipped the method and set all 5 to 100 Sex Appeal and varied the popularity and again it went 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0 and got this</p><p> <img alt="BBDzNxy.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/BBDzNxy.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Then Finally I set all their Sex Appeal to 0 and maintained the Popularity variable. and I got this.</p><p> <img alt="hDXyoIP.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/hDXyoIP.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> So sure if we look at the extreme someone with 0 Sex Appeal and 100 Popularity scored a 47 while someone with 100 Sex Appeal and 0 popularity scored a 20</p><p> </p><p> The thing to consider here is if you equate it to the size of your company. . if you're big all it'll take is someone around 50 Popularity to offset that extreme of 100 assuming you are even playing a game where people have 100 popularity in the first place, and anything lest than 75 and you're almost certainly better off using the person with actual sex appeal as opposed to the more popular person. . beyond that it's guaranteed. </p><p> </p><p> Then if you account for smaller companies who more often than not aren't gonna have anyone with 75 and above popularity in the first place, there's no reason not to use the High SA Low Pop Worker if you are using those angles. .</p>

If you just close out from the avatar select screen and reload you can reroll the lucky dip, but the whole purpose is that it's a gamble hence why they are locked in after you choose it. .

It goes with whichever gets you the best rating. at least in certain products. .

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lr10540" data-cite="lr10540" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="34905" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Would anybody be able to reupload these without the watermark on it? I love the million dollar man inspired Rich Money.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> <img alt="3nOLPx3.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/3nOLPx3.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><img alt="FZZwsTX.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/FZZwsTX.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></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 took some time to think about the test I ran and I’ve thought about the charisma and entertainment focuses on angles<p> </p><p> 1. After some thought I can see an argument on why charisma is unaffected by the sex appeal stat (which it 100% accurate unless that got changed via patch, as I tested that), charisma to me is something that is just there, you could be born with it or just develop it over time it’s not rated on something very tangible </p><p> </p><p> 2. Entertainment however should 100% provide a boost on entertainment, it doesn’t make any sense for entertainment based angles to not get a small boost from sex appeal, simply put people listen to beautiful people a bit easier (as their easier on the eyes) rather than someone with just a 50 (average looks?) </p><p> </p><p> Also while I appreciate that people ran their own tests as well </p><p> </p><p> “The intent was to look just at the effect of sex appeal and star quality on an entertainment-rated angle. (Ok a fair test) The actual ratings of the angles don't matter as much as the difference between them (uh they 100% should matter, even if the difference is small, as it determines if sex appeal needs in nerfing in comparison to star quality). Since the average pop - and the actual entertainment skills - in each case are the same, we would expect them to rate similarly. (Completely Agreed, they should 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). (Fascinating) </p><p> </p><p> ..........................Classic Risque Attitude</p><p> Low SA/Low SQ................41..................43.................42</p><p> Low SA/High SQ...............49..................48.................48</p><p> High SA/Low SQ...............48..................50.................47</p><p> High SA/High SQ..............54..................51.................49</p><p> </p><p> This data gives me the following questions</p><p> </p><p> 1. If entertainment segments provide 0 boosts from sex appeal according to the dirt sheet then what is providing the boosts? Momentum? Gimmick Effects? Natural variance? </p><p> </p><p> 2. Why are these numbers at all comparable? Classic and Attitude are supposed to be very different levels of sex appeal, with the attitude booking typically using it more, and yet for some reason it’s numbers are lower than classic?</p><p> </p><p> 3. It makes little sense that the Risqué company is also scoring less than classic on some sex appeal “boosted” segments but that could just be variance skewing negatively </p><p> </p><p> 4. Outta curiosity does Star Quality still provide a boost in angles via the dirt sheet? If the answer is yes then why doesn’t sex appeal? </p><p> </p><p> This confuses me however </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><p> </p><p> 1. Where in the handbook does it say there is a gain for sex appeal? I’m curious to read it myself </p><p> </p><p> 2. If sex appeal does actually increase angle ratings rated on something other than sex appeal, why is there nothing in the dirt sheet about it?</p><p> </p><p> I realize that the ratings seem to increase a bit as the stats increase but it doesn’t confirm that sex appeal is the reason for the increase </p><p> </p><p> Honestly I still believe sex appeal is “nerfed” to an extent that is somewhat unrealistic as looks literally are the first thing one notices when looking at a wrestler, which would include star quality, menace and sex appeal</p><p> </p><p> Star quality is fine stat wise I believe, but sex appeal and menace have both been “nerfed” when it should be rated similarly to star quality (using the same scales)</p><p> </p><p> —————————————————————————————————————————</p><p> </p><p> Bonus - why don’t we get a few attributes based around some stats, I won’t go overboard as it’s not the ideal place to post them (I think) but for example </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Gorgeous</strong> - These characters get a small boost when rated on their looks</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Dog Faced Gremlin</strong> - These characters take an additional penalty when rated on looks</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Model genes</strong> - These Workers sex appeal decreases a lot slower than others and increase quicker when there still young</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> this is just one but it's in the angles section of the handbook</p><p> <img alt="2bQs3NQ.jpg" data-src="https://i.imgur.com/2bQs3NQ.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> just to add another thing could be to not make it such a static ratio. . but have a slight possibility of variance if the person is exceptionally talented or attractive. .</p>

Yea, I think it comes to a point where the game as it is can't truly simulate that initial "Wow" Factor for lack of a better term. That action/appearance that instantly grabs your attention and has you invested in someone. Rather as it is, it assumes every "fan" in the world knows how known or unknown a worker is and simulates accordingly. There is no good way to truly instantly establish someone as a Player, it's all in an incremental slow build style. Perhaps it would work better if on an initial debut or appearance the worker is indeed rated purely on their looks/stats/skill, whatever they are graded on, and less so on their popularity and depending on how they perform, they would get a boost to their popularity accordingly to level the field so to speak. . and it could have a better shot at succeeding or give better boosts if they are on the screen with already established workers. . To kind of establish that initial investment in someone who is otherwise unknown to the audience at large. .