Bull

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TWoody24" data-cite="TWoody24" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47811" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Quick question. I'm booking TCW and for some reason every match people get a penalty for holding back but I'm just using regular road agent notes. Are they holding back because it's just a TV show or am I missing something</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yea most people won't give 100% except on big shows. . There is a personality trait some people have that counters it but I can't think of it's name off the top of my head. .</p><p> </p><p> edit: Dynamo is the trait</p>

The center list in the search window covers a lot of that. set "can work in" to Oceania and set intention to "To Hire" and it'll filter out anyone who's unavailable. . then just set your mic skill range to what you are looking for skill wise. .

Just my experience but the amount of screen space it takes up kinda makes it hard to get a focus on the smaller text in the lists next to it. It's nothing I can't deal with mind you, just trying to give an example. .

Not that it could be implemented in this iteration but maybe the easy solution is a sliding scale for all these varying product aspects So you can have your baseline products that will give you certain +1's and -1's and whatnot and then have sliders for the stuff like T&A, Comedy, Pop vs. Performance, and whatever others I that don't immediately come to mind. . THen you could even have sliders for stuff like clean finishes, sex appeal matches and so on so say you have a 80/20 split on clean finishes, that means if you have 10 matches 2 of them can have shady finishes without getting crapped on, any more will have their rating hit. .

Log Here

This is something new as far as skill development goes as far as the trainers I do miss it, even if just as a cosmetic feature I'd like to see it again. . the developmental focus is a take it or leave. . I'd be more inclined for them to improve overall rather than focusing on a certain stat line. .

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. .

In this context yes, because we aren't booking magazine shoots for Playboy here. . Same can be said for SQ and Menace were the ratios are 30/70 and 25/75 because again looks are only gonna get you so far and even less so when no one cares who you are. . I did this with Krissy Angelle and Kristen Pearce maxed out Krissys SA zeroed her pop and vice versa with Pearce grades were 16 for Krissy 100 SA O Pop 46 for Kristen 0SA 100Pop (ha exactly a 30 point difference, ironic lol) Just to be through I replaced Krissy with Hannah to dodge the morale penalty Krissy always seems to start with and Hannah scored 20 in her angle with 100 Sex Appeal and 0 Popularity as for the second part, sure you can do it, but if we're arguing realism there's no circumstance where you would book him in a sex appeal angle. Star Quality or Menace sure but the ratio is the same for SQ and more severe for Menace.. but from a pure numbers standpoint I see where you are coming from, and sure for certain products that are gonna be super eye candy based it could probably be curved a bit more towards sex appeal. . For most other products though I still argue that it's a fair ratio. .

I mean if we are truly talking realism why on earth would putting Vicki in a sex appeal angle be in the discussion lol! and limited grade isn't 1:1 limited growth. . You keep pumping out the angle and their popularity will grow leading to better grades. .obviously it would be diminished returns at a point, but just because it isn't a 80-90+ rated angle doesn't mean it's not serving a purpose. .

I'm not sure how the first part has anything to do with the point I'm trying to make or my previous post. . could you clarify? I mean I booked Emma Chase in a 3 minute angle rated on Entertainment and it pulled a 67 Put her in a 3 minute angle rated on sex appeal and it pulled a 61. . I don't see an issue with that difference in grade considering her overall talent. . In my opinion trotting people out to do nothing but stand around and look good whether its based on Star Quality, Sex Appeal, or Menace wouldn't and shouldn't be expected to earn the same rating as someone coming out and actively entertaining the audience. and even more so if it's a nobody. . to me that is realistic. .

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="awesomenessofme1" data-cite="awesomenessofme1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>But the question isn't "should popularity have an impact". No one (in this thread at least) is saying it should be 100% Sex Appeal. The question is what the ratio should be. And I find the current 30/70 split to be unrealistic.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> All of the look based angles are geared way more heavily toward popularity though. . pretty much everything is in all fairness. . but I think it's a fair split since at least as far as wrestling goes, You're not gonna become a star on looks alone. . you gotta bring something else to the table. .</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Capelli King" data-cite="Capelli King" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48355" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sexy women managers have been killed in this version of the game unfortunately. Finding a product to put them into angles is hard enough and their impact has also been limited. I guess TEW has also gone PG <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I can't find it now but there was a post some where about how manager gain popularity at a quicker rate just by being managers, not even working angles and such so I don't think that's the case, you'd just have to build their popularity up to a respectable level.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I think the whole reasoning behind capping or nerfing it is because it's unrealistic to think you could build a wrestling company from nothing to Global Force soley based on Sex appeal which is exactly how it could be used in older games, and the cap is there to keep it as the filler/cool down parts of the show gameplay wise .</p><p> </p><p> </p><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>NO sir, I'm a complete noob!<p> </p><p> Yeah, I didn't honestly like it back then, and I didn't like it just called "looks". SO many people gave Andre the Giant (among others) 100 Looks.... Changed it everytime.</p><p> WE fought on the same team many times back then (well... debated). Shifting it would work....</p><p> Right now, someone rated on SA that has none, but has tons of Pop... will rate higher than a person with 100 SA with no Pop, in something that is rated supposedly on SA.</p><p> Moving the slide so the reverse happens would be nice.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think it's just because name value is everything. . just to keep in line with the main discussion. . are people gonna complain that a unknown smoking hot chick is dancing in a bikini, doubtful, are they gonna react better if it's someone they know or who is popular obviously. .</p>

it's in the competitor selection screen, you can drag a worker from the main list to the drop down menu instead of scrolling through it.

Adam's explination

pretty sure the cost scales based on attendance.

Yea theay are in that exact section from what I see.

It seems like it's trying to simulate her, reputation, for lack of a nicer phrase lol. She's on a roster with two ex's which might give other people on the roster a certain perception of her. .

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Gungner" data-cite="Gungner" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47568" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Is it still possible to choose to have the main-event shown at the bottom instead of the top of the card?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> uncheck main event header mode in user preferences I believe</p>

I wasn't trying to be dismissive, if anything I was just trying to nudge people to be more open to using the system currently available as there is no guarantee it's gonna change. . Apologies if my intent was conveyed otherwise. . I think I'll just stay out of these discussions from here on out. .

Not sure where you got that from , but there is still an in game editor.

What editor it's in doesn't really make a difference when it all comes down to using it in game anyway. People just seem turned off from even attempting to utilize the current system for varying reasons most of which seem overblown in my opinion.. but I don't see any of those folks changing their stance on it either so it is what it is I suppose. . Either way I hope the finished product is enjoyable for as many people as possible.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48304" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Definitely sounds better. What happens if you throw in some low cards?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> there were like 6 or 7 guys who were just recognizable in the match 6 Stars 1 major star, everyone else was well known</p><p> </p><p> edit: gonna run another one on ppv and see what I get</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> OK ran it on PPV </p><p> </p><p> 2 Major Stars (No Rocky Golden)</p><p> 5 Stars</p><p> 11 Well known</p><p> 12 unimportant</p><p> </p><p> and I still got a 77 with almost half the field being workers no one cared about</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BrokenCycle" data-cite="BrokenCycle" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48304" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The timed entrances could have an effect.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> not from what I can tell. all those tests barring the last one were just generic battle royals and there wasn't much variance in the grades they produced compared to the one that was rumble style. .</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Edit: Just ran another Rumble Style Battle Royal with every big name I had on the roster minus Golden and Remo on TV and it scored a 78 which is like a solid B in letter grade. . If it were on PPV I would image it could've been even better. . So I think it's safe to say you can pull a sold grade outta the match. .</p>

In game I don't think it makes any difference. The Prestige rating is purely cosmetic so a 30 man generic battle royal and a 30 man rumble style probably aren't going to have vastly different ratings under similar circumstances. .

Even if they are capped in that manner still I really don't see that as a super harsh penalty for undercard matches that length, and matches less than 5 minutes really shouldn't get much higher than a 53 anyway in my opinion, It's pretty much exactly average, which is all you could really hope for in such a short amount of time no matter how much action you try and pack into it. . There is only so much you can do in short matches like that. And it was not my intent to be condescending or anything my friend so apologies if my previous message might've seemed that way, I understand if you disagree though. .