Bull
-
Posts
1,474 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Bull
-
-
This is best example so far. So how would you rate them? Are they even remotely in the same ball park? What kind of score would you hope TEW would give each match? We are talking match grade, not how many people are going to show up to see it. If you have ever dealt in any kind of entertainment, you know you can hype any event up, and get a great crowd at least one time... The hard part is making it worth the hype so even more come the next time.
Because your statement here, although I don't believe you meant it to be, in the context to what we are talking about is saying that one of the best match's in Undertakers career should be rated about the same as probably the worst match of his career. It's the only way it can be used on the side your using it for, otherwise it is proving the opposite. If your not giving them both around the same grade, your proving my point not yours.
I was referring to the promotion of the match rather than the match itself to say it was their popularity that got people invested in watching it. I may be wrong as I wasn't really watching WWE at the time but I can't imagine they promoted it like it was going to be some Masterclass of wrestling, but rather as two Icon's facing off. .
and in a game context the matches themselves are scored according to your product settings and then there are many more factors that would play into the final grade. . just saying. .
-
I don't understand what you're saying here. How does this have anything to do with the post you're replying to?
was just an example to say popularity is necessary for successful angles. .
From a grading perspective, Lie SirMichaelJordan says, it's a balance thing. .
The more you lean toward the skills themselves the easier it becomes to get high grades with nobodies. .
So if two workers have equal skills the more popular worker will very likely get the better grade and certainly will the wider the gap. .
Otherwise you'd see small companies pumping out super high rated angles relative to their size. .
-
I think there's a bigger issue beyond just Sex Appeal in that how much of each Rated On category is based on popularity and how much is on the relevant skill seems totally arbitrary.
Acting, Selling, Menace - 25/75
Star Quality, Sex Appeal - 30/70
Entertainment, Fighting, Microphone, Charisma - 40/60
Overness - obviously just popularity
Why are some of these so much more popularity-based than others?
Because you need workers that people want to see.. Undertaker vs. Goldberg wasn't sold on their skill set, it was sold because it was to super popular guys facing off for the first time, and I don't imagine many folks went into that expecting a Taker vs. Michaels quality match. .
-
I talked a wrestler out of retirement but his contract is set to never wrestlers and there's no way to fix that in the editor.
just change the length of his contract and renegotiate
-
<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>Your doing the same thing that SirMichaelJordan is doing (love the name by the way), and concentrating on the who and what they do instead of the "How is this possible".<p> </p><p> Get that it doesn't have to be a bikini contest, it doesn't have to be Rosanne Barr (and I feel bad, like I'm picking on her, but I'm just trying to pick someone somewhat famous that's not sexy to make my point). The point is that the way it is now makes it completely useless, and if Menace is in the same boat (someone mentioned that earlier), than it's useless as well. I say lets just get rid of the stats if they don't mean anything, or make them mean something. That's all I'm saying. I Have absolutely no problem taking them completely out of the game if they aren't meant to have any real effect.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They have their uses in game, but how they are described in the handbook they aren't super actively useful nor are they intended to be</p>
-
First of all, this isn't true. It's 4 minutes for a consequential angle, meaning you absolutely can make consequential pure sex-appeal angles. But even if you couldn't, it would still matter, because you can use sex-appeal roles within a larger angle that doesn't get the "nothing interesting happened" note.
My mistake as I read that wrong in the handbook. .
At that point though your using someone else to carry the angle anyway. . so wouldn't you choose someone with the popularity and related skills needed to do well depending on what your rating them on? Brawling for fighting, Charisma & Mic for Entertainment, etc. The person rated purely on looks is less important by default in those segments because more of the score is going to come from the people actually doing something. .
that's the only reason I jumped back in here lol. . My argument is purely based on angles where the only involvement is from workers based solely on their looks. . so again isn't it more logical to put people in the type of angle that benefits them most?
Yes you can put Butter McBagface with 0 sex appeal and 100 popularity in a sex appeal angle and get say a score of 70, but they also have 100 menace and you can get a score of 100 by putting them in a menace angle, what logical reason would you have to put them in a angle were they are rated on sex appeal just because the game lets you do so?
-
I agree, you don't get it. It's not about what she does that mattered in the comparison. Pretend like she's not a comedian, has her best pop, and the contest is about sex appeal. If that is too hard to do for you, bless your heart.
Use your example but take away any wrestling ability including basics to 0 skill, and win would be the equal my example.Let the celebrity win the wcw title.
Not to dive back in but again I don't understand your logic here. . I understand your reasoning for wanting it buffed, but these aren't good examples to me because it's a completely unrealistic scenario. . and leans more towards a need to penalize those segments for using people with an incompatible skill set rather than a need to buff them for the people you should be using in them. .
I understand your argument from a purely numbers perspective because that's how the game simulates it, plug in your stats, plug in your variables, and here's your score, but at the same time you're using flawed logic here because from a real life perspective there isn't a promoter alive(unless it your kink lol) who would put Rosanne in a bikini for any reason remotely related to sex appeal. . and I certainly wouldn't expect the unfortunate souls watching it would find it sexy either... The game lets you do it sure, but should you really be using it that way just because it doesn't stop you?
There are other rating options you should realistically be using for different people.
If they look like a Star rate them on Star Quality,
if they are menacing rate them on Menace
if they are sexy rate them on sex appeal
so on so forth. .
for the most part, under identical circumstances, they're going to have nearly identical effects and scores anyway . . at least in the context of this debate, again I have no idea how exactly it works in game. .
And anyway the way it actually does works now angles have to be at least 5 minutes to have a consequential effect on the worker involved, and these looks based angles can't run for more than 4 if it's the only thing the segment is being rated on. . so any benefit's you'd want to achieve would be negated in the end whether you run it short and get a good rating or run it long and let it bomb. If we're talking purely numbers the only benefit here would be in the segment score and, ultimately show score. .
-
<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Historian" data-cite="Historian" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48671" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>In early iterations of TEW, there was a picture in the game of PJ Strong -- a little kid and son of Sam Strong. He was removed in one of the games (I think TEW10). So he's become a cult-like figure because people want to know why!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Unless I've randomly copied it, his picture is still in the people folder lol. .</p>
-
<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>My wife saw my spreadsheet of storyline plans 3 months in advance, with my entire roster, heel/face divide and title holders. One night she typed into it saying something along the lines of 'I wish you put this much time and planning into your family life....'<p> </p><p> Talk about low blows.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Could add a scorned woman storyline to those plans. . .</p>
-
<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Tomato Can" data-cite="Tomato Can" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48653" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know that I have a lot more segments that I am not seeing. Why is there no scroll bar? Segments are not showing. Any ideas? Thanks!!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> was a glitch fixed in the latest patch</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48653" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sometimes the scroll bar to see previous storyline segments could be invisible</div></blockquote>
-
Of course the massively over worker should do a lot better. And they still would with 2016's 60/40 split, effective skill of 100 vs effective skill of 60.
I'm not saying this is exactly how it works but what happens when you account for your product caps. .?
if it caps a SA segement at say 70 then the whole effective skill thing is much more favorable to the less popular worker in that aspect. .
I don't know, I think it works fine the way it's set up now. . Strictly speaking on angles, I don't see how changing the ratio 5 or 10 points is gonna do anything other than make your grades look better and maybe make it a little easier to get people over. . . and anything more than that and we'll just be right back where we were before it was changed, Spamming Bikini Contests for your entire Show Lol!
I've made my argument to the best of my ability, and like all things if it can be added as a option in some shape or form I'm all for it. I just think it works fine now. .
-
And if I didn't do anything else, I done that for you!!
Yeah it's a tough one here, because after all your thoughts, you have to take into consideration what Remi was talking about. We don't know EXACTLY how things are weighted, obviously product settings (like Self mentioned) have a part in this as well. All we know is the base- Tew2016= 60% of Sex Appeal and 40% of popularity, Tew2020, 30% Sex Appeal, 70% popularity.
If it was rated 50/50, would that make someone that is 50% popular and have a 50 SA score, get a 100 rating for a SA segment? Would that be right? I say maybe depending on what Self brought up, which is product settings.
All your performance skills have to be useful for what they are for. I'm fighting for SA because that's the topic. A win here is a win for any of the rest that were nerfed as well. The way it is now is like WWE on steroids. It's like the exact thing everyone was hating on when I first found GDS forums. (TnA is the bestest!!). They finally convinced me this is NOT the way to go, and switched it all around on me after convincing me. I've been scratching my head on tons of the decisions made on this version because of this.
For me, Charisma is charm/connecting with the crowd without verbal interaction. Microphone is cutting promos, talk with confidence, etc., Acting is acting, performance in angles/skits, etc., Star Quality is the "it" factor. People that just have an aura around them, Sex Appeal used in eye candy matches and the basis (key words here) of the worker's performance and in angles that are specifically rated on it, Menace is how menacing they look, used specifically in angles rated on it. In the handbook is where I am getting this, Menace is said not to be an important skill. I feel like it should be pretty important, as wrestling is the bad guy vs the good guy in most popular products... all over the world, everywhere, no exceptions where it's not the most popular. So I feel like Menace shouldn't be downplayed like that, although it's probably not meant to be taken the way I'm taking it.
My point about the "being good at being sexy" basically is the part where the handbook says it is the basis of the worker's performance is SA angles or eye candy matches. To me, popularity should matter, but no where near where it is right now.
It's like if we have a long jump contest, and the most popular person jumps exactly one inch, against an unknown that jumps 12 feet, we are going to pick the more popular guy as the winner of the long jump. This is what we are doing here... Are there really only three or four people that actually understand this? You can say this or that matters with it, but just reading the handbook, these things are covered in the stat. Sex Appeal means sexy, not just a pretty girl with no style, the higher the SA the more they ooze sexiness. The higher the Menace, the more they ooze menace. (sounded kind of gross, but you get the meaning).
The handbook section about angles also says that Rated on Sex Appeal is the worker doing something entirely based on their looks. . So if it's 100 SA and 100 Popularity vs. 100 SA and 0 Popularity should the less popular worker get even close to the same grade? If you alter the ratio then it unbalances that aspect to me. . The super over Super Sexy worker should get a better reaction than the super sexy unknown. .
-
I feel we should make sure sex appeal is actually balanced and viable to use before we add additional attributes with it in mind, It seems some people here are stuck on the popularity over skill argument which is only part of the issue , yes popularity should have a noticeable effect in the calculation than sex appeal
But with the 30/70 split it just makes eye candy matches and angles unviable after a while, when add to the caps I’ve seen as a test I ran an eye candy match with two women at 100 sex appeal and 0 popularity, and another test with 2 women at 100 sex appeal and popularity
The matches got the following in the Risqué Adult Product (it’s important to note the show I ran has 0 popularity or importance and the women have zero on actual in ring ability except safety, Stamina, Experience, Basics, And Psychology, I also have no announcers, and the road agent is Java who has 73 psychology, 100 experience and Respect )
The product penalizes any segments over 5 minutes :/ even if Sex Appeal isn’t the focus or even in the segment the 2 100 popularity girls with zero mic skill got a 45 btw in their modern tv opening
Match 1 with a zero pop vs a zero pop bombshell end up getting a 47 (honestly 100 psychology was probably a bad idea to test this but some one might be able to use this data)
Match 2 with 100 pop workers and same stats to the other two girls got a 79
Other detail I noticed is even in this product style 15 minutes is too long a match for an eye candy bout
So hopefully this data helps a bit as the fact is if a women wrestler achieves 100 psychology then you probably aren’t sticking them in an eye candy match at all thus these rating would likely be much lower is 79 the absolute max an eye candy match should be able to do is the question I guess? Personally I’d go with 85 but that’s just my opinion curious what others “cap” would be, I’m sure I didn’t test everything I could have but hopefully this is useful to someone
I mean I think 70-80 is an acceptable range for the absolute best eye candy match ever presented. .
and I might be mistaken but the whole 30 to 70 split is solely for angles rated on Sex Appeal. . Matches will have the Pop vs. performance split based on your product. . and the risque adult product heavily favours popularity, like an 80/20 split.
-
BUMB
Anyone know? Thanks
Click schedule in their profile, it'll list all the date's they are working
as far as if they are able to be hired you switch the intention filter to "To Hire" in the search window should be in the middle row above popularity filters
-
I'm probably not one to talk all things considered but is the difference between "Beta" and "Demo" really pertinent here?
It's a testing phase regardless of the title assigned to it. This one has certainly not went as well as previous ones, which means there's much more things to iron out, but Beta or Demo isn't one of them lol..
-
I never said you need another stat, just that you can bring in an attribute to give to professionals who work in the erotic industry.
If a menacing character has something in their background that lends itself to them being more intimidating in a menace focused angle then yeah i'd say you could find attributes to help that.
"Sex Appeal is a measurement of how attractive someone is" and "Menace is how menacing a worker looks" (that's the quote from the handbook). Both of these stats help workers in things they do outside of menace or sex sells focused angles, so what im saying is that if a woman has the training of a pole dancer, then she doesn't suddenly look more attractive, so she shouldn't get a bump to her sex appeal stat where it would be as if she was continually pole dancing forever in life, but should get a small bonus to sexy performance work where its primary the focus (and not where its not the primary focus).
Because Hannah is currently one of the 'hottest' women in the Cverse, so shes really attractive but she doesn't have the physical skillset that the BSC performers have. Her popularity and high sex appeal would likely be enough to muddle her way through a BSC type match, but Dharma Gregg would have real moves.
It's not a call for sex appeal performance simulator, just a small token gesture to recognising that all these exotic dancers that have been added to the game are not merely women who look pretty and give them a tiny boost to doing sex appeal primary focused angles where they are performing centre stage so those of us who want to book wrestling promotions that use eye-candy or sex sells primary angles have a reason to use women who are talented in that as performance rather than just any attractive woman in the universe.
No it would be the limitation of your knowledge of the industry.
WWE runs a PG brand, they're not going to suddenly have a burlesque strip tease. But if you go to Lucha VaVOOM in LA then the reason you're booking your ticket is 50% to go see some sexy stuff and you'd definitely be unhappy if it was just some women stood in a ring who look attractive rather than world class burlesque performers doing amazing routines. It's a different product and more adult products of entertainment use sexual performers in a way that isn't derogatory or second fiddle like WWE and TNA famously have done.
See to me you wouldn't be booking a angle rated purely on Sex Appeal there, that would be an Entertainment based angle as they are actively doing something to entertain the audience not just standing around looking good. . And their Sex Appeal is already going to give them a bonus to that. and in matches there are already a litany of other things that can affect the grades there and assuming the product is highly based on Sex appeal having a good rating in the stat is only going to boost said grade.
My whole argument here is that if worker is rated solely on their looks whether it's Star Quality, Menace or in this case Sex Appeal, the ratio it's currently graded on is a fair ratio to have, because people aren't paying to to just watch someone stand around and look good. .
-
I'm genuinely curious why it keeps being brought up how you can get better grades puting a super over person in these kinds of angles rated on something they have no business being rated on?
In what circumstance would you ever put Tyson Baine or Remo or whoever in an angle where they are rated on Sex Appeal or based on any stat/skill they are poor in? Wouldn't you just use Star Quality or Menace, or whatever is going to play to their strengths? Doing anything otherwise would mean it's meant to be comedy in my eyes. .
And from an equation and functional stand point they are all calculated the exact same way other than Menace which is on a 25/75 scale. . the only real nerf in place for sex appeal is is the cap it gets from the product you're using
So if you take a worker who has 100 Sex Appeal and 100 Star Quality, take out any other factors they will get the exact same grade relative to their popularity regardless of which of the two is used in an angle. And I think it's a fair balance, because again, if you're goal is book wrestling, looks are only a fraction what's needed to be successful, other skills are needed and you should be expected to play to those workers other strengths to get them over.
And if you're pushing a product that is heavily geared towards Sex Appeal, you still need popular/over workers to get people to want to show up, otherwise what makes it any different from rolling up to any random Strip Club lol?
Heck in my opinion, if anything there should be something in place that would make a segment bomb for having someone rated on SQ, SA, or Menace, when they have poor values in those stats. . Because you are essentially booking them to look bad or foolish.
-
<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Eisen-verse" data-cite="Eisen-verse" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47607" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The last segment gutted me but it's all part of 'learning the new game.' I booked the final segment to be about overness (what you would have done in TEW16). This is my fault and, in turn, it killed our rating there. I guess you live and you learn!<p> </p><p> As for characters, Rogue has become one of my favorite over the years. His grunge, smart-a$$ mentality is something that I feel fans could enjoy (whether face, heel, or tweener). </p><p> </p><p> Also, I'm really excited to tell this version of Eric Eisen. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Yea, it did it for me too. I'm not really sure how to fix that? Hm. I'll have to toy around with it on the next show.</p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p></p><a href="https://www.docdroid.net/w47XkwT/supremetv-1-pdf#page=20" rel="external nofollow"><span style="font-size:24px;"><strong><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">CLICK HERE FOR RESULTS</span></strong></span></a></div><p></p><p></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Your hyper link defaults it to the last page so if you just change the page number in the link to =1, or just make sure you're on the first page when you copy the link, it'll start on the first page. .</p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p></p><a href="https://www.docdroid.net/w47XkwT/supremetv-1-pdf#page=1" rel="external nofollow"><span style="font-size:24px;"><strong><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">Like This</span></strong></span></a></div><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> ANyways always up for reading and Eisen-verse Diary!!</p>
-
You can still somewhat get around this by just checking the wrestler box under roles on their profile in the in game editor. . so long as their contract isn't locking them into never involve ring work you can check the same box in alter character details screen in game and they'll show up to be booked in matches. Still listed as a retired wrestler but it worked when I tested it with Runaway Train. .
-
Nice work!! Keep it up!!
-
Yeah, game's coming along REALLY well, I'm quite happy with how it's shaping up. These are the major issues I'd like fixed before release (although as has been pointed out already, I would be willing to pay now and have these issues be sorted soon):
1. Moving segments up and down with the arrows is frustrating.
2. Storyline History only shows first five or so segments in the storyline, at the very least should be the latest ones, it's REALLY hard to track what you last booked for a storyline in its current format. Ideally there'd be a scrollbar so you can see all of the segments for the storyline, which brings me to my next point...
3. Scrollbars do not work like normal scrollbars should! Instead of incrementing up or down a page when you click the bar itself (not the arrows), it only increments one entry, like if you clicked the arrow. Makes scrolling very long lists extremely frustrating.
4. The autobooker in its current form is almost unusable as it doesn't take product segment lengths into account at all.
5. A way to edit the default angles like you can edit a freestyle angle. The system of having to copy existing angles and then modify them is tedious. If there were just drop-downs for everything like freestyle angles have, this process would be amazing.
6. View worker on the angle booking screen, although this point doesn't bother me as much as it used to seeing as the roster screen is right there. Still, it's an extra click.
I think that's it for me. If all these things were implemented I'd be a very happy pig. Obviously there's also the product thing, but that doesn't really affect my play (although I acknowledge it may impact the availability of mods, thus indirectly impacting my play).
Yea it should work pretty much exactly like the get inspiration button on the gimmick screen. . you can click it and select it so that it populates the fields, but still make adjustments to everything once it's chosen rather than being locked into length's, rated on, and what not. .
-
Well if that is the case, it means you have zero control over development. It means that workers will develop totally randomly. However i am certain that the above comment does not mean that working more matches or with better workers in the ring won't improve how much you can develop. Simply it means that you cannot develop more than a certain amount over a period of time/over a certain amount of matches, in short there is a cap.
I personally do not mind there being a cap, but i would still like the ability to "redirect" your focus. For example:
Let's say there is cap's everywhere for their development. Maybe the player can use their influence to "budge those caps". In short, if let's say you put a focus on entertainment, it means that those skills will proportionately improve faster on average than the other skills (so the cap for entertainment increases at the expense of the rest".
Workers already have skill caps, this isn't lowering that cap but just making it take longer to reach it.
I get what your saying though, phrasing it using the terms of the handbook, maybe have a way or option with skill focus that increases their "battery capacity" for that specific skill or skill category
-
Did the unused worker tab get removed from the booking screen? You used to be able to click it and see who has been left off the card. Really handy when trying to avoid making workers angry.
If you click on Booking Analysis I think.? it'll list everyone who has yet to be used.
-
Just to add I continued the tests with Hannah starting at 100 Sex appeal and 0 Popularity and ran her through 3 tv shows, and no ppv
First show she jumped from 0 to 5 popularity
second show she went from 5 to 9
third show she went from 9 to 13
(bear in mind every angle was the opener of the main show but I used the auto booker to fill out everything else so some of the preshow stuff could have influenced these ratings)
Edit: just a correction to an error on my part. . the popularity gains weren't form the angles but rather from her being Valiant's Manager. . the angles themselves didn't correlate to any visible popularity change on the television angles. . the data itself is nonetheless interesting as it validates my earlier mention of managers gaining popularity for basically just standing around lol. .
Just to add to this as I was doing some other testing with SWF. through two tv shows Hannah's popularity increased by 2 points from 70 to 72 strictly from being Valiant's manager. . So she's still gaining popularity with it already relatively high without any directly beneficial booking on my part.
Un-nerf Sex Appeal
in Total Extreme Wrestling 2020 Suggestions
Posted
That makes no sense, if you don't understand it how can you clam it's proving your point lol???
"I don't get what you're saying so I must be right." Really?
I AM talking about the hype because the discussion is related to angles not matches, at least that's what I thought the discussion was about lol. .
Apologies as I'm using Stats and Skills interchangeably here which is making my argument confusing .. I'm just meaning the numbers involved lol
I don't have an answer other than to say it's a balance thing. .
Entertainment does have the caveat that it's a combination of different stats/skills being judged on their own ratio's that is then combined with Popularity rather than a single stat/skill combined with popularity. . The affect of the persons specific stat may have more or less influence on depending on how high or low it is in those instances. . so as to say the penalties you might incur from using someone who is a terrible actor might have more of a negative effect when the angle is only focused on acting. . penalties that aren't inherently present in look based angles. . That all speculation though as it's untested on my part. .
and a high Star Quality is going to give it's own boost regardless of what the angle itself is rated on. . unless it's solely on SQ then I'm assuming there's no extra benefit. . and in the vast majority of cases people with high Menace will have similarly high Star Quality. . so the difference there could be to equalize the effect. .